Why don't we admit the fault of victims?

[Quintessence]

This thread is in many respects an extension of this one, only the intent here is to consider perpetrators and targets of crimes more broadly. In that thread, I'm noticing a worrying tendency for some to to completely absolve targets of crimes of any contribution to the event. Although I suspect some of this is due to choice of words and semantics, it is very concerning to me that people are able to ignore causal variables simply because they are centered on the victim of a crime.

Being a target of a crime does not magically erase the fact that aspects of that person's behavior or personality contributed to the situation. Suggesting so is unscientific, unwise, and potentially downright dangerous. It nullifies our ability to conduct an impartial, objective risk analysis of crime and its causes, and in particular it won't allow us to develop ways that we can protect ourselves from becoming targets. After all, if we can't bother to acknowledge how we, as targets, contributed to the situation, we're going to be blind to how we can change our behavior to reduce our risk. We need to take responsibility for ourselves too, not just engage in rubbish finger-pointing exercises.

Thoughts?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

This thread is in many respects an extension of this one, only the intent here is to consider perpetrators and targets of crimes more broadly. In that thread, I'm noticing a worrying tendency for some to to completely absolve targets of crimes of any contribution to the event. Although I suspect some of this is due to choice of words and semantics, it is very concerning to me that people are able to ignore causal variables simply because they are centered on the victim of a crime.

Being a target of a crime does not magically erase the fact that aspects of that person's behavior or personality contributed to the situation. Suggesting so is unscientific, unwise, and potentially downright dangerous. It nullifies our ability to conduct an impartial, objective risk analysis of crime and its causes, and in particular it won't allow us to develop ways that we can protect ourselves from becoming targets. After all, if we can't bother to acknowledge how we, as targets, contributed to the situation, we're going to be blind to how we can change our behavior to reduce our risk. We need to take responsibility for ourselves too, not just engage in rubbish finger-pointing exercises.

Thoughts?

Do we have advice for people on how not to get murdered?

 

[sandandfoam]

If I paint a target onto my forehead it does not excuse the criminality of any who decide to shoot me.
If I had any money and hid it under my bed it does not give some scumbag the right to come in through my door and help him or her self.
Of course we should all try to look after ourselves but there are times when we don't and if we are victims of crime the responsibility is with the criminal not the victim.

 

[Draupadi]

If you want to punish an individual, will you do that by raping or murdering that person? What kind of thing are you saying? If a man or woman DOESN'T want to have sex despite wearing 'provocative' clothes or flirtatious behaviour, and if you can't take "No." for an answer then I think there is something wrong with you. And that is an understatement.

 

[ChristineES]

It's just my view that teaching about lowering the risks of a crime isn't the same as saying it's the victim's fault for those crimes. With a crime, the only person at fault is the person who committed the crime, not his/her victims of the said crime. That's not to say that a person can't make himself or herself less vulnerable to crimes.

People making themselves more vulnerable to a crime, inadvertently, does not mean that the person deserves to attacked, stolen from, etc.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

If you want to punish an individual, will you do that by raping or murdering that person? What kind of thing are you saying? If a man or woman DOESN'T want to have sex despite wearing 'provocative' clothes or flirtatious behaviour, and if you can't take "No." for an answer then I think there is something wrong with you.And that is an understatement.

The thing about much of violent crime, when it occurs on a singular basis (I'll get to gang rape in a second), the thought process of the perpetrator is one that first dehumanizes the target, and then proceeds to justify the action through an entitlement attitude.

In regards to rape, it is not about an overactive libido. It is an attack on another person for the purpose of furthering one's sense of entitlement over the victim, and that for rape, penetration or being made to penetrate is a method of disempowering the victim.

Gang rape occurs in nations and communities mostly in areas of extreme poverty (typically war zones, but sometimes not) where there is a desire to 1) find an accomplishment somewhere, if it's just a "sexual conquest", and 2) finding other outlets of aggression rather than with each other for food and water resources. Hence, these communities find themselves with extreme rates of rape with women and with children.

Either way, the victim is dehumanized and assaulted.

I'm still trying to think of examples of how we can ethically lay part of the blame on victims for violent crime. Attempted murder, lighting somebody on fire, having acid thrown in one's face, punching somebody in the face if you just don't like that face or their beliefs, etc.

If we don't ethically lay part of the blame for victims of domestic violence ("she shouldn't have been nagging him"), then it would be unethical to lay part of the blame for rape on the victim as well, especially since the vast majority of rape cases occur by somebody the victim knows and trusts.

