A lot of really gruesome news this week. A few deaths, an all-but-finalized Hillary nomination, and very high-profile rape cases.
Muhammad Ali and Kimbo Slice have passed away. Tragic, though fighting as a profession is bound to have some seriously negative effects on a person’s health.
Hilldawg millionaire will be the DNC nominee. (Thanks Debbie…)
But the real news dominating the past few days are the rape cases at Stanford and at WPI. The former is almost assuredly more nationally covered, but the latter hits a bit closer to home.
WPI is just five minutes down the elegantly pothole-ridden Park Ave from my apartment. While the actually case about the rape, which occured in 2012, has been closed and the perpetrator thrown in the clink for 20 years, there is still the matter of the civil suit involving WPI and the victim.
The victim wants to hold WPI financially responsible for not providing a safe space for her while she was abroad in Puerto Rico. Honestly, this is a tough spot to be in. Ultimately whose responsible for the rape? Easy–the rapist. But is WPI responsible for the actions of its employee? Possibly, but does that mean that in every instance of a violent crime there is a fiscally responsible party?
(I know context matters but….) Say a lowly Sears shoe lackey snaps one day and decides to shoot up his place of employment. Does that mean Sears now has to pay all affected parties? I don’t know, it sounds like it’d be a tough sell.
The completely wrong way to approach the hypothetical is by blaming all of Sears shoppers for being there at that time (do people still go there?)
This is the brilliant strategy that WPI’s lawyers have decided to go. They blame the girl for engaging in risky behavior by drinking and hanging out on a rooftop with WPI’s security guard. What a shit argument. Last time I checked driving was pretty dangerous too. Are we going to start blaming drivers that are hit by drunk drivers because they put themselves in a “risky situation?”
Either way, prepare to eat shit WPI. I don’t see this fiasco ending well for you either way now. So maybe you just want to bite the bullet, fire your lawyers, hire someone more competent and try a different approach than “risky behavior.”
As far as the Stanford case goes. Six months for “20 minutes of action?” (Not my thought, the rapists father) Technically the minimum sentence for Brock Turners crime should be two years. So yeah, sounds like Turner got a good deal– He cashed in on the 75%-off-all-rape-convictions student special. Fuck this guy though, I thought after all the outrage over the “affluenza” case, being a drunk white kid was an invalid courtroom strategy. Guess not.