One in three people think that if the victim disagreed with things that the murderer said, and debated with them, that they were at least partially responsible for being murdered.

In a sense, I agree. Let’s say I’m in a small village in Pakistan, and start some heated discussion about politics and religion, and I hold the view GWB is absoluteley right in everything and muslims will go to hell anyway. At the end of the debate, I eventually get killed.

Aside from ethical issues, I think I would be “at least partially responsible for the murder”. By responsibility I mean there is a probablistic causal relationship. (like “smoking is responsible for cancer”)

Or I can take

More than a quarter believe victims are responsible if they wear clothing that hints at violence, such as camouflage jackets or trousers, or jackboots.

if I go trekking to a territory of ongoing civil war, by wearing camouflage uniform I increase the probability of beeing mistaken for resistance fighter and accidentaly killed. Again, I would agree part of responsibility is on me.

Last, Urijah’s point is valid – killing is in almost all cases non-consensual and it is clear to both parties. Having sex is usually consensual. I’d guess the most common defence of rapists is “the victim actually wanted sex”. It seems probable at least part of them at least partially believs so. The obvious provocative question is, whether sexy clothing, alcohol and promiscuity contributes to the misunderstading.

…strange where one can get searching for something on interpretations of quathum mechanis.

Read your local crime stories, and you’ll find the same thing.

The public, as we know, is uneducated. Please don’t be too hard on them if they think some things are just asking for trouble.

If I remember correctly some (many. most?) rapists have themselves been abused. But, for example, you being beaten doesn’t give you the right to beat a third part at another time.

Amnesty is, as far as I know, against death penalty on first principles; a civilised society is presumed to not use it. Of course that is a value judgement, but apparently they think that some moral behaviour can be expected from a country.

For the ‘average’ public (whoever that is) there could be a difference between a physically brutal rape by a complete stranger, and that of a close friend who doesn’t take “no” seriously. We could perhaps also ask what % would respond that unwanted sex in a marriage is rape?

In many countries it was only recently (10-20 years?) that rape within marriage was considered a criminal offence!

Changing society’s view on what constitutes rape is as important as the question of responsibility.

m

I agree with you on making the distinction between the usual culprits – clothing and the woman’s sexual history – from other factors when discussing susceptibility to the crime.

As for the attitudes of presumably cosmopolitan and educated (?) people towards rape, you may be surprised. I knew a male medical student and a female statistics grad student who both believe that the woman is to blame.

In Sweden the courts take note of the womens clothing and drunkenness, at least in cases where the perpetrator(s) didn’t know the victim. Apparently they don’t do that in the much fewer cases where a man is the victim. Is it that bad everywhere?

The interesting question is what % of the convicted rapists actually think that it was their victims’ fault?

As a statistical fact, if you have large numbers of sexual partners as a female, you are increasing the probablility of being raped! Another statistic, is that the alleged rapist in almost all cases is KNOWN BY THE VICTIM!

Now, I am quite sure that as males we like the idea of promiscuous women but there are a large number of people who hold other views for either moral or religious views. Especially, when in most cases the rapist is known by the victim, it may be that knowledge of the victim’s promiscuousity has led to the incident.

What to do about this problem of rape which is at epidemic proportions in the UK? Create a new law called sexually assault which has a lower level of proof. This would lead to higher conviction rates and deter rapists. However, Women have to be educated that the world is not fair and some prudence in their behaviour would lead to happier life. In particular, do not assume that if you know a male that going home alone with that person will be alright. Just oldfashioned commonsense.

An amateur mathematician.

However, I fail to see how susceptibility to rape is increased by the kind of clothing a woman wears or her sexual history. Of the people I know well enough to predict (and I don’t just mean academics), hardly any would make these statements.

Maybe people aren’t used to separating these ideas, and so what you see in these statistics is how these concepts are mixed together in the mind of the average person. The word “responsibility” contains some fraction of these two ideas for some people.

If you leave your door open, you don’t deserve to be robbed; but you will be blamed by your neighbors. The University of Chicago police department tells us to act confidently and as if we know what we’re doing at all times to avoid being a victim of a mugging. The shy or honest do not deserve to be mugged.

What’s interesting is that as far as I can remember from health class, while leaving your door unlocked attracts muggers, rapists generally aren’t affected by what we commonly think of as “attractive” behaviors. Sexy clothing, etc. etc. — doesn’t correlate.