Author Jim C. Hines recently tackled the issue of rape on his livejournal (again). As usual, his insight on the issue is exceptional. His ability to relate complicated ideas in an easy to understand way is just wonderful. No wonder his LJ is a magnet for great discussion.
However, he recently invoked The Rape of Mr. Smith to show how wrong-headed some prosecutors can be in interrogating rape victims. The story itself is great reading, and it’s short, so go ahead and give it a gander now. Don’t worry, I’ll wait.
The questions at the end of the article are hideously biased. For instance, one of them reads, “How else are women blamed for their own oppression?” Really? How about something a little more neutral, like “List other circumstances where a sex is blamed for its own oppression”. The second question just sounds less “men are monsters”-ish.
However, my real issue with the analogy is that it can easily make the opposite point:
If Mr. Smith went into a biker bar in a fancy suit, reeking of booze and slapped a stack of hundreds on the table, you would expect something to happen. In fact, many prosecutors would probably claim he was enticing a robbery. He should have known better than to be in the biker bar in the first place, and that his behaviour was outrageous, and likely to lead to a robbery. A prosecutor would in all likelihood never prosecute that. However, say a stripper went to the bar (maybe she was hired for a stag or something) and was raped, there would definitely be prosecutions.
The problem here is that analogies like The Rape of Mr. Smith make us think of gray areas, when in fact, with rape, there ARE NO GRAY AREAS. Rape is wrong. Period.
17 Comments(+Add)
I was going to make a dark humor joke about how rape is always correct because our society has, after all, made torture okay, but then I realized, nah, that would be in poor taste.
And, to be honest, crime is crime is crime. Doesn’t matter if someone “asked” for it. It’s still a crime. If Mr. Smith walked into a biker bar and threw his money at a biker, that’s different than happening to look a certain way or have a lot of money. Same with rape.
I don’t know how lawyers can argue otherwise and still have a soul…
Well, my point was that, while no one deserve to have violence done upon them, there should be SOME punishment for idiotic behaviour. Why should I have to pay prosecute Mr. Smith’s attackers in this case? There would have been no crime had Mr. Smith not thrown his money at the bikers.
This is the same as holding a steak in front of a barking dog then complaining that it bit you. You didn’t
deserve to be bitten, but you could easily have avoided it had you not waved the steak in front of the dog.
In that case, you should pay your own damn hospital bills.
If I ask you to stab me in the heart, and you do it, should you be let go simply because I asked?
The difference between a dog and a man is that a dog isn’t going to know any better. A dog can’t consider the ramifications of its actions. A human can. So while Mr. Smith may be a complete dumb*ss for throwing money down in front of a bunch of bikers, that doesn’t give the bikers the right to commit a crime.
And in all fairness, the people who be paying for the hospital bills should be the offenders. This is why I support prison labor camps. I don’t agree with sticking them in cells and leaving them to read books and crap. Prison is supposed to suck. You’re not supposed to want to go there, so I think we should make it undesirable. I’m not saying we should mistreat these people, but they committed crimes and should be punished in more than just being locked up. There are too many homeless people in this country who don’t get a free roof over their heads…why should criminals get it so easy?
Jordan, are you sure you want to use a steak and dog analogy considering the original subject this discussion is based on?
It’s not a crime to go to a bar alone after midnight.
It IS a crime to rob/assault/ rape someone.
Are you saying if I chose to go out on the town, and something bad happens, what separates me from being a victim that deserves justice, or an idiot that had it coming, is the time of day or my choice of attire?
Person A goes somewhere. Persons B, C, & D want something person A has, and they take it. No gray areas there. Person A is the victim of a crime, and has every right to get justice.
We have to remember here that rape is about power, not attraction or taking something (other than power over one’s own person) away from someone else. Plenty of woman, and men and children, are raped even when they are not trying to look sexy or when guilty of foolishly walking into the “wrong place.”
I vividly recall a classmate once saying, “I would never ALLOW someone to rape me.” The class response was swift; a woman who had been the victim of acqaintance assault pointed out that she was in her own home wearing a t-shirt and sweatpants when her rape occured. The reasons for the continuing although lessened tendency to blame the victim are denial (that rape could happen to you personally) and a disbelief that someone you know (a man, typically) is capable of such atrocious behavior. Hence, provocation.
The gray area, I suppose, comes down to proof.
Tracie, see in that case I would have absolutely no problem paying for the prosecution and lifetime incarceration of your classmate’s assaulter. Your classmate did nothing wrong.
My beef is that I don’t want to pay for someone else’s poor decision. Let’s take rape out of the picture and deal with something a little less emotionally charged: Up here in Canada we constantly have snowboarders skiing out of bounds on local mountains. Now they are being made to pay for the search and rescue efforts when they get lost, and no one has a problem with it because it’s partially their fault for exercising poor judgment.
If a man or woman exercises poor judgment, like Mr. Smith above, they should have to pay some kind of penalty, financial or otherwise.
There’s a difference, Jordan. Snowboarders are doing something far different from Mr. Smith. Smith may be exercising poor judgment, but he’s not the one committing a crime. A snowboarder is exercising poor judgment and subsequently putting themselves in a position in which no crime is committed (unless it is illegal to go into out of bounds areas, in which case the snowboard is committing a crime and should have to pay for that fact). Mr. Smith was just being a dumb*ss, but the people who robbed him had the choice to not do so.
