Judge Judged For Inappropriate Comments About Sexual Assault Victim

It is more than politically incorrect to suggest or imply that the way a woman dresses contributes to the risk of sexual assault.  Yet, if a person walks into a ghetto flashing a wad of cash, we do not hesitate to state that he should not have done so, and should have known that he was at increased risk of being attacked.

In the city near where I live, we hear, almost weekly, of people being accosted and robbed of their alcohol when they leave a beer vendor in a rough neighbourhood late at night.  We shake our heads and say, “what was he thinking?”

On the other side of the coin, when a person climbs the social ladder because of good looks or powerful personality, we may resent it, but we understand how he achieved that success.  The person who studies hard, goes to university and receives accolades for his hard work deserves the prestige and power that comes with his personal efforts.

It has been a long time since I was young enough to frequent the nightclubs, and, because of my age, I undoubtedly will be branded as a dinosaur for my opinions in this article.  However true the “antique” label may be, the opinions should not be disregarded, simply because of the ease with which age is stereotyped as a cause of archaic thinking.  In fact, many of you already probably are assuming that I am not only old, but male, and a rigid, conservative thinker.  You would make these assumptions incorrectly.

Recently, a “dinosaur” on the bench of a Manitoba court heard a case involving a sexual assault on a young woman.  The woman, along with her companion, had, according to reports, made it known that they were out to party.  She was, according to the media, wearing a tank top, short skirt, and, apparently, looking every bit the part of a person looking for an evening of fun.

The judge, Justice Robert Dewar,  in convicting and sentencing the person who ultimately assaulted her, made the comment that, by her dress and appearance, she had left the impression that “sex was in the air.”  The uproar that resulted was predictable.  This older man was branded as insensitive, and worse.  He was accused of being insensitive to rape victims.  Victims’ rights groups demanded his resignation.

A few months earlier, a Toronto police officer was subjected to vitriol and condemnation for suggesting that women could reduce risk by dressing less like tarts.

There is no excuse for predatory behaviour by anyone.  Sexual assault deserves sentencing that equals manslaughter, since it leaves permanent scars on the victim, and takes away a part of that person’s life, in many cases.  However, the idea that the way a person dresses and behaves should not be mentioned as a contributor to the risk of being attacked is not only myopic, it is damaging to the safety of potential victims, who,  indeed, could reduce, however minutely, the risk of attack.

Was Judge Dewar wrong in what he said?  I don’t  believe that the essence of his comments was wrong.  We do, indeed, need to be accountable for our actions: both the victim and criminal.  However, we have become so politically correct in Canada that we risk being ostracized if we dare to imply that sexual assault victims should exercise the same caution that the rest of us are asked to do.  I feel badly for the victim.  I believe that the perpetrator should be incarcerated.  I think that the judge chose his words poorly.  But I think that we all need to be more accountable for our actions.

Lastly, as to your probable preconceived notion as to who I am, I am, indeed, an older male.  However, my history is one of fighting for the rights and protection of those people around me who are vulnerable.  And, the impetus for this article came from my wife, Janice, who was the first to state that the young girls who dress provocatively should have had more sense, and taken precautions.

