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

I agree with trifle as well

She has done very well to persevere

Sorry Rufus, can't talk, I've got to wash my socks for the morning.

Im sorry

I thought you'd gone already

People who take advantage of the vulnerable are 100% to blame for their actions, there should be no passing the buck on that under any circumstances. It is no excuse whatsoever that the person they took advantage of made themselves more vulnerable than they needed to. Being drunk and in the wrong place is not provocation, it is putting yourself in a position of vulnerability. The person who takes advantage of the vulnerability is not provoked by your vulnerability, they are merely taking advantage of it because they are odious, unforgivable shits who deserve punishment for picking on the vulnerable. If your vulnerability is caused by drinking too much alcohol, you have to take responsibility for your own illegal acts (eg drunk driving), but should not be expected to take responsibility for other people's actions towards you. We accept the notion that it is particularly odious to pick on the vulnerable if done to the disabled, or frail and elderly. So why on earth let abusers off the hook for picking on other vulnerable people?

Thats very true round

I agree with that roundabout, the angle of vulnerability is perhaps the key one here.

Despite what anyone else may think, I am vehemently AGAINST victim blaming in rape cases, or the McCann case.

However, as a parent teaching children to take responsibility for their actions, and living with consequences which come as a result of making bad choices, I think it is an interesting question to consider where the buck stops in cases of crime. Eg. I left my computer on the seat of my car and forgot to lock car. Someone stole it. Am I in any way responsible? Should I teach my children to be careful with their things, and more importantly, themselves? I don't think it is victim blaming to teach that - it is common sense.

But what I am trying to understand is how to explain to my children that they do need to be careful (not flashing money/ phones/ walking alone at night, yes even getting 'off your face' drunk), whilst not wanting them ever to feel responsible if they were raped, mugged etc.

Eg. I left my computer on the seat of my car and forgot to lock car. Someone stole it. Am I in any way responsible?

No.

No, you are guilty of naivety and trust, or forgetfulness, not responsible for causing a crime to be committed, if you leave your laptop on your car seat, in full view of criminals, in an unlocked car. People who choose to steal are the ones committing the crime, you are not forcing them to do it or corrupting innocents who wouldn't consider stealing, otherwise.

Trifle really?
You are of not responsible for what happened, but do you not think you are still responsible for looking after your items?

Is it the word 'responsible' that you object to? what if the question was phrased as 'should I have been more careful?'

I am just trying to understand it myself, as I agree with MerryMarigold re being careful vs being responsible

• of course not

Wow, what a read! I think this is a Daily Mail thread.

I agree with Rufus - well done Trifle for persevering (and being right).

IamAporcupine:

You are not responsible for the decision of the criminal to steal. How could you be? Did you coerce them? No. So they are solely responsible.

If the damage was accidental (sun/rain) as a result of your carelessness then yes, but because the theft would not have happened absent the intervention of a morally culpable, competent human, they are responsible, not you.

smallchanceofrain:

I hate the DM and only read Huffpost and Daily Mash. Oh well! I guess I'm hard to box up.

The victim of a crime is never responsible for a crime committed against them

What about a husband who has submitted his wife to years of abuse and the wife who one day snaps and stabs him, killing or nearly killing him? The wife has, arguably, committed a crime and her husband is the victim of that crime. Or the child who has witnessed his mum be subjected to abuse and one day steps in and attacks his father. Would you say that the husband or father had no responsibility for what happened, at all?

What you are describing are defensive acts and self defence. The crime is being perpetrated by the father/husband in your scenarios. The child/woman is acting to defend against a crime.

A crime could still have been committed, just a lesser offence because of mitigating circumstances. It is wrong to suggest that the wife/child in those scenarios would never be convicted of a criminal act, making the husband/father of that criminal act.

A crime can be committed as an act of self-defence. Does the victim of such a crime have no responsibility?

Life is not as straightforward as some would make it out to be.

If a woman eventually snaps and kills her husband after years of being subjected to domestic abuse, her killing him does not reduce his guilt for the domestic violence, which was a crime in itself. If a woman gets drunk and wears a short skirt, neither of which is a crime nor even provocation, this does not reduce the guilt of her rapist. It is that simple. Domestic violence cases show just how unbelievably high the bar has to be before someone is allowed to claim provocation or self-defence. Rape is never the result of provocation or self defence. Being mugged is never the result of provocation or self-defence.

I don't know the answer to this, but linked to the other judge/rape topic that's current, does being blind drunk count as the victim being "particularly vulnerable", and therefore be a cause of a higher sentence?

Collaborate it certainly should be. But I think the judges point of view was that she had seen the pain of many victims in her courtroom during her career.

That while the men have no defence, no matter how big a sentence they hand out - it doesn't take away pain of the victim's experience.

I interpreted it as a judge who, using carefully selected words, tried to reduce a specific type of rape by giving advice based on years of experience.

Prevention is better than cure. I do believe there are opportunist rapists, just like all opportunist criminals. There are also career criminals of every ilk, who will find their victim no matter what.

I think she was trying to reduce the opportunities for the 'casual' criminal in order to protect women against some future cases.

At no point is a woman to blame for a rape because of being excessively drunk. But she does becomes more vulnerable to one specific type of rapist.

The judge should have told the rapist that: you have committed a crime, the sentence is the worst of the type as you committed this crime on a vulnerable victim, a crime is a crime and on a vulnerable victim is the worst.

it's as bright as day light, thats what it calls justice.

Won't somebody think of all those men falsly accused of being muggers? The prisons are full of men who thought that it was fine to take the IPhone because they had seen the owner lending it to friends that very evening! And it was clearly visible in the top of her bag- of course he thought it was up for grabs...........

The judge should have told the rapist that: you have committed a crime, the sentence is the worst of the type as you committed this crime on a vulnerable victim, a crime is a crime and on a vulnerable victim is the worst.
How do you know the judge didn't say that? Have you read the judgment? Do you have a link you can post? I'm genuinely interested.