Judge to woman groped in a bar: "If you wouldn't have been there that night, none of this would..."

[LeeshaJoy]

FWIW, guys, the judge did eventually realize what a boneheaded thing that was to say: Judge Hatch apologizes to victim

“As a Coconino County Superior Court judge, it is my responsibility to ensure that all victims and defendants are treated fairly and in a respectful manner in the courtroom,” Hatch wrote in the statement. “It’s a responsibility I take very seriously. I also believe victims should not be blamed for coming forward to report crimes.”

[naita]

@MaxTheVool

“Blaming the victim” is one of the most useless and stupid phrases in existence.

Situation one: a woman engages in vaguely risky behavior, and is sexually assaulted. During the trial, somehow the fact that the woman was engaging in said behavior is brought up (although it is clearly irrelevant to the attacker’s guilt), and for some bizarre reason, it influences his sentencing.
Situation two: a woman engages in vaguely risky behavior, and is sexually assaulted. During the trial, the attacker is sentenced to the maximum penalty allowable, as it’s clear to all reasonable people that his culpability is in no way diminished by the fact that the woman was engaging in vaguely risky behavior. Later on, people on a message board are discussing the topic, and one of them says “gosh, she probably shouldn’t have engaged in (vaguely risky behavior)”, intending that as useful advice to other women.
Both of these are “blaming the victim”, but situation one is TERRIBLE. Situation two is basically utterly harmless. And yet there’s a lot of conflation of the two going on here.

Bullshit. It’s the prevalence of opinions like those in situation two that are still causing situations like your situation one. Of course there are differences. In situation one the judge should lose his or her job, while in situation two the poster should merely have his or her ass handed to him or her electronically, but they’re parts of the same problem.

[naita]

@LeeshaJoy

FWIW, guys, the judge did eventually realize what a boneheaded thing that was to say: Judge Hatch apologizes to victim

Looks to me like a bit of a fauxpology. “I also believe victims should not be blamed for coming forward to report crimes.” does not to me mean “Women should go to bars if they want to”, it means “We shouldn’t tell women they can’t go to bars if that may influence their willingness to report the crimes they experience there.”

[Muffin]

Judge Hatch apologizes to victim

She said her comments in court were “poorly communicated."

That’s pathetic.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@sinjin

Perhaps you are not reading too well either. I was not the person who stated that there were “plenty of lessons” to be learned from this. I was the person asking what specifically were those lessons. It was BM who posted:

there are lessons to be learned about awareness of one’s situation and ways that the entire situation could have been avoided

I still await the answer to my question as to what lessons are to be learned and how the entire situation could have been avoided by the victim.

This is getting tiresome. You are taking Master Blaster’s remarks out of context, and you have done so repeatedly. Let’s take the whole paragraph, shall we?

@Master Blaster

That the judge said it is probably outside of her duties and certainly the way that she said it was, but I think there’s validity to the underlying point that I think the judge was trying to make. At least from my perspective, it is by no means the a victim’s fault when they are victimized, but there are lessons to be learned about awareness of one’s situation and ways that the entire situation could have been avoided.

He was speaking generally. As for this specific instance:

@Master Blaster

This case is different though, I think it’s a bit unrealistic to try to draw attention to that because, while it’s certainly not a huge surprise that someone at a bar might touch someone else inappropriately, there aren’t really any reasonable precautions one might take to prevent that from happening that doesn’t also fundamentally defeat the purpose, like simply not going as it seems the judge suggested.

There’s your answer. There’s nothing to be learned from this. After implying otherwise -repeatedly- I opine that sinjin owes Master Blaster and the board an apology. I await it.

Further more a real actual woman in a bar was groped from behind her back. No laws of physics were broken. You may live in a different plane of existence than I do but in my plane a woman being assaulted is not MINUTIA.

Oh me too. And I never said otherwise. I was saying that I didn’t know about situational awareness to give said woman any advice on the subject. And that the issue was basically irrelevant to the culpability of the criminal. In the future I request that you endeavor not to distort the words and positions of others.

