Victim-blaming

prinz

seenitall wrote: »

Like I said, I don't even know how to respond to your posts anymore.

That's a coincidence.

seenitall wrote: »

I find your attitude toward issues raised in this thread very blinkered and ill-advised.

What attitude? Firstly you mention something that is a major problem, but I've never come across, it appears other posters haven't either. You go on to make accusations about the justice system, which you don't backup when requested, then you still go on to talk about changes that need to be made so that a tiny minority of people don't turn common sense warnings and advice into "victim blaming"... I asked you a simple question, what changes could there possibly be... and you haven't answer.

seenitall wrote: »

What is common sense and fact in your view is anything but in mine.

Common sense is you don't put yourself in dangerous situations and places when you can avoid it. Simple really... but apparently it's not common sense to avoid unlit dangerous alleys that are non-hotspots for attacks or rapes?

seenitall wrote: »

(Your last question doesn't even make sense in reference to what I actually wrote, but I'm done bothering with these "crossed wires" occurrences with you.)

That's because you have yet to actually respond to any question I have put to you and insist on trying to tar anyone on the thread who doesn't share you particular world view as some sort of victim hater.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Dudess wrote: »

With these "Woman walks down a deserted lane and man rapes her" analogies, the hypothetical woman's actions of walking down that lane are always questioned, but I never see people asking what the man was doing down that laneway, what circumstances led to HIM being out and about that night, etc.

If he assaults the woman in that lane all that is irrelevant. If reported the police will investigate and charge him if he can be identified.

Perhaps you could make your point a bit more clear. Its not like people are saying he has a right to rape her

mcmoustache

Dudess wrote: »

With these "Woman walks down a deserted lane and man rapes her" analogies, the hypothetical woman's actions of walking down that lane are always questioned, but I never see people asking what the man was doing down that laneway, what circumstances led to HIM being out and about that night, etc.

Do you mean a rapist or a male victim?

If you mean the rapist, then most of us are too busy sharpening our pitchforks and putting up some scaffolding to think too deeply about what the rapist was doing there. The rest of us just assumed he was lying in wait to rape someone.

If you were thinking of a drunk man getting mugged down a dark alley, then others would be thinking that he was stupid to go down there. You can't just walk into dangerous areas and then clear yourself of all responsibility when something goes wrong.

seenitall

prinz wrote: »

What attitude? Firstly you mention something that is a major problem, but I've never come across, it appears other posters haven't either. You go on to make accusations about the justice system, which you don't backup when requested, then you still go on to talk about changes that need to be made so that a tiny minority of people don't turn common sense warnings and advice into "victim blaming"... I asked you a simple question, what changes could there possibly be... and you haven't answer.



Common sense is you don't put yourself in dangerous situations and places when you can avoid it. Simple really... but apparently it's not common sense to avoid unlit dangerous alleys that are non-hotspots for attacks or rapes?



That's because you have yet to actually respond to any question I have put to you and insist on trying to tar anyone on the thread who doesn't share you particular world view as some sort of victim hater.

What haven't I answered/responded to? If you look back at my posts, I am afraid you and anyone else who cares to have a read, will see that I have answered every one of your ridiculous claims about "facts" which are nothing of the kind, merely your opinion and nothing more; the fact that you feel compelled to present your views as "facts", speaks a lot for your arrogance, not to mention this latest post of yours is fairly dripping with it. Well done, you've really made your point now! :rolleyes:

"What attitude? Firstly you mention something that is a major problem, but I've never come across, it appears other posters haven't either." - so something can only be a major problem if you've come across it? A very enlightened attitude indeed. How about the fact that this very thread was started by someone other than myself, and, far from other posters not having ever come across it, I find quite a few of their views in line with my own (clue: first page of the thread, but also a few in other pages - not that I'm keeping score but if you are going to make such baseless claims...)?

"then you still go on to talk about changes that need to be made so that a tiny minority of people don't turn common sense warnings and advice into "victim blaming"... I asked you a simple question, what changes could there possibly be... and you haven't answer." - Oh sorry, buried as it was within all that inane posturing that passes for discussion in your practice, I must have missed a genuine question of yours. I see that now - my bad. For an answer, I will refer you to my post which speaks about changes in awareness about safety warnings being linked with victim-blaming; so, after all, it can be seen that you asked a question which I had already answered - aren't I clever?

I agree with your definition of common sense in this post. I disagreed with your use of it in the context you first mention common sense: "..but being in that lane she knew to be dark and dangerous is her fault. She needn't have been raped if she had gone a safer route." Meaning if she only had had common sense enough not to get herself raped, is that it? Tell me if I am wrong in my supposition of your reasoning, because I would really like to be.

"insist on trying to tar anyone on the thread who doesn't share you particular world view as some sort of victim hater." - But this is the funniest yet!! I insist (no less!) on anyone on the thread not sharing my world view being "some sort of victim hater"! :pac: Needless to say, you dreamed all that up in your head somewhere along the way, because nowhere in my posts will you find anything remotely coming within a sniffing distance of substantiating that claim.

The only thing that holds any water in that very venerable post of yours is the fact I haven't offered any back-up about my claim about the judicial system, which is true enough - I don't feel like looking for it now any more than I did then, but OK, I see that it is necessary:

"On January 24, 2011 Constable Michael Sanguinetti and another officer from the Toronto Police Service's 31 Division were speakers at a York University safety forum [7]. The school has had some problems with crime and the officers were meant to address prevention methods. Allegedly, Sanguinetti commented that "women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized”[8]. The officer later apologized for the remark. This comment was followed by another controversial incident in the Canadian justice system involving Justice Robert Dewar. On February 2011, while presiding over a rape case, Dewar remarked that on the evening of the alleged rape "sex was in the air" and the victims' behavior and attire may have given the attacker the wrong impression (she was wearing a tube top and heels)[9] He also mentioned that the victim was wearing makeup and had been drinking. The judge found the defendant guilty yet sentenced him to two years of probation. The judge also required that the defendant write the victim a letter of apology[10]. The typical sentence for such a crime is usually at least three years in prison but since the judge felt that the defendant wasn't threatening just “insensitive to the fact (she) was not a willing participant”[11] he will serve no jail time."

(Quote curtesy of Bottle of smoke on tLL "slutwalking" thread.)

prinz

seenitall wrote: »

What haven't I answered/responded to? If you look back at my posts, I am afraid you and anyone else who cares to have a read, will see that I have answered every one of your ridiculous claims about "facts" which are nothing of the kind, merely your opinion and nothing more; the fact that you feel compelled to present your views as "facts", speaks a lot for your arrogance, not to mention this latest post of yours is fairly dripping with it. Well done, you've really made your point now!:rolleyes:

:rolleyes: Really have I? I call it a fact that someone male or female, if they are concerned for their safety, should not go into a laneway or other area in the dark where it is known rapes or other attacks occur when they could easily avoid the area. Does that really have to be qualified by stating it as opinion?

The very nature of your response is laughable. By the way could you elaborate on what "arrogance" I have shown?

seenitall wrote: »

- so something can only be a major problem if you've come across it? A very enlightened attitude indeed. How about the fact that this very thread was started by someone other than myself, and, far from other posters not having ever come across it, I find quite a few of their views in line with my own (clue: first page of the thread, but also a few in other pages - not that I'm keeping score but if you are going to make such baseless claims...)?

What claim did I make that is baseless?

