Explore

(Discover new Artists, Scientists, Innovators, and Trendsetters, as you explore Zedtopia...)

💭 Thought by z 8 days ago. | Public

Hacking my devices violates the 4th. Neurosurveillance violates the 5th. No due process violates the 6th. Violations of these rights are found to have Bivens liability with precedent established in Carlson Vs Green (U.S. Supreme Court 1980)


SpringerLink

The Fifth Amendment: Self-Incrimination and the Brain

This Fifth Amendment’s self-incrimination clause has been at the center of constitutional discussions over neuroimaging’s future. That it is not because it clearly would apply to neuroimaging – but rather because neuroimaging raises a easily...

HTTPS://LINK.SPRINGER.COM/CHAPTER/10.1007/978-3-319-50004-1_4


Tags: neurosurveillance, bivens

Comments

z 8 days ago

Here's the Abstract


The Fifth Amendment: Self-Incrimination and the Brain

Abstract

This Fifth Amendment’s self-incrimination clause has been at the center of constitutional discussions over neuroimaging’s future. That it is not because it clearly would apply to neuroimaging – but rather because neuroimaging raises a easily formulated (albeit difficult to answer) Fifth Amendment puzzle: It seems to count as both of what are supposed to be two mutually exclusive categories in Fifth Amendment law, because it is both like a witness statement (or “testimonial”) and like physical evidence such as blood flow or other physiological processes. This chapter explores various solutions scholars have proposed to this puzzle, rooted in distinctive theories of the self-incrimination clause – and the unanswered questions each of these theories raises. It also emphasizes another point that has received less attention in discussions of self-incrimination and neuroimaging: idea that Fifth Amendment protection for our thoughts and other mental process should perhaps sometimes cover the biology underlying that thinking even when government plausibly claims it wants access to it for reasons other than inferring our thoughts or beliefs.

References

  • Allen, R. J., & Mace, K. M. (2004). The Self-Incrimination Clause Explained and Its Future Predicted. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology94, 243–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amar, A. R., & Lettow, R. B. (1995). Fifth Amendment First Principles: The Self-Incrimination Clause. Michigan Law Review93, 857–928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brennan-Marquez, K. (2012–13). A Modest Defense of Mind-Reading. Yale Journal of Law and Technology, 15, 214–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, A., & Chalmers David, J. (2008). The Extended Mind. In A. Clark (Ed.), Supersizing the Mind: Embodiment, Action, and the Cognitive Experience. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Farahany, N. A. (2012a). Incriminating Thoughts. Stanford Law Review64, 351–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, D. (2009). The Right to Silence as Protecting Mental Control. Akron Law Review42, 763.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holloway, M. B. (2008). One Image, One Thousand Incriminating Words. Temple Journal of Science, Technology & Environmental Law27, 141–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, O. S. (2016, September 9). Thoughts on the Third Circuit’s Decryption and Self-incrimination Oral Argument. The Volokh Conspiracy. Washington Post.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lacy, J. W., & Stark, E. L. (2013, September). The Neuroscience of Memory: Implications for the Courtroom. Natural Reviews Neuroscience14(9), 649–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pardo, M. S. (2006). Neuroscience Evidence, Legal Culture, and Criminal Procedure. American Journal of Criminal Law33, 301–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pardo, M. S. (2008). The Self-Incrimination Clause and the Epistemology of Testimony. Cardozo Law Reviews30, 1023–1045.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pardo, M. S., & Patterson, D. (2013). Minds, Brains and Law: The Conceptual Foundations of Law and Neuroscience. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pustilnik, A. C. (2013). Neurotechnologies at the Intersection of Criminal Procedure and Constitution Law. In S. Richardson & J. Parry (Eds.), The Constitution and the Future of Criminal Law. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulhofer, S. (1991). Some Kind Words for the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination. Valparaiso University Law Review26, 311–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoller, S. E., & Wolpe, P. R. (2007). Emerging Technologies for Lie Detection and the Fifth Amendment. American Journal of Law and Medicine33(2/3), 359–374.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stuntz, W. J. (1988). Self-Incrimination and Excuse. Columbia Law Review88, 1227–1296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuntz, W. J. (1995). Privacy’s Problem and the Law of Criminal Procedure. Michigan Law Review93, 1016–1078.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, S. K. (2007). A Brave New World of Interrogation Jurisprudence. American Journal of Law & Medicine33, 341–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Oklahoma City University School of Law, Oklahoma City, USA

    Marc Jonathan Blitz

Upvote ↑ 0 / 0 Downvote ↓


Share


Comment


💭 Thought by z 8 days ago. | Public

Checkmate Bivens Claims are for suing federal agents and holding them responsible for violating your rights. Note if you are going after ICE for uteri snatching etc the Federal Tort Claims apply, not Bivens.


