After the madness that was Marriott's victim-blaming bullshit towards a rape survivor who was sexually assaulted in their hotel garage in Connecticut, we find (sort of) good news about the case:
The Marriott hotel chain on Monday abandoned its legal claim that a Connecticut woman raped at gunpoint in a hotel parking garage, in front of her young children, had been careless and was partly at fault.The withdrawal followed days of backlash against Bethesda, Md.-based Marriott International Inc., which had claimed in its defense of a lawsuit by the woman that she had "failed to exercise due care for her own safety and the safety of her children and proper use of her senses and facilities." (Emphasis mine)
The statement given by the Marriott says they are "profoundly sorry that such a terrible thing happened to the victim of this violent crime" and that the lawsuit has "created a mistaken impression that Marriott lacks respect" for victims of violence. Blaming a rape survivor for her assault? That's no mistaken impression of disrespect, but a certainty.
Many are also saying (and I concur) that the damage has already been done. Although it's obviously good that they're not using this horrific defense anymore, what kind of message has already been put out there? Nancy Kushins, executive director of Connecticut Sexual Assault Crisis Services, contended,
"The fear of being blamed for being raped is one of the most common reasons that victims of sexual assault don't come forward."
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Marriott retracts victim-blaming defense in Connecticut rape case.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15549
How in heavens do you blame someone who was trying to get into their car??? What, like, because she didn't put out a gun or something? Geez!
the actions of the "victim" (in quotes because s/he has not been proven to be a victim as yet under the law) are always a factor in determining liability and damages in legal proceedings, particularly tort actions. people making accusations should have their actions also examined. if as many fee the defense is meritless, let's put it through the scrutiny of the judicial system. i don't see how asserting a tried and true affirmative defense is offensive. many of these defense are thrown into the answer to the allegations at the early stage and abandoned as they matter progresses and the evidence proves otherwise. i just don't like the judicial system being manipulated by outside pressures that don't go to the merits of the matter at hand,
Law is not practiced in a vacuum. Yes, an attorney has a responsibility to put together the best defense for their client, but they need to consider the wider implications of using a particular defense. Beyond being morally repugnant, this defense significantly harmed Marriott in the wider court of public opinion. How was using it in Marriott's best interests?
Any attorney that cannot step back and see that a win in court isn't always the best result for their client, or that fighting some battles in court, instead of settling, may be morally and ethically unacceptable behavior, isn't worth their salt and should be replaced.
Considering the rapist was convicted, I think she qualifies as a survivor of rape- no quotation marks needed. Furthermore, as DRC points out, lawyers do not have to put forth morally questionable defenses- I'm sure there were other ways to argue against Marriott's responsibility that did not involve victim blaming or other ethically problematic assertions. Yet they choose to act in a problematic way- and thankfully got their head handed to them in the media.
Joan
ekpe, you are incorrect to use scare quotes around the word victim. Her attacker, Gary Fricker, pleaded guilty and is serving 20 years for this crime. I'm assuming you are unaware of this status rather than trying to imply that this woman may be lying about being assaulted.
There is a difference between examining a crime victim's actions and making an allegation about a crime victim's actions. The lawyers responding to this lawsuit made a counter allegation.
Just because something is "tried and true" -- meaning common and often successful -- doesn't mean that is not offensive in this case or in other similar cases. Victim blaming often works because it taps into common bigotry.
The actions by those trying to defend this case which led to this backlash went beyond filing this counter allegation, it included contacting people the victim knew and disclosing to them this rape survivor's identity.
Objecting to victim blaming and questionable investigation techniques is in no way manipulating the judicial system and is directly related to the merits of the matter at hand.
I agree with ekpe.
This is not just a "tried and true" defense. This is the standard defense for negligence. A lawyer would likely be deemed negligent in not bringing up such a defense.
This issue (like most negligence cases) can be boiled down to two sentences:
Plaintiff: It is your fault that I got raped.
Defendant: No, it was your fault.
Okay, yes, technically, the defense constitutes "victim-blaming," which is done in almost every negligence case under the sun; that is the very essence of contributory negligence.
But, on this site, where there is so much emphasis on blaming the rapists for rape, does it not disturb anyone that the victim is seeking to blame a THIRD PARTY for what happened to her?
-Jut
does it not disturb anyone that the victim is seeking to blame a THIRD PARTY for what happened to her?
No. The rapist is already convicted and serving time. Ultimately the primary fault is with him -- but if the hotel did not provide a safe environment, then they share some of the responsibility. She's not saying "the hotel raped me," she's saying, "the hotel did not fulfill its responsibility to keep me reasonably safe from rapists."