I never claimed it wasn't major just pointed out that I hadn't come across it? I also said other posters don't seem to notice this major problem either...again that seems true judging by other posts.

seenitall wrote: »

- Oh sorry, buried as it was within all that inane posturing that passes for discussion in your practice, I must have missed a genuine question of yours. I see that now - my bad. For an answer, I will refer you to my post which speaks about changes in awareness about safety warnings being linked with victim-blaming; so, after all, it can be seen that you asked a question which I had already answered - aren't I clever?

Oh fantastic. Now we are all aware everything is fine again? If I make an intentional safety warning and you receive it as victim blaming what's the solution? Who is in the right and who is in the wrong? Anything a bit less vague than "changes in awareness" by any chance?

Inane posturing is right.

seenitall wrote: »

Meaning if she only had had common sense enough not to get herself raped, is that it? Tell me if I am wrong in my supposition of your reasoning, because I would really like to be.

No, that isn't it.

seenitall wrote: »

But this is the funniest yet!! I insist (no less!) on anyone on the thread not sharing my world view being "some sort of victim hater"! :pac: Needless to say, you dreamed all that up in your head somewhere along the way, because nowhere in my posts will you find anything remotely coming within a sniffing distance of substantiating that claim.

You just did it in the paragrah above again, insinuating that I felt the victim was to blame for the act of rape. I have repeatedly pointed out that the two can be separated...and here

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72272964&postcount=42

seenitall wrote: »

The only thing that holds any water in that very venerable post of yours is the fact I haven't offered any back-up about my claim about the judicial system, which is true enough - I don't feel like looking for it now any more than I did then, but OK, I see that it is necessary:...

Oh you don't feel like looking for it, alrighty then. By the way what you referred to there is Canadian.

prinz

Dudess wrote: »

With these "Woman walks down a deserted lane and man rapes her" analogies, the hypothetical woman's actions of walking down that lane are always questioned, but I never see people asking what the man was doing down that laneway, what circumstances led to HIM being out and about that night, etc.

People do ask. They wonder was it simply wrong place/wrong time, was he lying in wait, was there drink/drugs involved etc. Then again it's not really relevant to the thread.

seenitall

prinz wrote: »

:rolleyes: Really have I? I call it a fact that someone male or female, if they are concerned for their safety, should not go into a laneway or other area in the dark where it is known rapes or other attacks occur when they could easily avoid the area. Does that really have to be qualified by stating it as opinion?

The very nature of your response is laughable. By the way could you elaborate on what "arrogance" I have shown?



What claim did I make that is baseless?

I never claimed it wasn't major just pointed out that I hadn't come across it? I also said other posters don't seem to notice this major problem either...again that seems true judging by other posts.




Oh fantastic. Now we are all aware everything is fine again? If I make an intentional safety warning and you receive it as victim blaming what's the solution? Who is in the right and who is in the wrong? Anything a bit less vague than "changes in awareness" by any chance?

Inane posturing is right.



No, that isn't it.



You just did it in the paragrah above again, insinuating that I felt the victim was to blame for the act of rape. I have repeatedly pointed out that the two can be separated...and here

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72272964&postcount=42



Oh you don't feel like looking for it, alrighty then. By the way what you referred to there is Canadian.

I'm done going around in circles with you. You make a mockery of any sort of serious discussion and are therefore derailing the subject matter from being discussed properly. Your arrogance is ever-evident: do you really think you have to make me aware that the original quote is from a Canadian source? That's the level this discussion has sadly embraced now (aside from the fact that the OP, AFAIK, hasn't stated any stipulation that the discussion or anything within it be exclusively Irish-based).

When "we are all aware", things will improve, yes. Awareness of the insidiousness of victim blaming cannot but bring changes even if slowly and incrementally, just as awareness of any other injustice does. You wanna talk about inane posturing, try paying attention to what I have been writing for the past few hours, instead of constantly repeating the same questions, over and over and over again.

I really don't know how to come across any clearer or "less vague" as I have been writing about nothing else all afternoon, but I will try one more time; the "solution" is more listening to victims on how they are made feel by the attitudes of "You were warned - it's your own fault this happened to you", and how these attitudes can be facilitated by the justification of safety warnings having been issued (as you can read about in the Canadian quote I provided). The solution is to be more sensitive to the fact that the victim-blaming attitudes are still alive and well in the societies of today, and that the sensitivity in phrasing safety warnings will help things move along toward fairness in this regard. Who is in the right and who is in the wrong? Do I need to spell my view on that out?

(Am I by any chance sitting some kind of endurance test? Because I really don't appreciate being this aggressively attacked on the point of my opinions, which I DON'T arrogantly assume to be "facts".)

"I never claimed it wasn't major just pointed out that I hadn't come across it? I also said other posters don't seem to notice this major problem either...again that seems true judging by other posts." - Oh come on now, are you seriously going to claim that this: "Firstly you mention something that is a major problem, but I've never come across, it appears other posters haven't either." doesn't imply your dismissal of the idea as decidely NOT a major problem?? Well, good luck with that, because it certainly reads very much like an off-hand dismissal to me! (and a slight case of backtracking about it in your latest post to boot...)

"I also said other posters don't seem to notice this major problem either...again that seems true judging by other posts." - Well, again, that seems untrue judging by other posts (and it is the claim you make to the contrary that is baseless IMO)! The plot's getting thicker - I wonder who's right! :pac:

To elaborate on what arrogance you have shown (mainly in stating your opinion as fact), I will, yet again, go back to your claim of "..but being in that lane she knew to be dark and dangerous is her fault. She needn't have been raped if she had gone a safer route." and when challenged on it, saying you were stating nothing more than a fact. It is no such thing, it is merely your prejudiced opinion and a perfect victim-blaming tool. The victim is NOT AT FAULT, not even for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Note that I will add "in my opinion", but I am afraid that you are so immersed in your prejudice (sorry, I know it is a loaded word but I really fail to account for your attitude in any other way) that the difference will still escape you.

prinz

seenitall wrote: »

I'm done going around in circles with you. You make a mockery of any sort of serious discussion and are therefore derailing the subject matter from being discussed properly..

Feel free to get off the merry-go-round. A proper discussion might be possible when you strop trying to pigeonhole the people you are claiming to discuss with.

seenitall wrote: »

Your arrogance is ever-evident: do you really think you have to make me aware that the original quote is from a Canadian source? That's the level this discussion has sadly embraced now (aside from the fact that the OP, AFAIK, hasn't stated any stipulation that the discussion or anything within it be exclusively Irish-based)..

It's a major issue in Canada perhaps. I was expecting perhaps something more relevant to the vast majority of posters on ths site.

seenitall wrote: »

When "we are all aware", things will improve, yes. Awareness of the insidiousness of victim blaming cannot but bring changes even if slowly and incrementally, just as awareness of any other injustice does. You wanna talk about inane posturing, try paying attention to what I have been writing for the past few hours, instead of constantly repeating the same questions, over and over and over again.

Awareness that not everything is victim blaming will also improve things.

seenitall wrote: »

I really don't know how to come across any clearer or "less vague" as I have been writing about nothing else all afternoon, but I will try one more time; the "solution" is more listening to victims on how they are made feel by the attitudes of "You were warned - it's your own fault this happened to you", and how these attitudes can be facilitated by the justification of safety warnings having been issued (as you can read about in the Canadian quote I provided). The solution is to be more sensitive to the fact that the victim-blaming attitudes are still alive and well in the societies of today, and that the sensitivity in phrasing safety warnings will help things move along toward fairness in this regard. Who is in the right and who is in the wrong? Do I need to spell my view on that out?

