• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

‘Victim blaming’ judge says murdered girl put herself ‘in vulnerable position’

Cardinal

Respected On All Sides
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
106,256
Reaction score
97,641
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
http://rt.com/uk/252365-karen-buckley-murder-judge/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=RSS

A judge has caused a furor by suggesting a student who was murdered after a night out in Scotland “put herself in a vulnerable position” by drinking.

Karen Buckley, a 24-year-old student from Glasgow Caledonian University, went missing on Saturday April 11 after a night out in the city’s West End.

After a “demoralizing” four-day hunt, Buckley’s body was discovered near a farm in North Glasgow on Thursday April 16.

However, at a court hearing the day after her body was found, Buckley’s father implied she had been drinking heavily on the night she went missing.

Then cue strawmen and accusations of “victim blaming.”

“No one can gain consent from an intoxicated person,” women’s right activist and councilor at Rape Crisis Michelle Bergh told RT.

“So regardless of the prosecutor’s feeling that the survivor has placed themselves in a vulnerable position by drinking alcohol, the onus is on the alleged perpetrator to obtain consent.”

Bergh told RT she feels “strongly” about situations like this, and victim blaming can cause a “devastating impact” on the families of the victims and survivors.

There is a fine line between actual statements of victim blaming (she dressed slutty, she was asking for it, etc) and statements of fact regarding a dangerous position one can put him/herself in. To categorize both under the umbrella of “victim blaming” makes a farce of even the most basic notions of self preservation and good judgment.

I think the article and the comments under it are muddied by the fact that the victim is a woman. Let’s replace the gender and say a man drinks far too much at a club and is subsequently mugged while walking home. I don’t think there would be much debate on the claim that if the man had drank less so that he was in control of how he got home, he would likely have not gotten mugged. He would have made a less convenient target, he would have walked in a more straight-line trajectory to his destination or, what many people typically do at the end of a night, just take a taxi thus eliminating their exposure to any dangerous elements altogether.

Where do you draw the line between a basic observation that one must take control of their preservation, exercising control over themselves and the environment they may find themselves in…and “victim blaming?”
 
?Victim blaming? judge says murdered girl put herself ?in vulnerable position? ? RT UK

Then cue strawmen and accusations of “victim blaming.”

There is a fine line between actual statements of victim blaming (she dressed slutty, she was asking for it, etc) and statements of fact regarding a dangerous position one can put him/herself in. To categorize both under the umbrella of “victim blaming” makes a farce of even the most basic notions of self preservation and good judgment.

I think the article and the comments under it are muddied by the fact that the victim is a woman. Let’s replace the gender and say a man drinks far too much at a club and is subsequently mugged while walking home. I don’t think there would be much debate on the claim that if the man had drank less so that he was in control of how he got home, he would likely have not gotten mugged. He would have made a less convenient target, he would have walked in a more straight-line trajectory to his destination or, what many people typically do at the end of a night, just take a taxi thus eliminating their exposure to any dangerous elements altogether.

Where do you draw the line between a basic observation that one must take control of their preservation, exercising control over themselves and the environment they may find themselves in…and “victim blaming?

:shrug: I would say simply enough by holding everyone responsible for their own actions. It is dumb to do stupid and irresponsibly dangerous things like get drunk and then walk alone down dark alleyways with hundred dollar bills hanging out of your pockets, singing a loud song about how much you hate every single ethnicity that isn't you in a neighborhood dominated by other ethnicities, and it is also criminal for someone responding to that to then beat you with a baseball bat and steal your money. Saying "well, it is stupid to wander drunkenly into other neighborhoods and pick fights, and you shouldn't do that" in no way obviates the "and it is also wrong to beat people with bats and steal from them."
 
:shrug: I would say simply enough by holding everyone responsible for their own actions. It is dumb to do stupid and irresponsibly dangerous things like get drunk and then walk alone down dark alleyways with hundred dollar bills hanging out of your pockets, singing a loud song about how much you hate every single ethnicity that isn't you in a neighborhood dominated by other ethnicities, and it is also criminal for someone responding to that to then beat you with a baseball bat and steal your money. Saying "well, it is stupid to wander drunkenly into other neighborhoods and pick fights, and you shouldn't do that" in no way obviates the "and it is also wrong to beat people with bats and steal from them."