HTTPS://WWW.SHOUSELAW.COM/CA/CIVIL-RIGHTS/BIVENS-CLAIM/


Tags: bivens

Comments

z 8 days ago

too many ads, use reader or read it here: (left the formatting as is)


Bivens Claim – How to Bring a Lawsuit for Damages

"Bivens claim" -- How to bring a civil rights lawsuit against federal officials

A Bivens claim is a civil rights lawsuit for monetary damages against federal officials. You can file a lawsuit if your civil rights have been violated by a federal worker.

The claim allows you to recover compensation for your losses. It relies on an implied cause of action for civil rights violations. This means you cannot pursue a Bivens lawsuit if there is another remedy.

1. What is a Bivens claim?

Bivens claim is a civil rights lawsuit. You can file a claim if your civil rights have been constitutionally violated by a federal agent. Successful claims lead to monetary damages. The federal officer can be held personally liable.

Bivens claims get their name from the court case that created them.1 They are different from other lawsuits that were created by a statute. Instead, courts created the lawsuits by implying a cause of action. The claim provides a remedy when federal agents violate U.S. law.

You can file this civil action against a federal officer who violated your civil rights. Civil rights are rights guaranteed by federal law or the U.S. Constitution. Examples of constitutional violations that can lead to liability include:

  • an unreasonable search with no probable cause by drug agents and law enforcement in violation of Fourth Amendment rights,2
  • firing you from a U.S. agency after you express your political opinion (“free speech”) in violation of the First Amendment,3
  • depriving a prisoner of medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and
  • depriving you of the right to remain silent and due process, guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.4

Bivens constitutional claims are very similar to civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. However, Section 1983 claims only apply to unconstitutional wrongdoing

  • by state actors,
  • not federal ones.5

2. What is an implied cause of action?

Courts can imply a right of action when they see that a law has been violated but there is no remedy. If courts do not imply a cause of action, there would be no remedy. Without a remedy, there could be no lawsuit. Without a lawsuit, the defendant could violate the law again and again, without repercussion.

Courts only imply a cause of action as a last resort, however. If there is any other remedy available, they will refuse to imply one. They will also refuse to imply one if there are reasons not to. Bivens cases are no exception. If there is an alternative remedy available, courts will dismiss the lawsuit. They will also dismiss the claims if there are reasons to do so, such as when:

  • the claim stems from injuries suffered during military service,6 or
  • there are national security considerations.7
ICE agents, who cannot be sued under Bivens.

ICE is immune to Bivens claims.

3. Against whom can I make a Bivens claim?

Bivens claims can be filed in district court (lower courts in the U.S. judicial system) against individual federal officers. These individual officers have to work in agencies that are not protected from lawsuits. Officers susceptible to a claim include:

  • narcotics officers at the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA),8
  • federal prison officials,9 and
  • congressmen.10

Some agencies are shielded from lawsuitsby federal law. Certain statutes and regulations provide the exclusive remedies that you can recover against these agencies.

Example: Bivens lawsuits cannot be filed against Public Health Service workers. There is a federal statute authorizing the exclusive remedy for their misconduct.11

When Congress does not provide a remedy for specific civil rights violations, you cannot succeed in a claim.12 You also cannot pursue a Bivens lawsuit if there is an alternative remedy, however inadequate.13

Bivens lawsuits also cannot be filed against government entities for violations of constitutional rights. This means the following agencies cannot be sued:

  • Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE),
  • Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC),14 and
  • Department of Justice (DOJ).

In many cases, this is because the Federal Torts Claims Act already provides a remedy against them. However, the workers at these agencies can be sued as individuals.

Non-government parties cannot be sued in Bivens actions. This includes:

  • private companies,15 and
  • employees of private companies.16

These people and companies can already be sued in court. Therefore, Bivens actions do not apply to them. There is already another remedy and proper proceedings for you to use.

exterior of california courthouse

Bivens lawsuits can be filed in state court.

