Is the raped also responsible for the act of rape?

[PoeticPassions]

I wonder if there is a way, within societies, to actually work on preventing (reducing) rape (not through carrying guns or even increasing sentences for rapists) but through education, the shifting of norms, and empowering victims of such crimes...?

Look, rape seems to occur across cultures, space, and time. However, it does seem that certain places have much higher rape percentages than others. I wonder if this has to do with culture, the laws of the state, or the mentality of the people (I would venture to say that more machismo societies with very strong patriarchal structures would have higher percentages of rape). There was a survey completed in South Africa and it is alleged that 1 in 4 men have raped a woman. That statistic is staggering. It makes me wonder what it is in South African laws, society, etc that has made this type of behavior either acceptable or even encouraged?? Why such a high rate of rape, especially as compared to other places?

Anyway, I am not trying to stray from the original post and question (as I concur with most posters here that the raped is never to blame for the act of rape and that using excuses such as 'she wanted it and was asking for it' because she was dressed too provocatively or whatnot, are just rationalizations of our wayward actions and behaviors). Rape is mainly about power and control (the prison example someone mentioned is actually the best illustration of this fact). Rape has also been used a tool of war and ethnic cleansing... as a way to 'infect' the 'other,' and also to dehumanize. So in some sense rape isn't as deviant as it may seem, in that it occurs relatively often and sometimes systematically, but it is abhorrent nonetheless and in most countries seen as illegal.

I will add, however, that sometimes the rapist is not fully to blame... Think about a child soldier in the DRC, for example, who is abducted at age 9... forced to fight and kill, drugged, raped by his adult males... and then grows older, remains in the system, and ends up raping other boys or girls. Sure, he is still responsible... but to what degree should he be punished?

This entire discussion has had a very Western flare... and ideas of forgiveness, collective culpability, shared humanity, etc have not really been brought up, but I do think they merit some consideration. I generally do believe that we are all connected to one another and that we are responsible for each other's actions as well as our own. If I sin, you sin too (this stems from Desmond Tutu's philosophy and the South African notion of 'ubuntu,'--which may be slightly ironic given my previous statements about rape in that country). In any case, I actually think that communities and societies as a whole need to take more responsibility for criminal actions, and seek to empower women (and men) instead of always prescribing the label of 'victim' (which in some sense robs one of agency and deems them helpless).

[PoeticPassions]

I wonder if there is a way, within societies, to actually work on preventing (reducing) rape (not through carrying guns or even increasing sentences for rapists) but through education, the shifting of norms, and empowering victims of such crimes...?

Look, rape seems to occur across cultures, space, and time. However, it does seem that certain places have much higher rape percentages than others. I wonder if this has to do with culture, the laws of the state, or the mentality of the people (I would venture to say that more machismo societies with very strong patriarchal structures would have higher percentages of rape). There was a survey completed in South Africa and it is alleged that 1 in 4 men have raped a woman. That statistic is staggering. It makes me wonder what it is in South African laws, society, etc that has made this type of behavior either acceptable or even encouraged?? Why such a high rate of rape, especially as compared to other places?

Anyway, I am not trying to stray from the original post and question (as I concur with most posters here that the raped is never to blame for the act of rape and that using excuses such as 'she wanted it and was asking for it' because she was dressed too provocatively or whatnot, are just rationalizations of our wayward actions and behaviors). Rape is mainly about power and control (the prison example someone mentioned is actually the best illustration of this fact). Rape has also been used a tool of war and ethnic cleansing... as a way to 'infect' the 'other,' and also to dehumanize. So in some sense rape isn't as deviant as it may seem, in that it occurs relatively often and sometimes systematically, but it is abhorrent nonetheless and in most countries seen as illegal.

I will add, however, that sometimes the rapist is not fully to blame... Think about a child soldier in the DRC, for example, who is abducted at age 9... forced to fight and kill, drugged, raped by his adult males... and then grows older, remains in the system, and ends up raping other boys or girls. Sure, he is still responsible... but to what degree should he be punished?