I am sure victims don't like hearing it. However such safety warnings it do serve as a good lesson for other people. So just how do you phrase a safety warning without seeming to blame victims? If you say you shouldn't leave valuables visible in a parked car, are blaming someone else who did and had those valuables robbed? Where does it end?

seenitall wrote: »

(Am I by any chance sitting some kind of endurance test? Because I really don't appreciate being this aggressively attacked on the point of my opinions, which I DON'T arrogantly assume to be "facts".)

Aggressively attacked? I am not the one making personal remarks and underhanded accusations.

seenitall wrote: »

Oh come on now, are you seriously going to claim that this doesn't imply your dismissal of the idea as decidely NOT a major problem?? Well, good luck with that, because it certainly reads very much like an off-hand dismissal to me! (and a slight case of backtracking about it in your latest post to boot...)

OK so I never made a claim that it wasn't a major problem. That's whatever you read into it. A bit like people seeing/hearing basic safety tips and coming away understanding it to be victim blaming.

seenitall wrote: »

To elaborate on what arrogance you have shown (mainly in stating your opinion as fact), I will, yet again, go back to your claim of "..but being in that lane she knew to be dark and dangerous is her fault. She needn't have been raped if she had gone a safer route." and when challenged on it, saying you were stating nothing more than a fact. It is no such thing, it is merely your prejudiced opinion and a perfect victim-blaming tool. The victim is NOT AT FAULT, not even for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Note that I will add "in my opinion", but I am afraid that you are so immersed in your prejudice (sorry, I know it is a loaded word but I really fail to account for your attitude in any other way) that the difference will still escape you.

More personal remarks and nonsense. I thought you were after a proper discussion? When a responsible adult puts themselves willingly into a dangerous situation that is their fault. Whether thats dancing on a wall, climbing an electricity pylon, or walking down a dark alley that is known as a crime hotspot. Then again I'm just prejudiced apparently, against what I don't know. I don't even think you know to be quite frank.

seenitall

prinz wrote: »

Feel free to get off the merry-go-round. A proper discussion might be possible when you strop trying to pigeonhole the people you are claiming to discuss with.



It's a major issue in Canada perhaps. I was expecting perhaps something more relevant to the vast majority of posters on ths site.



Awareness that not everything is victim blaming will also improve things.



I am sure victims don't like hearing it. However such safety warnings it do serve as a good lesson for other people. So just how do you phrase a safety warning without seeming to blame victims? If you say you shouldn't leave valuables visible in a parked car, are blaming someone else who did and had those valuables robbed? Where does it end?



Aggressively attacked? I am not the one making personal remarks and underhanded accusations.



OK so I never made a claim that it wasn't a major problem. That's whatever you read into it. A bit like people seeing/hearing basic safety tips and coming away understanding it to be victim blaming.



More personal remarks and nonsense. I thought you were after a proper discussion? When a responsible adult puts themselves willingly into a dangerous situation that is their fault. Whether thats dancing on a wall, climbing an electricity pylon, or walking down a dark alley that is known as a crime hotspot. Then again I'm just prejudiced apparently, against what I don't know. I don't even think you know to be quite frank.

...so... you are NOT the one making personal remarks and underhanded accusations? "you insist on trying to tar anyone on the thread who doesn't share you particular world view as some sort of victim hater" - if that is not a completely unfounded underhanded accusation, I don't know what is. I leave it for anyone reading to come to their own conclusion about both the aggressive and unpleasant tone, and the laughable and completely unsubstantiated arrogance of your posts.

"I am sure victims don't like hearing it." - Yes, quite so. The only problem is, you really just don't give a monkey's behind. Or have I got it wrong again?

I have addressed already that the safety warnings could be more victim-conscious or even omitted in those cases where they are a clear result of the victim-oriented prejudice ("Don't dress slutty, you'll be raped, whose fault will it be then"?). In other words, I have a better idea what they should NOT sound like, than what they should, which is a start - and that's right across the board, not just coming from Canadian policemen, believe it or not. But again, you already stated that you believe it to be an issue with only a small minority of people; well, I believe otherwise, and the basis for my belief is the incredibly low conviction rate for a victim oriented-prejudice laden crime such as rape; victims are not believed, or they "asked for it" with their behaviour, clothing, drink taken; if you think it is problem in Canada only and not Ireland, you are the one with rose-tinted glasses on:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-News-Archive/Article/20080641310738

(There are more links that I could post on this subject but I don't want to hi-jack the thread with the rape-related focus; it is just that this is one of the crimes where the victim-blaming is at its strongest, in Ireland as well as in Canada.)



"OK so I never made a claim that it wasn't a major problem. That's whatever you read into it. A bit like people seeing/hearing basic safety tips and coming away understanding it to be victim blaming." - Nice "analogy" there, and what a very neat and sneaky little dig it would be, if it weren't so regrettably fallacious! Like I said earlier, you can try but sadly I'm not too sure many would agree I am reading anything into it that wasn't firmly implied with your sentence structure. Let's not fall out over it, though; as usual, I could be very, very wrong...



"More personal remarks and nonsense. I thought you were after a proper discussion? When a responsible adult puts themselves willingly into a dangerous situation that is their fault. Whether thats dancing on a wall, climbing an electricity pylon, or walking down a dark alley that is known as a crime hotspot. Then again I'm just prejudiced apparently, against what I don't know. I don't even think you know to be quite frank." - You are right on the money there, I really haven't a clue what kind of prejudice it could be that would engender a view such as yours on this issue (perhaps an indication of a conservative, every-man-for-himself worldview, perhaps a bit of that "just world" rationalisation from earlier on on the thread - they're just guesses though, that's all...), and I would really like it to be true that no prejudice plays a part in your frankly baffling attitude toward victims of crimes.

some of the circumstances in which a crime is commited, may be a victim's (ill-advised, ill-considered, perhaps ill-informed) choice, but using the word fault in relation to a victim of crime is the sine-qua-non of all victim-blaming. No part of the criminal act is the victim's fault. Not even if they got drunk, flashed their money in Calcutta, walked down a dark alleyway or wore next to nothing on a night out. That's why the person whose fault it is, is called a criminal, and the person whose fault it isn't, is called a victim. But of course, you cannot/will not accept this, that is quite clear by now; still nonsense, yeah?

Bottle_of_Smoke

Seenitall - I possibly got your position wrong earlier in thread so sorry if you felt I was sending off topic responses your direction.

Anyway just to confirm my general position. Warnings about safety were linked with victim blaming and in a recent post you emphasised awareness about safety warnings being perceived as victim blaming.

This is valid and I accept there can sometimes be an element of mild contempt toward victims if they were attacked in a vulnerable position which I see could be spun by a sex offender as a justification.

The thing is though, I honestly think its a really small minority of people who would accept that train of thought.

I would say the vast majority of people who make suggestions to avoid attack are also people who wouldn't ever hold prejudice against a victim for their pre-attack behaviour.

Yet it seems that if any suggestions or commentary about keeping safe are made there will be criticism and accusations of victim blaming. (I'm speaking generally about responses I've gotten in threads and articles such as this rather than referring to you)

This is dangerous in itself. Whatever your opinions on them - those warnings could prevent people from being attacked. So demonising advice on safety could potentially put people at risk.

The problem here is really the people who can convince themselves victim blaming is a mitigating factor in assault cases. They're the ones who should change not people offering advice in people's best interests. Therefore I think combination campaigns are best - ones that offer safety tips in conjunction with warnings to rapists like this

seenitall

As said earlier, I disagree that it is a small minority of people who have the victim-blaming attitude; it may be a minority, but it is certainly not small - I have substantiated this in my post directly preceding this one, make of it what you will.

