View Single Post
Old 11-10-2009, 02:54 PM   #90
bill_mchale
Wizard
bill_mchale ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bill_mchale ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bill_mchale ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bill_mchale ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bill_mchale ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bill_mchale ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bill_mchale ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bill_mchale ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bill_mchale ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bill_mchale ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bill_mchale ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 1,451
Karma: 1550000
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Maryland, USA
Device: Nook Simple Touch, HPC Evo 4G LTE
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elfwreck View Post
I love Heinlein's works, but think that, in this case, he had a very flawed approach to the idea of women's self-empowerment. Yes, women should not rely on men to protect them from other men. No, that doesn't mean that going alone to a party was "asking for it." Flirting does not make rape "partially her fault," any more than flipping someone off on the freeway makes it "partially your fault" if someone shoots you for it.
If we can remove this idea from rape at the moment, I think this concept says something very interesting about our society.

Lets start with a simple fact, that the person committing a crime should never be held less culpable because of potential provocation. I.e., if I shoot and kill someone for any reason other than reasons specifically allowed for by law (generally the protection of self or others and perhaps protection of property), then I am guilty of murder regardless of what the person did to provoke me.

That being said, does that necessarily mean that the person who is the victim is automatically excused from all fault despite knowingly taking actions that could be considered risky or provocative? If I decide to take a walk in a bad part of town after dark, then to a certain extent, am I not at least partly responsible?

Lets look at it another way. If I drive irresponsibly and get into an accident, then it is my fault, period. Why should I also not bear some of the fault if I irresponsibly take actions that provide opportunities for criminals to harm me? Likewise, if I deliberately make obscene gestures or other wise provoke someone, why shouldn't also be considered at least partly my fault when they retaliate?

Again, I am not arguing against the perpetrator bearing the full legal burden of their crime. Rather I am pointing out that we need to take responsibility for ourselves -- taking responsible actions to minimize the opportunities for someone to make us victims and not taking actions that will provoke a criminal response.

To put it in simple terms, many murders that occur in the major US urban centers are essentially gang on gang violence. In these cases, where the victim and the perpetrator are both members of rival gangs, I think it is fair to say that the victim probably is at least partly at fault for their own death.


--
Bill
bill_mchale is offline   Reply With Quote