Thursday, August 18, 2011

Sometimes it is Appropriate to Blame the Victim

Over the past couple of decades or so it has become increasingly politically incorrect to point out that a victim, through his or her behavior, contributed to his or her own problems or demise.  The “Don’t blame the victim” cry has become the code phrase used to silence those who want to hold people accountable for their own actions in a nation increasingly hostile to the concept of personal responsibility.  One day, on American Justice, I watched a perfect illustration of this phenomenon.

The story goes like this:  In 1999, 8-year old Leroy (BJ) Brown, Jr. and his mother, Karen Clark, were gunned down in their home by drug dealers wanting to prevent the boy from testifying against them in an upcoming murder trial.  A horrible story, for sure.  During the course of the program we learn that Clark and her son had moved to this dangerous city (Bridgeport, Connecticut, which sometimes boasts a murder rate twice that of New York City due to its rampant drug trade) from Jamaica.  At some point she became romantically involved with a drug dealer who had recently been released from prison and moved him into her home.  Her son would later be riding in a car with said boyfriend when the boyfriend was shot at, the target of another drug dealer who eventually succeeded in killing him.  Clark decided to move - not out of town - but to another area of Bridgeport where she purchased a home that was across the street from a crack house.  The crack house was frequented by the out-on-bail murderer of her boyfriend, who eventually killed Clark and her son.

So was the point of the show to highlight the numerous mistakes Ms. Clark made that put her and her son in danger and ultimately contributed to their deaths?  Nope.  American Justice wanted to know if police and/or the state of Connecticut did enough to protect young BJ and his mother as witnesses.  In fact, her choices and missteps were not at issue at all and, in an interview with her brother, we have this unbelievable statement:  “My sister would never have done anything to put her son in harm’s way.” 

Not surprisingly Ms. Clark’s family filed a $100 million lawsuit, not against the vicious drug boss who actually killed Clark and her son, but against the taxpayers of Connecticut (i.e. the deep pockets).  Apparently while it is impolite to question the self-destructive decisions of the victim, it is perfectly alright to go after innocent taxpayers with a vengeance if the state fails to protect a victim from his/her own stupidity.  In the ultimate irony the taxpayers of Connecticut, who had nothing to do with the tragedy, are now expected to enrich the victims’ relatives and, of course, the lawyers. 

Welcome to the twenty-first century.

8 comments:

  1. To be sure this is a tragic story. That youngster and his mother ... what a waste.

    And yes, your point is spot-on. We seem unable, as a society, to any longer hold a conversation or discussion about these things without it turning into a slob-fest. Tears, anger, etc -- raw emotions and no cool heads to look at all aspects of such an issue. I very much appreciate, CW, your willingness to buck most of societies trends and cut to the chase on this issue.

    The tax payers of that community were literally robbed of their hard-earned monies and you know what, I bet NO ONE complained or uttered a peep.

    ReplyDelete
  2. CW,
    Nice post and spot on.

    Mrs. Al,
    You are probably right. Few ever consider that the state's money is actually the people's money.

    Bottom line... I blame the courts for even hearing a case like this but then the legal system,the lawyers, and the judges treat it as a club all for their mutual benefit.

    ReplyDelete
  3. There is one form of "blame the victim" mentality still prevalent that irks me to no end. You can hear it during the nightly newscast, or read it in the morning paper on a regular basis.

    * A college student, walking to her dorm after going to a movie with friends, was run down and killed by a drunk driver veering onto the sidewalk.
    * A young man, having dinner with his fiancĂ©e at her parents’ house, was shot and killed by an intruder during a home invasion.
    * A teen, having a family cook out in his back yard, was paralyzed when struck by a bullet shot into the air by someone celebrating New Years.

    What do they have in common? According to police, or neighbors, or news commentators they were all “in the wrong place at the wrong time”. How can they have been in the “wrong place” when there was no foreseeable reason for them to suspect their innocent activities placed them in danger.

    Contrast those events, and thousands more like them, with the mother who moved her child into a disreputable area where they would predictably have some contact with a person known to be a danger to them. She and her child were truly in the wrong place at the wrong time, and were there through her conscience decision.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mrs. AL:

    Yes, the very same people who will drive across town to save 5 cents per gallon on gas will remain silent while their tax dollars are used like lottery money to enrich people without real cause. That’s what happens when you throw all your money into one big pot for someone else to dole out at the whim of a judge or jury.

    If certain state employees were negligent in their jobs concerning this woman and her son, then those employees should face certain consequences. That should be the first course of action.

    There are times when the state deserves to be on the hook for not doing its job. When the state is punished financially for its failures, they should be required to send residents a bill for their portion of the costs. That’s the only way that people will ever wake up and demand accountability.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hardnox:

    Thanks for stopping by and for your comment.


    Saltwater:

    Yes, the media needs to learn to distinguish between innocent victims and those who bring misfortune upon themselves with careless choices and actions.

    ReplyDelete
  6. As described, CW, (I'm not a lawyer, but I DID stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night) BJ was an innocent victim . . . of his mother. Karen Clark was proof that behaviors have consequences, some good, some not so much. She was guilty of child endangerment, multiple counts.

    Obviously, the murderer was guilty of murder, apparently three counts. The judge who decided the suit was guilty of malfeasance, based on failure to factor contributory negligence, in this case 100% contributory on the part of Karen Clark.

    The judge should be placed as target on a target range while the convicted murderer takes target practice while Karen's family witnesses as pays for the proceedings.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I agree completely CW. Although it is a sad story people make bad decisions. Most frivilous lawsuits are the fault of the victim - they were not responsible and made bad choices. My favorite is the lady that sued a conception jelly company because she got pregnate. The lady injested the jelly on toast.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Drpete:

    “The judge should be placed as target on a target range…”

    And I thought I was tough! Remind me never to upset you.



    Patrick:

    Contraceptive jelly on toast? I'll bet that was yummy. Please tell me she didn’t win.

    ReplyDelete