I love how the BBC coverage cites a statement saying that it is definitely not CICA's policy to cut reparations in cases where alcohol was consumed by the victim of rape... and yet they're still not prepared to review the other 14 cases. Nice. Makes me so so happy to be living in the UK...

This seems like a slippery slope, where today it's you get your compensation reduced by this much for consumption of alcohol, maybe tomorrow you get your compensation reduced further because you, say, neglected to cover your cleavage adequately, or ensured that you would be escorted by a male relative when leaving the house...

Ok- I need educating, please. I understand rape is illegal and drinking is not. I can certainly see the slippery slope.

It is, however, a fact that drinking (a lot) gets a woman into situations she would not otherwise put herself in. I know this from experience. When I drank a lot, I'd, say, lose my cab fare (or drink it) and hitch hike home. Or I'd go home with a guy just for a bed to sleep in. Now if I get to that guy's house and say 'no' to sex and he cajoles and presses and I give in under the influence of alcohol. How can I with a clear conscience cry rape? I am lucky I am not dead, some of the situations I got into.

Now that I do not drink, I have never gotten into a situation like that. No rape, no abuse. Until I took responsibility for my actions (and that began with drinking), I continued to be 'victimized.'

How do we reconcile these two truths: that it's not the victims 'fault', but that the victim can prevent such things by taking responsibility for her actions?

To Steph: "Now if I get to that guy's house and say 'no' to sex and he cajoles and presses and I give in under the influence of alcohol. How can I with a clear conscience cry rape?"

I didn't think that this was about women being more persuadable because they were drunk, consenting to sex, then claiming that they had been raped. I don't see that in the BBC story. It simply said that she was raped. For me this means that she wasn't persuaded into consenting to sex, but that she was raped.

As for the rest.... I don't see going out and getting extremely intoxicated as a great idea for any individual. I can imagine that you're increasing the risk that you *personally* will be featuring in the "victims of crime" statistics.

That said, making yourself more vulnerable to being attacked (in whatever manner) in no way absolves an attacker of his/her actions either. One could argue the opposite is true and that your immense vulnerability makes the crime committed against you even more reprehensible than usual.

The article just got me thinking, that's all: I guess I am wondering how to teach my daughter the value of modesty and propriety and restraint without making it her 'fault' that she should take responsibility.

Yes - I would agree it makes the crime worse. It doesn't stop it, though. Just because it's not her fault doesn't make it less painful for her to be raped. I think I am wondering how to reconcile theory with reality.

I am wondering how to teach my daughter the value of modesty and propriety and restraint without making it her 'fault' that she should take responsibility.

Yes - I would agree it makes the crime worse. It doesn't stop it, though. Just because it's not the victim's fault doesn't make it less painful, though. It's cold comfort.

I think I am wondering how to reconcile theory with reality.

I am wondering how to teach my daughter the value of modesty and propriety and restraint without making it her 'fault' that she should take responsibility.

oops - sorry for the multiples

Well in my mind you teach her all those things but you also teach her that she's her own person and that she has a right to live however she wishes. In other words, you teach her "modesty and propriety and restraint" as moral values, but not as responsibilities. In other words, these are the values which you should try to use in your life, but not which you MUST use in your life to be "acceptable" or "in the right".

For example I'm not a very modest person, because I believe that saying that I'm not very good at something when I AM good at something is a form of lying, and to me represents the problem of women not wanting to intimidate teh mens wit their smartz. Also I am quite young and happy with my healthy body and when I go out on the town with my girlfriends I like to look and feel great so I often wear clothes that reveal more flesh than I'd show at the office - so if that's what you mean as 'immodest' then I fit that too.

The fact is that I don't NEED to be modest to not be raped, and I don't NEED to stop myself from flirting or dancing provocatively or winking at a guy in order to not be raped, and I don't NEED to restrain how much alcohol I drink in order to not be raped. I have gotten blind drunk many times and not even come close to the problem (luckily drink spiking isn't as common here). So teach your values as just that: values. Do not teach them as "if you don't do these things your life will be ruined and it'll be your fault". It's just about the tone in which you say them and the implications you alude to.

Also a lot of those values are things which people work out on their own and understand the value of on their own, and also it depends on the personality of said individual. Some people are more outgoing and some are less outgoing, and obviously the introverts are more likely to display the values you've outlined.

Wasn't this particular woman drugged and then raped? It's unbelievable. Even in a case where the victim's supposed lack of judgment can't even factor into it, the court still tries to come up with an excuse to cut her compensation. It really is sheer victim blaming.

I have a few questions--

1) It probably varies by jurisdiction, but do they have victims' comp for violent crimes (any crimes? only some types?) in the U.S.?

2) There was a discussion of this case on Jezebel...the rapist bears the blame.

I expect predatory strangers...but what happens when an acquaintance or someone you trust (or can't really defend yourself against, in your compromised state) rapes you when you say no? What do we do, other than hope and wait for the factors that shape a rapist to change? (FAT CHANCE. Forgive me. That doesn't mean we shouldn't stop trying, but we have only so much control over those peer groups, shitty families/neighborhoods, and tenets of popular culture that lead to rape, be in stranger rape, group-mentality gang rape, intimate-relationship rape, child abuse...to say nothing of an individual rapist's psychological/family background).