 

[Revoltingest]

Suppose we look at a general case regarding assault, all kinds of wrongful assault:
The parties involved:
1) Potential victims
2) Actual victims
3) Potential perpetrators
4) Actual perps
5) Those who can influence those listed in #1 thru #4, eg, government, schools, parents.

Who has the ability to affect the risk of assault?
Each & all should take responsibility in their own context.
Potential vics:
- Can avoid behavior associated with high risk.
- Can prepare for defense during an assault.
Actual vics:
- Can pursue prosecution of actual perps.
Potential perps:
- Can be trained to avoid assaulting others.
- Can remain in prison, away from society.
Actual perps:
- Can reform themselves. <--- This one is here for completeness. I don't know if it's useful.
Schools:
- Can educate kids on the legality & risks of their conduct.
Government:
- Can vigorously prosecute, incarcerate, rehabilitate, or perhaps otherwise control actual perps.
- Can make conditions under its control safer, eg, prisons, workplaces

 

[idav]

Do we have advice for people on how not to get murdered?

If everyone would take my advice and become ninjas. I blame anyone for not being a ninja.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Do we have advice for people on how not to get murdered?

Stop running at midnight thinking nobody will harm you despite the consistency. This is why my sister carries pepper spray and trust me it works. Now that I think of it though, perhaps victims should never be blamed for anything. Victims should never be blamed for looking at a "do no touch: Electrified fence" sign and touching it anyways resulting in death. Victims are always innocent regardless of the situations they put themselves in such as beckoning a tiger and expecting it not to nab your hide and slaughter you. Oops, now that I think of it, that happened not to long ago in San Francisco

 

[idav]

Stop running at midnight thinking nobody will harm you despite the consistency. This is why my sister carries pepper spray and trust me it works. Now that I think of it though, perhaps victims should never be blamed for anything. Victims should never be blamed for looking at a "do no touch: Electrified fence" sign and touching it anyways resulting in death. Victims are always innocent regardless of the situations they put themselves in such as beckoning a tiger and expecting it not to nab your hide and slaughter you. Oops, now that I think of it, that happened not to long ago in San Francisco

Last I checked, victims don't normally ask to be victims.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Suppose we look at a general case regarding assault, all kinds of wrongful assault:
The parties involved:
1) Potential victims
2) Actual victims
3) Potential perpetrators
4) Actual perps
5) Those who can influence those listed in #1 thru #4, eg, government, schools, parents.

Who has the ability to affect the risk of assault?
Each & all should take responsibility in their own context.
Potential vics:
- Can avoid behavior associated with high risk.
- Can prepare for defense during an assault.
Actual vics:
- Can pursue prosecution of actual perps.
Potential perps:
- Can be trained to avoid assaulting others.
- Can remain in prison, away from society.
Actual perps:
- Can reform themselves. <--- This one is here for completeness. I don't know if it's useful.
Schools:
- Can educate kids on the legality & risks of their conduct.
Government:
- Can vigorously prosecute, incarcerate, rehabilitate, or perhaps otherwise control actual perps.
- Can make conditions under its control safer, eg, prisons, workplaces

For the purposes of this thread, however, are there behaviors that place a victim at higher risk of being murdered? And do we hear about these behaviors told toward victims of attempted murder as ways to let them know how they should also bear some responsibility?

Hey, that police officer unlawfully shot that unarmed kid in the chest. Maybe the kid should have been told how to avoid not getting shot in the chest while being held down....maybe he should have tried something different?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Stop running at midnight thinking nobody will harm you despite the consistency. This is why my sister carries pepper spray and trust me it works. Now that I think of it though, perhaps victims should never be blamed for anything. Victims should never be blamed for looking at a "do no touch: Electrified fence" sign and touching it anyways resulting in death. Victims are always innocent regardless of the situations they put themselves in such as beckoning a tiger and expecting it not to nab your hide and slaughter you. Oops, now that I think of it, that happened not to long ago in San Francisco

Can you bring up examples that don't include electrified fences or tigers? But actual human beings assaulting another human being (better yet, examples other than rape)?

 

[Poisonshady313]

This thread is in many respects an extension of this one, only the intent here is to consider perpetrators and targets of crimes more broadly. In that thread, I'm noticing a worrying tendency for some to to completely absolve targets of crimes of any contribution to the event. Although I suspect some of this is due to choice of words and semantics, it is very concerning to me that people are able to ignore causal variables simply because they are centered on the victim of a crime.

