Blameless

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[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]

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.

[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!

[Natalie Severn]

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.

Why are you bringing drug dealers into it? I thought we were discussing the murder of prostitutes? And are we talking about the East End 1888 or Yorkshire in the 70"s/80"s or the women -mostly young girls expecting to find jobs who have been tricked, drugged and forced into prostitution by [usually Kosovan ]white slave traders?The latter group of young women forming the greatest population of sex workers in the uk at present[70%]-are these young women also "to blame " by your book?These after all are the victims of "drug dealers" not drug dealers themselves by all reliable accounts.

Returning to the East End of 1888,the vast majority of men and women -including those who turned to selling their bodies to get by-were unable to find jobs of any kind at that time.They were in fact "UNEMPLOYED" and very unlikely to find a job that paid enough for food,a roof over their heads,decent clothing let alone a measure of dignity.Either you understand that or its useless talking to you. Unemployment was widespread among both men and women .So was homelessness so was hunger and starvation.There were NO state handouts or refuges of the kind we have today-not even for orphaned children let alone masses of unemployed adults.How can you seriously start talking about "criminal activity" and apportioning blame when such people didnt even have access to the barest essentials of life? P-l-e-a-s-e!!!

[Cap'n Jack]

Good post, Natalie, my sentiments exactly.
I think Ally is quick to forget that many of the East End 'prostitutes' took themselves off to Kent in the summer to pick hops... hard back breaking work in the hot sun with some, but little reward.
But hops don't grow in the winter so obviously the only work they could find to tide them over the winter months was to walk the streets, or beg, or go and work for Bryant & May and get Fossy jaw.
Ally mixes up social circumstances with wilful intent here when obviously there was no wilful intent on the part of the 'prostitutes', just appalling social circumstance.
She inhabits a very gilded world, bless her.

[Robert]

By gum, this is getting complicated. I don't want to judge these women - though it doesn't matter if I do, it's no skin off their noses - but I don't want to feel superior towards them, or anything like that. However I feel that there are some things they must hold their hands up to, e.g. some of them let their kids down all along the line. And then, take Nichols : she had a job, not a good one but she had food and a roof over her head, and she chose to steal the clothes and take to the bottle again. That was her choice and I feel that she contributed to her own death. Doesn't mean she deserved to die, of course.

There's a fine gradation of responsibility which runs from holding someone responsible for virtually everything they do, to the ridiculous modern situation where manufacturers have to put absurd warnings on their products in case some airhead injures himself and cops for thousands in compensation.

[Cap'n Jack]

Don't burn over the issue, Robert.
I know that if you met an unfortunate on the street, late at night in the pouring rain, you'd pass her your anorak, give her a cup of tea, and a copy of the Sun to put in her bonnet.
Me? I'd give her some rum, get drunk and howl at the moon.
But I sorta know that you and me wouldn't kill her.

[Robert]

The tea and the newspaper, yes, AP. But my beloved anorak? Never! I'm a selfish bastard.

Actually I'd give her my "Spitting Image" cap rather than a newspaper - there are too many holes in the editorials of newspapers - lets the rain in.

[Ally]

Natalie,

What precisely is the difference between selling drugs and solicitation? Are they not both illegal activities? We are talking about society considering certain people blameless in their deaths. And in general, NOT just with prostitution, people who are engaging in criminal activity and die as a result are not considered blameless. Whether they be prostitutes or drug dealers.

Prostitutes are criminals. Drug dealers are criminals. When they die, via predictable means based on their respective criminal activities, society as a whole tends not to consider them blameless.

And for the purpose of this thread you can consider my remarks to be related to prostitutes from teh 80's onward, since that is when the "blameless" comments were allegedly made.

[Natalie Severn]

OK Ally,from the 1980"s onwards is a very different situation from the 1880"s.However I would never accept that the young girls who currently form the majority of prostitutes in this country are criminals.I am talking now of those who have against their will been tricked ,drugged and raped and forcibly made to prostitute themselves by armed gangsters from Albania for the most part-these young women now forming 70% of the prostitutes operating in the UK currently.
As regards Robert"s point about Polly Nichols.I do not feel I know enough about Polly Robert to pass any kind of informed opinion. I "m not in possession of the enough facts about her life and why she did what she did when she did it.It seems her ADULTEROUS husband had put her up the duff for the fifth time having already begun,some two years earlier an affair with the next door neighbour.That could have tipped anyone over the edge ,let alone the mother of five children.In anycase,from all accounts both Polly"s and Annie Chapman"s children spoke sympathetically of their murdered mothers.Only fiery Kate"s sprog had clearly had enough of her-and no,from what I understand of Kate"s mothering performance, I dont blame her for that.Her daughter was entitled to her care and entitled not to be over enamoured when Kate abused her role as a mother,in my opinion.
Cheers Ally and Robert,