Should the victim hold responsibility for what has been done to them?

[flyingturducken]

In BBC's documentary about the 2012 Delhi Gang Rape, "India's Daughter", one of the rapists had been interviewed and had given the following statement: "A girl is far more responsible for rape than a boy."

Honestly, I am extremely infuriated and violated with his response, though after a while I realised that it's the environment he was nurtured in that shaped his personality to be like that. Then I began to think if maybe we're biasing ourselves too much against the criminals without understanding their point of view. I'm not saying that I agree with him, and that the rape and murder he committed is reasonable, but to a microscopic degree I do, and that really bothers me. 

A few months ago I had been hit from behind by a drunk driver on a sunny afternoon, and mind you it was a very wide road. I was with my parents at the moment and they dealt with the jerk while I collected and recuperated on the sidelines. In my opinion, the man should've been jailed for his recklessness. He had a kid in his car for Christ's sake, what would've happened if he drove into a ditch or straight towards a truck? 

What happened afterwards scarred me. On the way home, my mom told me that it was my fault that I got hit and I should've known my place on the road. To my defense I replied that I was on the sidewalk and it hit me from behind, so how could I have seen it coming? This might be stereotypical, but coming from an Asian household I have been raised to regard my parents superior and that they are always correct. So no matter how much I reject my mom's criticism, it still remains true to me. 

I'm curious about your opinions in this subject matter. To me, both sides have their own shortcomings. However, a criminal is a criminal: there's no grey area if you go against the law. Then again, referring back to the Delhi rape case, there is a law against the said crime, but their upbringing begs to differ. Human nature is not well-adapted to change, so what are laws exactly for if the majority disagrees with it?

 

 

[ShootingStar16]

I agree that a criminal is a criminal and there are also personal circumstances to take into consideration as well. I don't think that the victim should be held responsible. In the case of the 2012 Delhi Gang Rape, I feel that the atrocious crime committed was by no means justified. She never explicitly asked for it, in my opinion. I just read an article where the man says: "A decent girl won't roam around at 9 o'clock at night. […] Housework and housekeeping is for girls, not roaming discos and bars at night doing wrong things, wearing wrong clothes […]" I felt like this was such a sexist comment and one thing I really hated was how he said "[…] wearing wrong clothes […]" The clothes she wears does NOT determine whether or not she asked for it. He was the one who ended up objectifying her when he committed the crime. I know this was probably determined by his upbringing, but still, it's not like he didn't have a choice. 

Edited April 24, 2015 by ShootingStar16

[Blackcurrant]

That statement IS infuriating.

 

Those attitudes have to be extirpated/eradicated -- and fast. It is the old excuse of (some) men who feel women are a free-for all. The problem is, the attitude is a cultural one  -- it is not an individual attitude. And by cultural, I am not thinking in terms of country or nation (although that can be part of it) but the attitudes and values that pervade a society and make such horrible events possible and even condoned. It is the same, whether in Indonesia, Canada or Britain. 

 

It was the old excuse for date-rape in college dorms in the US and Canada years ago, which still happens now, but those women who complain are usually heard now and court cases tend to take victims seriously.  Or if not, they go to social media and find plenty of like-minded people with ammo. to spare. 

 

It is hard to believe these rapists will walk free. 

Edited April 24, 2015 by Blackcurrant

[King112]

First, with regard to the rape. I was horrified to hear that. I'm an Indian, and I was shocked at the brutality of the rape. Under no circumstances, is rape OK. The girl never asked to be raped. She was out with her friend, the men responsible had absolutely no right to condemn her clothes or anything. Almost everything in India gets the reply "its not in our culture." In my opinion, that is genuine BS. According to earlier research, the Indian society initially gave women a lot of freedom. It stated, men earn the money, how it is spent, is the woman's decision. She cannot be questioned. However, it has gotten corrupted in recent times. I personally feel that India is full of a bunch of old fashioned *insertrudewordshere* and we need change. The fact is, I often feel that laws are needed, but people don't accept it simply because it "goes agains their upbringing". That again, is quite a falsehood. The thing in India is similar to the extremists in Islam who give all muslims a bad name. Rules are meant to support general majority. The people who create the biggest issues are a very small proportion. The film, while definitely brings out a lot of truth, also creates an exaggeration. Now, just to be clear, I am not India's biggest fan, but not all men are rapists. The movie portrays all men as rapists. Example: My friends and I. Not to brag, but I would never harass a girl, and am 99% sure my friends wouldn't. So the film is also not totally wrong. And I feel, the woman is never responsible for rape. She could be stark naked, and no one has the right to rape her.  

 

My parents have more experience about the world no doubt. But I have always had the right to tell them that they are wrong. I have often told my parents they are wrong, and have received apologies. 