[AlienVessels]

@Starving_Artist

In other words, lots of bad shit can happen in bars no matter what your sex, and given that women in general are less capable of defending themselves than even the men who get the crap knocked out of themselves, I can see how someone like this judge might feel that a little extra admonishment in light of what she likely regarded as heedless behavior on the victim’s part might be a good idea. Just because a person has the right to do something it doesn’t necessarily mean they should, and my guess is that the judge’s comment was intended more as a word to the wise for the future than an attempt to blame the victim.

You could slip in a pool of spilled liquid at the grocery store and any reasonable person knows that that risk exists every time they go to a grocery store. You could get a life-altering concussion from such a fall.

Knowing you put yourself deliberately at risk means you should accept some of the responsibility for contributing to the elements that create the “accident”.

I very much doubt that any reasonable person thinks that the judge has a reasonable chance of changing anyone’s behavior as a result of his or her comment in this situation. It sounds far more like someone complaining about human nature in general and blaming the current example for it.

[MaxTheVool]

@naita

Bullshit. It’s the prevalence of opinions like those in situation two that are still causing situations like your situation one. Of course there are differences. In situation one the judge should lose his or her job, while in situation two the poster should merely have his or her ass handed to him or her electronically, but they’re parts of the same problem.

I think you overstate the ability of the things people say on message boards to influence the actions and verdicts of the legal system. And there’s a big difference between a response of “haha, she did X? What a stupid bitch, she had it coming” and “wow, that’s a terrible shame, and I feel horrible that that happened. At the same time, is there anything we can learn from what she did which might help prevent future similar tragedies”. Again, both are “blaming the victim”, but are not in remotely the same category of appropriateness or reasonableness.

I think (as has been discussed earlier in this thread) that part of what makes people so passionate about this issue is that the moment we start saying “here are things women can do to reduce their risk of sexual assault…” it sounds like we’re basically giving up on actually addressing the real issue, which is men who commit sexual assault. But we’re not. Even if we devoted huge amounts of societal resources of all types to reducing the number of men who would commit sexual assault (and I’m not commenting on whether we easily could or should), as long as that number remained non-zero (as it almost certainly would), it would still be prudent for women to take actions they could to reduce risk. And to a certain extent, there’s not much to say about that. Should men commit sexual assault? Ever? In any possible situation? No. We all agree. End of debate. But to what extent should women modify the choices they make to reduce, but not eliminate, the risk of being assaulted? Well, it’s a tricky question that obviously brings up all sorts of issues, otherwise this debate thread wouldn’t be going on.

[Hallucinex]

@Starving_Artist

I wouldn’t say you “deserve” to be admonished for it, but I also don’t think an admonishment would be out of line if it were to occur. Or, let me put it this way: if I were standing outside a bar with blood streaming down my face after having my head kicked in and an attending police officer were to point out that had I not been there in the first place my injuries would not have occurred, I would be much more inclined to chastisedly nod my head in agreement than to jump on my soapbox and screech about my right to be there.

“Well if you hadn’t tried to cross the road at that pedestrian crossing, you wouldn’t have put yourself in a situation where a car might have careened around the corner and run you over” the officer said as I chastisedly nodded my head in agreement.

[panaccione]

Am I the only one who’s not outraged but is just looking it as a stupid thing for a judge to say?

I get that the victim is entirely innocent here and that the cop in question deserves all of the blame. I think the judge gets that too and thats why the guy got a felony conviction and number of other charges and penalties. But the judge is only human. She has to go through the whole proceeding and has likely seen thousands of cases like this one. Could she be frustrated herself and perhaps lack a decent answer for the victim?

I think it’s perfectly reasonable to ridicule this judges comment and expose it for the B.S. that it is. However, I think we go a bit overboard when we want to fire her over what is really a minor screw-up. Wait and see if the judge responds with an apology or not, then we see where she really stands.

