I've tried twice now to debate the issue according to sources, but all you see is a dog analogy.
Why should anyone on this forum ever bother to do anything but troll if that's the example you're going to set?
Last edited by Jerry; 02-16-10 at 09:47 AM.
Apart from the odd numskull comment, it seems pretty much agreed here that the actions of the victim, however reckless or foolish, should not excuse the perpetration of rape in any way whatsoever. Unfortunately, however, that is not how rape is judged in the real world. The perception that some responsibility lies with the victim is invariably used by defence lawyers to try and mitigate their clients' crimes. Establishing a person's past behaviour as promiscuous--or their behaviour/state of attire at the time of the rape as provocative--can often lead to a complete acquittal for the rapist. In reality, the personal responsibility of the victim is a powerful factor in the minds of jurors and judges.
So, what to do? To tell the truth I can't decide in my own mind what will best serve justice. On the one hand, it is instinctive to say that courts should prohibit lawyers from presenting anything about the alleged victim which is not related directly to the crime. If a person is dressed or behaving provocatively, that should not be allowed to be admissible evidence. But wait... we have to play the "what if" game here and consider how such a stipulation might affect false charge cases. If the accused is really innocent, are we in danger of stacking the deck against them being found not guilty? Rape is one of those crimes which can rarely be categorically proven one way or the other. It is almost always one person's word against the other's--"it was rape" versus "it was consensual"--and evidence of sexual congress doesn't prove either side. So all that is left is for judges and juries to examine the circumstances and weigh up the characters of the people involved to come to a decision about who is telling the truth. If you take away certain aspects of character examination, are you not favouring the accused over the accuser and thereby increasing the possibility of injustice for the accused? It is an unfortunate fact that too few rapes lead to solid convictions, but even though in most of those cases it probably was rape and not consensual, is it not still better to let ten guilty people go free rather than incarcerate one who is innocent?
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
I guess I don't understand why everyone is hung up on the "that doesn't excuse rape" side.
Well no **** it doesn't excuse rape, so who gives a **** about that topic. It was settled before the thread was opened.
Certain behaviors do increase the risk of a crime happening to you. Minding those behaviors to lower your risk is only smart, while carelessly disregarding those behaviors is foolish.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XovSI_gSJ4"]YouTube- WWE Raw 2/15/10 Guest Host: Jerry Springer (HD)[/ame]
1. Should a woman take precautions to protect herself from being raped by avoiding dangerous situations and behavior?
2. Does a woman who puts herself in a dangerous situation deserve to be raped?
I think most people would be much more likely to answer yes to the first question.