Do rape victims bear any responsibility for stupid decisions that endanger them?

Great Debates
61

**fluiddruid **, suppose my girlfriend says to me she is thinking of going out to meet her friend across town and I tell her that if she does that there is a risk of really bad thing X happening to her. X may be something for which a human is responsible or it may be something for which no human is responsible. X may be an act of nature or an act of humans. X may be illegal or, on the contrary, it may even be mandated by the law. If bad thing X is caused by someone’s criminal actions then that person is 100 % responsible for the crime. If bad thing X is caused by nature there is no responsibility for having caused it. If bad thing X is mandated by law the person doing bad thing X will be commended and rewarded. The fact is that by going across town to see her friend my girlfriend is assuming the risk that very bad thing X may happen to her and I point it out to her. Now she is free to decide whether seeing her friend is worth the risk of bad thing X happening or not. The decision to assume the risk that very bad thing X may happen to her is hers and hers alone. The cause of bad thing X is irrelevant. Whether bad thing X does or does not happen to her if she goes out is also irrelevant to the fact that she is assuming the real risk that it may happen if she does go out. She and nobody else is making the decision on whether to assume the risk of suffering X.

>> True, but irrelevant. We’re not talking about what’s wise to do; we’re talking about responsibility.

Well, we are talking about both and I am primarily talking about what is wise. I will ask my girlfriend not to take certain risks because I want her to be safe. I do not want her to become a victim even if she is in the right.

>> The opportunistic criminal is no less morally responsible than the criminal who stalks more wary victims

You are repeating what I have already said: The criminal is 100% responsible for his actions but it seems that some people assume assigning some responsibility to the victim somehow diminishes the responsibility of the criminal. It does not. They are separate things. No one has argued the criminal is any less responsible so please do not argue this point which nobody is proposing.

One night I needed to get cash but when I arrived at the ATM there were a bunch os suspicious-looking guys hanging out there. Now I had a choice: Use the ATM and assume the risk that I may be parted from my money, or not use the ATM. The fact that I desperately needed the money has no bearing on the fact that I am assuming a risk. The fact that the risk is caused by humans also has no bearing on the fact. If I use the ATM and they mug me they are still 100% responsible for their actions but that does not change the fact that I chose to assume the risk in the first place.

>> Let’s say you’re driving down the road and a drunk driver rams into you and you end up in a wheelchair for life. Would we say that you are partially responsible for the accident because you chose to get into the car? How could anyone say that your decision to get into the car was the proximate cause of the accident?

chula, I have much more sympathy for the person who suffered something bad when doing something where the odds of that happening were very low than for the person who suffered the same thing while doing something where the odds of that happening were much higher because of the assumption of risk.

So, I have a lot of sympathy for the person who is driving safely and is hit by a car and ends up in a wheelchair for life. I have a lot less sympathy (although still some) for the person who gets drunk or otherwise chooses to drive dangerously and as a consequence ends up in a wheelchair for life.

I have a lot of sympathy for a woman who is in her home and a stranger breaks in and rapes her. I have less sympathy for a woman who is in a drunken orgy and after having sex with three guys decides to reject the fourth and he rapes her. Of course it is wrong for him to rape her and nobody here is denying that. But her actions have increased the chances that something bad may happen to her and so she was assuming the risk.

I have a lot more sympathy for the innocent person who is shot to steal his money than for the gang memeber who is dealing drugs and is shot in a turf war.

62

>> The victims cannot bear some responsibility without the criminals losing some, and I cannot see how that is ever the case.

This is the crux of the matter and I totally disagree. The responsibility of the criminal is totally independent of your own responsibility.

Bad thing X which you are assuming the risk for may be caused by big criminal action or by very small criminal action or by no criminal action or by positive civic action. What responsibility lies with the person or things which cause the act in no way changes your own responsibility in assuming the risk.

If my girlfriend tells me she is planning on taking care of a mentally retarded man who is twice her size and who can get violent, the man will bear no criminal responsibility because he is retarded but my girlfriend is assumming a very high risk indeed. Her responsibility in assuming the risk in no way originates in diminishing the responsibility of the other side. There is no responsibility on the other side which can be diminished.

