Blaming the victim vs Practical culpability.

[Magic Poriferan]

So a person pulls into a busy parking lot in a nice sports car. They get out of the car and lock it, but leave the keys on the hood of the car. Ultimately, the person is away from the car for 5 hours. Upon returning, the car is missing, and eventually it is learned that it was hijacked.

My thoughts:

Did the driver deserve to have their car stolen? No.

Was the thief innocent or justified in stealing the car? No.

Do I think the driver should be denied assistance with their problem? No.

Was the driver highly culpable in their car being stolen? Yes.

Do I think it's fair to expect an adult to not make that mistake? Yes.

Do I think this should be a learning experience that will prevent the driver from reapting it? Yes.

Based on my answers, do you think I'm being fair? Do you think I can be accused of blaming the victim?

 

[Cellmold]

From the ground up I would argue that people only see the victim as culpable in such a situation because it is generally accepted as part of the world we live in.

In an ideal world it would of course be ridiculous to assume that someone should be blamed for another's lack of self-control. But this is not an ideal world, it is the world where anything can happen at any time to anyone and often for no reason we can understand or explain, it is the world where principals are only half adhered to and usually used to justify self-serving ends rather than for the actual principal itself.

However this does not mean people shouldn't make an effort. To do otherwise merely creates an enabling environment where such behaviour is accepted as a two-way issue.

Having said this I understand the mindset that would call the victim culpable as well as the perpetrator, but I would be reluctant to do so myself, which isn't to say I wouldn't.

This is also quite contextual. If a person parked their sports car on the edge of a sea-side cliff and then the cliff eroded or otherwise gave away and they had to write off the car....this person is irresponsible and directly contributed to what happened.

The scenario you posted is more endemic of a bigger, widespread, problem in that society and the individuals that it consists of.

It's all about expectation and desensitisation. Perhaps I am just naive.

In any case this is a good topic and one that definitely isn't clear cut.

 

[Coriolis]

So a person pulls into a busy parking lot in a nice sports car. They get out of the car and lock it, but leave the keys on the hood of the car. Ultimately, the person is away from the car for 5 hours. Upon returning, the car is missing, and eventually it is learned that it was hijacked.

My thoughts:

Did the driver deserve to have their car stolen? No.

Was the thief innocent or justified in stealing the car? No.

Do I think the driver should be denied assistance with their problem? No.

Was the driver highly culpable in their car being stolen? Yes.

Do I think it's fair to expect an adult to not make that mistake? Yes.

Do I think this should be a learning experience that will prevent the driver from reapting it? Yes.

Based on my answers, do you think I'm being fair? Do you think I can be accused of blaming the victim?

There is a difference between doing something stupid, and doing something illegal. We prosecute those who do the second, but generally rely on logical consequences to sanction the first. I cannot object to anything you wrote above, because it is just words, statements offering a value judgment. What would be the practical consequences of such a chain of events? Would the driver's insurance fail to pay for the car because he made it easy to steal? Would he be held partly responsible for any crimes committed by the thief in or using the car? Either of these consequences I would consider go too far. The driver will have enough trouble in this situation, even as an "innocent" victim, for him to learn his lesson.

 

[Istbkleta]

Do I think it's fair to expect an adult to not make that mistake? Yes.

Apart from this, everything else seems pretty OK to me

 

[Lark]

What I'm interested in is where you thought this was going or did you think it would branch out into the discussion of other crimes and the responsibility of the victim in it all?

I think that there ought to be consequential thinking in any and all situations and learning taken from them all, people need to be self aware and not set themselves up but at the same time I think they have a right to expect that even were it easy for the criminal that they shouldnt be a victim of crime.

I've heard of people who have driven home with groceries and been carrying them in from their car and left the keys in the car have had their cars hijacked, I've also heard about cars which have those "radar" keys being car jacked when the person is in the vacinity or within range or if someone has snatched a handbag with the key in it. Those are interesting and perhaps less "careless" scenarios to consider.

Equally if anyone were to see the key sitting on the car would they be culpable if they had seen the key and had not handed it into the police or someone, car lot attendent or something, for safe keeping?

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

So a person pulls into a busy parking lot in a nice sports car. They get out of the car and lock it, but leave the keys on the hood of the car. Ultimately, the person is away from the car for 5 hours. Upon returning, the car is missing, and eventually it is learned that it was hijacked.

My thoughts:

Did the driver deserve to have their car stolen? No.

Was the thief innocent or justified in stealing the car? No.

Do I think the driver should be denied assistance with their problem? No.

Was the driver highly culpable in their car being stolen? Yes.

Do I think it's fair to expect an adult to not make that mistake? Yes.

Do I think this should be a learning experience that will prevent the driver from reapting it? Yes.

Based on my answers, do you think I'm being fair? Do you think I can be accused of blaming the victim?

I think about this a lot, especially in reference to another crime that I presume you're alluding to. I think all your answers are reasonable and I don't think you're assigning any unwarranted blame.