Watchful Eyes Deter Crime

When we discuss the concept of keeping a watchful eye on illegal activity, most of us focus on potential criminal or misdemeanour activity by youths, loose gangs or minorities. It is a stereotype and response that need to be resisted, since much of the deviant behaviour around us occurs at the hands of other groups, as well: law enforcement personnel, corporations and everyday citizens who infringe on human rights.
An equally pervasive reaction to calls for citizens to prevent crime is to assume that this responsibility should fall to others, and that we will have little impact, individually. Both responses are detrimental to making our lives and our communities safer. The adage that “it takes a village” to rise a child is equally applicable to making your life more safe and crime-free. Where there are watchful eyes, crime of all type decreases. Concurrently, when we assume a little responsibility, we make it less burdensome on those empowered with authority.
Consider that if, in addition to your own home, you paid attention to situations amenable to crime (break-ins, vandalism, etc.) for each of your neighbours on the four sides of your own property, one pair of eyes could prevent such activities in five, instead of one residence. Now, imagine if only one other owner out of those four properties did the same, and that pattern continued throughout your city, 20% of the community could deter 100% of the problems in every home.
In rural and smaller communities, statistics reveal that property crimes and serious violence are significantly lower than in larger centres. Neighbours concerned about neighbours constitute almost all of the reasons for this disparity between large and small centres. While many people view the attitudes of country folk as intrusive, nosy or prying, the interest of neighbours and friends in one’s life offers real dividends! Watchful eyes do work.
Conversely, anonymity provide the cover for deviance. Again, watchful eyes offer the best chance to see decreases in crime, by spotlighting deviant behaviour. It is no surprise, then, that many of the meth labs and concentrated grow ops in North America are placed in big cities, where people do not involve themselves in their neighbours’ lives, and place the onus for safety and crime prevention solely on the shoulders of justice and law enforcement systems.
Relying on the principle of five – that is, assuming responsibility for watching out for your four neighbours can be extrapolated to the workplace, or to the environment around you. Five vehicles adjacent to you, five nearby businesses, or five nearby co-workers can both benefit from your concern for their wellbeing, and be deterred form potential criminal activity. Expand your boundaries and horizons systematically and you expand your zone of safety and security, as well as the zone for others.
As our communities expand, and we become less involved, we invite crime. Simultaneously, our attitudes toward crime become more blurred, and acceptance of so-called softer crimes becomes easier. Think of how we view shoplifting. The very name implies diminished seriousness. Vandals who deface property brand their activity as “tagging,” making it sound more like a game than a crime. One study found that 38% of taxpayers admit to cheating on their income tax, and over 60% feel that avoidance of tax is not a serious problem. Maybe, stacked against murders, fraud is “soft,” but a willingness to cheat your fellow taxpayer and citizen out of money (our government is not independent: it is us!) is a willingness to step across that line of morality that separates criminals from honest people.
The violence in the United Kingdom in August, 2011, or the violent protest in Greece (some of it occurring because people, many of whom do not pay their taxes, were upset that the decreased tax revenue available could no longer pay for their early retirement) largely was based on concern for self, rather than concern for those around us. That psychology needs to change, if we want a safe environment around us. We need to think of others first, and watch out for our neighbours, ahead of ourselves.
Having a watchful eye, though, and merely watching are two different processes entirely. For what are we watching? The entrenched habit is to concentrate on youth, minorities, people who differ from us in beliefs, people who differ from us in objectives and activities, and people whom we see as not conforming to our way of viewing the world. On the other hand, many of us implicitly trust our law enforcement, our religious leaders, our seniors, our friends, and those who provide us with the things we desire. That is both myopic and misdirected. However, it also contains a small part of the essence of what we should be observing: differences.
Unfortunately, we cue in on the wrong differences. One religion or another, or example, has no exclusive domain over morality. Neither does one race or another. Blind studies and objective observation have found that youth often have a moral sense equal to adults, and that seniors are no less subject to the temptation to deviate. Rather, the differences that set us apart from those that are deviating from acceptable behaviour are those of action.
Think of the person in the car next to you, who texts on his cell phone. Notice how furtive his glance is, or his downward gaze, when he should be watching the road. Notice the shoplifter, who looks around for people who may be observing, rather than at the merchandise. Notice the vendor who tries to steer you away from examining some aspect or feature of the item that you are considering for purchase. Note the collection of people, not in the front but in the back of a building. Note the after-hours visits to a location that may indicate that illegal activity is being concealed. Note the person whose behaviour with you is markedly different than his behaviour with someone else. It is the difference in action that set apart differences in intent.
In the next article, I will discuss the MOI Inventory. MOI is an evaluative technique employed, in one form or another, by police and investigators, and relies on understanding of the three ingredients of any crime: Motive, Opportunity and Indicators.
In subsequent articles, I will provide details on how to watch, how to record, how to report and respond, without putting yourself at risk.
However, the beginning of the process is to be vigilant, and to keep a watchful eye, since merely being noticed often is a strong deterrent for those engaged in inappropriate behaviour.