Lily A:
Okay, so we agree the responsibility lies with the rapist. However, if you take the position that rapists are the ones responsible for rape, I just do not see how the hotel is responsible
And, yes, I understand that she is saying the hotel did not do what it could to keep her reasonably safe from rapists. That is negligent supervision, etc.
But, what is ironic, is that the hotel MAY NOT ask, "but what did you do to keep yourself safe?"
The hotel has a responsibility to protect her, but she has no responsibility to protect herself.
As soon as you start saying, "this person had a duty to protect me," one immediately must look at what that person did to protect herself (except you can't, because that is victim-blaming).
And, for that matter, it is a big question as to whether the hotel had that duty to protect her in the first place (or if they breached it). They may win on that point. Plus, there are other defenses they could have used (and probably did); I just do not have a problem with them using contributory negligence.
-Jut
jut asked, "does it not disturb anyone that the victim is seeking to blame a THIRD PARTY for what happened to her?"
She is not claiming that the Marriott is an equal party in that rape as this question seems to imply. She is making an entirely different claim.
"Fricker had been in the hotel and garage acting suspiciously days before the attack, as well as the afternoon of the attack, and the hotel failed to notice him, apprehend him or make him leave. During the attack, security personnel did not see or stop him, the suit claims," from the Stamford Advocate 8/12/09.
This information indicates a systemic problem with security at the Stamford Marriott. She is alleging negligence in the area of basic security in their parking garage and alleging that this negligence gave her gun-toting rapist the opportunity he needed to attack her.
The lawsuit would have the same merit if it there had been no sexual assault involved and if she had been shot to death in an attempted carjacking and the person filing suit was the father of her children. However, I believe there would be much less backlash over the original lawsuit and less support for the counter claim that in fact the murdered woman was the negligent party.
Yesterday the Stamford Advocate reported comments by the hotel's attorney. He indicated that the legal work has all been handled by the hotel's insurance company, and that he requested on behalf of the hotel that the defense claiming negligence be withdrawn before the media blitz. Negligence on behalf of a victim is a pretty standard insurance company defense, it just happens to be extra-repugnant in this tragic case.
http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/ci_13140972
Why are we so hell-bent on portraying this company as evil and anti-woman without even discussion what the company's attorney has to say for himself?
I agree with you that the insurance company should be held liable for their morally offensive behavior, if they are the real culprits. It seems likely.
I found this part telling, though: "Marriott attorney Donald Derrico said the company was trying to determine the effect of the crime on the victim and that subpoenas have not been issued."
I am certain that it is standard procedure for an insurance company to poke around the community after you claim to have gotten whiplash in a car accident, in order to find out if you were out dancing the next day. But to follow that procedure in a horrific kidnapping, rape and child abuse case is a kind of profound moral blindness.
Agreed. The insurance company is morally repellant. But the company has pretty limited control over the defense mounted by the insurance company. The insurers are the ones who will pay any awards given by the suit, and the ones mounting the defense. Marriot is the client, but as they're not the ones who will be writing the checks here, they have limited say over how the insurance company procedes.
If y'all want to wage a PR war agains the insurance company, I'm all for it.
Agreed - I don't understand why everyone is so fast to jump on Mariott here. IANAL, but it's my understanding that when you sign an insurance policy you often subrogate certain of your rights in relation to lawsuits to the insurance company. If, for example, you are injured in a car accident and claim expenses from your insurance company, then they can sue the other driver without your consent, and I don't think you actually have any say in how they conduct the lawsuit.
I completely disagree with your analysis. I think that the fact it took them, as the earliest I can find is the 12th, at least five days to comment is telling. They waited until the shit hit the fan to do anything.
I also highly doubt that the company wasn't working with the attorney or at the very least did not know that the lawyers had filed a motion to say that the woman was at fault.
The "apology" is too little, too late and strictly for PR reasons.
Agreed. Definitely for PR reasons. It was sick and moronic to even suggest that she may be at fault.
On a side note, this is Marriott in Bethesda? That's where the annual SPX comics fest is held every year. Looks like I'm going to not go, just because of this.
About time.
Whether or not the hotel should be held responsible for the crime committed on their property...their defense citing that the woman was careless and basically negligent was fucking repugnant.
With a little more effort, I'm certain the Stamford Marriott's attorney could have come up with something that didn't stoop to "the woman got herself raped."
How long will we have to wait until the blame for rape is placed where it belongs - with the rapist?
That is from the "Friday Feminist Fuck You". Yet all I see here is blaming Marriot.
Cattrack2, there is a huge difference between the intent of victim blaming and the intent to hold a hotel responsible for an ongoing security failure which was exploited by a rapist.
Equating this lawsuit with victim blaming is equating 2 non-equal things not a clever gotcha.
Unfortunately, many times it takes lawsuits from rape survivors or other crime victims before companies or other organizations will correct security failures.