Richard Camembert
Third String But Playing on Special Teams
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2010
- Messages
- 651
- Reaction score
- 361
That's easy: No. It's well-established that you can't let victims of domestic abuse determine punishments for their attackers. Too many corrupting influences: fear, love, shame, economic dependency, being convinced by the abuser that they "deserved it," etc.
In the Jonathan Dwyer case, Dwyer's wife assured the police that her husband had nothing to do with her broken nose and everything was just fine. But according to the new allegations, he had a gun and had threatened to kill himself in front of their children unless she lied to the police and sent them away.
Is it possible that Ray Rice had never before laid a hand on a woman before a single alcohol-fueled moment he deeply regrets? Absolutely. Do I believe that must be true because his victim said so? Nope.
Respectfully, disagree here. Lots of formulations treat the victim as the most important person in the case and solicit their opinion as to how the case should proceed. I don't think it's an ironclad rule, and I agree that there are many cases, e.g. with terrified or uncooperative victims, where the victim's stated wishes are not the primary driver in the case, but still: determining the victim's take is and should be part of the process. Especially in cases where the victim is being controlled too much and taking their agency away adds to the problem. If Janay Palmer wants the assault she experienced not to be public, I personally see no problem at all including her wishes in crafting a response, including withholding information from the public if that is what she prefers.