But I’m not sure how to integrate into that Polanski already confessing and being convicted, then running away before his entire sentence had been served, or how seriously to take the idea of being a “fugitive from justice” as a crime in and of itself.
]]>But we have a system where the victim doesn’t really get to decide much of anything, and they do that anyway…..
]]>I don’t think you have to be a libertarian to accept the force of Radgeek’s arguments (nor do all libertarians agree with Radgeek’s argument). You are right that placing all of the power in the hands of the victim may make it more likely that the victim’s abusers will attempt to pressure the victim into not pressing charges. On the other hand, policies like mandatory arrest and prosecution in domestic violence cases often discourage women from coming forward. I’m not sure which of these forces is more powerful or deserves more concern; it seems like an empirical question to me.
As I wrote in an article a few years ago,
Just as economists recognized how paternalism can lead to unintended and undesirable consequences, so too, lawyers, therapists, and social workers are beginning to recognize some of the unintended consequences of mandatory arrest and prosecution in domestic violence cases. As Linda G. Mills, a professor of law and social work at New York University, argues in her recent book, Insult to Injury: Rethinking our Responses to Intimate Abuse, these policies disempower women by depriving them of any say in the handling of their cases, further degrading them as weak, ineffectual pawns in the maintenance of their own lives. Even more disturbing, policies of mandatory arrest and prosecution can discourage women from coming forward. Mills estimates that “as many as half of women in abusive relationships stay in them for strong cultural, economic, religious, or emotional reasons.” Women are less likely to come forward and get help for their abuse if they know that doing so will lead to the arrest and prosecution of someone they still care deeply about. Instead of helping people who presumably can’t help themselves, paternalistic laws aimed at domestic abuse can add insult to injury by hurting the very people they were intended to help.]]>
I wonder if you would be so respectful of the victim’s “free choice” if she wanted her rapist dead, or castrated. I suspect Polanski’s defenders wouldn’t be so thrilled about letting the victim’s wishes dictate in that case.
]]>No, Radgeek doesn’t.
“If we allow victims’ wishes to dictate the course of rape prosecutions, rapists and their enablers will have even more incentive to bully their victims into saying they don’t want prosecutions, that they’ve “forgiven”.”
So then, what you’re saying is that the American justice system is less about justice, rehabilitation, or making people pay a debt to society (and their victims) and more about stubborn pigheadedness.
It’s funny. Your response reads like Radgeek was saying that no rape victim should be allowed to press charges against hir attacker; on the contrary, he was referring to one specific instance in which allowing her wishes to be listened to and respected might actually help return autonomy to her. Instead, we – as a society – sit here and continue to remove the victim’s autonomy and free choice under the guise of her free choice being removed from her. It’s also rather interesting that someone responding on a libertarian blog (who is presumably a libertarian, though I obviously don’t you from a hole in the ground) would advocate for the state to step in despite the fact that the victim and perpetrator have worked things out.
Doesn’t all of that seem a little hypocritical?
]]>Non-aggression Principle: Avoid invading anybody’s person or property.
Non-harm Principle: Avoid making anybody worse off.
I can certainly see how she should not be forced to participate in the prosecution, but on what grounds can she object to the continuance of the prosecution under non-aggression? Many things in like proceed in ways that we’d rather they not (for example, you might open up a competing firm and take business from me) but I’m trying to understand the moral obligation that the prosecution has to the victim beyond not forcing her person to participate and are they responsible for the indirect exposure she might have through the media coverage etc.?
One way I can see the solution being similar to yours is if the moral weight of the harm to the original victim outweighed the moral weight of the threats of aggression to others (which might be small, especially when considering the need for more immediate indications of intended violence).
]]>