Blameless

[Limehouse]

Here´s a contrast for you: In Sweden, it is perfectly legal to prostitute yourself and earn a living from it. You may parade down every Swedish street looking for business.
However, what you may NOT do, is to buy a prostitutes´services! That means that any legal action that may be taken is directed against the customers and not against the prostitutes. And, speaking in terms of this thread, it means that the blame is shifted to the punters!

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fisherman, in the context of this debate, that makes a lot of sense!

[Ally]

And of course speaking of semantics...

In the UK, being a prostitute itself is not illegal. However, the law does virtually make it impossible for a prostitute to ply her trade legally because soliciting is illegal, kerb crawling is illegal and living off immoral earnings is illegal.

It's not illegal to be a thief or a murderer or a drug dealer either...it's the actual thieving and murdering and selling of drugs that is illegal. It's the action, not the classification.

[Fisherman]

Here´s a contrast for you: In Sweden, it is perfectly legal to prostitute yourself and earn a living from it. You may parade down every Swedish street looking for business.
However, what you may NOT do, is to buy a prostitutes´services! That means that any legal action that may be taken is directed against the customers and not against the prostitutes. And, speaking in terms of this thread, it means that the blame is shifted to the punters!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ally]

I don't view these women as being weak. I do view them as being vulnerable and I do think they are responsible for their own actions in that they should protect themselves from contracting and passing on sexually transmitted diseases and so on, but they can't be responsible for the actions of a murderer.

But by that same reasoning, a drug dealer can't be responsible for the actions of a murderer. But if a string of drug dealers were murdered by an irate father whose 20 year old daughter od'ed on heroin would we view those drug dealers' deaths with the same degree of blamelessness as people want to view these women? Then say that an innocent was gunned down who just happened to be standing on a corner that was known to be frequented by drug dealers.

My point is this: the concept of the blameless death is not limited to women and prostitutes. It's not as sexist as people are trying to make it out to be.

You cannot tell me there would not be a huge cry for the blamelessness of that one victim while the rest would not be viewed with a certain degree of "live by the sword, die by the sword" even though those drug dealers were no more responsible for the actions of the murderer than the innocent.

[Limehouse]

And so ...what? If people lose their jobs, it becomes okay for them to turn to criminal activity to support themselves? It's suddenly okay to be thieves or drug dealers or prostitutes because they don't have any other options? That's okay?

I personally don't think that prostitution or drugs for that matter should be illegal, but that doesn't change the fact that they are. And if you choose to engage in this activity, you are a criminal.

And criminals are always more likely to be viewed as lesser deaths than people who are not violating the law.

If a person is a drug dealer, and they get caught in a drug war and get shot, the cops don't consider that a blameless death either.

They were criminals. Danger is an occupational hazard. But because some people want to view these women as being as being weak, perpetual victims they get excused from the responsibility of their actions, and coddled to a degree we don't coddle any other subset of criminal death.

In the UK, being a prostitute itself is not illegal. However, the law does virtually make it impossible for a prostitute to ply her trade legally because soliciting is illegal, kerb crawling is illegal and living off immoral earnings is illegal.

I don't view these women as being weak. I do view them as being vulnerable and I do think they are responsible for their own actions in that they should protect themselves from contracting and passing on sexually transmitted diseases and so on, but they can't be responsible for the actions of a murderer.

Interestingly, many people have pondered the possibility that the Whitechapel murderer may have been known by some of his victims because, as the number or murders increased, these women apparently went to isolated spots with the killer and perhaps woul not have done so if they didn't know him or feel comfortable with him. What is known in the Ipswich case is that Wright was known and trusted by local prostitutes. We also know that Sutcliffe was clocked up to ten times in red light districts in the cities in which women were murdered. Could it be possible therefore, that Sutcliffe was somewhat familiar to some of his victims and that they did not see themselves as being at risk with him?

[Ally]

With so many people being thrown out of work currently , even the option of having any " employment" at all to "choose" from could be getting limited for vast numbers of people.

And so ...what? If people lose their jobs, it becomes okay for them to turn to criminal activity to support themselves? It's suddenly okay to be thieves or drug dealers or prostitutes because they don't have any other options? That's okay?

I personally don't think that prostitution or drugs for that matter should be illegal, but that doesn't change the fact that they are. And if you choose to engage in this activity, you are a criminal.

And criminals are always more likely to be viewed as lesser deaths than people who are not violating the law.

If a person is a drug dealer, and they get caught in a drug war and get shot, the cops don't consider that a blameless death either.

They were criminals. Danger is an occupational hazard. But because some people want to view these women as being weak, perpetual victims they get excused from the responsibility of their actions, and coddled to a degree we don't coddle any other subset of criminal death. If these women had been drug dealers, selling heroin and someone took them out, would there be such a cry about them not being "blameless" in their deaths? I sincerely doubt it.

[Limehouse]

Of course Jason, you are right, the police do have a [B]duty[B] to warn the public when a killer starts to target people outside the group hwe has previously targeted. However, they can do so without resorting to making comparisons between one group (prostitutes) and another (blameless, or innocent women).

I think, what we have here is a debate pitches semantics against ideology. Ally is using the semantic meaning of the word 'blameless' to describe what the police message was to women. However, as some of us have pointed out, we see the word 'blameless' as ideologically loaded. To me, it has connotations that carry a lot of meanings and values about women, their place in society and their actual behaviour compared to the desired behaviour cast for them by society. Of course, I am referring to the words and meanings that were used and inferred at that time.