4. Can I file in state court?

Bivens lawsuits can be filed in state court. However, the federal official being sued has the right to remove the case to federal court.17

5. What damages could I receive?

These actions aim to recover monetary damages remedies from federal agents. This includes compensation as well as punitive damages.

The compensation aims to cover your:

  • medical bills,
  • lost wages from the violation,
  • reduced earning capacity from any long-term injuries,
  • pain and suffering, including the emotional trauma of the civil rights violation,
  • lost reputation, and
  • presumed damages for the loss of liberty from the civil rights violation.

Punitive damages, on the other hand, aim to punish the offending government official. They are typically only reserved for the most egregious conduct.

Attorney’s fees are not recoverable as a Bivens remedy.18 This is one of the ways that the cases are different from cases filed under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.

To recover these damages, you have to overcome the qualified immunity defense. Qualified immunity protects government agents from money damages unless:

  • they violated your constitutional rights, and
  • those rights were so clearly established that a reasonable person would have known they were being violated.

Note that certain agents have absolute immunity.

6. What’s the difference between a Bivens action and a 1983 claim?

Bivens vs 1983 are related but different legal causes of action. In Bivens actions, you sue defendants acting on behalf of the federal government – not state government. In contrast under 1983 claims, you sue defendants acting on behalf of state or local government – not federal government.19 

Common examples of state actors in a 1983 claim are city police officers who violated your federal rights by performing an unlawful search or coercing a confession. Note that you may be able to sue federal officials through a 1983 claim if they acted alongside state or local officials.20

Additional resources

For more in-depth information, refer to these scholarly articles:


Legal References:

  1. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (United States Supreme Court, 1971)(Supreme Court case involving “special factors” tests and “new context” inquiries; see concurring and dissenting opinions as well); Bivens, 276 F. Supp. 12 (E.D. New York 1967); affirmed, 409 F.2d 718 (Second Circuit, 1969). See also Ministerio Roca Solida v. McKelvey, (9th Cir. 2015) 820 F.3d 1090 (Bivens does not encompass injunctive relief and declaratory reliefwhere the equitable relief soughtrequires official government action.)
  2. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed Bureau of Narcotics, Supra (Fourth Amendment); 42 U.S.C. § 1983; see the Federal Tort Claims Act(FTCA), which eliminates common law grounds for suing federal officers; see also Molitor v. Kaneland Community Unit Dist. (1959) 18 Iil.2d 11 163 N.E.2d 89; see also Brown v. General Servs. Admin., (1976) 425 U.S. 820; see also Ashcroft v. Mattis, (1977) 431 U.S. 171.
  3. Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367 (1983).
  4. Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (the Supreme Court, 1980).
  5. Wheeldin v. Wheeler, 373 U.S. 647 (1963).
  6. Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 296 (1983).
  7. Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (2017).
  8. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, Supra (the Federal Bureau of Narcotics was a predecessor to the DEA.gov).
  9. Carlson v. Green, Supra.
  10. Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (1979).
  11. Hui v. Castaneda, 130 S. Ct. 1845 (2010) (42 U.S.C. § 233(a)).
  12. Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412 (1988) (the Social Security Administration ended benefits to 200,000 people for months before Congress passed a law to reinstate them. The law, however, did not provide a remedy to the victims).
  13. Bush v. Lucas, Supra (Civil Service Reform Act allows for administrative review of wrongful terminations by federal agencies).
  14. FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994)(involving the Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, the predecessor to the FDIC).
  15. Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (2001) (private prison company).
  16. Minneci v. Pollard, 132 S. Ct. 617 (2012).
  17. 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1).
  18. See for example United States v Hall,773 F.2d 703 (6th Cir. 1985) (the “clear majority of courts” agree that the “federal government is not liable for attorney fees under section 1988 for pure Bivens actions”).
  19. Pursuant to the statutory law 42 USC § 1983, the defendants (local or state officials) must be acting “under color of state law” for civil rights violations; see also Wallace v. Chappell (9th Cir. Court of Appeals, 1981) 661 F.2d 729; see also Jenkins v. Averett, (4th Cir. 1970) 424 F.2d 1228; see also Bryan v. Jones, (5th Cir.) 530 F.2d 1210.
  20. Tongol v. Usery, (9th Cir. 1979) 601 F.2d 1091.