"Holding everyone to their own actions" merely repeats the vagueness of the debate, as it comes no closer to clearing up the difference between personal responsibility and victim blaming.

Even those who have used the line "she was asking for it" have stated that the perpetrator in an attack should be held accountable to the law.
 
"Holding everyone to their own actions" merely repeats the vagueness of the debate, as it comes no closer to clearing up the difference between personal responsibility and victim blaming.

I don't see how it doesn't. You are personally responsible for your own choices.

Even those who have used the line "she was asking for it" have stated that the perpetrator in an attack should be held accountable to the law.

Well, no. If she was actually asking for sex, then rape hasn't occurred. If she was merely being stupid, then she was stupid (and shouldn't do that), and rape has still occurred and should be punished.
 
I don't see how it doesn't. You are personally responsible for your own choices.

Which falls under the same umbrella, depending on who's making the statement, as "if she hadn't dressed slutty, rape would not have occurred." So again, you're just restating the vagueness of the topic. What you're guilty of, and to an extent so am I, is the equivalent of "I don't know what pornography is, but I know it when I see it."

Well, no. If she was actually asking for sex, then rape hasn't occurred. If she was merely being stupid, then she was stupid (and shouldn't do that), and rape has still occurred and should be punished.

Then you didn't get the context of those discussions. Even those vile enough to make such a statement as "she was asking for it" still go on to say that the attacker should be thrown in jail for rape, thus showing the statement to not be literal. What is meant by that is that the woman's choice of clothing bore responsibility for the rape.
 
I suggest the Independent (and the RT which plagiarised them) may have libelled the judge. You see, if he'd actually said "she put herself in a vulnerable position by drinking" they would have been able to quote him directly but they used the common and fraudulent quote/reportage combination to create a quote that was never spoken.

It'd be interesting to see the full text of the judges summing up (which is presumably where the "quotes" came from) but I'm sure the media will never publish that because they couldn't spin an attack story out of the truth.

I also wonder how many of the "angry twitter users" are "news"paper employees using multiple false accounts.
 
I don't see how it doesn't. You are personally responsible for your own choices.



Well, no. If she was actually asking for sex, then rape hasn't occurred. If she was merely being stupid, then she was stupid (and shouldn't do that), and rape has still occurred and should be punished.

being killed is not a choice .
 
Which falls under the same umbrella, depending on who's making the statement, as "if she hadn't dressed slutty, rape would not have occurred."

Well, no. Rapists tend (generally) not to care about the choice of clothing of the victim.

So again, you're just restating the vagueness of the topic.

No I am not. People who make stupid decisions are responsible for those decisions and people who make criminal decisions are responsible for those decisions. Most of life doesn't break down into white hats v black hats, the perfectly good and wise v the perfectly evil and craven.

What you're guilty of, and to an extent so am I, is the equivalent of "I don't know what pornography is, but I know it when I see it."

Hm. Can you elaborate on that?

Then you didn't get the context of those discussions. Even those vile enough to make such a statement as "she was asking for it" still go on to say that the attacker should be thrown in jail for rape, thus showing the statement to not be literal. What is meant by that is that the woman's choice of clothing bore responsibility for the rape.

no. Asking for sex =/= asking for rape.
 
Well, no. Rapists tend (generally) not to care about the choice of clothing of the victim.



No I am not. People who make stupid decisions are responsible for those decisions and people who make criminal decisions are responsible for those decisions. Most of life doesn't break down into white hats v black hats, the perfectly good and wise v the perfectly evil and craven.



Hm. Can you elaborate on that?



no. Asking for sex =/= asking for rape.

Forget it, we're talking past each other.
 
?Victim blaming? judge says murdered girl put herself ?in vulnerable position? ? RT UK



Then cue strawmen and accusations of “victim blaming.”



There is a fine line between actual statements of victim blaming (she dressed slutty, she was asking for it, etc) and statements of fact regarding a dangerous position one can put him/herself in. To categorize both under the umbrella of “victim blaming” makes a farce of even the most basic notions of self preservation and good judgment.

