Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rochester.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!ciaraldi
From: ciaraldi@rochester.UUCP (Mike Ciaraldi)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Re: Re: violence
Message-ID: <3202@rochester.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 7-Nov-84 15:39:53 EST
Article-I.D.: rocheste.3202
Posted: Wed Nov  7 15:39:53 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 8-Nov-84 20:08:48 EST
References: <328@mako.UUCP> <597@gloria.UUCP>, <2484@rochester.UUCP> <2074@randvax.UUCP>
Organization: U. of Rochester, CS Dept.
Lines: 52

> Mike, I think you are missing an essential point here.  A rapist could
> have any of a number of motivations; I'll agree with that.  However,
> the victim experiences it as an act of violence.  Without exception.
> That's what makes it rape.  All this wordplay just clouds the issue.
> 
> Why insist on viewing things from the criminal's point of view?  When
> you claim that rape is an act of sex, you aren't giving any more
> insight than if you say robbery is an act of greed.  It is the violence
> experienced by the victim that defines the crime, *not* the motivation
> of the criminal.
> 		-Ed Hall
> 		decvax!randvax!edhall


I maintain that this is more than "Wordplay", but is rather an attempt
to discuss a issue which is highly emotionally-charged in a way that
is somewhat more dispassionate.  It is not to reduce the emotion that
I do this, but to reduce the effect of the emotion on the reasoning process.
After all, the things we do under the passions of the moment
are those most likely to cause regret later.

On to more substance:

"It is the violence experienced by the victim that define the crime,
*not* the motivation of the criminal."  This is wrong for two reasons:

1) If we want to reduce the amount of rape, it helps to know why
   people rape other people.  Attributing all rapes to one 
   "politically correct" motivation reduces the effectiveness of
   measures against rape.  If a variety of motivations exist, a
   variety of tactics might be employed, in various situations.
   Those tactics appropriate on a college campus might be relatively
   ineffective in a slum, and vice-versa.
2) It is a principle of American justice, and of most systems of morality,
   that motivation is VERY important in defining a crime.
   e.g. the victim experiences "homicide" the same way in all
   cases, by dying (ignoring for now exactly how they die).
   Motivation is what distinguishes first-degree murder,
   second-degree murder, manslaughter, involunatry manslaughter, and so on,
   with their correspondingly lesser penalties. 
   Surely someone who accidentally causes a death (e.g. he knocks something
   over, which lands on someone else and kills him) is not as culpable
   as someone who spends weeks planning to kill someone, and takes
   elaborate steps to do so, and maybe even gets paid for it.
   The exact analogy to rape is unclear, since I doubt there are
   "hit men" who make a living raping instead of murdering, but the
   principle is still valid: motivation is important in defining crime.


   Mike Ciaraldi
   via ARPAnet: ciaraldi@rochester
   via Usenet:  seismo!rochester!ciaraldi