Is this victim blaming...?

[MissGoggins]

I noticed this article and it made me think about the now infamous judge's closing remarks on her last trial (regarding drunken women and increased vulnerability).

Is this different? Or by using the same logic, is issuing this warning 'victim blaming' those who have already been victims of this crime?

If the former, then how is it different?
If the latter, then what is the alternative?

www.familiesonline.co.uk/local/solihull/in-the-know/students-warned-not-to-use-local-solihull-park

However, I live in Edinburgh where a 19 year old man has just been let off having intercourse with a 12 year old as 'she looked 16', so, who I am I (a mere peasant) to have an opinion???

hmmm, that's an interesting case - who would have thought a 12yr old was out drinking vodka til 4am then jumped in a taxi to spend the night with someone. it was also noted that other people like the taxi driver didn't think she was 12 either and her appearance in general on judgement was that she was far older than 12yrs old - the case certainly isn't clear cut. if you want to read the whole judgement about it have a read of www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/8/1754/HMA-v-Daniel-Cieslak

I suppose that is exactly the question yes. Where is the line?

Whilst no-one deserves to be robbed or assaulted, we all need to take some responsibility for our own safety. If that means being extra vigilant, or avoiding certain areas, then maybe we should. And if we choose not to for whatever reason, accept that we are putting ourselves at risk (in the same way that people who insist on climbing mountains/ crossing moors/ going out in small boats etc without proper equipment or taking notice of weather conditions put themselves at increased risk of being lost or frozen or drowned.) It's a common sense thing.

The same question can be applied to rape of a drunken women: could rape of a drunken woman occur if a women did not get drunk?

If a tree falls in the forest but there is no-one to hear it...does anybody give a fuck??

Of course a rape of a drunk woman can't happen if women don't get drunk. This is irrelevant to the fact that the rapist is the one the breaking the law.

No, of course it isn't victim blaming. It's an admission that there are not enough police around to stop criminals harming innocent members of the public who are going about their normal business. It would be victim blaming if you were told not to walk through the park on your own whilst playing with an obviously expensive mobile phone, clearly unaware of what's going on around you, with headphones on and dressed "like a slapper."

No-one is ever going to feel 'blamed' as the victim of a mugging. Almost every rape victim feels guilt and shame and blame

Blatantly untrue that victims of other crimes do not feel blamed. They often ARE blamed outright- e.g. what did you expect when you walked drunk through Peckham at night? Maybe you shouldn't have been waving your brand new iphone about- what do you expect? Pretty stupid of you to have been carrying that sort of cash about- why didn't you go to the bank straight away?

It's hard to have the debate when people misrepresent what happens in respect of other crime in a bid to show that rape is completely unique.

In fact, if you analyse the statistics properly, rape does not have a shockingly lower conviction rate than all other reported crime.

Also, if we are so afraid of victim blaming, is there a risk that in our quest to be politically correct and inoffensive, we neglect to best equip our children for the real world that is ready house them through adulthood into old age?

MerryMarigold:

We draw the line where the law says we draw the line. A woman wearing skimpy clothes isn't breaking the law. A man raping her is.

I hope that clears up any confusion.

Papafran:

People may say those things. Fair enough. However, this isn't the attitude you will be faced with by the authorities tasked with dealing with your mugger. If you report a mugging, the conversation I (somewhat hyperbolically) invented above just wouldn't happen. I reject the premise that rape isn't different in this respect.

Truffle why do you have to be so rude. Your comment in itself is interesting but the snide finishing sentence just makes it hard to communicate with you.

Trifle

MissGoggins:

Because politeness is what matters most when people are trying to make a case to blame rape victims, as if that doesn't happen enough already.

If you can't handle a robust discussion, perhaps post on Reddit or wherever you normally hang out.

It's not that at all. It just makes you look like a dick and some of your points are actually quite interesting and valid f you would just jump down off the high horse.

MissGoggins:

I don't need the validation, thanks. Respond to what I say or don't. If you think my rudeness is the issue, report me.

Trifleorbust no offence meant; entirely up to you whether you're offended. Judge wasn't trying to police your perfectly legal behaviour (any more than I would) just underlining the fact that anyone ( not just a woman) is more vulnerable when drunk or under influence of drugs. And that there are others who will take advantage of that. I
took it as a reminder to be safe and look out for others, not that I have to submit to the chains of patrimony.

MerryMarigold but there is a difference. In the case of a young girl who wears a short skirt and then falls victim to the rapist, the rapist and only the rapist is responsible for that. And what she was wearing at the time is irrelevant because he took the decision to attack her. And what she was wearing wouldn't be seen as mitigation.

However, in the case of a parent who leaves their small child unattended and that child disappears, the difference lies in the fact that if that child had come to harm in any other way the parenT would be considered culpable, because they left a small child unattended. A young child could potentially be snatched from the beach while the parent attended to another child, or from a shopping centre (james bulger) or from a theme park. The only person responsible in that instance is the abductor. However, in the case of the child who is left alone in a flat/hotel etc, there are other fates which could befall that child which would then have been attributed to the neglectful actions of the parent. If the child choked to death, or wandered out and drowned in the swimming pool, or lit the gas and burned down the house then the parents would be held responsible. So while they weren't responsible for the disappearance, they were neglectful in leaving the child on its own.

Kit30:

Fair enough. I didn't post in condemnation of the judge (although I think her comments were ill-judged, for reasons I have given). My issue is with this thread and some of the posters here.

Oh and to be clear Judge did not blame victim. Her comments were made in her retirement speech which Judges normally give at end of their last trial. It's an occasion when they can highlight something that they think needs addressing but because of their neutral position would be inappropriate during an actual trial. Here, judge said that women being attacked when their guard was down because of alcohol/ drugs was a sad truth and perpetrators took advantage of that vulnerability. Fact. So what do we do? Obvious answer is to look out for each other. That's all.

People may say those things. Fair enough. However, this isn't the attitude you will be faced with by the authorities tasked with dealing with your mugger. If you report a mugging, the conversation I (somewhat hyperbolically) invented above just wouldn't happen. I reject the premise that rape isn't different in this respect

Have you actually reported a rape to the police or are you relying on the tabloid press and TV shows for how rape victims are apparently treated. Most police forces now have dedicated officers who have been specifically trained to deal with victims and they deal with them in a sensitive and respectful way. At the same time, they have to test the evidence and put the suspect's account to the accuser. But we have moved far beyond a scenario where the police interrogate the victim about what she was wearing and imply to her that she was asking for it.

Kit30:

I think her comments were unhelpful. I can see how your interpretation differs from mine, but that's fine.

Thanks for that Trifle. Did you read the full judgement? Too often all we get is media sound bites.

No-one has the right to attempt to police my perfectly legal behaviour

I thought it was illegal to be drunk in a public place - I have seen people arrested for being drunk.

Papafran:

I am not going to comment on whether or not I have been raped. What sort of question is that?

I will say that it is reasonable to listen to what people who have reported rapes and been raped say they feel, and how they say they are treated.

ElinoristhenewEnid:

It is illegal to be drunk and disorderly.