If I have a pit bull which has ocassionally become violent with people and I ask you to hold it for me, you are assuming a risk and if the dog bites you the dog is not criminally responsible.

63

fluiddruid and anyone who disagrees with me, please answer the following question:

My girlfriend wants to go out in her $20,000 car but there is a 1 in 500 risk that she may lose the car if she does that. The cause of the risk may be criminal acts by others, acts of nature, even acts of law enforcement. The risk may be any of these or even a combination of several or all of these. The fact is if she drives out in her car there is a 1/500 risk that she will lose her car. It is her decision whether to go out or not but she is well aware that if she decides to go out there is a 1 in 500 chance she may lose the car which would be a very bad thing for her.

It would be better if she could drive her car without this risk but there is nothing we can do right now to change the odds. Her only option is whether to take the risk or not.

She makes the decision to drive and risk the odds. Who is responsible for this decision and its possible consequences?

64

And, BTW, the law is on my side on this. Of course, If I assume a risk and suffer the consequences myself I cannot sue myself for damages but if I put others at risk the law makes no distinction on whether the risk was created by nature or by humans, legal or illegal. The fact is I am liable if I knowingly put others at risk.

A customer who comes into my establishment has a reasonable expectation of safety and if he suffers injury while on my premises I am liable if I did not take all reasonable measures to prevent the risk even if the risk is caused by the criminal action of others. If I know the shopping center has a very high crime rate and choose to do nothing to protect my customers and one of my customers is assaulted, I will be found liable even though the crime was committed by others and I have no part of it.
If a University has a high crime rate and it hides that fact from students it will be found liable. Suppose a university student is assaulted when she is walking through a wooded area. The risk was known. Who is responsible? If the University hid the fact from the students it will surely be found liable, as it should be. OTOH, if the University informs all the students that the woods behind building X have been the site of several assaults and to be very careful, then any students who choose to go there are assuming the risk and the university will not be found liable. The fact that a student has a legal right to be there makes no difference in the fact that she assumed a known risk by going there. That is the way the law sees it and I happen to agree.

The fact that the danger is caused by criminal acts is irrelevant. The criminals when caught will be judged on their own acts but that does not affect whether the responsibility of assuming the risk is on the university or the student.

65

And, BTW, the law is on my side on this. Of course, If I assume a risk and suffer the consequences myself I cannot sue myself for damages but if I put others at risk the law makes no distinction on whether the risk was created by nature or by humans, legal or illegal. The fact is I am liable if I knowingly put others at risk.

A customer who comes into my establishment has a reasonable expectation of safety and if he suffers injury while on my premises I am liable if I did not take all reasonable measures to prevent the risk even if the risk is caused by the criminal action of others. If I know the shopping center has a very high crime rate and choose to do nothing to protect my customers and one of my customers is assaulted, I will be found liable even though the crime was committed by others and I have no part of it.
If a University has a high crime rate and it hides that fact from students it will be found liable. Suppose a university student is assaulted when she is walking through a wooded area. The risk was known. Who is responsible? If the University hid the fact from the students it will surely be found liable, as it should be. OTOH, if the University informs all the students that the woods behind building X have been the site of several assaults and to be very careful, then any students who choose to go there are assuming the risk and the university will not be found liable. The fact that a student has a legal right to be there makes no difference in the fact that she assumed a known risk by going there. That is the way the law sees it and I happen to agree.

The fact that the danger is caused by criminal acts is irrelevant. The criminals when caught will be judged on their own acts but that does not affect whether the responsibility of assuming the risk is on the university or the student.

66

Certainly,agreeing that the victims are not morally responsible for being raped after making decisions to do certain things does not make women safer. That was never the issue here. Agreeing that the victim of a mugging is not responsible for the mugging doesn’t decrease the chances of being mugged, either. But other crimes are not a perfect analogy to rape for one big reason- there’s an attitude out there, specific to rape as far as I know, such that if a woman engages in risky behavior, not only does it lessen the rapist’s responsibilty, but in some people’s minds. it negates the fact that is was a rape at all.No one ever says about a mugging " Well why did he take out his money on the subway at night if he didn’t want someone to take his money?" ( although the victim might be called stupid), but it’s all too common to hear about a rape " Why would she go to his room if she didn’t want to have sex?"