Here's another quandry--I'm ashamed to bring this up--how often are there acquaintance rapes aren't clear coercion? We say a woman can't consent when she's drunk...

How many generally rape-conscientious women (or men) honestly have that thought in mind when they go out for a night on the town and drink too much and likely are hoping to hook up with someone? How good is either party's judgment if you are, in fact, "blind drunk?"

I'm sorry--my goal isn't to take away attention from the neglected issue of (clear) date rapes and rape in general, where one group takes advantage of another's comprised state...or subdues them with roofies...or physically subdues them...etc...and the focus falls on victims, not on perpetrators and THEIR lack of "propriety."

How do other, less benighted countries deal with this? (God, the lost opportunities, just imagining what we could deal with in comprehensive sex ed...we could discuss the costs of raising of a child, date rape, and the troubles of peer pressure in relationships and surrounding sex, everything...it makes me feel such despair...parents say the schools should NOT do it, but when they fuck up and drop the ball, who suffers?)

How's this?

"the incident" What the fuck is that supposed to mean? If I just read the phrase "inebriation was a contributing factor to the incident so reparations are being reduced" I would assume they were talking about an accident.

But they aren't, there was an acting perpetrator and that perpetrator was the one responsible for the damage, and he was acting with full awareness of what he was doing.

Why should what the victim did determine the amount of reparations instead of what the perpetrator did? That seems completely backwards, and not at all what reparations are supposed to mean. When a country makes reparations to another country, or to a culture, for past wrongs done, the reparations are about the /wrongs/. They are about the actions of the perpetrators.

Not to sidestep the issue, but I'm puzzled by the existence of an agency devoted to compensating crime victims out of general revenues. Why should normal people have to bear the financial cost of the rapist's aggression? The rapist is the one who ought to be paying.

I find this issue very difficult to get my head around. I'm still making sense of it so I won't try to comment directly right now, but I can answer cheezwizard's question above.

It's quite common now to have crimes compensation schemes designed to compensate victims of crimes or other violent acts. Obviously they vary in different countries and jurisdictions but there's a lot that's similar.

Victims can be compensated in different ways, sometimes directly through a cash payout, or paying medical and other expenses caused by the act, or even by non-monetary options like counseling or other support. The money usually comes from 2 sources - the pool of money that comes into the court from fines and the like, and from the government pursuing the offender. The money does *not* come from tax revenue.

Before these schemes came into place a victim would need to sue the offender personally. This causes problems if the victim doesn't know who the offender was, if the offender has no assets to pa, or if the victim can't afford the substantial financial, time and emotional cost of litigation. Although most jurisdictions still allow a victim to do this, these schemes take this burden away from the victim. It's a good thing.

Where the offender has been identified the State will pursue them to pay the compo. But a victim doesn't have to rely on the police and the prosecutions team doing their jobs for them to be compensated for their loss.

Not that anything can truly compensate for being attacked, injured and raped.

Steph commented at August 15, 2008 4:01 PM: "How do we reconcile these two truths: that it's not the victims 'fault', but that the victim can prevent such things by taking responsibility for her actions?"

You reconcile them by remembering that a rapist isn't an unthinking force of nature like hydrodynamics or plate tectonics, but a human being who chooses to rape. Drinking alcohol is definitely not setting yourself up for rape the way building a house on a floodplain or a fault line is setting yourself up for a wet or broken house.

Goanna commented at August 15, 2008 6:39 PM: "In other words, you teach her 'modesty and propriety and restraint' as moral values, but not as responsibilities."

As moral values and as tips (not requirements) for improving her odds of being safe (not for guaranteeing her safety).

Goanna commented at August 15, 2008 6:39 PM: "The fact is that I don't NEED to be modest to not be raped, and I don't NEED to stop myself from flirting or dancing provocatively or winking at a guy in order to not be raped, and I don't NEED to restrain how much alcohol I drink in order to not be raped. I have gotten blind drunk many times and not even come close to the problem (luckily drink spiking isn't as common here). So teach your values as just that: values. Do not teach them as 'if you don't do these things your life will be ruined and it'll be your fault'. It's just about the tone in which you say them and the implications you alude to."

Exactly!

wow.
So let me get this info straight-
If a woman has been drinking she deserves to be raped...
Oh yeah,
cause the only real rape cases are of proven previously virginal, non drinking, "white" women raped by men who aren't "white".
Things haven't changed much in the world of rape.

ahhh yes, harken back to the days when women who wore purple or red panties and brassieres with lace on them- were also "asking for it".

Throw back legal cases make me react with comments like this- sorry
just really pissed off at the status quo

aaaargh

In this case in the UK, her drink had been spiked by a date rape drug. So no matter whether she had 1 or 10 drinks, she was still drugged and then raped. While I do agree that women need to be responsible for their actions (not putting themselves in stupid situations where they are in danger of being mugged or attacked), there is a BIG difference between 'going home with a guy and being really drunk, not really saying a verbal 'yes' to sex, but not saying 'no' and doing it anyway, then waking up the next day and regretting it' and being out at a bar/club and being drugged and raped.

Unfortunately, it's not just the UK. Crime victims' comp organizations here in the US still deny rape victims comp because of alcohol use, even when they are minors and the perpetrator is an adult.

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/704727.html