This entire discussion has had a very Western flare... and ideas of forgiveness, collective culpability, shared humanity, etc have not really been brought up, but I do think they merit some consideration. I generally do believe that we are all connected to one another and that we are responsible for each other's actions as well as our own. If I sin, you sin too (this stems from Desmond Tutu's philosophy and the South African notion of 'ubuntu,'--which may be slightly ironic given my previous statements about rape in that country). In any case, I actually think that communities and societies as a whole need to take more responsibility for criminal actions, and seek to empower women (and men) instead of always prescribing the label of 'victim' (which in some sense robs one of agency and deems them helpless).

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Are mace and tazers against the law in Canada?

[tonywalt]

I wonder if there is a way, within societies, to actually work on preventing (reducing) rape (not through carrying guns or even increasing sentences for rapists) but through education, the shifting of norms, and empowering victims of such crimes...?

Look, rape seems to occur across cultures, space, and time. However, it does seem that certain places have much higher rape percentages than others. I wonder if this has to do with culture, the laws of the state, or the mentality of the people (I would venture to say that more machismo societies with very strong patriarchal structures would have higher percentages of rape). There was a survey completed in South Africa and it is alleged that 1 in 4 men have raped a woman. That statistic is staggering. It makes me wonder what it is in South African laws, society, etc that has made this type of behavior either acceptable or even encouraged?? Why such a high rate of rape, especially as compared to other places?

Anyway, I am not trying to stray from the original post and question (as I concur with most posters here that the raped is never to blame for the act of rape and that using excuses such as 'she wanted it and was asking for it' because she was dressed too provocatively or whatnot, are just rationalizations of our wayward actions and behaviors). Rape is mainly about power and control (the prison example someone mentioned is actually the best illustration of this fact). Rape has also been used a tool of war and ethnic cleansing... as a way to 'infect' the 'other,' and also to dehumanize. So in some sense rape isn't as deviant as it may seem, in that it occurs relatively often and sometimes systematically, but it is abhorrent nonetheless and in most countries seen as illegal.

I will add, however, that sometimes the rapist is not fully to blame... Think about a child soldier in the DRC, for example, who is abducted at age 9... forced to fight and kill, drugged, raped by his adult males... and then grows older, remains in the system, and ends up raping other boys or girls. Sure, he is still responsible... but to what degree should he be punished?

This entire discussion has had a very Western flare... and ideas of forgiveness, collective culpability, shared humanity, etc have not really been brought up, but I do think they merit some consideration. I generally do believe that we are all connected to one another and that we are responsible for each other's actions as well as our own. If I sin, you sin too (this stems from Desmond Tutu's philosophy and the South African notion of 'ubuntu,'--which may be slightly ironic given my previous statements about rape in that country). In any case, I actually think that communities and societies as a whole need to take more responsibility for criminal actions, and seek to empower women (and men) instead of always prescribing the label of 'victim' (which in some sense robs one of agency and deems them helpless).

I can appreciate this sort of effort, but cultures can only evolve slowly in my opinion and experience. As I stated earlier the broader west indian population views rape as much less serious than the narrower population at a community level, this goes back centuries even before arrival. I think the fact that we have a judicial system that is British and a majority of Court being British is very effective in offsetting the sort of base behaviour and the somewhat disturbing attitudes that are in place. Teddy Roosevelt's philosophy of 'speaking softly and carry an big stick(strict and forceful application of the law) has shown to be effective.

[OrphanPip]

Are mace and tazers against the law in Canada?

Yes, but rape is rarer in Canada than in the USA, so I'm not sure weapons are really going to solve the problems. (Guns are legal but have to be kept in the home, or transported in a case, when they are not being used for sporting)

Certainly there are sociological problems to be addressed. Looking specifically at Canada, aboriginal women are 3 times more likely to be a victim of rape. Obviously, there are issues of vulnerability that I don't think will be helped by adding weapons to the mix.

I personally believe that arming the victims just makes the criminals arm themselves more, and then everyone is more at risk. If rapist start expecting women to carry guns, what happens to the women who aren't armed when they encounter a more agitated and violent rapist who expects to be dealing with a possible gun?