Being a target of a crime does not magically erase the fact that aspects of that person's behavior or personality contributed to the situation. Suggesting so is unscientific, unwise, and potentially downright dangerous. It nullifies our ability to conduct an impartial, objective risk analysis of crime and its causes, and in particular it won't allow us to develop ways that we can protect ourselves from becoming targets. After all, if we can't bother to acknowledge how we, as targets, contributed to the situation, we're going to be blind to how we can change our behavior to reduce our risk. We need to take responsibility for ourselves too, not just engage in rubbish finger-pointing exercises.

Thoughts?

The way you're wording yourself sounds so absolute, it seems as if you believe universally that every victim is in some way at least partially responsible...

Wouldn't you agree that in many (or if you can't bring yourself to say "many", perhaps at least SOME) cases, the victim is and ought to be fully and completely absolved?

In 1987, two people were beaten with a hammer, doused in gasoline, and set on fire because their coworker (Robert Laverne Henry) wanted to get away with stealing $1,200.

What percentage of that crime were the victims responsible for? How did they contribute to the situation?

 

[Revoltingest]

For the purposes of this thread, however, are there behaviors that place a victim at higher risk of being murdered?

Yes.
I know some in such circumstances. Some I knew (the risk bit'm).

And do we hear about these behaviors told toward victims of attempted murder as ways to let them know how they should also bear some responsibility?

Yes....in a sense.
What you phrase as "bear some responsibility", I would see as "take responsibility".

Hey, that police officer unlawfully shot that unarmed kid in the chest. Maybe the kid should have been told how to avoid not getting shot in the chest while being held down....maybe he should have tried something different?

I'm not so blind as to miss that your examples are designed to defeat my thesis.
I'll change your example to advising people how to minimize risk when dealing with cops.
Manipulate the cop's perception of one, minimize their sense of seeing one as a threat, etc.
I do this to control their behavior. So I know it can be done by normal people too.
Is it perfect...without flaw? Sure. But that's no excuse to eschew or poo poo the opportunity presented.

 

[Revoltingest]

The way you're wording yourself sounds so absolute, it seems as if you believe universally that every victim is in some way at least partially responsible...

To dwell solely upon extremes & absolutes is dysfunctional. One cannot anticipate & address
all possibilities, but one can determine what is likely, & do what is practical to minimize risk.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Thoughts?

Fundamentally, I think it comes down to peoples' propensity to paint things they find to be highly emotional as black and white. Nothing seems to engender overgeneralization and oversimplification as much as emotionally volatile topics. I understand the urge, I just don't find it to be particularly productive or honest.

 

[Poisonshady313]

To dwell in extremes & absolutes is dysfunctional. One cannot anticipate & address all
possibilities, but one can determine what is likely, & do what is practical to minimize risk.

You work at a fabric store. It's after hours, and several employees are still there, performing their closing duties. Your coworker overpowers you, ties you up, beats you with a hammer, douses you in gasoline, sets you on fire.

What portion of your demise are you responsible for in this situation?

 

[Revoltingest]

You work at a fabric store. It's after hours, and several employees are still there, performing their closing duties. Your coworker overpowers you, ties you up, beats you with a hammer, douses you in gasoline, sets you on fire.

It seems I'm screwed.

What portion of your demise are you responsible for in this situation?

Perhaps you think your question is rhetorical, but I'll answer nonetheless.
I'd evaluate my circumstances....I'm injured & on fire.
Have I anything to use to put out the fire?
Have I anything which I can use as a weapon against the perp?
Can I summon help?
If any one of these opportunities is available, then it is my responsibility to avail myself of it.

Do you believe that by your example you disprove the usefulness
of anticipating risks, & taking reasonable steps to minimize them?

 

[Poisonshady313]

It seems I'm screwed.


Perhaps you think your question is rhetorical, but I'll answer nonetheless.

I didn't think it was rhetorical. I was expecting an answer.

I'd evaluate my circumstances....I'm injured & on fire.
Have I anything to use to put out the fire?
Have I anything which I can use as a weapon against the perp?
Can I summon help?
If any one of these opportunities is available, then it is my responsibility to avail myself of it.

And if none of these opportunities are available?

Do you believe that by your example you disprove the usefulness
of anticipating risks, & taking reasonable steps to minimize them?

No. I'm disproving the notion that all victims are in some way responsible for contributing to their own victimhood.

Sometimes, bad people do bad things to innocent people, and insisting that all victims are in a position where they could have done more serves to lessen the responsibility of the criminal in cases where it shouldn't.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

When I go away on a trip, among other things, I make sure all the doors and windows on my house are locked. I don't do this to cover my *** or avoid blame if my house gets broken into. I do it to reduce the chance that I'll come home to an empty house.