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.

A stripper in that atmosphere has an expectation of protection. It’s the club that’s engaging in risky behaviour, not the stripper.

So, to close, I’ll just say again: “It’s not about punishing the victims, it’s about discouraging reckless behaviour”.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.