67

There seems to be a lot of discussion on this board around the subject of risk, and here is my take on the subject…

I fully agree with Sailor’s assessment that life is a consistent management of ‘degrees of risks’. We make each decision in life in a totally selfish way that, to the best of our reckoning, has the most advantageous balance of risk and reward. It is the rewards we seek in life that enable us to feel we lead a fulfilling existence. The acceptable balance between risk and reward is different for each individual (and even as individuals we fluctuate), which is why there is no answer to Wring’s question as to where the ‘living one’s life’ line lies. Generally, however, they tend to be proportional. That is, the pursuit of greater rewards tends to carry greater risks.

So in seeking life’s rewards, what is an ‘acceptable’ risk, and to what extent we are individually responsible for various outcomes?

The simple answer is that we, as responsible adults determine what is an acceptable risk to us, and therefore we are wholly responsible for each decision we make.

Before making a decision one makes an assessment of the situation, of known or deductible facts and of associated, identifiable risks. One then makes a decision to pursue a course of action designed to achieve a certain goal. Smart decision-makers choose a course of action that allows them to maintain control (i.e. be positioned strategically to make reactionary decisions and further alter the course of events as they unfold). Smart decision-makers have clearly defined exit strategies to abort the pursuit of their goal and eliminate further risks should events turn against them.

Responsible adults know that things can go wrong. Taking risk implies that there is a probability (large or small) that things will not turn out as desired. When they don’t we curse our luck, like a gambler who loses his money by betting on red instead of black. When we buy a lottery ticket we know the risk of loss is high so we do not consider ourselves unlucky if we do not win, rather lucky if we do. But no one else forces us to make the bet in the first place.

If one gets into a car in order to travel from A to B one balances the relative benefits of speed, safety, convenience, etc. in comparison with other forms of travel (or not travelling at all). We know that there is a safety risk in travelling by car, and are fully aware that one potential (although unlikely) outcome of the decision to travel is that we may be involved in an injurious accident. Because the historical probabilities suggest that the risk of accident is small, most people decide to ignore that risk on the basis that it is outweighed by the benefits of making the journey, or that alternatives carry a higher risk. The victim of an accident that has chosen to make that journey is responsible in that he willingly took the risk, even if the penalty seems harsh or unfair.

Even if things happen completely unexpectedly we are still responsible for the decisions that got us there. We may be absolved by a society that determines we were unfortunate because we ignored negligible risks, but the real truth is that our analysis was negligent and we failed to identify all potential risks in advance. We live in a world where the consequences for poor decision-making can sometimes be very harsh indeed.

The question is: does the victim of rape bear any moral responsibility for putting herself in harm’s way.

Being a victim means that you have relinquished control of events. The victim of an accident has lost control to the forces of physics or nature. The victim of crime has lost control to another person, or persons, who then abuses that position. Once control has been relinquished, the victim can no longer be ‘responsible’ for events because he/she is no longer a decision-maker. Rape is such an abhorrent crime because control is acquired by force (or threat thereof) and (short of murder) it is the most awful abuse of that control.

Therefore the victim of rape cannot be responsible for the rape itself (by definition it is lack of consent). However, the decision to take risks (checking into a hotel room or getting into a car with virtual strangers) in order to achieve one’s goal implies responsibility for putting oneself in harm’s way and therefore suffering the consequences. It in no way mitigates the crime but poor decision-making does imply a share of blame. The difficult issue is the moral aspect.

Society provides us with a moral framework to guide us in making our decisions. Moral responsibility implies an onus on a decision-maker to choose courses of action that are ‘good’ or ‘right’ as determined by society. Occasionally to get our way we will cross the boundary and act immorally from committing a crime to telling a lie.

