andrewducker (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2005-11-25 08:15 am
andrewducker) wrote2005-11-25 08:15 am
Responsibility
This is inspired by the comment here, where ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
ladysysiphus says "If you have consumed enough alcohol to impair your judgement, I believe you then have to take at least some responsibility for putting yourself in a position where something like this might happen."
[Poll #619684]
ladysysiphus says "If you have consumed enough alcohol to impair your judgement, I believe you then have to take at least some responsibility for putting yourself in a position where something like this might happen."[Poll #619684]
no subject
In the first two cases: you/she may be in an area with a poor reputation, but any assault occurs because of the evil intent of the mugger/rapist. It's their responsibility. Just because an area has a dodgy reputation it does not follow that entering it implies one is courting assault, any more than it follows that you are immune from assault or robbery in areas with a reputation for safety. The law doesn't take account of "no-go zones" -- if it did, then the law could not be applied consistently.
In the third case, you not only go into a bar you consider to be dodgy but you deliberately say something you understand to be inflammatory. Any assault is still the fault of the attacker -- but they might argue that you deliberately provoked them. If they can plausibly claim that they wouldn't have attacked you without such provocation, then the blame is shared to some extent.
In the case of the tiger, that's of necessity your responsibility. The tiger is a wild beast and is simply being true to its nature. No human being is exercising control over it. It exists outside the rule of law. When going outside the law, in the absence of any other authority it's your responsibility to look to your own safety.
On the building site ... it's a mixture. On the one hand, walking across a clearly marked building site is reckless: you've been warned by the signs, you shouldn't have done it. On the other hand, the builders have a responsibility -- under health and safety regulations -- not to drop loose objects like bricks.
no subject
no subject
but any assault occurs because of the evil intent of the mugger/rapist. It's their responsibility.
That's what I said.
If they can plausibly claim that they wouldn't have attacked you without such provocation, then the blame is shared to some extent.
"Well, I wouldn't have raped her if she hadn't been wearing that skimpy miniskirt. It was clearly designed to provoke sexual thoughts your honour."
And you seem to be focussing on the law a lot. By and large I consider the law to be useful, but I certainly don't defer to it as the final answer on matters philosophical, moral and suchlike.
no subject
Not a valid analogy, because it reflects only on the internal state of mind of the attacker, who is clearly deluded if they think it's an invitation.
For it to be a valid analogy (with the walk-into-a-pub-and-say-something-provocative situation) your hypothetical skimpily clad female would also have to actually invite the other party to get intimate with her. (Then it gets a bit closer.)
no subject
And it doesn't matter what someone says, hitting someone is still fully the responsibility of the person hitting them. No words short of "Please hit me." are justification for violence - and the Operation Spanner results showed that legally speaking, not even then.
no subject
umm, well yeah, but thats why they put up signs. Quite frankly thats the only one situation where I wouldn't have ANY sympathy for the victim at all.