 

With regard to the law, I feel that a criminal is a criminal no matter what, only in some cases. Example: rapes, harassment. However, in some cases, such as robbery and occasionally murder, they are forced. For example, if someone is threatening your family, and you know killing him is the only way to ensure their safety, you would kill him. So is the killer now a criminal? Or a thief who steals to get his sick child medication. Is he/she a criminal? Essentially everything needs to go into context. Rapes are inexcusable, and some other crimes too. However, a criminal may (repeat may) have a legitimate reason.

[flyingturducken]

First, with regard to the rape. I was horrified to hear that. I'm an Indian, and I was shocked at the brutality of the rape. Under no circumstances, is rape OK. The girl never asked to be raped. She was out with her friend, the men responsible had absolutely no right to condemn her clothes or anything. Almost everything in India gets the reply "its not in our culture." In my opinion, that is genuine BS. According to earlier research, the Indian society initially gave women a lot of freedom. It stated, men earn the money, how it is spent, is the woman's decision. She cannot be questioned. However, it has gotten corrupted in recent times. I personally feel that India is full of a bunch of old fashioned *insertrudewordshere* and we need change. The fact is, I often feel that laws are needed, but people don't accept it simply because it "goes agains their upbringing". That again, is quite a falsehood. The thing in India is similar to the extremists in Islam who give all muslims a bad name. Rules are meant to support general majority. The people who create the biggest issues are a very small proportion. The film, while definitely brings out a lot of truth, also creates an exaggeration. Now, just to be clear, I am not India's biggest fan, but not all men are rapists. The movie portrays all men as rapists. Example: My friends and I. Not to brag, but I would never harass a girl, and am 99% sure my friends wouldn't. So the film is also not totally wrong. And I feel, the woman is never responsible for rape. She could be stark naked, and no one has the right to rape her.  

 

My parents have more experience about the world no doubt. But I have always had the right to tell them that they are wrong. I have often told my parents they are wrong, and have received apologies. 

 

With regard to the law, I feel that a criminal is a criminal no matter what, only in some cases. Example: rapes, harassment. However, in some cases, such as robbery and occasionally murder, they are forced. For example, if someone is threatening your family, and you know killing him is the only way to ensure their safety, you would kill him. So is the killer now a criminal? Or a thief who steals to get his sick child medication. Is he/she a criminal? Essentially everything needs to go into context. Rapes are inexcusable, and some other crimes too. However, a criminal may (repeat may) have a legitimate reason.

Interesting point. There are circumstances where it is hard to determine who's who and what has been done. However, and to quote Atticus Finch, "all men are created equal". The judicial system was set to bring justice to whatever crime had been done; it is a you do it or you don't system. I would say that if you had done a crime, no matter the reason, punishment should be served justly. And as you said, it needs to go into context. Those men from India had been through the worst that life has to offer, and because of that they have gone into a morally corrupt area without any sense of law. So if a criminal sees his actions to be reasonable and tangential to their environment, should their punishments be less severe? Again, I'm not taking their side as reasonable, and their crimes are unforgivable, but I'm viewing this situation as a whole. 

[King112]

I don't agree that the men had gone through the worst of life. Majority of the poorer population in india lives in similar conditions. I agree with your idea about the fact that everyone is equal, and if you had done a crime, you need to be punished, but I was trying to say, in certain cases for certain crimes, we should consider other factors.

For example, a maid in the USA was torturing a child. Such as stepping on the girl (not more than 3 years of age), beating her with a bottle, and kicking her. The parents happened to see this through a camera installed, and the father of this girl thrashed the maid to the extent that the maid is paralysed for life, breathing through a tube. Would you convict the father?

That was all I was trying to say. Sorry if it didn't make sense.

 

The men in the rape case had not gone through the worst.  Many parts of india have worse conditions. They just decided that this girl is "asking to be raped". I feel these men should be punished severely, and in this case, I feel they should be tortured mercilessly. but thats just my opinion.

 

Though I feel that you should not blame the victim all the time, nor should you blame the offender all the time, without looking at all the evidence and without putting it into the context of issues. However, personally, I feel things like rape commited by either gender (yes, it does happen, women do rape men) should not be tolerated for any cause. you could have been through hell, but you have no right to violate someone else's body.

Just my thoughts (Hope I make sense)

[ncarmont]

Definitely not!  

While one may provoke another to do certain things and create ease for a negative course of action to occur, they should not held be held fully responsible for being victimized in the first place. 

 

It like provoking someone to get angry and then that person killing you, while you did create some responsibility for their anger, It was their full responsibility for having taken the gruesome act of killing you. 

[crossroads1112]

I don't think this is much of a debate. By virtue of being victims, they are not to blame. Period. Full stop. 

 

That being said, it is possible for someone to be a victim and an aggressor.  There has been some research that indicates that in a very large proportion of abusive relationships, both members abuse one another. In this instance, both are to blame IMHO.

[Emilia1320]

Its not victims fault. Period.