I don't understand why the current rhetoric in victim blaming leaves room only for polarity. There's simply no allowance for an answer like "no, it was not your fault that your car was stolen, but it probably wasn't a very good idea to leave your keys on the hood." I don't understand why someone would take that chance just because the politics of this topic say it shouldn't happen. Righteousness makes for a terrible anti-theft device.

 

[Bamboo]

Wow, I wrote a thread very similar in concept to this one.

Victimization, blame, danger, and personal responsibility
http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61761

The short version is:
there's a difference between blaming the victim and showing that the victim holds responsibility for their own actions. Ultimately, if there is a need to assign guilt, the guilty party is the one who committed the violation, not the one who was violated.



That said, as a practical aside many jurisdictions make it an offense worthy of a fine to leave your keys in your ignition or the like. Too many stolen cars overloading the police force, perhaps?

 

[roman67]

In quick accidents it’s always the blame game, sometimes the wrong person win it.

 

[Bamboo]

I think about this a lot, especially in reference to another crime that I presume you're alluding to. I think all your answers are reasonable and I don't think you're assigning any unwarranted blame.

I don't understand why the current rhetoric in victim blaming leaves room only for polarity. There's simply no allowance for an answer like "no, it was not your fault that your car was stolen, but it probably wasn't a very good idea to leave your keys on the hood." I don't understand why someone would take that chance just because the politics of this topic say it shouldn't happen. Righteousness makes for a terrible anti-theft device.

I'd generally agree.

I think where people go wrong in telling people about responsibility is that they take on a tone of: you must do this.

"Don't leave your keys in your car, you CAN'T do that." The problem with that statement is the only answer's that come straight out of it are "Yes I will comply with what you're saying" or "Piss off." It's individual choice to take that risk, and they can do it if I want.

Instead try: "You know it's easier for someone to steal your car like that." Then the other person can be annoyed, but they can say "Yeah, I know (but I don't think it's going to happen here)."

Or: "Hey, there's been a lot of vehicle theft's lately, be careful!" That's advice that doesn't even really require a response.

I think this small difference in tone (being careful of words like "you should" that can take on a connotation of giving orders) can make a difference.

 

[Rasofy]

Based on my answers, do you think I'm being fair?

Yes.

Do you think I can be accused of blaming the victim?

Yes, also. I think the phrase 'blaming the victim' is tricky, because from what I've noticed people assume that it's implied that the victim has done something "to deserve it" (i.e. a moral judgement), but the point is: the victim is guilty of having dramatically increased the risk of the unwanted event.

If I ever forget to lock the house before I left it and a thief enters in and steals everything, my parents are going to blame me for it - and rightfully so. Not because I've done something morally objectionable, but because I was supposed to take common sense precautions in order not to overly increase the risk.

 

[Ginkgo]

I think you're being fair. I sort of take my notion of responsibility for granted and I don't frequently question it because I'm comfortable with it basically being contingent upon a consistent connection between knowledge, intention and action.

As a general rule, I think that most people are both guilty and victimized for one thing or another. The driver was responsible for leaving his keys on the hood of the car. By no means, does this justify the thief's actions, but in an incident such as this, emotion tends to skew judgment to the point where personal responsibilities aren't always appropriately differentiated. Both victim and perpetrator may shift the blame because they are so focused on their relationship to the whole series of events that - for instance - a burn victim may feel guilty for the death of someone who died in the fire simply on the basis that they survived. A thief may think that an establishment deserves to be stolen from on the basis that the establishment is corrupt. etc.

It's almost like confusion comes hand in hand with attempting to implement your personal sense of justice when you refuse to appeal to a higher authority.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Yes. Some of you have addressed the fundamental concept that drives me to think about this. There's too much focus on what people allegedly deserve. I'm starting to wonder if I've ever participated in a discussion where the concept of deserving was constructive.

 

[Ivy]

Instead of dancing around it, I'd like to address what I think you're alluding to here.

I've talked to my daughter about this at length. (She's 13.) She knows that she NEVER, EVER deserves to be taken advantage of. Regardless of the circumstances, her consent will be required for sex, and if the unthinkable ever happens, she will not be blamed for the wrongdoing of another person.. Even if she walked down the street stark nude, it would still not be consent. She also knows that we will talk about consent with her brother at great length as he enters and goes through puberty, to prevent him from ever being confused about whether a situation means he is allowed to have sex with a girl.

But I've also told her that I would be remiss if I didn't teach her some ways to protect herself e.g. staying in well-lit public areas, going out in groups, responsible drinking or preferably abstaining from drinking, never leaving any kind of drink unattended, don't worry about being the "nice girl" if you need to scream or hit or get away, etc. But if her judgment fails or she makes an exception and something happens, making an unwise decision is never going to be the focus of our response.

 

[Ivy]

About deserving- I don't know why that became the focus, either, but it is. People will give a victim the second degree to make sure she didn't make any mistakes that could conceivably have led to her being assaulted. We talk about "deserving" because that's how it gets framed after the fact. It's to counteract the idea that she was "asking for it."