I have not "demonised" anything, I have merely pointed out how insidiously it can work to the victim's detriment and the perpetrator's benefit, in people's minds.

Yes, I would certainly have more time for a safety campaign that actually addressed the potential attacker! Therefore sending the message that it is their (potential) actions that are the society's problem, and that the victim will be taken seriously and their rights espoused after the fact, no matter what they wore, what alleyway they went down etc, etc, etc. That kind of campaign would have more weight in the public opinion than all the other inches of print written on the subject put together; it would be a step in the right direction toward changing people's attitudes. I would go so far as to say that its true value would lie more in that fact, than in its strictest "warning off all rapists" (for example) effect.

That example you've linked does show things are (albeit very slowly) changing; while the fact that it was felt that that kind of campaign was needed in scotland makes me hopeful that similar awareness will, sooner or later, reach these shores.

prinz

seenitall wrote: »

...so... you are NOT the one making personal remarks and underhanded accusations? "you insist on trying to tar anyone on the thread who doesn't share you particular world view as some sort of victim hater" - if that is not a completely unfounded underhanded accusation, I don't know what is. I leave it for anyone reading to come to their own conclusion about both the aggressive and unpleasant tone, and the laughable and completely unsubstantiated arrogance of your posts.

Unsubstantiated right. So you haven't numerous times tried to imply that I have some sort of axe to grind against victims?

seenitall wrote: »

"I am sure victims don't like hearing it." - Yes, quite so. The only problem is, you really just don't give a monkey's behind. Or have I got it wrong again?

seenitall wrote: »

It is no such thing, it is merely your prejudiced opinion and a perfect victim-blaming tool.

seenitall wrote: »

I am afraid that you are so immersed in your prejudice (sorry, I know it is a loaded word but I really fail to account for your attitude in any other way) that the difference will still escape you.

seenitall wrote: »

your frankly baffling attitude toward victims of crimes.

seenitall wrote: »

I really haven't a clue what kind of prejudice it could be that would engender a view such as yours on this issue

Now perhaps we could drop this. I am not prejudiced against victims. I have no axe to grind against victims and nowhere have I dsisplayed a baffling attitude against victims of crime. Not to mention the accusations of aggression and arrogance.

seenitall wrote: »

I have addressed already that the safety warnings could be more victim-conscious or even omitted in those cases where they are a clear result of the victim-oriented prejudice ("Don't dress slutty, you'll be raped, whose fault will it be then"?).

So if you know someone going out for the night dressed particularly sexily, you are not allowed say something like 'take care of yourself/dont drink too much/stay with friends/take a taxi home', or all these things "victim-prejudice"? You do accept that when people dress differently they receive different levels and kinds of attention? Or are we living in a fantasy land once again where nothing we do can have any impact on how others see us?

seenitall wrote: »

... the basis for my belief is the incredibly low conviction rate for a victim oriented-prejudice laden crime such as rape;

The problem with rape in particular is that it's an incredibly difficult thing to prove in a lot of circumstances. That's not the victims fault. Often times when there is no physical evidence or corroborating witness it comes down to one person's word against another. In that situation it would be incredibly foolish to just accept the plaintiff at their word, so it basically and unfortunately often comes down to character assassination on both sides. The defence wil portray the accused as a good family man etc etc the other side will say a cool calculating rapist. On the other side the victim wll either be a drink fuelled hussy trying it on or someone out with friends enjoying her/his night minding their own business.

seenitall wrote: »

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-News-Archive/Article/20080641310738

Thank you.

seenitall wrote: »

Like I said earlier, you can try but sadly I'm not too sure many would agree I am reading anything into it that wasn't firmly implied with your sentence structure. Let's not fall out over it, though; as usual, I could be very, very wrong...

You are. Either I made a claim or I didn't. In this case I quite clearly didn't. What you 'read into' the sentence structure is not my problem.

seenitall wrote: »

That's why the person whose fault it is, is called a criminal, and the person whose fault it isn't, is called a victim. But of course, you cannot/will not accept this, that is quite clear by now; still nonsense, yeah?

Yeah so clear. It's not like I haven't made myself clear on this point at all on the thread...

prinz wrote: »

Does that mean individual rapists are somehow not fully responsible for their actions? No, of course it doesn't.

prinz wrote: »

There is no 100% of blame that must be either loaded on the criminal or on the victim or shared. Each are responsible for their own actions

By the way that means the rapist is responsible for committing the rape, not the victim. Don't know how much clearer I could have made it all along that the criminal is responsible for what the criminal does... oh wait I could make it clearer, back on page one..

prinz wrote: »

The criminal is responsible for the assault/robbery/rape

LeeHoffmann

if I take stupid actions I also need to take some responsibility for their consequences. In a perfect world I wouldn't have to but I don't live in such a place.

I think a big part of the issue here is what constitutes a stupid action? A lot of discussion seems to centre around the 'dark alley late at night' scenario, which, I think, is quite rare really. Most women don't walk down dark alleys late at night unless they have no other way of getting home etc. Bear in mind that usually a victim knows the rapist -often a friendly acquaintance or even friend.

Moreover, what is generally referred to as risky behaviour in these cases is: the woman was drinking alcohol, the woman flirted with her rapist before he raped her, the woman is sexually promiscuous, the woman was wearing a short skirt or 'attractive clothing'. If we want to say that women have to 'take some responsibility for the consequences of these actions', it would seem we'd have to advise them not to drink alcohol, not to flirt and not to wear attractive clothes on a night out. That seems to me to be an unreasonable ask and a far larger curtailment of her freedom than can be justified. This becomes more clear when we compare it to the situation of car robbery (the usually cited analogy is - if you don't lock your car then you're partly responsible for it being robbed - as if rape was comparable to robbery!). Locking one's car doesn't seriously curtail the freedom of the car owner and it takes next to no time, hence it can be said to be a reasonable ask. Asking women not to drink alcohol and not to dress attractively (particularly on a night out) is a far greater curtailment of freedom for a longer amount of time hence it is an unreasonable ask. If we ask that of women, we are basically saying to them that if they want to have fun on a night out, they are taking stupid actions and will be responsible for the consequences of them.

If you think I'm exaggerating by saying that these are the type of behaviours that are generally referred to as 'risky' and as making victims responsible for their rape, please remember the findings of the savi report

seenitall

prinz wrote: »

Unsubstantiated right. So you haven't numerous times tried to imply that I have some sort of axe to grind against victims?

No, I haven't to the best of my knowledge, unless my mention of prejudice in relation to you is seen as such; but like I indicated in my subsequent post, I can't claim to know the provenance of your attitude (of course).











Now perhaps we could drop this. I am not prejudiced against victims. I have no axe to grind against victims and nowhere have I dsisplayed a baffling attitude against victims of crime. Not to mention the accusations of aggression and arrogance.




So if you know someone going out for the night dressed particularly sexily, you are not allowed say something like 'take care of yourself/dont drink too much/stay with friends/take a taxi home', or all these things "victim-prejudice"? You do accept that when people dress differently they receive different levels and kinds of attention? Or are we living in a fantasy land once again where nothing we do can have any impact on how others see us?

This isn't about fantasy land, it is abouth the very real prejudice against victims that exists out there. Real, not fantasy. That's what this thread is about. I already accepted the things you ask of me earlier in the thread, it's just that I differentiate betwen people's choices and their fault.



