Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site burl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!geoff
From: geoff@burl.UUCP (geoff)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Provocative clothing
Message-ID: <697@burl.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 21-May-85 10:09:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: burl.697
Posted: Tue May 21 10:09:13 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 22-May-85 02:12:10 EDT
References: <186@timeinc.UUCP> <522@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> <194@timeinc.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Technologies, Burlington NC
Lines: 38

> >The difference between the two scenarios is that, whereas you can
> >still nail the thief even if everybody agrees you were asking for it,
> >the "fact" that "she was asking for it" is enough to stop the b*st*rd
> >from getting jailed, 'cause "consent" makes it not rape.  Rape is the
> >fault of the rapist, not of the woman's fashion sense, and he should
> >be *punished* regardless of what she was wearing.
> 
> The point I was making was not whether the legal system handles rape
> properly or not. It doesn't. The point was also not whether rape
> is the women's fault or not. It never is.  The point I was trying to
> make was whether a women "dressed provocatively" increases her
> chances of rape.  If the answer is yes, then she can reduce her
> chances of rape by dressing more modestly.
> 
> I am not trying to defend the rapist.  The rapist is a low-life that
> no longer deserves life (in my opinion, and I will *not* get into
> capital punishment arguments here!).
> 

That's ok, I will.  (I agree with you up to the last line, though).

I very strongly oppose capital punishment for rape cases.
I can just about (big waffle here) accept it for first-degree murder.

{side note:  except that it is not being done equitably.  A while back
a man was executed for being involved in the murder of a DEA agent.  The guy
who did the killing plea-bargained and received a jail term.  And then there
are Speck and Manson. }

I cannot equate rape with murder.  It is very bad, but murder is worse
(it is hard to recover from being murdered).  I suppose the best argument
is the same one against the 'Lindbergh law' allowing capital punishment
for kidnap cases.  What is the point of letting the victim live?  You can't
be punished any worse, so why not get rid of the witness?  I think it is
more important to try to preserve the victim's life than to give the attacker
a worse punishment.

	geoff sherwood