Upvote ↑ 0 / 0 Downvote ↓


Share


Comment


💭 Thought by z 8 days ago. | Public

writing or blogging with an iphone is atrocious, whereas with my samsung I was more productive. I wasted 30 minutes on dealing with copy & paste issues because ios can't paste as plaintext. + apple notes sucks basic shit.



Share


Comment


💭 Thought by z 8 days ago. | Public

This is an essay by Kelly Koppenhafer for a CJ 725 class at BU.


HTTPS://SITES.BU.EDU/DANIELLEROUSSEAU/2021/04/26/RETRAUMATIZED-THE-LONG-TERM-CONSEQUENCES-OF-VICTIM-BLAMING/


Comments

z 8 days ago

Retraumatized: the long-term consequences of victim blaming


An article I recently read disgusted me to my core. Although the case is still under litigation and additional details are pending release, the article discussed how a teenage rape victim is being blamed for allowing the attack to happen, with “contributory negligence, assumption of risk, contributory fault and/or culpable conduct” (Fonrouge, 2021) attributed to the victim, a 14-year-old student at New Rochelle High School in New York. According to the article, the victim was allegedly “raped in a stairwell by a fellow classmate who had been bullying her for two years,” with the attacker choking and violently assaulting the victim “while she repeatedly said ‘no’ as a security guard stood close by” (Fonrouge, 2021). The alleged attack, which occurred in January 2020, was also caught on camera. The article did not mention any factors indicating the victim was a willing participant or which would have made her responsible for the attack.


In March 2021, the victim sued the high school, claiming they should have done more to protect her, since at the time of the rape, the alleged rapist was already being investigated for his involvement in another sexual assault of a classmate, yet was still allowed to attend classes on campus. Although the alleged rapist was arrested and charged as a juvenile, the school’s insurance company ascribed blame to the victim, while defending the school, stating there was “no negligence, fault or culpable conduct” (Fonrouge, 2021) on their part. After heavy backlash, a representative for the school district blamed the insurance company for the alleged victim blaming, but unfortunately, damage has already been done to the victim, potentially changing the way she is perceived by her peers, the community, the judicial system and even by herself.


Victim blaming and victim shaming is a concept that is destructive, inflicting additional trauma to the victim and potentially preventing future victims from speaking out. However, it is an action that is seen every day in the media, which almost normalizes the behavior. It has been estimated “that approximately 18% of women in the United States have been raped at some point in their lifetime” (Bartol & Bartol, 2021, p. 404-405), although the “actual rate of rape is grossly underreported” (Rousseau, 2021, Module 5, p. 14). With numerous hurdles already in place preventing rape victims from coming forward, the additional trauma caused by victim blaming undoubtedly leaves many victims wondering if the risk is worth the reward in coming forward or pressing charges, especially knowing the trial process can be long and arduous and often with minimal consequences. Additionally, “a victim may feel that by going to trial, her sexual history will be known to the world—which could cause embarrassment or even make her feel more to blame for the sexual assault” (Rousseau, 2021, p. 15). Many victims have also indicated their experience with the law enforcement and judicial system have been more traumatizing than the initial event, referring to it as another assault (Rousseau, 2021, Module 5, p. 14).


According to research, “more blame is attributed to rape victims when they are intoxicated, resist an attack less, have a closer relationship with the perpetrator, and wear revealing clothing” (Dawtry et al., 2019, p. 1269). For example, in the case of Brock Turner, an ex-Stanford swimmer convicted of sexually assaulting an unconscious woman, he barely received any substantial consequences, yet the victim’s name was dragged through the mud. Blame was shifted to the victim, questioning everything from her sexual history, the amount she drank, what she ate that day to what she was wearing, with blame even directed to her friends, asking why they left her alone. Instead of attributing full blame to Turner, questioning why he decided to sexually assault someone, the victim faced an avalanche of scrutiny, seemingly blaming her for the assault, instead of the offender. In one of the most powerful victim impact statements I have ever read, the victim spoke candidly about the effect the assault had on her life, in addition to the blame she unfairly received (Baker, 2016). She stated, “You made me a victim. In newspapers my name was ‘unconscious intoxicated woman’, ten syllables, and nothing more than that. For a while, I believed that that was all I was. I had to force myself to relearn my real name, my identity. To relearn that this is not all that I am. That I am not just a drunk victim at a frat party found behind a dumpster, while you are the All¬ American swimmer at a top university, innocent until proven guilty, with so much at stake. I am a human being who has been irreversibly hurt, my life was put on hold for over a year, waiting to figure out if I was worth something” (Baker, 2016).