The problem with rape in particular is that it's an incredibly difficult thing to prove in a lot of circumstances. That's not the victims fault. Often times when there is no physical evidence or corroborating witness it comes down to one person's word against another. In that situation it would be incredibly foolish to just accept the plaintiff at their word, so it basically and unfortunately often comes down to character assassination on both sides. The defence wil portray the accused as a good family man etc etc the other side will say a cool calculating rapist. On the other side the victim wll either be a drink fuelled hussy trying it on or someone out with friends enjoying her/his night minding their own business.

Well, if it does, than it is plainly wrong and the victim oriented prejudice I was talking about, if completely irrelevant facts such as clothing, drink taken by the victim or anything like that needs to be brought into the defence in order to discredit the victim. That's no defence, that's plain moralistic prejudice at work in order to result in victim-blaming whereby excusing the attacker's actions, and it needs as much awareness brought to it as possible, wouldn't you agree? While on the other hand, and I don't believe I actually have to point this out, the possible fact that the attacker is a cool calculating rapist is very relevant to the proceedings. A big, big difference between those two.



Thank you.



You are. Either I made a claim or I didn't. In this case I quite clearly didn't. What you 'read into' the sentence structure is not my problem.

Neither is it mine! Like I said, I'm confident that your text speaks for itself.


Yeah so clear. It's not like I haven't made myself clear on this point at all on the thread...





By the way that means the rapist is responsible for committing the rape, not the victim. Don't know how much clearer I could have made it all along that the criminal is responsible for what the criminal does... oh wait I could make it clearer, back on page one..

Yes, except that back on page 2 and 3 and 4 you go on about people's fault in the crimes that happen them and how they bring crimes on themselves...

I would like to apologise to you for the accusations of aggression and arrogance. I felt under what I see as an unjustified attack from you with the accusation of "tarring the people who disagree with me as victim-haters", so I responded by making an accusation myself, which was in fact neither kind nor wise.

I should have just left the thread speak for itself, of course.

In fact, I should have left the thread a while ago, full stop!

Perhaps I'll manage it this time.

Scanlas The 2nd

This is really very simple but people are just making it complicated with their insecurities.

I'll break it down Barney style:

The person who commits the crime is responsible for the crime and should be punished by the legal system.

The victim is the person who suffered as a result of the crime being commited by the criminal.

Thats it folks.

On an entirely different topic people can commit no crime and be stupid.

Having a slumber party with 4 men who you know to be serial rapists at one of their houses in the middle of no where is stupid. If that person is then raped they are guilty of no crime whatsover and do not deserve to be raped or to suffer in any way. They are however stupid. Stupidity is not a crime.

prinz

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Having a slumber party with 4 men who you know to be serial rapists at one of their houses in the middle of no where is stupid. If that person is then raped they are guilty of no crime whatsover and do not deserve to be raped or to suffer in any way. They are however stupid. Stupidity is not a crime.

Exactly, and highlighting that stupidity is not victim blaming. Maybe the victim doesn't like to hear how stupid they were but it may well help someone else in the future.

Elle Collins

prinz wrote: »

Exactly, and highlighting that stupidity is not victim blaming. Maybe the victim doesn't like to hear how stupid they were but it may well help someone else in the future.

Could you give us an actual example of what you'd regard to be stupid behaviour on the part of a rape victim Prinz?

mcmoustache

Elle Collins wrote: »

Could you give us an actual example of what you'd regard to be stupid behaviour on the part of a rape victim Prinz?

The following was posted here twice before your post and is an example of stupid behaviour on the part of the victim. It was quoted by Prinz:

Having a slumber party with 4 men who you know to be serial rapists at one of their houses in the middle of no where is stupid. If that person is then raped they are guilty of no crime whatsover and do not deserve to be raped or to suffer in any way. They are however stupid. Stupidity is not a crime.

LeeHoffmann

yes, because that happens all the time :rolleyes: I do hate when women are stpid enough to have slumber parties with known rapists - it's these kind of cases that are filling our courthouses and wasting taxpayer's money

LeeHoffmann

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

yes, because that happens all the time :rolleyes: I do hate when women are stpid enough to have slumber parties with known rapists - it's these kind of cases that are filling our courthouses and wasting taxpayer's money

They were asked for an example of what would be "stupid behaviour", not asked for "common reasons which would be stupid behaviour". If that extreme example can be agreed upon as stupid behaviour of the victim, then we have a starting point to move onto more realistic cases

prinz

Elle Collins wrote: »

Could you give us an actual example of what you'd regard to be stupid behaviour on the part of a rape victim Prinz?

You do realise that taking steps to look after your own security doesn't just apply to rape victims yes? I know exactly the kind of corner some people would love to push me into but I'm not falling for it. I would give a potential rape victim, male or female, the same advice I'd give a potential mugging victim, or a potential victim of a unprovoked assault etc..

Awareness of your surroundings.

Awareness of who is around you.

Keeping valuables/handbags etc close to body.

Avoid people who look overly drunk, or aggressive, or mouthy. Cross the street rather than risk getting into a confrontation.

Alertness.

Staying with family/friends etc where possible.

Sticking to streets/areas you are familiar with.

Getting a taxi where not, especially if you have been drinking for example.

If in doubt seek help, even if it's just to stand somewhere well lit, or busy, for a while if you feel somebody is following you/paying you undue attention.

Staying in contact with people, i.e. let them know when you are home if going home on foot late at night.

I can guarantee you that there are victims of all sorts of crimes out there right now, who, if they had followed more of the simple advice above would not have become victims. I don't feel great about highlighting a particular example but there was a case on Crimeline last night of a young woman who was subjected to a vicious physical assault in Cork. She did excellently once she was attacked, but in the lead up to the attack she could have protected herself better, and it would be pointless to review that and not take some sort of lesson from it.

LeeHoffmann

They were asked for an example of what would be "stupid behaviour", not asked for "common reasons which would be stupid behaviour". If that extreme example can be agreed upon as stupid behaviour of the victim, then we have a starting point to move onto more realistic cases

oops, my bad. I did think we were looking for common behaviours, not extreme examples for a starting point

Maga

Very interesting thread and very interesting discussion.

As I read all the answers, I had two questions in my mind:

1. How do we define what a risky situation is? What is the difference between being vulnerable and "bringing it onto oneself?"

So lets go with extreme examples here.

A girl dresses up in sexy clothes, gets drunk and gets a taxi. The driver can't resist his "urges" and attacks her. Why? Because she dressed up "slutty", got locked and went in a car with a stranger.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that it is a risky behaviour, ie, she was stupid to put herself in a such a vulnerable position.

(Even though I don't agree with it, but that's another story)

Now: a girl dresses up in normal clothes, goes out with friends, has one or two drinks (not drunk and not even tipsy), takes a taxi home because it's safer. But she is a skinny fragile girl and she is in a stranger's car. And the guy attacks her. Was she in a vulnerable position? Yes. Was she playing with fire?

A women will always be in a vulnerable position (therefore "playing with fire"?) to some extent, the same way as one lad walking by himself in a neighbourhood where gangs of scumbags gather on anyone to beat them up would be too.

Someone will always be in a more vulnerable position no matter what.

So what should be done about it? People only walk in groups, especially women? People learn how to fight? Carry guns?

And most importantly, whose fault is it? How do we distinguish "being vulnerable" from "playing with fire" ?

2. How easy is it for a victim to end up as the one to be blamed? How can she/he revert this situation? Who would society believe?

Eg. A young woman has a silly argument with her boyfriend. He is drunk/drugged and beats her up. It happens in a house party, lets say in a Saturday night.

