So now it’s YOUR fault if your identity is stolen, in addition to it already being a woman’s fault if she gets raped, and a hundred other subtle and not-so-subtle ways we make it the victim’s fault for being victimized… Great. That’s what’s wrong with this country.
There are several reasons why failing to protect your identity is a crime, the least of which is to deter fraud – or suspected cases of fraud. Remember that in order for a successful prosecution of the above crime the state must prove that the victim had both guilty mind and guilty act – beyond a reasonable doubt. I can only imagine that failing to protect one’s identity is a crime that is very seldom prosecuted and which would have an even lower conviction rate.
However it is not the only law in which the victim must prove their innocence; if you are caught using counterfeit currency – even if you are unaware of the falsehood, is illegal (at least in Australia).
Again this is to deter the use feigned ignorance as a defence. In many cases where the victim is believed to be legitimately unaware that they have been involved in a crime then no charges are pressed.
So does it blame the victim? Yes – but in some cases with good reason. It is sad when genuinely innocent people are convicted for being the victim, but on the balance of it if it deters/prevents further crime it is an admirable goal.
I like to believe this post is intended ironically though because it would be a shame if it was intended to liken this, to the sort of victim blaming that is making all the ‘cool blogs’ a buzz with activity at the moment, that would be tragically short sighted.
Um, wow. Is it now?
So now it’s YOUR fault if your identity is stolen, in addition to it already being a woman’s fault if she gets raped, and a hundred other subtle and not-so-subtle ways we make it the victim’s fault for being victimized… Great. That’s what’s wrong with this country.
There are several reasons why failing to protect your identity is a crime, the least of which is to deter fraud – or suspected cases of fraud. Remember that in order for a successful prosecution of the above crime the state must prove that the victim had both guilty mind and guilty act – beyond a reasonable doubt. I can only imagine that failing to protect one’s identity is a crime that is very seldom prosecuted and which would have an even lower conviction rate.
However it is not the only law in which the victim must prove their innocence; if you are caught using counterfeit currency – even if you are unaware of the falsehood, is illegal (at least in Australia).
Again this is to deter the use feigned ignorance as a defence. In many cases where the victim is believed to be legitimately unaware that they have been involved in a crime then no charges are pressed.
So does it blame the victim? Yes – but in some cases with good reason. It is sad when genuinely innocent people are convicted for being the victim, but on the balance of it if it deters/prevents further crime it is an admirable goal.
I like to believe this post is intended ironically though because it would be a shame if it was intended to liken this, to the sort of victim blaming that is making all the ‘cool blogs’ a buzz with activity at the moment, that would be tragically short sighted.