[jason_c]

Of course a murderer is ultimately to blame for the killing of a prostitute. The individual prostitute is however leading a life that is not exactly risk averse.

Limehouse "In my view, the police had no reason to distinguish between the women who were killed by Sutcliffe"

Limehouse, i think the police did have such a right. If Sutcliffe is limited to attacking prostitutes then any police activity must be concentrated on this group. As soon as Sutcliffe attacks outside this group, the police and more importantly the public, are dealing with a far different threat.

[DVV]

Fully agreed, of course.
And what Sutcliffe said: "I was just cleaning the streets", makes him even more despicable - if possible.
Cheers to Costello, who once slashed his face in jail.

Amitiés all,
David

[Natalie Severn]

I totally agree with Limehouse.The killer is the one who is to blame-and the word and meaning of blame -as understood by the majority of people and no matter how Ally dresses it up -has the prejorative associations of a "guilty offence" being committed-which in the case of the murder of a prostitute ,has been committed by the murderer-who in English law is "the offender" in question.
Like Limehouse and Ally ,I agree that people have "to take responsibility" for unwise or risky "choices" in life,but then as now,as Limehouse is pointing out it can sometimes be a matter of "Hobson"s Choice" rather than having the luxury of a wide range of options to choose from.With so many people being thrown out of work currently , even the option of having any " employment" at all to "choose" from could be getting limited for vast numbers of people.

[halomanuk]

.

Incidently, Sutcliffe killed victims from a wide area, in Leeds, Manchester and Halifax so many of his victims may have felt 'safe' in a town where he had not yet killed.

Very good observation there Limehouse.

It is the usual case with these women,and many victims who put themselves in dangerous situations, that they always,and understandably in some ways,think that 'that will never happen to me'.

Seeing things on TV or in newspapers always adds a fantasy element to it compared to,God forbid,something happening in the cold light of day.

[Limehouse]

So what exactly is the debate going on here?

To be blunt, but with respect, far more debate than is going on on your site for which you provide a link.

Back to blame. A killer of women, mainly prositutes, is on the loose. He has killed several times and attacks others. The women know their behaviour is risky but they have to pay the rent/buy the next fix/earn enough for a drink. They take a risk because of extreme need or perceived need. Who is to blame? In my book, it's the killer. He/she is responsible for their actions as much as the prostitute. Of course, I agree that people are responsible for their actions but in such cases, the blame must be attributed to the killer who is depriving women of their rights. In my view, the police had no reason to distinguish between the women who were killed by Sutcliffe.

Incidently, Sutcliffe killed victims from a wide area, in Leeds, Manchester and Halifax so many of his victims may have felt 'safe' in a town where he had not yet killed.

[Ally]

Robert,

I see exactly what you mean and I agree. I think my issue with this has to do with my vision of the word blame. At it's core, blame is strictly about responsibility. Nothing more and nothing less.

I have no problem with responsibility or with blame. In the case of the older couple you mentioned, I have been thinking about it and questioning would I view them the same way as I would view a prostitute in terms of "blameless". In the end, while I realize my opinion is probably the minority, I would not consider them any different than prostitutes.

Everyone makes choices in their lives and decides what they do. If you do something unwise, even for good cause, such as not letting fear prevent you from doing what you want to do, I believe you still have to bear the blame (responsibility) for your actions.

During the DC sniper attacks, I remember filling up at a gas station. I remember this perfectly well because as I was driving into the gas station I had the thought that it was a perfect spot for an attack and would fit pattern. The reason I had this thought was because of a couple of the previous attacks, the killers had driven down I95 picked a good exit and fired at a gas station off the exit. If the killer, (in my musings) were to take I66 West (I66 connects to I 95 in DC) the first good exit they would come to would be the one I was at in manassas and this would be a good gas station at which to take aim. Not 2 days later, a man was killed while pumping gas at that exact gas station.

I knew that gas station was a bad one to be at. I knew it gave the sniper what he required means and opportunity. But no one ever thinks it will happen to them so I went ahead and pumped. If I had died, knowing full well that was a likely target, I would not, in my opinion, have been blameless in my death. I would however not deserve to die. And that's the difference between the two concepts.

I don't have a problem with blame. The world would be a whole lot better if people would accept the proper blame that is rightly theirs instead of trying to fob it off on everyone else and declaring themselves victims of circumstance. Because while the world might view that old couple in your scenario as heroes, I imagine the widow, in retrospect would be looking back and thinking, god that was a damnfool thing to have done.

[Mr.Hyde]

Mr.Hyde

Hyde,

1) Kate Eddowes partner was JOHN Kelly.
2) Where is the evidence Mary Jane Kelly's father was James Kelly?
3) It is very dubious--at best--that Kate Eddowes told a casual ward superintendent she had come back from hopping to finger Jack.

No runs, no hits, three errors at the least.

Don.

My apology.I meant John Kelly in all instances.
MAK,ie MJK not Eddowes-confusing ain't it-refer my first post on this forum.

[The Good Michael]

Welcome to Casebook!Just business as usual.
Sorta like Rugby,you get the ball for a moment and most of the people jump on you for a while.Then we all link arms,do some bum sniffing,kick each other in the shins..........never did understand rugby................
Aussie Rules!

Aussie rules? Isn't that the soft version of Gaelic football?

Mike