Feminist Pub 16: where the Bluestockings develop armoured stockings to deal with the thousand paper cuts

[FibonacciSeries]

Carry on.

Just wondering if I can ask for your thoughts. I have had a disagreement about some guidance on treatment of victims of crime, colleagues felt victims of sexual crime should be excluded, because any attempt to involve them or use restorative principles would be "too risky" and risk re-victimising them.

I disagreed, feeling that victims of sexual crime as with every other sort should have choices about their treatment. Victims of burglary are sometimes too traumatised to want to be involved in decisions about the perpetrator's punishment, but they are always given the option. To me it smacks of the "fate worse than death" attitude, that rape is something women can never recover from - and this seems to disempower and patronise. In my own experience it took me 20 years and a lot of expensive counselling, and whilst I wouldn't say I'm 'over' being raped, it doesn't limit my life or self image any more. I didn't share my own experience, by the way. I was told my attitude was insensitive - can you tell me what you think? I'm open to any challenge on my views.

I have had a disagreement about some guidance on treatment of victims of crime, colleagues felt victims of sexual crime should be excluded, because any attempt to involve them or use restorative principles would be "too risky" and risk re-victimising them.

Sorry, I'm being thick here..but I'm not following? Do you mean victims of assault should have a choice on their medical/psychological treatment? Or the how their attacker should be handled?

Because with the first bit, obviously, yes they should be completely consulted and I'm not sure how that could victimize them? (Which is why I think I'm probably missing something)

The second point I don't think victims should have any say on the guilty. I think it should be set that certain crimes always receive certain punishments and I also think sex abuse victims are if anything more likely to let the perpetrator off easy.

Also I'm a bit crap at following who is who here so it may be that other people here know what you do for a living and that would make it more clear. I'm not sure if you are dealing with victims as a HCP or from the legal side?

It's not quite either Groundhog. But when people have been sentenced, as part of the order, victims are sometimes involved in restorative work aimed at both making them feel that justice has been done and they can move on, and the offender recognise the effect of their crime to deter future offending. This guidance is about extending that practice more widely as evidence indicates it works well on both aims.

I name change to talk about work - but it's the legal side, mostly dealing with offenders. Which is a slightly strange world, especially when dealing with serious crime, so it's helpful to check out my thinking sometimes. I hope the question isn't triggering.

if i've understood what you're suggesting humph, then if it's offered and the victim of rape is not happy to be involved, they could say no? plus i would hope that the people supporting the victim through the justice system would know whether this was an inappropriate thing to ask an individual victim based on their circumstances (though i realise that in reality this will depend on how much support the victim has actually received). i haven't been raped, however, so it's not for me to say either way

spent so long typing that that i crossed with house!

On a tangent, I have to confess I personally hate this notion of a rape victim 'forgiving' the rapist. I've heard of it a few times. I expect it's a very brave thing to do, but... definitely not for me, it makes me very uncomfortable. What do you all think?

Perhaps I'm just not very charitable. 'forgiveness' is a christian concept, a bit alien to me, unless it's to do with moving on with one's life.

there was an interesting thread about that a few months ago lightning. i agree with you. i also don't think it is necessarily a requirement for people to "move on" with their lives iyswim. it is perfectly normal and legitimate for them to continue to be angry with their attacker. of course i'm sure there are people for whom forgiveness is important and it is a genuine action on their part. but i don't think it should be a requirement by any means

no, definitely not a requirement... will look that up thanks.

here

yes, encouraging forgiveness often seems to be about a wronged person making other people feel better, rather than about actually what that wronged person needs. of course there will be some people who do need that and it's right that they should work towards it, but if it's prescriptive it just feels like an excuse for everyone else to wash their hands of the nasty situation and "get back to normal"

Thank you all for your views. That's it in a nutshell for me Buffy, about wanting women to amend their emotional responses so others don't feel uncomfortable. I want victims of rape and other sexual crimes to have the same options as others. For other crimes there is no pressure to forgive, or to feel in a particular way. Or to 'get over' it. There's something a bit dismissive about the but this is different attitude.

That's roughly what I thought too. No way I'm I making any of these gits feel better, and the idea that some women might ever feel obliged to do so... think I might throw up.