Societal perception regarding rape has been developed and conditioned over time, with many widely accepted rape myths “serve to deny and justify male sexual aggression against women” (Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1994, p. 134). While rape myths “vary across cultures and societies, they consistently involve blaming the victim, exonerating the perpetrator, expressing disbelief over claims of rape, and believing that only certain types of woman are raped. Such beliefs have real-world consequences, and may manifest in jury verdicts, public policy, and interpersonal reactions toward victims” (Dawtry et al., 2019, p. 1269). The impact of victim blaming has numerous real-life consequences, for both the victim and the societal perception. Furthermore, while victim blaming is commonly seen in cases of sexual assault, it is also being seen more frequently in cases involving police brutality. I have been noticing a shift where the victims of police brutality are put on trial instead of the perpetrator, having their past actions, potential criminal history and alleged unwillingness to comply presented as reasons justifying police use of force. The trend is disturbing and damaging, and the impact of normalizing detrimental behavior is damaging to everyone involved.
 
References
Baker, K. J. M. (2016, June 3). Here’s The Powerful Letter The Stanford Victim Read To Her Attacker. BuzzFeed News. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/katiejmbaker/heres-the-powerful-letter-the-stanford-victim-read-to-her-ra#.caxXXyWGK.
Bartol, C. R., & Bartol, A. M. (2021). Criminal behavior: a psychological approach. 12th Edition. Boston: Pearson.
Dawtry, R. J., Cozzolino, P. J., & Callan, M. J. (2019). I Blame Therefore It Was: Rape Myth Acceptance, Victim Blaming, and Memory Reconstruction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(8), 1269–1282. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218818475
Fonrouge, G. (2021, April 20). New Rochelle High School blamed girl for her own rape, lawyer says. New York Post. https://nypost.com/2021/04/20/new-rochelle-high-school-blamed-girl-for-her-own-rape-lawyer-says/.
Lonsway, K. A., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1994). Rape myths: In review. Psychology of Woman Quarterly, 18, 133–164.
Rousseau, D. (2021). Module 5 Study Guide [Notes]. Boston University Metropolitan College.

Upvote ↑ 0 / 0 Downvote ↓


Share


Comment


💭 Thought by z 8 days ago. | Public

not only was donald trump at epstein's island and accused of rape by victims who got death threats, he was also found to have raped E. Jean Carroll.


Washington Post

Analysis | Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll

What the jury found Donald Trump did to E. Jean Carroll was in fact rape, as commonly understood, even if it didn't fit New York law's narrow definition, says Judge Lewis A. Kaplan.

HTTPS://WWW.WASHINGTONPOST.COM/POLITICS/2023/07/19/TRUMP-CARROLL-JUDGE-RAPE/




Share


Comment


💭 Thought by z 8 days ago. | Public

wypipo don't want to admit that they are wrong and double down on casting the person they attack as a villain to rationalize the awful things they did. this is a common pattern and one that's happening right now. it's a form of victim blaming.


HTTPS://CRIMINAL-JUSTICE.IRESEARCHNET.COM/TYPES-OF-CRIME/DOMESTIC-VIOLENCE/VICTIM-BLAMING-THEORY/


Comments

z 8 days ago

From the link (too many ads use reader mode if you want or read it here) [bold added by me to highlight]


Those who subscribe to the "just world" worldview are in a state of cognitive dissonance and instead of investigating or seeking truth they lazily blame the victim.


Victim-Blaming Theory

Although the study of victimology represents a relatively new field of inquiry, early researchers were drawn to the concept of shared responsibility between victims and offenders in the commission of a criminal event (Karmen 2004). These researchers focused on victim attributes as well as the interaction between the victim and the offender, with the assumption that their interaction led to reciprocal forces causing the victimization. Since then, the controversy over victim precipitation of a crime has come under scrutiny, yet the daily practice of shifting some, if not all, of the blame for the crime onto the victim continues.