[stlukesguild]

A woman with a gun is stronger than a rapist folks, and one loud "I've got a gun!" can send most rapists running. Oppose restrictive gun laws, any woman who passes handgun safety and legal training courses and a criminal record check should be permitted to carry hers in public. The majority of American states have Right to Carry laws and their crime rate and number of shootings and rapes has vastly decreased in the decades since it's been so, Canada would be stupid to not follow suit.

I know you love portraying yourself as the gunslinger of the Great Northwest, but you should get your facts strait. Only a few states had Conceal/Carry laws on their books until the late 1990s. It has only been with the rise of the Neo-Con movement that the majority of US states have had Conceal/Carry laws, and these have little to do with a fear of crime (a vast majority of the gun owners live in suburban and rural areas where violent crime is rare.) The push for Conceal/Carry laws has more to do with the Neo-Cons spreading the illusion of fear... fear of foreign terrorism, fear of a foreign invasion, fear of immigrants... and fear of the government... especially of the black, "Islamic" president who wasn't even born in the US.

The statistics on a decrease or increase in crime are largely conflicting (often biased according to who is paying for the study) and inconclusive. Violent crime in the US had been on a decline well before the passage of Conceal/Carry laws. According FBI statistics, there were 617 justifiable homicides in 2008 including 371 by law enforcement officers. This was out of a total of 14,180 murders by gun. Add to this 1100 accidental deaths by firearms of which nearly 650 were children (not all that rare, eh?) and 18,000 suicides by handgun (makes you wonder how many might still be alive had they not had access to such a lethal choice). Draw your conclusions. I'm not certain that returning the US... let alone Canada to an armed state similar to what existed in the Old West is necessarily the best direction to be taking.

We've been following the case of the lunatic vigilante who shot and killed the poor black kid simply because he "looked suspicious". Just last week, another nutcase followed his wife, who had announced she was leaving him, to a family restaurant that both I and my wife frequent, where he shot her and their two daughters, and then was killed in a shootout with police in the parking lot. Only one of the daughters survived.

[BienvenuJDC]

A woman with a gun is stronger than a rapist folks, and one loud "I've got a gun!" can send most rapists running. Oppose restrictive gun laws, any woman who passes handgun safety and legal training courses and a criminal record check should be permitted to carry hers in public. The majority of American states have Right to Carry laws and their crime rate and number of shootings and rapes has vastly decreased in the decades since it's been so, Canada would be stupid to not follow suit.

I know you love portraying yourself as the gunslinger of the Great Northwest, but you should get your facts strait. Only a few states had Conceal/Carry laws on their books until the late 1990s. It has only been with the rise of the Neo-Con movement that the majority of US states have had Conceal/Carry laws, and these have little to do with a fear of crime (a vast majority of the gun owners live in suburban and rural areas where violent crime is rare.) The push for Conceal/Carry laws has more to do with the Neo-Cons spreading the illusion of fear... fear of foreign terrorism, fear of a foreign invasion, fear of immigrants... and fear of the government... especially of the black, "Islamic" president who wasn't even born in the US.

The statistics on a decrease or increase in crime are largely conflicting (often biased according to who is paying for the study) and inconclusive. Violent crime in the US had been on a decline well before the passage of Conceal/Carry laws. According FBI statistics, there were 617 justifiable homicides in 2008 including 371 by law enforcement officers. This was out of a total of 14,180 murders by gun. Add to this 1100 accidental deaths by firearms of which nearly 650 were children (not all that rare, eh?) and 18,000 suicides by handgun (makes you wonder how many might still be alive had they not had access to such a lethal choice). Draw your conclusions. I'm not certain that returning the US... let alone Canada to an armed state similar to what existed in the Old West is necessarily the best direction to be taking.

We've been following the case of the lunatic vigilante who shot and killed the poor black kid simply because he "looked suspicious". Just last week, another nutcase followed his wife, who had announced she was leaving him, to a family restaurant that both I and my wife frequent, where he shot her and their two daughters, and then was killed in a shootout with police in the parking lot. Only one of the daughters survived.

