People would often equate rape to theft and say: "There is nothing wrong in advising potential rape victims to avoid certain behaviours and situations. After all we advise people to take precautionary measures against robbery."
Well, theft and rape are slighty different crimes, even though one can be said to be a sub category of the other one.
Let's say a person's car has been stolen. The owner of the car suffers from the crime of theft, but the car is what is effectively taken from him or her. So the owner of the car and the car are two separate legal entities. The owner is considered a person by law, while the car is considered a possession or property.
The laws that regulate the rights of a person are separate from the laws that regulate personal property. And the laws that regulate personal property are subject to the laws that regulate the rights of an individual. Meaning that the wellbeing of a personal property cannot be placed over the wellbeing of the owner. Also an owner is allowed by law to use their personal property in any manner they deem fit as long as they are not trampling on someone's elses rights.
When it comes to rape, we have an exceptional case. Rape is more similar to murder than it is to theft, even though both can be described as a very particular type of theft. In murder, a person's life is taken away against their will. In rape a person's sense of worth is taken away against their will.
In rape, just like in murder, the owner and the object that is stolen from them are regulated by the same laws, as they both co-exist in and coincide with the legal entity identified as a person. For this reason, you cannot treat the body of a potential victim of rape the same way you'd treat an object you want to protect from theft.
Since by law, an owner is allowed to use their personal property in any manner they deem fit, as long as they are not trampling on someone's elses rights, you cannot dictate where a person can go or do with their body.
Besides, how does a person's way of dressing violate the freedom of another person?
How does their decision to drink violate the freedom of another person?
Unless you can prove that certain decisions made by a potential victim of rape affect the freedom of the human being who is likely to commit rape, every argument that proposes to put the onus of preventing rape on the potential victims is null, void and stupid.
Well, theft and rape are slighty different crimes, even though one can be said to be a sub category of the other one.
Let's say a person's car has been stolen. The owner of the car suffers from the crime of theft, but the car is what is effectively taken from him or her. So the owner of the car and the car are two separate legal entities. The owner is considered a person by law, while the car is considered a possession or property.
The laws that regulate the rights of a person are separate from the laws that regulate personal property. And the laws that regulate personal property are subject to the laws that regulate the rights of an individual. Meaning that the wellbeing of a personal property cannot be placed over the wellbeing of the owner. Also an owner is allowed by law to use their personal property in any manner they deem fit as long as they are not trampling on someone's elses rights.
When it comes to rape, we have an exceptional case. Rape is more similar to murder than it is to theft, even though both can be described as a very particular type of theft. In murder, a person's life is taken away against their will. In rape a person's sense of worth is taken away against their will.
In rape, just like in murder, the owner and the object that is stolen from them are regulated by the same laws, as they both co-exist in and coincide with the legal entity identified as a person. For this reason, you cannot treat the body of a potential victim of rape the same way you'd treat an object you want to protect from theft.
Since by law, an owner is allowed to use their personal property in any manner they deem fit, as long as they are not trampling on someone's elses rights, you cannot dictate where a person can go or do with their body.
Besides, how does a person's way of dressing violate the freedom of another person?
How does their decision to drink violate the freedom of another person?
Unless you can prove that certain decisions made by a potential victim of rape affect the freedom of the human being who is likely to commit rape, every argument that proposes to put the onus of preventing rape on the potential victims is null, void and stupid.
No comments:
Post a Comment