[Lamia]

N/M

[Simple_Linctus]

@Scotty Mo

Am I the only one who’s not outraged but is just looking it as a stupid thing for a judge to say?

I get that the victim is entirely innocent here and that the cop in question deserves all of the blame. I think the judge gets that too and thats why the guy got a felony conviction and number of other charges and penalties. But the judge is only human. She has to go through the whole proceeding and has likely seen thousands of cases like this one. Could she be frustrated herself and perhaps lack a decent answer for the victim?

I think it’s perfectly reasonable to ridicule this judges comment and expose it for the B.S. that it is. However, I think we go a bit overboard when we want to fire her over what is really a minor screw-up. Wait and see if the judge responds with an apology or not, then we see where she really stands.

If she’s got any sense she won’t bother “apologising”. Nothing good can come from that.

Best thing to do is ignore it and quietly learn.

[sinjin]

@Measure_for_Measure

This is getting tiresome. You are taking Master Blaster’s remarks out of context, and you have done so repeatedly. Let’s take the whole paragraph, shall we? He was speaking generally. As for this specific instance: There’s your answer. There’s nothing to be learned from this. After implying otherwise -repeatedly- I opine that sinjin owes Master Blaster and the board an apology. I await it. Oh me too. And I never said otherwise. I was saying that I didn’t know about situational awareness to give said woman any advice on the subject. And that the issue was basically irrelevant to the culpability of the criminal. In the future I request that you endeavor not to distort the words and positions of others.

Let’s take a look at the whole post and not leave out the middle paragraph so we can see the specific context, shall we:

That the judge said it is probably outside of her duties and certainly the way that she said it was, but I think there’s validity to the underlying point that I think the judge was trying to make. At least from my perspective, it is by no means the a victim’s fault when they are victimized, but there are lessons to be learned about awareness of one’s situation and ways that the entire situation could have been avoided.

For instance, I had a few friends who, when we were in high school, were really into the whole goth thing. When we’d go places, they’d get stares, and going into stores and such they’d get followed around and watched because, presumably, they thought they might be shoplifting. One of them complained, and I pointed out that you can’t dress like that and then be surprised when people stare or watch you closely when you’re in the store or whatever. It’s not their fault so to say, since they weren’t doing anything wrong, but it wasn’t exactly unexpected responses. One of them stopped, the other didn’t really care and kept with it for a while.

This case is different though, I think it’s a bit unrealistic to try to draw attention to that because, while it’s certainly not a huge surprise that someone at a bar might touch someone else inappropriately, there aren’t really any reasonable precautions one might take to prevent that from happening that doesn’t also fundamentally defeat the purpose, like simply not going as it seems the judge suggested. Hell, the woman could completely avoid ever being touched against if she just never left her house. But what happened to this woman is well outside of any reasonable expectations and couldn’t have been avoided without unreasonable precautions, and it was said in a pretty crude way, so… yeah, quite poor…umm…judgment on the part of the judge to lecture the victim.

As I read it the first paragraph was about this specific judge and this specific victim. YMMV. The underlined, italicized part is the bit I had a problem with. The second paragraph deals with BM’s gothy clueless friends. Why? The third paragraph states that the case in question in this thread is different than his gothy friends case so why include it? Oh and this was poor…um…judgement on the part of the judge.

Since neither you nor I apparently know what BM’s actual thinking was I suggest we wait til he comes in and clarifies. As far as taking things out of context goes I think your last post could be used as an excellent example. I however don’t need an apology from you.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

@Whack-a-Mole

“…have happened to you.” (ran out of room in the title)

… “If you wouldn’t have been there that night, none of this would have happened to you” …

I’m speechless that a judge, of all people, would say such a thing. A female judge in particular.

Absolutely appalling. One is never to use “would” in both clauses of a conditional. It should have been “If you hadn’t been there that night, …”

ETA: I see this point has been raised. Thank heavens some people still care about careful speech!