You couldn't be more wrong. Maybe you've been swayed by the media as usual.

[BienvenuJDC]

A woman with a gun is stronger than a rapist folks, and one loud "I've got a gun!" can send most rapists running. Oppose restrictive gun laws, any woman who passes handgun safety and legal training courses and a criminal record check should be permitted to carry hers in public. The majority of American states have Right to Carry laws and their crime rate and number of shootings and rapes has vastly decreased in the decades since it's been so, Canada would be stupid to not follow suit.

I know you love portraying yourself as the gunslinger of the Great Northwest, but you should get your facts strait. Only a few states had Conceal/Carry laws on their books until the late 1990s. It has only been with the rise of the Neo-Con movement that the majority of US states have had Conceal/Carry laws, and these have little to do with a fear of crime (a vast majority of the gun owners live in suburban and rural areas where violent crime is rare.) The push for Conceal/Carry laws has more to do with the Neo-Cons spreading the illusion of fear... fear of foreign terrorism, fear of a foreign invasion, fear of immigrants... and fear of the government... especially of the black, "Islamic" president who wasn't even born in the US.

The statistics on a decrease or increase in crime are largely conflicting (often biased according to who is paying for the study) and inconclusive. Violent crime in the US had been on a decline well before the passage of Conceal/Carry laws. According FBI statistics, there were 617 justifiable homicides in 2008 including 371 by law enforcement officers. This was out of a total of 14,180 murders by gun. Add to this 1100 accidental deaths by firearms of which nearly 650 were children (not all that rare, eh?) and 18,000 suicides by handgun (makes you wonder how many might still be alive had they not had access to such a lethal choice). Draw your conclusions. I'm not certain that returning the US... let alone Canada to an armed state similar to what existed in the Old West is necessarily the best direction to be taking.

We've been following the case of the lunatic vigilante who shot and killed the poor black kid simply because he "looked suspicious". Just last week, another nutcase followed his wife, who had announced she was leaving him, to a family restaurant that both I and my wife frequent, where he shot her and their two daughters, and then was killed in a shootout with police in the parking lot. Only one of the daughters survived.

Maybe you should investigate the facts about that "lunatic vigilante" and the "poor black kid". He wasn't shot because he "looked suspicious", that doesn't explain the blood and grass stains on the back of the one who was attacked (whom you call a lunatic). Don't turn this into a tangent.

I'm not going to make a political discussion here, but the right to bear arms have been good in the States since it was founded.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Well, StLukes, in a sort of defense of said lunatic vigilante, we don't really know what happened there. Plus, it looks like he may be telling the true story, especially with the release of that photo of his blood-drenched head.

And are mace and tasers really illegal in Canada? I was being semi-facetious when I asked....

And let me conceal my amazement that Bien is pro-gun (pro-gun Christians, one of America's greatest ironies).

All stlukes said that the studies are conflicting, which is true. You can find any number of studies to support either side of the argument, are you disputing the statistic he gives though? Maybe if so, you could gives us the real numbers.

I'm anti-gun because I don't think people needs to have safes filled with assault rifles.

[Delta40]

I think violence begets violence and what better way to do it than with a gun. People have them under the guise to protect themselves but so do the bad guys. It's their right just as much as the next guy. I also appreciate that you can't unring the bell on this issue. Guns are a culture in the US.

[Alexander III]

In terms if guns, I am fully in agrement with The american constitution, your founding fathers were great men and realized that laws must be created not to protect the state from its people, but protect people from the state.

I do realize that there is a strong argument which sustains that gun only beget inter populational violence, and are not needed to fight against any tyranic goverment.

But I believe in precaution, I would live in a nation which is a bit more violent; like prety much all human history exept the last hundred or so odd years in the west(talking about civilian life not soldering here)), than risky living in a nation were I feel I am no longer in controll of my destiny and my beautifull patria may be reduced to ala souless totalitarian machine stalinist and moaist comunism or hitlerian fascism.

[BienvenuJDC]

Well, StLukes, in a sort of defense of said lunatic vigilante, we don't really know what happened there. Plus, it looks like he may be telling the true story, especially with the release of that photo of his blood-drenched head.