No one has seen it as they were in the kitchen or in a bedroom or whatever. She goes to the police crying and nervous, they suspect she was drunk, as she was in a party - as they are probably overwhelmed with drunk people madness in a Sat night.

She wasn't, she is terrified, asks them to breathalyse her, they say they don't have the equipment.

The police tells her to go to the hospital to get an assessment of harm. She does so. Since the doctor at the hospital has no training in being a criminalist doctor, there's no way of saying whether her bf did it to her or maybe she just fell down? (it's an extreme example, so bear with me)

The boyfriend's friend say he was always a great guy and couldn't possibly have done that.

She finally makes the statement and brings the bf to court. He brings all his friends to say he is a sound guy. They claim she was drunk, since she was at a party on a Sat night.

How does she defend herself? How does the victim receives the status of victim, instead of the one to be blamed? Who would you believe in such a situation?

Just random questions that came to my mind as I was reading the discussion.

liah

What I don't get is why people feel it's necessary to say something like "you shouldn't have gone down that alley" or whatever after someone's been raped/assaulted.

Regardless of how true the statement could be (advising safety doesn't necessarily shift blame from the criminal to the victim, broadly speaking), I'm fairly damn sure the person in question sure as hell doesn't need the massive kick in the balls those statements feel like after undergoing something that traumatic.

What purpose is it meant to serve? Sure, it's one thing to think it and for the it to be more or less true, but to actually say it after someone's been through serious physical and/or emotional trauma? Like, really? What's that going to fix, solve or change besides making them feel stupid or worse about themselves than they already do?

prinz

Maga wrote: »

1. How do we define what a risky situation is? What is the difference between being vulnerable and "bringing it onto oneself?"

Good question, but there is no concrete answer IMO. A girl getting into a legitimate taxi after a night ous and getting raped, has not put herself into a dangerous situation, as opposed to say the same girl hitching/thumbing a lift with any random straner.

Maga wrote: »

2. How easy is it for a victim to end up as the one to be blamed? How can she/he revert this situation? Who would society believe?

It's not usually a question of the victim ending up as the one being blamed. It's more often the case of the victim being unable to prove that they were a victim. It's not a great system but it's the best we could have tbh. As far as barristers putting the victim on trial, that's an unfortunate aspect of our legal system.

liah wrote: »

What I don't get is why people feel it's necessary to say something like "you shouldn't have gone down that alley" or whatever after someone's been raped/assaulted.

I'd still dispute that the above is a major occurence as far as people known to the victim say it to them personally. When it comes to other people commenting say on a thread here, or in relation to a news item for example then I think it's perfectly acceptable and often times necessary, not in terms of puttin the victim down, but of highlighting the mistakes made in terms of other people learning how to avoid them.

Bottle_of_Smoke

liah wrote: »

What I don't get is why people feel it's necessary to say something like "you shouldn't have gone down that alley" or whatever after someone's been raped/assaulted.

Regardless of how true the statement could be (advising safety doesn't necessarily shift blame from the criminal to the victim, broadly speaking), I'm fairly damn sure the person in question sure as hell doesn't need the massive kick in the balls those statements feel like after undergoing something that traumatic.

What purpose is it meant to serve? Sure, it's one thing to think it and for the it to be more or less true, but to actually say it after someone's been through serious physical and/or emotional trauma? Like, really? What's that going to fix, solve or change besides making them feel stupid or worse about themselves than they already do?

Whilst I would criticise actions on this thread I would never bring it up in person with the victim.

You might say "what was he/she thinking" in a rhetorical way when the person isn't around but someone who actually says it to the person is socially retarded.

1995sarah

Yes, I have very much noticed this about Ireland, as a whole it does tend to blame its victims of crime. This I am afraid boils down to human rights, womens rights, and education. English people tend to think along the same path, mabey its because the Irish are basicially a bunch of mongrols, with a mixture of Saxon, Norman, Roman, vicking and celtic blood. Mabey its lack of information. Mabey its ignorance. Mabey its, wait for it.
THE WONDERFUL JUSTICE SYSTEM OF IRELAND, WHICH STEMS FROM THE BRITHISH OF OLD. Mabey its because the Irish suffer low self-esteem as a culture, they are reared that way. Mabey its because they drink to much and their brains are dead. Mabey they drink too much tea. Mabey its the lack of seasons that has them sooo confused, hmm, is it winter or summer today, man, that one mess me up bad. Mabey its the attitude of the cops here or lack of.
Ireland would be the worst country in the world to lose a child to kidnap. The cops would sit in their shop saying, " a sure, we'll have a cup of tea first Sean" I am afraid Ireland has a long way to go before it catches up on a lot of issues. Its still a bit stuck in the middle ages.

Wibbs

1995sarah wrote: »

Yes, I have very much noticed this about Ireland, as a whole it does tend to blame its victims of crime. This I am afraid boils down to human rights, womens rights, and education.

Education certainly, the others?

English people tend to think along the same path,

Get out there in the world and you'll find it's a common enough take. Not exclusively Irish by any stretch of the imagination. Indeed many cultures are far far worse, particularly with regard to the sexual assault of women.

but a bit of mabey its because the Irish are basicially a bunch of mongrols, with a mixture of Saxon, Norman, Roman, vicking and celtic blood.

Maybe nothing. That makes ZERO sense as an argument. Mongrels? What? Better bone up on your history. We've little of no Saxon "blood" in us(neither do most English people BTW), Norman and Viking are the same "blood". Norsemen/Northmen = Men from the north = Vikings. We have some of their genes alright, but not that much. Celtic? Nope. We were heavily influenced by European mainland tribes AKA Celts, but again have little or no DNA that's Celtic. Roman? The one that makes the least sense of all. The Romans never invaded here. So unless you're related to some of the Italian folks who came here in the 50's and 60's to open restaurants you've zero Italian in you.

Mabey its lack of information. Mabey its ignorance.

Indeed...

Mabey its, wait for it.
THE WONDERFUL JUSTICE SYSTEM OF IRELAND, WHICH STEMS FROM THE BRITHISH OF OLD.

There maybe something to that alright. We did inherit the vast majority of their legal system. They've since updated theirs far more than we have in quite a few areas. We've been playing catch up on a few scores.

Mabey its because they drink to much and their brains are dead. Mabey they drink too much tea. Mabey its the lack of seasons that has them sooo confused, hmm, is it winter or summer today, man, that one mess me up bad.

I dunno how to answer those TBH.

Mabey its the attitude of the cops here or lack of.
Ireland would be the worst country in the world to lose a child to kidnap. The cops would sit in their shop saying, " a sure, we'll have a cup of tea first Sean"

With respect that's approaching utter nonsense. Most Guards like most people are family men and women. The plight of a child is a very high priority. Very high.

I am afraid Ireland has a long way to go before it catches up on a lot of issues. Its still a bit stuck in the middle ages.

We may agree there.

1995sarah

Sorry I was educated in the USA. And have travelled the world my friend.

prinz

1995sarah wrote: »

Sorry I was educated in the USA. And have travelled the world my friend.

Maybe you should look closer to home when you decide to question education then.

