Rape In The 1900's

1251 Words6 Pages

Rape is not like it used to be in the 1900’s. Today, perpetrator have found a new way of getting out of going to jail and, an easy way to get out of all fines too after committing the crime, and it is working. They have decided to blame the rape victim. Blaming the victim works because they have excuses that consist of what the victim is wearing or saying that she or he asked for it. This is wrong because it is giving the perpetrator the right to rape anyone because they know that they can get away with it. “Why are we blaming someone for doing something against their own will?” states Suzannah Weiss (bustle.com). Victim blaming has become a huge problem today because perpetrators have found a way to avoid going to jail, and they feel as …show more content…

Thinking that it was his fault, the boy didn’t tell anyone for three months, and when he finally did, nothing really happened. This boy told his dad, who then called the principle. The three wrestlers fathers were on the school board, so their only punishment was two days of suspension. When the boy took it to court, the high schoolers stated that it was the boy's fault, and that he was asking for it. They also said that he was too “easy to get” and if he really did not want it than he could have gotten away. “It has been two years since this has happened, but the three high school boys have not been prosecuted, which is the definition of victim blaming”, states Abigail Rine (www.theatlantic.com). Now a highschooler, the boy continues to stand in court, trying to show that it was not his …show more content…

When the situation is brought to court, the perpetrator usually thinks out a plan. Well judges have now been saying that if there is no evidence towards the situation, than they can’t do anything but hear both of the people’s sides, the victim and the perpetrator. It is then up to the jury as to what happens next, move forward with the case or name someone guilty. When the perpetrator says something like, it is because of what they were wearing, it gives the jury some questions to if they should name no one guilty. “Some judges think that if they said no but were still implying yes, than it is okay”, states David P. Bryden (283). If the perpetrator brings up what they were wearing and saying that they were asking for it, than in some judges eyes, that is implying it, which is victim