And are mace and tasers really illegal in Canada? I was being semi-facetious when I asked....

And let me conceal my amazement that Bien is pro-gun (pro-gun Christians, one of America's greatest ironies).

All stlukes said that the studies are conflicting, which is true. You can find any number of studies to support either side of the argument, are you disputing the statistic he gives though? Maybe if so, you could gives us the real numbers.

I'm anti-gun because I don't think people needs to have safes filled with assault rifles.

You assume too much. While I do like primitive weapons for the historic value of learning, I do not (nor will I ever) carry a concealed weapon. I do believe that the right to carry should be upheld though. I'd like to know how a gun become an "assault" rifle? How is that defined?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Are assault rifles not guns? Maybe my understanding of the issue is worse than I realized.

[BienvenuJDC]

Are assault rifles not guns? Maybe my understanding of the issue is worse than I realized.

I'm not sure what an "assault rifle" specifically is. There are many kinds of rifles though. A rifle is a firearm that has rifling in the barrel (which most firearms currently are these days). What makes it an "assault" rifle?

I guess if I use a rifle to assault someone? But what if I use that rifle for defense? I guess then it would be a "defense" rifle. Would it be alright if people had safes full of "defense" rifles?

[stlukesguild]

You couldn't be more wrong. Maybe you've been swayed by the media as usual.

You, on the other hand, undoubtedly have your facts straight from the most irrefutable of sources... perhaps Rush Limbaugh himself.

As the media admits:

On the basis of the evidence currently in the public record, one likely outcome of the case against George Zimmerman is a mixed one: There may be sufficient evidence for a reasonable prosecutor to indict him for manslaughter, but there may also be doubt sufficient for a reasonable jury to acquit him.

Any such predictions should be accepted with an abundance of caution, however, because the evidence known to the special prosecutor, but not to the public, may paint a different picture. It may be stronger or weaker.

Media reports suggest that police found Zimmerman with grass stains on the back of his shirt, bloody bruises on the back of his head and other indicia that may support his contention that Trayvon Martin was banging his head against the ground when Zimmerman shot him.

We don't know what Martin's body or clothing show, other than the fatal bullet wound. If there are no comparable bruises or grass stains and if the bullet wound and powder residue establish that the gun was fired at very close range, this too might support a claim of self-defense.

Then there is a recorded cry for help, which, if it turns out to be the voice of Martin, would undercut the defense -- if the voice analysis passes scientific muster and is deemed admissible into evidence.

There may be additional forensic evidence -- or witnesses -- of which we are now unaware, though it is unlikely there is a "smoking gun."

Finally, there is the overarching and historically painful reality that an unarmed black teenager lies dead at the hand of an armed Hispanic man who ignored a dispatcher's advice not to follow and engage the "suspect," and who may have -- and this too is forensically unclear -- uttered a racial epithet while chasing him.

These "facts" give rise to several possible scenarios of what may actually have occurred on that dark rainy night. Under the Florida self-defense statute, it matters greatly what happened, most especially who "initially provoked the use of force," and who started the physical encounter.

If Zimmerman initially provoked the deadly encounter, then he cannot invoke any "stand your ground" defense. He would then be under a legal obligation to "exhaust ... every reasonable means to escape."

The fact that Zimmerman, ignoring the police dispatchers repeated orders not to follow or engage the individual whom he took as "looking suspicious"... based on ??? chose to follow this individual armed with a handgun is in itself enough to warrant his being called a "lunatic". The fact that this same unarmed teen ended up dead as a result doesn't bode too well either for assumptions of innocence.

Why you would immediately assume that it was the dead teen who was a fault I can only guess at... but I'll not throw out the most obvious reason.

As for my comments and statistics on guns in the US, they actually come from a conservative, pro-handgun site (Gunsafe.org) and are corroborated by the numbers sited by the FBI. Gunsafe's aim was to prove that deaths by handguns are no big thing (only half that of deaths by automobile if we include suicides).

http://gunsafe.org/position%20statem...nd%20crime.htm