So, I don’t have a problem with an idiot snowboarder paying for rescue efforts for their poor judgment. If they were kidnapped or forced to go into those areas as a result of some other crime not committed by them, then I would have a problem with it, but otherwise, no, there’s no issue there.
What about zoo-goers who jump into animal enclosures? I’m sure every one of us would say that they got what they deserved when they got mauled. Honestly, why are rapists so different from bears? They’re both animals IMO.
Again, I’m not saying anyone deserves to get raped under any circumstances, and my heart goes out to people like Tracie’s classmates. But for chrissakes, don’t jump into animal enclosures if you don’t want to get mauled.
Again, there’s a difference. Jumping into a tiger cage is not the same as walking into a biker bar. Humans have the mental faculties to make the decision whether or not to attack someone; a tiger does not.
And yes, I understand that we, as human beings, consider human beings who commit atrocities animals, but they are still human beings, and thus subject to human laws and morals (whatever those laws may be). A tiger is not bound by any law we create. If you get mauled by a tiger by jumping into its cage, then you did get what you deserved and you’re a dumb*ss for doing so. We shouldn’t have to pay for your stupidity.
To say otherwise is to say that anyone who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, even by intention, should have to pay for any damaged accrued, simply because they should know better. But the people committing the acts should know better too. You have a choice whether to commit a crime and if you choose to do so and get caught, then you deserve to be punished for that, and the victim should not be.
“simply because they should know better. But the people committing the acts should know better too.” EXACTLY. Done. By your own admission, there is some guilt on both sides. Why the hell should I, an independent third party, have to pay for stupidity?
And if your argument is that humans are some kind of magical animal different from all others… well, we’ll have to agree to disagree. Humans might believe we’ve transcended the animal kingdom, and we might have extremely complex behaviours, but we’re all just mammals at heart.
I didn’t say we’ve transcended the animal kingdom, just that different rules apply to human beings simply because of where we are as a species. If we were more like tigers, we wouldn’t be having this discussion at all, but since we are capable of deeply considering our existence, we are at a different plane than other animals. I’m not saying we’re superior, just different. We’re still animals, but the way you meant “animals” is not the kind of relationship we’re dealing with for humans in the animal kingdom.
And no, a crime is a crime is a crime is a crime. Period. By your logic you’re basically saying that any woman who dresses in a manner society deems inappropriate and gets raped should have to pay for her rape kits and other medical stuff that is related. By that logic, someone who gets shot by going into a violent area trying to help people should have to pay for the surgeries they’ll receive, simply because they should have known better.
Instead of helping people who are mentally unsound (Mr. Smith was not at all in the right mindset and deserves medical attention both physically and mentally), you’re suggesting we just throw up our arms and say f*ck you Mr. Smith, simply because he should have known better. That is the kind of logic that, quite frankly, contributes more to the problems involved in blaming the victim than resolving the issues at hand. Victims never deserve to be punished. Ever.
I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree.
To illustrate my point, I’m going to ignore your inflammatory example, and use to other one “Going into violent areas to rescue people” because it makes my point perfectly. The person that goes into that area to help people is fine. If someone went into the same area to “thrill-seek”, absolutely, they should be fined.
Strippers that do private parties should be licensed and either purchase insurance, or be forced to hire protection or lose their license. If a women (or man) gets hammered at a biker bar, takes off all his/her clothes, and starts dancing on a table and something happens, absolutely his/her attackers should be prosecuted, but he/she should also be fined.
It’s not about punishing the victims, it’s about discouraging reckless behavior. Period.
Right, but by saying that, then, if a stripper gets raped by someone who visits a strip club, she would be punished as the victim simply because she was naked and in a profession that has the potential to be dangerous. And I see something morally reprehensible about punishing victims, even if they knew the risks. We’re talking about crimes, not people jumping out of airplanes for the thrill.
No. Honestly, I don’t know if this argument is productive. You’re ignoring every point I make and just fixating on the fact that I’m saying “punish the victim”, when, in fact, I’ve never said that.
So, to close, I’ll just say again: “It’s not about punishing the victims, it’s about discouraging reckless behaviour”.
Sorry, I just read your example a little closer. In your example, the strip club would have a responsibility to protect its staff, and would be (and is) subject to civil action if it doesn’t.
A stripper in that atmosphere has an expectation of protection. It’s the club that’s engaging in risky behaviour, not the stripper.
Many people make bad decisions and place themselves in vulnerable situations. This does not excuse the behavior of another individual to take advantage of someone in a vulnerable state. We all have the ability to choose not to take advantage of someone who is vulnerable. The majority of people have been in a situation where they could have taken advantage of a vulnerable situation, but choose not to because of their character and/or morals. That is what separates the majority of people from offenders. The choices we make.
Absolutely we need to punish the offender. I’m 100% with you there.
However, to use an analogy, if a skier undertakes the bad decision of going out of bounds and places themselves in a vulnerable position, they should have to cover at least part of the costs of rescuing them.
The offender should absolutely be punished with the maximum penalty allowed under law. I’m not arguing that at all. What I’m saying is that people need to be held somewhat accountable for poorly made decisions.