[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

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.

Sorry, this does not follow from what I said.

1. I am not talking about blaming the victim instead of the criminal. What I am recognizing is that in some cases, the victim has knowingly and willingly placed themselves in dangerous situations. If that is in fact the case, the victim acted irresponsibly. (Now mind you there are plenty of times when the victim is not culpable of any action that provoked or enabled the criminal).

2. This does not in any way dehumanize criminals. It is still up to them to choose to commit the crime. This is all about personal responsibility here. There are times, even if it is a tiny minority of crimes where the victim can at least be said to have acted irresponsibly.

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?

I wouldn't mug the person, but then again, I am not a violent person nor inclined to theft. But if I were, then I probably would take advantage of the opportunity if it presented itself.

Let me ask you this; do you lock the doors to your home? If so, the reason is essentially the same as not walking alone in a bad part of town. You know that there are people in the world who would steal from you if you provided them the opportunity.

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

This is not a question of the victim asking for it. Its about individuals being responsible for their own safety. If I am irresponsible about my own safety then to a certain extent I am enabling the criminals who take advantage of my irresponsibility. This doesn't lessen the guilt of the person who commits the crime, but I think we need to acknowledge that some times crimes could have been prevented if the victim had acted in a more responsible manner.

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

Sigh, and you will notice at no point have I argued that the criminal is in any way less responsible for their actions. Responsibility is not something that is necessarily lessened if it is shared.

Lets use an analogy -- If I know someone is an alcoholic who is struggling to get clean, but I pour them an unsolicited drink, the alcoholic is responsible for taking the drink, but I am also responsible because I took actions that provided them an opportunity to take that drink.

"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.

No, the logic that says it is does not suggest that all people can't or won't control themselves, it is a recognition of the fact that there are some people who can't or won't control themselves.

Every time we provoke someone else, we are taking a chance (hopefully a vanishingly small one, but still a chance) that their response will be disproportionate to the offense given.

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.

So you are willing to be responsible for the response only if you believe the response is appropriate?

Lets remember, that the appropriateness of a response is determined by many different factors, including cultural ones. As late as the 19th century, things that we would consider very minor offenses were often considered to be grounds for duels.

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?)

Lets remember, I wanted to remove rape from the discussion here. Members of different gangs can be total strangers to each other (particularly considering how large some gangs are). Sometimes being recognized as a member of a gang is enough to get someone killed. But my point here is that there is a continuum here. Even the person stepping on your foot could be considered assault, but you were willing to acknowledge responsibility for that level of retaliation. The fact that the response may have been appropriate, doesn't change the fact that it might be against the law nor the fact that you are the victim of that assault.

--
Bill