first and foremost, in no circumstance do I accept any concept of shared or discounted responsibility for the people who choose to commit crime. the criminal, not the victim, is always fully responsible for his own actions and personal decisions. let me reemphasize that before even beginning
now that's out of the way, you won't be seeing me walking alone through Mulgrave park at 2 AM Sunday morning with my wallet out counting through the paper cash
- there's a reason the minimum drinking age in Nova Scotia is 19
- especially women, at house parties, be careful. many assaults are unplanned crimes of opportunity
- be aware and in control of the situation. don't be so intoxicated to be vulnerable or your safety relies on others who may be too drunk to look out for you
- at bars and house parties be very careful around people you don't know
- when drinking don't be alone with people you don't know or may not be able to trust
- be with and stay with a reliable friend(s) at parties and bars. don't become isolated, especially around people you don't know
- without toxicology or rape kit physical evidence from the night it happened it would seem to be super tough to get a conviction
- probably a relevant precedent would be the Denver football rape case. if Cox was acquitted even after his friend turned and testified against him and the physical and circumstantial case, then I could see why they didn't proceed to trial in the Nova Scotia Parsons case
- a defence lawyer might have taken a similar tack, "we were drunk out of our minds. apparently we had sex. I don't remember." it's tough to establish no consent in that type of case. remember the burden of proof is on the accuser
- being drunk at the time greatly damages your ability to be a witness in a court case later on
- regarding Anonymous and naming names of the four boys. well the four cleared the criminal hurdle apparently. thus the only objection would seem to be privacy. well Rehtaeh's privacy was certainly violated and they were party to that. and it was them who took and caused to be distributed the notorious photo. thus they have no real privacy claim. especially considering the notorious picture was so widely distributed to be effectively public domain. thus I can't personally see any objection to anyone holding their names to go ahead and publish
- lots of tough talk on the internet these days. careful what you say. everything can be traced and you're responsible for it. don't start what you can't finish
4 comments:
http://www.girl-mom.com/forums/50-ways-men-can-prevent-themselves-becoming-rapist
that link is a bit militant feminist but the comment is thoughtful in its own way. unfortunately the militancy of some of the 50 points distracts from an otherwise interesting post.
as I said the criminal is always to blame for the crimes he chooses to commit. in this world there are bad people who will do bad things given the opportunity. if some fraction can realize their tendencies and better control them then good, I'm not real confident. criminals gonna crime.
it is a fallacy to suggest that by advocating women to avoid situations where crime of opportunity can occur; that implies the victim is to blame if such a crime does occur. that is false. the criminal is to blame.
it is logical to reduce these crimes of opportunity by reducing the opportunities that criminals have to commit them. thus it is a disservice to reject advice to women about how to avoid situations that are an increased risk of certain crimes of opportunity.
Teaching boys and men not to rape, and how to understand rape and what constitutes it, should not be harder than teaching them not to, say, litter, and how to understand what constitutes littering. What other crime puts such utter onus on the victim?
if you look outside your window or go for a walk around you will see the landscape is awash in litter. so educating people to understand what litter is, and not to commit litter, obviously doesn't work. everyone understands what litter is and that it is wrong, yet large numbers of people still knowingly choose to commit litter. so you are actually arguing against yourself.
litter is an improper comparison anyway because the "victim" is the land. now obviously land on its own cannot act to prevent an individual prone to litter from carrying out that impulse.
a better comparison would be say break and enter. the criminal is of course responsible for committing this crime and should be severely punished when convicted (yeah right). in the mean time regular folks can take known steps to reduce the probability of being a victim of this crime of opportunity. lock your doors, use a deadbolt, have an alarm system, leave some lights on and a car in the driveway if you will be out of town for a few days.
yes it sucks and it's wrong that the good people have to expend time, money and energy impeding would be thieves. the alternative is to be a victim. in the real world the way to reduce crimes of opportunity is to be aware of and reduce the opportunities of criminals to victimize you
Post a Comment