[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

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?

NO. And blaming the victim is how we *keep* bad parts of town. It dehumanizes the criminals by implying there's some trait in them that makes them prone to attacking when a non-criminal would not.

If you saw someone like you walking around in a "bad part of town," would you mug the person? Would you think their presence implied a willingness to be mugged?

In what situations would you think "he was askin' for it" justified your violence?

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?

Because criminals, unlike slippery roads or shoddy brake lines, have sentience and will, and can *decide* not to commit those actions.

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?

"Responsible for retaliation" is not the same as "to blame for what happened." Provocation of *some* response is not an invitation to *any* response, and the logic that says it is, implies that all people are basically children who can't or haven't learned to control themselves, who shouldn't be held responsible for understanding the difference between appropriate and inappropriate reactions.

If I push someone out of the way to get to a seat on the train, and he steps on my foot in retaliation, I'm to blame for provoking him. I am not to blame if he takes out a gun and shoots me; being responsible for an appropriate response does not make me at fault for a wildly inappropriate one.

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.

This is a drastic change in comparisons. Previous examples involved strangers, or relative strangers, not people with a pre-existing relationship. Marital rape was 100% legal in the US until 1976, and it's still treated differently from other rapes in 33 states.

(And geeze, this has gotten pretty far from non-recommended sci-fi authors. Can I add John Norman to the list?)