1995sarah

Wibbs wrote: »

Education certainly, the others? Get out there in the world and you'll find it's a common enough take. Not exclusively Irish by any stretch of the imagination. Indeed many cultures are far far worse, particularly with regard to the sexual assault of women. Maybe nothing. That makes ZERO sense as an argument. Mongrels? What? Better bone up on your history. We've little of no Saxon "blood" in us(neither do most English people BTW), Norman and Viking are the same "blood". Norsemen/Northmen = Men from the north = Vikings. We have some of their genes alright, but not that much. Celtic? Nope. We were heavily influenced by European mainland tribes AKA Celts, but again have little or no DNA that's Celtic. Roman? The one that makes the least sense of all. The Romans never invaded here. So unless you're related to some of the Italian folks who came here in the 50's and 60's to open restaurants you've zero Italian in you. Indeed... There maybe something to that alright. We did inherit the vast majority of their legal system. They've since updated theirs far more than we have in quite a few areas. We've been playing catch up on a few scores. I dunno how to answer those TBH. With respect that's approaching utter nonsense. Most Guards like most people are family men and women. The plight of a child is a very high priority. Very high. We may agree there.

If the plight of a child is so high in Europe, ie ireland, why don't they use a system called amber alert. Amber Alert, the first 4 hours are the most improtant ones to finding a child alive. A lot of children have been saved from Amber Alert. Look at the MacCann case. So much valuable time was lost. Those first 3 to 4 hours. After that, the chance of finding a child alive is greatly diminished. So I would have to disagree with you on that one. I have noticed in Ireland it is usually a fews days before an apeal is issued through the press, 2 at least. An Amber Alert is straight away, withen the first hour a child is taken. So yeah Ireland does value its children, so much that the referendum on Childrens rights has been delayed.

1995sarah

prinz wrote: »

Maybe you should look closer to home when you decide to question education then.

Education, hmm, what is the meaning of education lol

Wibbs

1995sarah wrote: »

Education, hmm, what is the meaning of education lol

Well having some basic knowledge of the subject you wish to debate would help. When someone relates the notion of Roman "blood" in the Irish historical background I would question the rest of their opinions more closely.

Sorry I was educated in the USA.

Which sadly may explain it. A general education system that was once rightly the envy of the world, now sadly very lacking below university level.

And have travelled the world my friend.

Then how did you miss the same and worse attitudes in these other parts of the world then? Few nations and cultures have clean slate when it comes to victim blaming and that goes double for the sexual assault of women(and to a lesser extent men).

If the plight of a child is so high in Europe, ie ireland,

Eh stop right there if you please. How in gods name do you equate the myriad histories, cultures, mores and laws of the many nations of Europe with Ireland(or vice versa). As David Bowie sang This is not America. Indeed look to America, the cultures and attitudes of say Arkansas compared to South Central LA, or the urban to the rural can be quite different.

why don't they use a system called amber alert.

It or something similar would be a good idea in the cases of abduction alright.

prinz

1995sarah wrote: »

If the plight of a child is so high in Europe, ie ireland, why don't they use a system called amber alert. Amber Alert, the first 4 hours are the most improtant ones to finding a child alive. A lot of children have been saved from Amber Alert. Look at the MacCann case. So much valuable time was lost. Those first 3 to 4 hours. After that, the chance of finding a child alive is greatly diminished. So I would have to disagree with you on that one. I have noticed in Ireland it is usually a fews days before an apeal is issued through the press, 2 at least. An Amber Alert is straight away, withen the first hour a child is taken. So yeah Ireland does value its children, so much that the referendum on Childrens rights has been delayed.

Perhaps the US response has something to do with the near 800,000 children reported missing to the authorities each year in the USA, that's an average of over 2,000 per day.

The Amber Alert system is only used in very specific circumstances, and while the AGS Inspectorate has recommended a system such as the Amber Alert being introduced in Ireland, they also agreed with the AGS findings that in the ten years to 2009 (the year of the report in question) not one instance of a case of a missing child which met the criteria to launch an amber alert occured in Ireland.

1995sarah

prinz wrote: »

Perhaps the US response has something to do with the near 800,000 children reported missing to the authorities each year in the USA, that's an average of over 2,000 per day.

The Amber Alert system is only used in very specific circumstances, and while the AGS Inspectorate has recommended a system such as the Amber Alert being introduced in Ireland, they also agreed with the AGS findings that in the ten years to 2009 (the year of the report in question) not one instance of a case of a missing child which met the criteria to launch an amber alert occured in Ireland.

Just read in the paper bout an appeal issued for a teenage girl of 16 gone missing in Ireland. Not one hugh.

prinz

1995sarah wrote: »

Just read in the paper bout an appeal issued for a teenage girl of 16 gone missing in Ireland. Not one hugh.

Have the confirmed that the girl above has actually been kidnapped as opposed to having run away for example.... because until the authorities have confirmed 100% that an abduction has taken place no amber alert is issued, I suspect you knew that though, right?

Between 150 and 300 amber alerts are issued in the US each year. 800,000 odd children are reported as missing. Of the Amber Alerts that are issued, a good percentage are false alarms.

sparkling sea

1995sarah wrote: »

Yes, I have very much noticed this about Ireland, as a whole it does tend to blame its victims of crime. This I am afraid boils down to human rights, womens rights, and education. English people tend to think along the same path, mabey its because the Irish are basicially a bunch of mongrols, with a mixture of Saxon, Norman, Roman, vicking and celtic blood. Mabey its lack of information. Mabey its ignorance. Mabey its, wait for it.
THE WONDERFUL JUSTICE SYSTEM OF IRELAND, WHICH STEMS FROM THE BRITHISH OF OLD. Mabey its because the Irish suffer low self-esteem as a culture, they are reared that way. Mabey its because they drink to much and their brains are dead. Mabey they drink too much tea. Mabey its the lack of seasons that has them sooo confused, hmm, is it winter or summer today, man, that one mess me up bad. Mabey its the attitude of the cops here or lack of.
Ireland would be the worst country in the world to lose a child to kidnap. The cops would sit in their shop saying, " a sure, we'll have a cup of tea first Sean" I am afraid Ireland has a long way to go before it catches up on a lot of issues. Its still a bit stuck in the middle ages.

The American justice system is also based on the common law system.

The USA is a federal state, Europe is not - that is part of the reason why there delays in bringing about an Amber Alert type system.

What actual evidence have you that Ireland would be the worst country to lose a child to kidnap to ?

Creating more government services and professional victim helpers can strengthen dependency on the state and weaken social support networks, leaving victims vulnerable when government services are withdrawn as happens in America

Also excessive intervention can delay the natural healing process. Expectations of crime victims can be raised so high that they cannot realistically be met, in part because insufficient funds and personnel are allocated

Decisions on initiatives addressing the plight of victims, should be pro victim without being anti offender. Justice and fairness must be given to victim and offender.

booboo88

1995sarah wrote: »

Yes, I have very much noticed this about Ireland, as a whole it does tend to blame its victims of crime. This I am afraid boils down to human rights, womens rights, and education. English people tend to think along the same path, mabey its because the Irish are basicially a bunch of mongrols, with a mixture of Saxon, Norman, Roman, vicking and celtic blood. Mabey its lack of information. Mabey its ignorance. Mabey its, wait for it.
THE WONDERFUL JUSTICE SYSTEM OF IRELAND, WHICH STEMS FROM THE BRITHISH OF OLD. Mabey its because the Irish suffer low self-esteem as a culture, they are reared that way. Mabey its because they drink to much and their brains are dead. Mabey they drink too much tea. Mabey its the lack of seasons that has them sooo confused, hmm, is it winter or summer today, man, that one mess me up bad. Mabey its the attitude of the cops here or lack of.
Ireland would be the worst country in the world to lose a child to kidnap. The cops would sit in their shop saying, " a sure, we'll have a cup of tea first Sean" I am afraid Ireland has a long way to go before it catches up on a lot of issues. Its still a bit stuck in the middle ages.