No one would refute that a rapist is wholly responsible for his actions and has acted immorally in the eyes of society. Does the victim bear any moral responsibility, not by being raped, but by putting herself in harm’s way? Is it ‘good’, ‘right’, ‘correct’ for a woman to take ill-advised, significant risks, in blatant disregard of her own safety?

If the question had not included the word ‘moral’ I believe the answer would be YES (we could debate the extent of responsibility but it would exist), but as it is, I think the answer is NO. IMHO it is not society’s position to determine to what extent we take risks with our lives. Therefore we have no ‘moral’ obligation or responsibility to society when the risks we take turn bad.

68

I wasn’t refering to the situation described in the OP, but to the situation of the settllers in the Palestinian occupied territories.

69

Justhink

Please define your terms, and make your assumptions overt. What is personality evidence, and for what reason are we at this point discussing the nature of females as opposed to males?

Poststructuralist theorists who disguise unstated/unquestioned belief-packages in polysyllabled shrinkwrap irritate me. I have some vague notion that you’re saying that men seek sex from women*, that women apply some sort of criteria for approving sex and men mislead women vis-a-vis these criteria in some fashion**, and that this act of misleading women constitutes rape in and of itself***?

I think you have two options here: either develop a well-architectured argument that lays out a rigorous convincing argument defending these statements as logical conclusions, or lay it out for us in plain language in such a way as to convince us that they are such common-sense truths that we should accept them as axioms that don’t require defining or defending.

And in either case, drop the Jacque Derrida routine. It don’t fly here.

  • (in a one-way street sort of way, a notion neither declared nor defended)
    ** (the Universal Woman, i.e., they’re all alike, equally easy to fool, and all want the same thing?)
    *** (was it Humpty Dumpty who said that a word means what I say it means when I use it?)
70

I don’t have much to add as most positions are covered, but I wanted to tell you, AHunter3, how much I appreciated your first post in this thread. I tend to regard all men as potential rapists but I like your view much better. I’d never seen it expressed like that before and I really appreciate it. [/hijack]

What’s strange is that women get blamed (disapproved of) even when nothing has happened. If she have put herself into a risky situation and made it out safely, they may still get “You went with that guy alone? Do you know what could have happened?!” and some diminished respect. Small wonder the responsiblility for a rape is often placed at least partly on them.

71

I do not think sailor is trying to blame rape victims, only pointing out that life…is…risk. I wholly agree with this.

Do rape victims bear any responsibility? Well, that is to ask this question: are there circumstances where a victim of this crime can be said to have been negligent in their own safety? As I do not have a firm grasp on the psychology of rapists, I cannot say that there must be such a line drawn, but it seems as though there probably is such a line (albeit fuzzy and circumstantial, as with most human behavior).

I am not clear on what sort of “responsibility” we could assign to the victim, however, other than the general sort of anthropic “if I wasn’t there it wouldn’t have happened” sort, which doesn’t seem to really fall under the term “responsibility” in any sense (except in the case of negligence, again).

If we accept the fact that rapists exist, certain behavior automatically gains a higher degree of risk (though I do not know that you could, in general, declare which behavior). A person is generally responsible for their own risk management. This does not imply fault or other forms of culpability, to me. Could a victim of rape had made choices which would have alleviated or eliminated the situation? Obviously, this goes for all situations. In some cases, we would tend to say that a person had acted unreasonably given the context of the situation, behavior, and so on.

It is unreasonable for people to act in such-and-such a manner. This does not make it their fault for anything bad that happens, but it does indicate that some idealistic perspective doesn’t help anything.

Of course it would be nice if there was no crime in general. Now that we all agree on that (as if it were a point of contention!)…

72

>> I tend to regard all men as potential rapists

Some men tend to regard all women as potential sluts but at least they have the decency to not post their thoughts here. I can’t see why yours are any more acceptable.

73

>> I tend to regard all men as potential rapists

I really hope you mean that until you get to know someone, it’s best to treat them cautiously, rather than that all men will rape if given the chance.

