newjerseynewsroom.com

Share this Twitter Myspace Digg Del.icio.us Reddit Slashdot Furl Yahoo Technorati Newsvine Facebook Export PDF Print E-mail

The underlying, or implicit argument that this woman seems to be making (not having read her actual thesis) is that "IF an aggressor has an opportunity to cause harm, then the aggressor's actions are more acceptable". Except in her book she appeared to only apply this principle to domestic violence and rape victims. The woman clearly lacks the ethical capacity to be even a human being, let alone a lawyer. And not to put too fine a point on it, but have you noticed that folks who are both stupid and vile of character, will only discover civil rights when they own is challenged? For instance, if someone could overpower this woman and rape her, causing great trauma, would she still advocate that she herself is to blame for what someone else chose to do? If not, you can add hypocrisy to her list of defects. "I'm sorry your honor, but it wasn't my fault. They were asking for it. They were wearing a small brain." LOL!! "But...if the argument is, "If you knowingly and willing agree to do something that ends up hurting you, you should carry some responsibility for your decisions, too," well...that does make some sense." To some extent, I agree with that sentiment in theory. However in practice it usually devolves into excusing the perpetrator's actions for what he chose to do -- especially in categories of crime which are always difficult to prove such as rape where the majority of victims have historically suffered from a lack of justice with this exact same excuse. Her thesis completely ignores the genderized sexism and subsequent social conditioning which is still so common. If you read the article again, she wasn't talking about accidental manslaughter cases involving auto accidents, she specificially singled out domestic violence and rape. Wierd, that a supposedly civilized society would prefer to hold a rape victim accountable instead of the perpetrator.