I usually don't correct spelling, but its MAYBE.
OK, phew your post makes no sense. Ireland is the worst legal system in the world? Really how?
If everyone in ireland is brain dead, why are you here?

i think you'll find to lose a child to kidnap in ANY country is horrible,

What actual evidence have you that Ireland would be the worst country to lose a child to kidnap to ?

oh dont you know shes travelled the world?

I think people tend to blame rape victims alot, which is sad as a rape victim should never be made feel its their fault, remember that case in kerry? everyone including the local priest went up to shake the guys hand, while the victim was in court.
No one "believed he was ever capable" of doing something like that, his fiance even stuck by him

1995sarah

prinz wrote: »

Have the confirmed that the girl above has actually been kidnapped as opposed to having run away for example.... because until the authorities have confirmed 100% that an abduction has taken place no amber alert is issued, I suspect you knew that though, right?

Between 150 and 300 amber alerts are issued in the US each year. 800,000 odd children are reported as missing. Of the Amber Alerts that are issued, a good percentage are false alarms.

I'm sure with Irelands great technology they can find that out in am, am, a month. You say no children went missing in Ireland in the last 10 years. What about the boy from Cork, think he was about 12, was found murdered by a local. How long did it take for his dissappearance to reach the media? What a crock of bull, how many children in care go missing every year in Ireland, why don't we here about them on the 9 0' clock news. Anything could have happend, they could be trafficed, ect Ireland aint all that so innocent. A lot of women and children are trafficked here now by the Eastern European and Nigerian gangs
As for the Amber Alerts at least the Amber Alerts were issued. When a child, teenager goes missing one has to persume for the welfare and saftey of the child that it should get immediate attention. America went through all this in the early 80's. You know. were ireland is at now. When a child under 18 went missing it was slowely looked into, the possibilities were endless, did the child run away, ect. When a child goes missing in America it is taken more seriously now, and Amber or not it is in the media quickly. Thats the old way of thinking, sitting on your rats pitudy, hun, did she run away, lets give it a while and find out. Man, that was the cops attitude in the 80's. Like here now.

1995sarah

booboo88 wrote: »

I usually don't correct spelling, but its MAYBE.
OK, phew your post makes no sense. Ireland is the worst legal system in the world? Really how?
If everyone in ireland is brain dead, why are you here?

i think you'll find to lose a child to kidnap in ANY country is horrible,



oh dont you know shes travelled the world?

I think people tend to blame rape victims alot, which is sad as a rape victim should never be made feel its their fault, remember that case in kerry? everyone including the local priest went up to shake the guys hand, while the victim was in court.
No one "believed he was ever capable" of doing something like that, his fiance even stuck by him

Ahh booboo, your back you big bully, you have it in for me now, booooooo

booboo88

1995sarah wrote: »

Ahh booboo, your back you big bully, you have it in for me now, booooooo

big bully? ah yea, you know me just a big meanie:rolleyes:


back to TOPIC please

1995sarah

booboo88 wrote: »

big bully? ah yea, you know me just a big meanie:rolleyes:


back to TOPIC please

If you want to stay on the topic then stop insulting me,

booboo88

1995sarah wrote: »

If you want to stay on the topic then stop insulting me,

how did i insult you? do you not think calling irish people brain dead isnt insulting? dictionary anyone?

i asked you how ireland is the worst to lose a child to kidnap, which you ignored, but oh well

1995sarah

Man, I've had enough of this **** for one week. God, people get so personnel in here. What a bunch of jerk offs.

The justice system in America is way the best man. I don't have time for this ****. Just Google and figure it out for yourself like I did, or better still go live in the two countries and a few others, that way your sure to find out. Criminals don't get away with violant crime like they do in Ireland. Here they are given a little slap on the hand for violent crimes such as rape, felony assault or murder. Man, you can bet they will be sent away for a long time. I have read so much here in the papers, where rapists are given between 2 to 10 years. That is not justice. Women in rape cases are treated like dirt. I could go on all night long but don't have time for this croc of bull.

Wibbs

1995sarah wrote: »

Ahh booboo, youryou're back you big bully, you have it in for me now, booooooo

FYP. If one is going to bring education into things. one should at least be consistent.

Man, I've had enough of this **** for one week. God, people get so personnel in here. What a bunch of jerk offs.

Insight is a handy faculty to learn I've found.

The justice system in America is way the best man. I don't have time for this ****. Just Google and figure it out for yourself like I did, or better still go live in the two countries and a few others, that way your sure to find out. Criminals don't get away with violant crime like they do in Ireland. Here they are given a little slap on the hand for violent crimes such as rape, felony assault or murder. Man, you can bet they will be sent away for a long time. I have read so much here in the papers, where rapists are given between 2 to 10 years. That is not justice. Women in rape cases are treated like dirt. I could go on all night long but don't have time for this croc of bul
Go USA! I can't seem to begin to bring a cogent or objective debate to the table, so I'll settle for bland insults and empty rhetoric. Go USA! It's easy to spell

FYP. Seriously people are a lot less likely to be "Jerk offs" if you give more than insular and subjective opinion. Shocking I realise/realize this may be, but true nonetheless.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

beeftotheheels

1995sarah wrote: »

The justice system in America is way the best man. I don't have time for this ****. Just Google and figure it out for yourself like I did, or better still go live in the two countries and a few others, that way your sure to find out. Criminals don't get away with violant crime like they do in Ireland. Here they are given a little slap on the hand for violent crimes such as rape, felony assault or murder. Man, you can bet they will be sent away for a long time. I have read so much here in the papers, where rapists are given between 2 to 10 years. That is not justice. Women in rape cases are treated like dirt. I could go on all night long but don't have time for this croc of bull.

And yet the USA has a far higher instance of violent crime than Ireland does. One could question the statistics on rape and child abuse since the reporting of these crimes is notoriously unreliable in almost every society, one cannot question, in any meaningful way, the stats on crimes like kidnapping and murder which are difficult to distort.

All of which leads to the conclusion that for whatever reason, and I'm not sure one can lay the blame solely at the door of the legal system you hold in such high esteem, the USA as a society has a much higher instance of violent crime than Ireland does.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=31

http://www.cso.ie/statistics/crimeandjustice.htm

I'm not pro victim blaming at all, but I understand why there needs to be a burden of proof before convicting anyone of a crime. However I am not convinced that draconian criminal laws necessarily reduce the instance of violent crime, sexual or otherwise. There is more to it than that.

prinz

1995sarah wrote: »

You say no children went missing in Ireland in the last 10 years..

Flawless comprehension skills. I said no instances which meet the criteria for an amber alert occurred in that time. You know the same way only 0.03% odd of the instances of reported missing children in the US meet the same criteria.

LeeHoffmann

is this going off topic?

booboo88

1995sarah wrote: »

Man, I've had enough of this **** for one week. God, people get so personnel in here. What a bunch of jerk offs.

The justice system in America is way the best man. I don't have time for this ****. Just Google and figure it out for yourself like I did, or better still go live in the two countries and a few others, that way your sure to find out. Criminals don't get away with violant crime like they do in Ireland. Here they are given a little slap on the hand for violent crimes such as rape, felony assault or murder. Man, you can bet they will be sent away for a long time. I have read so much here in the papers, where rapists are given between 2 to 10 years. That is not justice. Women in rape cases are treated like dirt. I could go on all night long but don't have time for this croc of bull.

toodles,

if the justice system is more desirable in the us, you know where the airport is.