[ohnodano]

@Starving_Artist

That there are risks involved in choosing to go places where rowdy strangers drink alcohol.

If you’re a woman these risks can mean sexual assault. If you’re a man they mean you get the shit beat out of you. I’ve seen some truly horrendous, life-altering wounds inflicted on men in bars, and the fact that the victims had every right to be there is scant consolation, I’m sure, as they go through the rest of their lives missing an eye, or an ear, or with an eight-inch scar across their face.

In other words, lots of bad shit can happen in bars no matter what your sex, and given that women in general are less capable of defending themselves than even the men who get the crap knocked out of themselves, I can see how someone like this judge might feel that a little extra admonishment in light of what she likely regarded as heedless behavior on the victim’s part might be a good idea. Just because a person has the right to do something it doesn’t necessarily mean they should, and my guess is that the judge’s comment was intended more as a word to the wise for the future than an attempt to blame the victim.

This fails. You can apply this argument to literally any situation outside of your home.
(Inside as well)

[Muffin]

@Starving_Artist

I wouldn’t say you “deserve” to be admonished for it, but I also don’t think an admonishment would be out of line if it were to occur. Or, let me put it this way: if I were standing outside a bar with blood streaming down my face after having my head kicked in and an attending police officer were to point out that had I not been there in the first place my injuries would not have occurred, I would be much more inclined to chastisedly nod my head in agreement than to jump on my soapbox and screech about my right to be there.

I heard that a fellow who died wouldn’t have had he not been born. Blame it on his mom.

While we’re at it, blame it on the victim and her mom.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@sinjin

Let’s take a look at the whole post and not leave out the middle paragraph so we can see the specific context, shall we:

As I read it the first paragraph was about this specific judge and this specific victim. YMMV. The underlined, italicized part is the bit I had a problem with. The second paragraph deals with BM’s gothy clueless friends. Why? The third paragraph states that the case in question in this thread is different than his gothy friends case so why include it? Oh and this was poor…um…judgement on the part of the judge.

Since neither you nor I apparently know what BM’s actual thinking was I suggest we wait til he comes in and clarifies. As far as taking things out of context goes I think your last post could be used as an excellent example. I however don’t need an apology from you.

Ok, I honestly read it differently than you did. Props for getting into the weeds and laying out your interpretation. My take was that the last sentence of the first paragraph was segueing into the first sentence of the second paragraph. But I have to admit (alas) the post isn’t crystal clear. I retract my irritation, calls for mea culpa, etc.

[sinjin]

@Measure_for_Measure

Ok, I honestly read it differently than you did. Props for getting into the weeds and laying out your interpretation. My take was that the last sentence of the first paragraph was segueing into the first sentence of the second paragraph. But I have to admit (alas) the post isn’t crystal clear. I retract my irritation, calls for mea culpa, etc.

bygones

[Starving_Artist]

@ohnodano

This fails. You can apply this argument to literally any situation outside of your home.
(Inside as well)

Everything carries a certain degree of risk, but that doesn’t mean all things are equally risky. I think most people would agree that a trip to their local Braum’s is less likely to result in injury than a trip to their local biker bar.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Measure_for_Measure

ETA:

• Well, not strictly true. But we haven’t really discussed situational awareness in depth, and frankly that’s a rather high bar to master. And I don’t know a lot about it anyway, at a deep level. Not part of my core skill set.

I’d be willing to bet I could walk up behind a female navy SEAL who is wearing a short skirt in a bar and feel her up before she knew what was happening.

Sure, she would turn around and kick my ass but the point being is even if we assume someone who is about as well trained in situational awareness as possible it is impossible to be movie-ninja-preternaturally aware even for the best trained people.

In a bar which is crowded and people bumping into each other regularly and the music is loud no one will be so utterly aware and careful as to stop the occurrence in the OP.

[Jamicat]

If you don’t want to be, “insert definition here”. Don’t put yourself in a position where that may be more likely to happen.

What’s wrong with that?