Hotel blames victim for sexual assault

http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/?last_story=/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/08/14/victim_blaming/

Hotel blames victim for sexual assault


You want to know what's really sad? When I saw the headline "Hotel puts partial blame on victim in 2006 rape", my first thought was, "Hey, someone's only partially blaming the victim? That sounds like progress!" I shouldn't have gotten my hopes up.



In October of 2006, Gary Fricker raped a woman (known only as Jane Doe) at gunpoint in the parking garage of the Stamford Marriott in Stamford, CT, in front of her two young children. He also pointed his gun at those children and threatened to sexually assault one of them. The one positive part of this story is that Fricker was captured by police three days later and is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence; if there was any victim-blaming in the criminal trial, at least it didn't sway the jury. Now, however, Jane Doe is suing the Stamford Marriott for failing to secure the building or notice when a violent crime took place there -- and in its defense, the hotel stops just short of arguing that she asked for it.

snip//

It's tempting to highlight the details here -- she was raped by a stranger, at gunpoint, in front of her children -- to underscore the horrible absurdity of trying to hold this woman responsible for being the victim of a violent crime. But the fact is, most rapes are not committed by strangers with weapons, and that's part of why victim-blaming so often works. Why did she go home with him? Why was she wearing that? Why was she drinking so much? How can we be sure she didn't want it? A good woman jumped by a gun-wielding stranger is one thing, but a woman who merely claims she didn't consent to sex, well, that's a different story! Except it's not. And the routine attempts to discredit victims of more typical rapes -- committed by someone they've met, who was not threatening them with a weapon other than his own body -- actually pave the way for a "special defense" of "She should have been more careful" when we are talking about a stranger with a gun. The reason that has potential as a legal strategy -- the reason it's not ultimately laughable -- is because people in this culture are already so used to questioning whether women do enough to protect themselves from any man who might decide to rape them.

The insidiousness of victim-blaming goes far beyond people saying, "Why was she wearing that?" It's also saying, "Why did she go where a rapist might be?" -- like, you know, a parking garage, or a city street, or her own apartment. It's the inevitable arguments that all women should take self-defense classes to stop rape. It's the assumption that every woman is responsible for preventing the actions of violent criminals when it comes to this one particular violent crime, and any arguable lapse in judgment can be seized upon as evidence that she just wasn't trying hard enough not to be attacked. In a nutshell, it's rape culture. As long as we constantly question all of the decisions women make prior to a man's decision to rape them, victim-blaming will remain a viable legal strategy, no matter the circumstances.


― Kate Harding

Otherwise, she's an adulteress and her punishment is worse than the rapist's.

Sure sounds to me like the hotel is trying to weasel out of responsibility by blaming the victim.

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/ci_13048639?source=most_viewed

Marriott - "come armed and bring your own security detail. Or we'll say you deserved it." :grr:

hell even in secure areas theres still a risk something bad might happen to you, im not sure what the hotel was expected to do, yes the guy had been hanging around but that happens at hotels, you get people coming and going. I guess in the end your personal safety really does come down to yourself and making sure you have a way to safeguard yourself.

for various infractions. If they knew this guy was loitering on the premises for days, they should have had him removed. (Disclaimer: I skimmed the article. Correct me if I am wrong about that.)

theres really nothing to stop him coming back, trespass and all that aside, plus the hotels i deal with are wary of using the trespass unless very severe circumstances due to having negative experiences in the past, frinstance having homeless people trespassed from their parking area only to have groups protest and lawsuits threatened..

it says that they didn't notice him, not that they did know of his presence and failed to act. so they would have to make the case that the hotel is to have airtight security to protect guests, which is not the case anywhere. it seems reasonable to me to respond to the allegation that the hotel is expected to know when a potential threat exists, with an equal expectation of responsibility on the guest to be more aware of their surroundings as well.

i wonder if she is suing her children for not going to get help.

If the hotel can make the case that the woman was, say, 20% negligent in her actions, that will reduce their financial liability.

the hotel f'd up but needs to make some argument to reduce the amt of settlement they owe this lady for her being raped in front of her own kids and having a bad guy stick a gun in her kids' face

it's a legal game, i'm sure they don't really as human beings think she "asked for it," but you make whatever argument your lawyer and your insurer tells you to make in civil court

It winds up as sounding like they're actually blaming the victim, but they're just trying to reduce the amount of the award.

That is exactly what the tactic is intended to do --otherwise there would be no reduction. Note that they called as witnesses everyone associated with hotel services and in the process managed to reveal the name of the victim to at least one of those parties. I agree with the woman's side on this -- the hotel is trying to intimidate her into dropping the lawsuit or perhaps settling quickly for less money.

and lead to a much larger award.

That award will be reduced on appeal, of course, but quite possibly it will still be more than if they hadn't made the argument in the first place.

Egregious claims to limit liability can backfire.

I often get emails from well-meaning female friends detailing safety precautions that women should take. Women shouldn't walk alone in parking lots at night. Women should take self-defense classes. Women should do this. Women should do that.

My response is always the same - when will I get an email telling me what MEN should do? It would be easy - men shouldn't rape women. Period.

:puke:

friends, tennis partners and the children's baby sitter. The woman's attorneys argue the individuals subpoenaed do not know anything about the attack, that the subpoenas inadvertently identified her to those people and that it was merely an effort by the hotel's attorneys to intimidate her."

Fucking disgusting

and with her children! Didn't she know that rapists are always lurking in parking lots? That's reckless child endangerment! She should have driven that car all the way home instead of trying to get to her hotel room!

Marriott is just grasping at straws, trying to threaten her into settling out of court for peanuts.

They're going to lose if it gets into court.

or the hotel's smarmy lawyers doing this? Marriott, huh? maybe they should be hearing from some concerned consumers. maybe i'll think twice before booking a room at one of their hotels in the future.

eta: the lawyer for the person who killed my daughter made outrageous comments to the local paper trying to blame the victim for the hit and run death of a 21-year-old innocent by an enraged drunk speeding on the wrong side of the road. i nearly had a stroke when i read the article. i really feel for this victim and what she's going through.

even though they have cameras & roving security.

Valet is the only way...especially for women with kids in tow.