I think the article and the comments under it are muddied by the fact that the victim is a woman. Let’s replace the gender and say a man drinks far too much at a club and is subsequently mugged while walking home. I don’t think there would be much debate on the claim that if the man had drank less so that he was in control of how he got home, he would likely have not gotten mugged. He would have made a less convenient target, he would have walked in a more straight-line trajectory to his destination or, what many people typically do at the end of a night, just take a taxi thus eliminating their exposure to any dangerous elements altogether.

Where do you draw the line between a basic observation that one must take control of their preservation, exercising control over themselves and the environment they may find themselves in…and “victim blaming?”



Because it is a woman, there will be a reflexive outcry of "victim blaming!" from certain expected quarters.

Had it been a man, probably not so much, as you point out.


As you say there's a difference between ACTUALLY blaming the victim, and pointing out where the victim made bad choices that made him/her vulnerable or liable to criminal assault.



To go to a personal example, when my best friend-like-a-brother was murdered in his place of business due to a robbery-turned-multiple-murder, I could not help myself from analyzing his decisions and finding three critical errors he made which, had he chosen differently, might well have saved his life. One was being too trusting of someone just because he knew them slightly... that was actually the big one because it led to the rest... the other two being opportunities to run (albeit at danger of being shot in the process) that he should have taken if he'd realized they were not going to spare his life.

In no way did this mean I was BLAMING him for his own murder... oh no far from it, I BLAMED the two assholes who killed him.... but recognizing that there were mistakes in judgment made that could have changed the outcome. Things that others could LEARN FROM about how to not end up in the same boat.


For instance, I know better than to go to a biker bar at 2AM and yell "HARLEY DAVIDSON SUCKS" at the top of my voice.... I'd be lucky to survive, I'd almost certainly be beaten to a pulp, and it is a predictable outcome.


But apparently if you tell young women "don't get falling-down drunk and go off with some man you just met", as a cautionary suggestion, that's somehow wrong. :wassat1:
 
Because it is a woman, there will be a reflexive outcry of "victim blaming!" from certain expected quarters.

Had it been a man, probably not so much, as you point out.


As you say there's a difference between ACTUALLY blaming the victim, and pointing out where the victim made bad choices that made him/her vulnerable or liable to criminal assault.



To go to a personal example, when my best friend-like-a-brother was murdered in his place of business due to a robbery-turned-multiple-murder, I could not help myself from analyzing his decisions and finding three critical errors he made which, had he chosen differently, might well have saved his life. One was being too trusting of someone just because he knew them slightly... that was actually the big one because it led to the rest... the other two being opportunities to run (albeit at danger of being shot in the process) that he should have taken if he'd realized they were not going to spare his life.

In no way did this mean I was BLAMING him for his own murder... oh no far from it, I BLAMED the two assholes who killed him.... but recognizing that there were mistakes in judgment made that could have changed the outcome. Things that others could LEARN FROM about how to not end up in the same boat.


For instance, I know better than to go to a biker bar at 2AM and yell "HARLEY DAVIDSON SUCKS" at the top of my voice.... I'd be lucky to survive, I'd almost certainly be beaten to a pulp, and it is a predictable outcome.


But apparently if you tell young women "don't get falling-down drunk and go off with some man you just met", as a cautionary suggestion, that's somehow wrong. :wassat1:

True, but your explanation doesn't get to the heart of the nuance between the two in a clear and objective manner. If those who you or I would agree were engaging in victim blaming claimed that the rapist/attacker should not be prosecuted, then the difference would not be elusive. But when those who who say "she was dressing slutty" also say the attacker should be prosecuted, then there is a line between "personal responsibility" and "victim blaming" that is not so easy to explain.

Personally, I think what the judge said spoke to personal responsibility and not victim blaming, but I lack the clarity or nuance myself to state why I believe this. Keep in mind: both those who make statements about personal responsibility and victim blamers both advocate "personal responsibility and good judgment," and both believe the attacker should be in jail (except for the odd nutball here and there). So where's the line between the two?
 
Even those who have used the line "she was asking for it" have stated that the perpetrator in an attack should be held accountable to the law.