74

There is nothing special about rape other than it tends to affect two populations almost exclusively: men in prison, and women in general.

I think it is clearly obvious to be negligent of one’s safety. This applies to all activites and ways of life. sven’s comment that she cannot help but be a girl… well, no. But: so? Ovarian cancer also only affects women (obviously!). Is it possible to be negligent here? Certainly. Only women can get pregnant. Is it possible to have sex negligently? Certainly. Women can get raped. Is it possible to act negligently here? Well, sure, as much as a crime in general can occur to someone. There are reasonable precautions people can take. If they fail to take these, they are negligent in their own safety. This does not remove any blame from the rapist, or attach any blame to the victim. The rapist was definitely in the wrong, no doubt about it, and no one deserves to have a crime committed against them. But, for all that, there is still the possibility of negligence. It is real, and it should not be brushed aside with whimsy related to an ideal mode of existence.

75

gigi writes

sailor and robertliguori get potentially offended.

Of robertliguori’s perspectives on the overall topic, we can say little at this point (unless he’s expounded on the subject in other threads); whereas **sailor[/b ]equivocates a bit, saying that women are not morally responsible for getting themselves raped but may be culpably irresponsible and foolish by not being sufficiently careful not to get themselves into a dangerous situation. Or at least that’s my read on what he said.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR WOMEN

• Do not think of all men as potential rapists. Do not anticipate that a person might try to rape you, given the opportunity, just because he is a male. Smile and act nice and be friendly and don’t offend the guys by acting like you think they are likely to do such a thing. Guys hate that.

• Do not, however, put yourself at risk by behaving foolishly and getting yourself in a situations where one or males has you alone or insufficiently defended and without an escape route, or where it is decently likely that one or more males might be able to trap you in such a situation.

I’m sure those of you who are female will have no difficulty interpresting these simple instructions. If you find yourself confused, though, just ask any male and after a careful consideration of the context in which you are posing the question we’ll be glad to elaborate on how you should or should have behaved.

76

thanks erislover - for the use of the word “reasonable”.
and that’s where I’m having difficulty w/sailors position.

All life is indeed a risk. To that end, yes, any specific choice some one makes, they are ‘responsible’ for that choice.

HOwever I would contend:

  1. It is reasonable for a woman to go to work, go to school, go out socially.

  2. That in order to do these things she will use various methods of transportation, including walking, bicycling, car, bus, rides, cabs, etc.

  3. That in doing these things, she may in fact cross paths with a potential rapist.

  4. That if she does cross paths with a rapist, that is a function of chance, outside of her control.

  5. that because #4 exists, she should take ‘reasonable’ precautions - which would be, for me, the same ‘reasonable’ precautions I’d suggest to anyone - that walking through a high crime area is not a good plan, that one should use some degree of caution wrt getting into a strangers’ car, that if you’re intending to drink/imbibe, you should insure that one of your party has agreed to be a Designated Driver, and so on.

  6. However, since #4 exists, it is impossible to reduce one’s risks to zero, so even if some one has taken ‘reasonable precautions’, they are still potentially at risk.

  7. I am unwilling to ascribe a level of responsability to some one based on their chance encounter w/a rapist, because they failed to ascribe the ‘appropriate level’ of risk/benefit/ management to the situation.

While it may in fact be that the person in the OP ‘increased’ her risk of meeting a potential rapist by getting into a limo w/ men she didn’t know well, that is not the proximate cause of the rape

THe proximate cause of the rape was the encounter w/the rapist.

If she’d instead gotten into a car w/a man she’d known for quite a while, she still could have been raped

If she’d been sober she still could have been raped

If she’d stayed home, she still could have been raped.

77

:wink:

I guess that comment needs some clarification. I don’t see men as automatically evil because they are men. I don’t see them as naturally violent or disrespectful of women, but there is always that possibility. It’s like my mom not leaving us alone with men as kids because you just never know who will molest kids, even though the vast majority wouldn’t think about it. Of course there are men I love dearly who I never would think would hurt me.

If it were a real possibility that the actions of a slut would violate you horribly, you might believe that all women could potentially be sluts and be on guard accordingly.

