It appears that up in Canada, victim-blaming in rape cases is just as popular a sport as it is everywhere else in the world. CNN reports that during the trial of a man who threw a woman into the middle of a dirt road and sexually assaulted her, a Canadian judge said that the attack may have been caused by the victim wearing heels, make-up and a tube top with no bra, and that “sex was in the air” after she had met her attacker at a bar. Because of all that, after finding her rapist guilty, he sentenced him to two years of house arrest, and no jail time.
Rather than give voice to the overwhelming rage I now feel, though, I’m going to try something a little different instead. I’m going to try to rationally, calmly and objectively apply the same logic that’s often used to blame rape victims to other crimes, and see if maybe there’s just some logic that I’m missing! Just for the sake of argument, I’m going to make the victims male:
- Home Robbery: He shouldn’t have decorated his house so attractively — he had nice electronics, expensive furniture and a Persian rug, and he gave the impression that he wanted it stolen by having a window.
- Physical Assault: Let’s look at his history — at the age of 13, he hit his brother. How do we know he’s not lying about throwing the first punch before he was brutally attacked by a group of strangers?
- Mugging: He was leading the mugger on by having a hole in his jeans through which his wallet was visible.
- Online fraud: What did he expect for having so much money in his bank accounts, and taking the risk of using an online banking system?
- Murder: The victim was sending his assailant mixed signals all night — in the end, the murderer thought his victim wanted to die.
I don’t know — maybe it’s just me, but in crimes other than rape, these just sound so absurd. What do you think?