A few weeks ago, we learned about a gaping hole in Metro security when the video of a 15-year-old girl beaten to unconsciousness in a downtown Seattle tunnel came to light.
Police have arrested at least 6 people in the attack which happened in front of 3 security guards contracted by the county to observe and report–but not intervene–when situations like this happen.
Since then, we learned the victim has been in past trouble with the law, twice charged with assault against others, including, ironically, a security guard.
Many people condemned her once this information came out; as if her past behavior was just cause for the beat down.
What a terrible standard to set. No one said she was a saint. But did she deserve what happened to her because of her past crimes and poor judgment?
No.
Still, some suggested the girl got what she deserved, as if the Metro tunnel situation was some kind of universal retribution for what she did.
Come on people.
Do you ever take office supplies home? A pad of paper, maybe a box of pens? Well then, if someone breaks into your house and jacks all your stuff while you’re away, is that universal retribution?
Of course not.
Just like what happened to the 15-year-old girl in the Metro tunnel is not her fault.
Society is so quick to focus on a person’s mistakes, to rationalize bad behavior, and ultimately, to blame the victim.
Aren’t we taught growing up two wrongs don’t make a right? Apparently some of you missed that lesson.
More importantly, do we want a criminal justice system that only prosecutes crimes where the victims are perfect angels? What is a perfect angel, and who gets to create that definition?
Being protected from crime, or seeing justice in the aftermath is a right we should all have. It should never be contingent on a narrow, irrational criteria based on the victim’s past, present or future.
It’s “justice for all”, not justice for some.
Is there no action in the bus tunnel's past which could be a basis for saying that "she got what she deserved"? None at all? Regardless of anything she had ever done?
I'm not suggesting that the accused attackers aren't fully liable. No one has to be a saint to be a victim, but neither does victimhood bestow a halo.
You are comparing apples and oranges Sable. You compare stealing a few pens from work to being burglerized. One crime is obviously far bigger than the other is both intent, the law (burgaries are prosecuted stealing a pad of paper from work isn't), and the worth of things stollen. Also burgary entails entering somone else's property without permission.
On the other hand, the crime that Aiesha committed is worse than the one she is a victim of. Aiesha and THREE friends attacked a women their grandmother's age after asking her for the time. Aiesha got her butt kicked by ONE girl her own age she herself had victimized. Stealing a few almost-worthless items from work is not even 1% as bad as being a burglar. Gang-attacking a stranger more then 3x your age and preying on her kindless to lure her is far worse than being betten by someone your age in retaliation for something you had done.