78

wring, your points are all able to be applied to any number of crimes with victims, though, just to be clear from my end. Just because a woman can, in principle, be raped at any time doesn’t mean there aren’t things she can actively do to help avert this risk. In fact, the same thing this woman should do are good general rules for all people to follow.

I remain unclear (personally) whether a person can really be negligent here. In the case of, for example, theft of goods from an unlocked car negligence seems more or less easy to determine. For rape, though… :shrug: I am not sure what negligence would be like here.

True, dressing in such-and-such a way is not an invitation for rape. Fine: I agree; but: I’m not a rapist. I think this is a very important point that some ideologies seem to gloss over. Hell, I’d love to have tattoos and piercings everywhere, but I’d lose my job. Is that right? Well, such is society. I can try to change things, but that doestn’ begin with telling everyone to pierce their noses and lips and eyebrows and find them out of a job. Same goes here. Of course a woman shouldn’t have to worry about rape. It would be nice if all of us could live without worry of crime, acts of god, and so on. But I think that is quite out of anyone’s reach; so here we are.

Of course a woman could be raped in any number of circumstances. But disallowing certain behaviors or circumstances can help alleviate the risk of being raped. This is why we lock our doors, why we [are supposed to] have a list of numbers to call to cancel credit cards, why we shouldn’t travel alone, why we shouldn’t pick up hitchikers, and so on.

Risk of death or harm is never zero. I don’t even think it is meaningful to assign risk to a scale which would lead us to think so, but risk can be lessened, and in doing so we trade off some things for this safety. The safety isn’t illusory just because it isn’t perfect; it is just safety in its most normal form (which isn’t perfect).

I do not know what women should do to avoid rape that isn’t just normal “reasonable” behavior. Which is to say: I would imagine that most cases of rape show the victim to be blameless (always) and not negligent (normal). I would not assign any form of responsibility to the victim. BUT that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t suggest certain behaviors are unappropriate or unsafe in some context or other. Just because it isn’t the victim’s fault (or just because she doesn’t deserve it) doesn’t mean they can stop acting responsibly in the first place. What applies to rape-aversion seems to me to apply to avoiding many crimes in general.

So I don’t know if we agree or not, wring.

79

I don’t know if we do or not. Certainly all those points do apply to any crime/victimization.

However, the rule of ‘reasonableness’ is what I was focusing on - it was ‘unreasonable’ in the extreme (IMHO) to suggest that ever dining out or getting into a car w/a male could be seen as ‘risky’ behavior. That was my whole "when does she get to simply live her life’ gig.

I believe most people should take prudent precautions to avoid being victimized, like:

  1. Avoid high crime areas when possible.
  2. Keep valuables under lock and key.
  3. Keep aware of surroundings.
    But when it gets to the point where some one agrees that ‘getting into a car w/ a date, dining out w/said date’ can be considered ‘risky behavior’ (which to me, implies that a wise, prudent person would avoid it), then I think it’s passed ‘reasonable’ and gets into the ‘blame the victim’ category.

(here’s hoping this doesn’t double post - I reloaded the thread and it didn’t show, so…)

80

I would like to ask the board if they consider the rapes described in the OP as a date/acquaintance rape, or a stranger rape.

I would consider it a stranger rape. I would also consider it an example of stupidity and naivete almost breath-taking in its absolute purity.

If, as some female posters seem to imply, all men are either potential rapists, or should be considered so, can an American woman reach the age of 18 and still get drunk and into a car with strangers based on an obvious lie like “we can get you backstage with Eminem”? In New York City?

I sincerely hope that this is not a typical example of a date rape, because it makes me want to advocate going back to the days when women needed chaperones, and you didn’t speak to a strange man without an introduction.

People should (as wring says) take prudent precautions to defend themselves and their goods. But getting into a strange car with Emimen fans cannot be considered prudent.

“When does she get to live her life?” Well, if living her life means acting in a blatently stupid way, never. If it isn’t rape, it’ll be a car crash or something else catastrophic.

Regards,
Shodan