Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (58161)	9/16/2002 4:24:05 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 82486

Yes no argument there. The victim is not to blame for the perpetrator's criminal behavior. My point was that in many cases both are to blame for their own behavior and both were doing something wrong. There are innocent victims in most crimes but IMO we are too focused on the victim identity. "... if so, then a judgement and sentence has been imposed on the victim by the perpetrator... this is not how the judicial system is supposed to work..." However, often times the victim of a crime is also the perpetrator of some other offense and should not be excused from one scenario by the other. Victims, in fact often become the perpetrators of crimes because they feel they are "justified" by the banner of victimhood. Looters in a riot often justify their behavior as they are victims of an unjust system that has placed them in poverty. Our system typically seeks to find only one person at fault in any conflict. In a traffic collision the officer typically tries to decide who to find at fault and tickets that person. It makes it easy for the insurance companies to settle the thing. Often times both drivers were negligent but you rarely, if ever, see the officer giving tickets to both. Likewise in criminal proceedings. You try to find who was right and who was wrong, instead of what was right and what was wrong.