 

[Magic Poriferan]

About deserving- I don't know why that became the focus, either, but it is. People will give a victim the second degree to make sure she didn't make any mistakes that could conceivably have led to her being assaulted. We talk about "deserving" because that's how it gets framed after the fact. It's to counteract the idea that she was "asking for it."

See, that sort of strikes me as disarming a gunman with a hydrogen bomb.

The argument that a woman is ever asking for it and thus deserves it is so flatly ridiculous that it is not hard to formulate a response which will show just how ridiculous it is to anyone who has not already ideologically committed themselves to that position. Attempting to remove the entire concept of culpability is a really unnecessary measure, and to me the idea is about as irrational as claiming that women ask for it.

 

[Ivy]

I think you underestimate the impact of the "gunman."

 

[Magic Poriferan]

I think you underestimate the impact of the "gunman."

Is there an amount of impact that would justify such a method?

I advise against undermining bullshit with with an equally large amount of bullshit. The long-term effect is always too much of a cost.

EDIT: By th way, what you said to your daughter is a part of why I find this important. The concept of zero culpability, taken to its logical conclusion, actually means you can't advise someone to protect themselves. To do so would be to acknowledge that their decisions could affect what is done to them.

 

[Ivy]

Is there an amount of impact that would justify such a method?

I advise against undermining bullshit with with an equally large amount of bullshit. The long-term effect is always too much of a cost.

I sincerely do not think it is bullshit to put my focus on the criminal after a sexual assault takes place, and to treat the victim only with compassion.

I've already said that I do teach my daughter ways to protect herself. What I take issue with is the idea that we ought to teach young women how to avoid being sexually assaulted in such a way that implies that if they ever are, it's because they didn't protect themselves well enough and therefore their own fault because, well, men are just like that. Men are like that in part because we're not teaching young men the importance of consent. There are violent criminals who are just going to assault people, yes, but there are also guys who think as long as she doesn't verbally say "no" that it's totally a "yes." We have to teach our young men that they cannot proceed without affirmative consent.

Before the fact, we do need to teach young women how to protect themselves. But after the fact, it doesn't do anybody any good to say "well, you should have done X/Y/Z and then maybe you wouldn't have gotten sexually assaulted." It happened- she's now traumatized, and that response only compounds the trauma.

 

[Bamboo]

How about: does the thief deserve to go to jail? Do they deserve to be punished/isolated from society/intervened on?

The theif deserves to have his liberties taken away because they're a danger to society. You can't hold someone against their will - unless they are a criminal and you are detaining them after you tackled them down and are waiting for police. That's behavior that is normally totally unacceptable. Unless they deserve it.

I don't think you can pull deserve out of the equation.

Just make sure the violator, not the victim, deserves it.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

I sincerely do not think it is bullshit to put my focus on the criminal after a sexual assault takes place, and to treat the victim only with compassion.

Nor do I.

I've already said that I do teach my daughter ways to protect herself. What I take issue with is the idea that we ought to teach young women how to avoid being sexually assaulted in such a way that implies that if they ever are, it's because they didn't protect themselves well enough and therefore their own fault because, well, men are just like that. Men are like that in part because we're not teaching young men the importance of consent. There are violent criminals who are just going to assault people, yes, but there are also guys who think as long as she doesn't verbally say "no" that it's totally a "yes." We have to teach our young men that they cannot proceed without affirmative consent.

Before the fact, we do need to teach young women how to protect themselves. But after the fact, it doesn't do anybody any good to say "well, you should have done X/Y/Z and then maybe you wouldn't have gotten sexually assaulted." It happened- she's now traumatized, and that response only compounds the trauma.

And I'm not suggesting we do the bold part. Indeed, my point is that somehow observing cause and effect results in someone think that you advocate the bold part, which is weird and counter-productive.

I am also saying that I agree with all the things you think we need to teach people, and the best way to do that is with a rational and true argument. Pretending there's no culpability is neither. I further add that it possiby also becomes an argument to disempower women. That is, the fact of needing to pretend that there is no culpability implies that in the case of culpability a woman really would have deserved it.

How about: does the thief deserve to go to jail? Do they deserve to be punished/isolated from society/intervened on?

The theif deserves to have his liberties taken away because they're a danger to society. You can't hold someone against their will - unless they are a criminal and you are detaining them after you tackled them down and are waiting for police. That's behavior that is normally totally unacceptable. Unless they deserve it.

I don't think you can pull deserve out of the equation.

Just make sure the violator, not the victim, deserves it.

Actually, I do oppose that. It is better to get to the ultimate point. We are putting the thief in jail because he is a danger to society and jail will restrict him in a safe way. When a sentence becomes a matter of what the criminal deserves, the sentence tends to become self-serving. The point becomes that X is just supposed to happen to a person who does Y, regardless of utility.