Monday, January 12, 2009
"The Rape" of Mr. Smith
This passage outraged me. Having never witnessed the proceedings of a rape case before, it greatly upsets me that a rape victim would be treated in this same, blatently apathetic way, as Mr. Smith, a hold-up victim. Why would a court not show sympathy or look into the perpetrator's background more than the victim's? What kind of corruption is this? It's like another passage that we read, that discussed how women who dressed-up or were "done-up" were practically asking for some sort-of catcall or negative comment from a male or passerby on the street? How could anyone say that Mr. Smith "deserved" to be robbed because he was walking on the street, at night, with a nice suit on? What the hell is that all about?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Have you heard anyone ever say that a woman was "asking for it" by wearing revealing clothes, etc. There WAS a time when the clothes a woman wore (and so many more irrelevant things) could be used against her - legally - in a rape case.
ReplyDeleteI agree ghm...and when I was reading this passage, I was frustrated. The lawyer was able to ask a question, then cut off Mr. Smith before he could answer, just so that the judge/jury would have that piece of information in their minds. Even if it wasn't true, all the those listen now had that statement as a possibility.
ReplyDelete