That's not entirely true.

Often, the "she was asking for it" was an argument that the act was consensual so therefore there was no rape.
 
Here's where the concept of "victim blaming" really goes off a rail. Posted in a woman's bathroom in an air force base is this advisory:

“Pay attention to your surroundings.” “Be prepared to get yourself home.” “Socialize with people who share your values.”

One woman (an armed forces veteran, fwiw) saw this and accused the advisory of sending a harmful message, claiming that if one is attacked the poster is essentially judging the victim for any steps she may not have taken to protect herself, thus blaming the victim. And keep in mind her response is to a hypothetical attack, not one that even happened.

Teaching Prevention is Not ‘Blaming the Victim’

My point isn't actually to point and make fun of those who make the claim foolishly, but to shed light on a confusing aspect between personal responsibility and victim blaming. The national dialogue lacks a clear definition, and needs one kind of importantly.
 
That's not entirely true.

Often, the "she was asking for it" was an argument that the act was consensual so therefore there was no rape.

It's the internet: someone's going to make that claim now and again because awful, awful people thrive on the internet. In my experience, however, that argument is an outlier. I don't find it to be the norm even among socially regressive people.
 
True, but your explanation doesn't get to the heart of the nuance between the two in a clear and objective manner. If those who you or I would agree were engaging in victim blaming claimed that the rapist/attacker should not be prosecuted, then the difference would not be elusive. But when those who who say "she was dressing slutty" also say the attacker should be prosecuted, then there is a line between "personal responsibility" and "victim blaming" that is not so easy to explain.

Personally, I think what the judge said spoke to personal responsibility and not victim blaming, but I lack the clarity or nuance myself to state why I believe this. Keep in mind: both those who make statements about personal responsibility and victim blamers both advocate "personal responsibility and good judgment," and both believe the attacker should be in jail (except for the odd nutball here and there). So where's the line between the two?


As you say, the difference is somewhat subtle.

From my own perspective about the personal criminal incident with my friend, my attitude towards his errors in judgment were expressed as laments.... "oh WHY did he open the door to those guys? He knew them but he shouldn't have trusted them," and "oh WHY didn't he take off running when they pushed him out of the van? They might have shot at him but they might have missed, rather than shooting him point-blank in the head as they planned."

It is a lament, a regret, and a caution for others.


Now if the person in any way says or implies that an error in judgment means the victim somehow DESERVED it, or "asked for it", or similar attitude then the line has been crossed.


You can say "this was a bad choice", and you can say "this bad choice left so-n-so open to this criminal assault", and you can say "Learn from this and don't make the same mistakes", IMO.... but when you start implying the victim had it coming you've crossed the line.


Yeah you're right it is hard to explain exactly where the line is...
 
It's the internet: someone's going to make that claim now and again because awful, awful people thrive on the internet. In my experience, however, that argument is an outlier.

It's certainly less common these days, but at one time it was not.

Half the population has a below-average intelligence. That being the case, even the simplest of concepts will be misunderstood by some people. The concept of victim blaming, being a little more nuanced, is sure to be difficult for many
 
The female did put her self in a relativelly vulnerable position its not victim blaming as its more of a statement. If the judge implied that the crime was null or had denoted it then it would be a form of victim blaming.
personal responsibility goes both ways the female should of been somewhat aware of her surroundings , and at the same time the person who had committed the crime surely should have the mental ability to restrain themselves and not commit such terrible acts in the first place.
 
The female did put her self in a relativelly vulnerable position its not victim blaming as its more of a statement. If the judge implied that the crime was null or had denoted it then it would be a form of victim blaming.
personal responsibility goes both ways the female should of been somewhat aware of her surroundings , and at the same time the person who had committed the crime surely should have the mental ability to restrain themselves and not commit such terrible acts in the first place.

Your post actually helps to clarify at least one part of the definition of victim blaming: if the intent is to minimize the act of the attacker in any way, that would certainly be victim blaming.

E.g. "Well can you blame him? Look how she was dressing!" "Can you blame him for mugging the drunk guy? Who wouldn't beat him up and take his wallet?"
 
Back
Top Bottom