Victim-blaming theory describes the practice of holding victims partly responsible for their misfortune. It represents the faulting of individuals who have endured the suffering of crimes, hardships, or other misfortunes with either part or whole responsibility for the event. Often, victim-blaming theories rely on the premise that individuals should recognize the dangers that exist in society and therefore should take the necessary precautions to maintain a certain level of safety. Those who do not take such precautions are perceived as blameworthy for their demise even if they have not acted carelessly. These perceptions in effect shift the culpability away from the perpetrator of the crime onto the victim. When discussing issues of family violence, violence against women, or sexual assault, one often hears victim-blaming statements such as, ‘‘Why didn’t she leave?’’ or ‘‘She was asking for it.’’ Within the context of family violence, victim blaming often includes condemnation of the victim for staying in an abusive relationship.

Scholars theorize that the phenomenon of victim blaming is the result of a belief in a ‘‘just world.’’ In 1965, social psychologist Melvin Lerner coined the term ‘‘just world hypothesis’’ to reflect the belief that ‘‘individuals have a need to believe that they live in a world where people generally get what they deserve and deserve what they get’’ (Lerner 1978). Lerner conducted a series of experiments to test his hypothesis by documenting the respondents’ eagerness to believe that those who triumphed deserved their victories, while those who suffered were responsible for their demise. According to Lerner, people have a need to view the world as an orderly, predictable, and fair place. This belief encourages individuals to strive toward goals with an expectation that each action leads to predictable results. Lerner explains that when faced with evidence that the world is unjust, ‘‘just world’’ believers make sense of the situation with claims that the victim ‘‘must have asked for it.’’ Although the belief in a ‘‘just world’’ may provide some comfort and encouragement to attain one’s goals, it also has the potential to provide a false sense of security.

Does Victim Blaming Have an Impact?

Do the expectations of a just world and the act of blaming the victim have any real significance in the understanding of intimate partner abuse and sexual violence? According to Martin (2001), ‘‘In addition to being unjust, blaming victims shows a lack of compassion by disregarding victims’ suffering and by imposing additional suffering in criticizing the innocent.’’ In a quest to effectively aid victims and minimize the reoccurrence of abuse, one must examine the social attitudes that endorse victim blaming and examine the training of the professionals who work with victims.

In an exploration of the trends of how social attitudes influence social policies, Davis examines how the policies of the 1980s demonstrated a shift away from creating the services necessary for women to leave an abusive relationship (i.e., providing or assisting with housing, employment, education, etc.) for the sake of interventions designed to stop individual acts of violence so that families could stay together (Davis et al. 1992). Davis explains that during this time, women in abusive relationships were encouraged to ‘‘gain control over their lives’’ by changing the behaviors that led to the abuse. Rather than providing the services necessary to escape an abusive situation, victims of family violence were encouraged to modify their behavior in efforts to stop the abuse.

As a result of social policies, family traditions, religious institutions, and cultural customs which often encourage victims of intimate partner abuse to remain in the relationship, survivors of family abuse often turn to social service, medical, and justice personnel for nonjudgmental assistance. One would expect that those choosing careers in ‘‘helping professions’’ such as social work, medicine, and law enforcement would not engage in victim-blaming attitudes, yet research shows otherwise. As described by Danis (2003):

From the late 1970s through the early 1990s, the social work profession earned a reputation as uncaring, uninformed, and unhelpful to battered women. Social workers were faulted for blaming the victim . . . , failing to recognize abuse as a problem . . . , and failing to make appropriate interventions and referrals.

Until recently, little inquiry explored the question of whether or not ‘‘social workers feel academically prepared to address domestic violence.’’ In answering this question, Danis (2003) found that ‘‘the majority of the respondents felt they had ‘none to a little’ academic preparation’’ to provide adequate assistance in family violence circumstances. Social workers not only felt underprepared to work with victims of intimate partner abuse, but expressed some victim-blaming attitudes. Furthermore, within health care settings:

available information suggests that one barrier to appropriate healthcare for abused women may be physician attitudes. . . . Close to one third (30%) [of physicians] hold non-supportive (victim-blaming) attitudes about victims of spouse abuse, and the majority (70%) do not believe that they have the necessary resources to assist victims of domestic violence. (Garimella et al. 2000)

Although some specific medical associations such as Kaiser Permanente in Richmond, California, have implemented family violence awareness trainings for their staff, ‘‘two victim-blaming attitudes stand out: approximately half of all physicians (55%) believe that their patients’ personalities lead them to being abused, and one third (34%) believe that a victim must be getting something out of the relationship, or she would leave’’ (Garimella et al. 2000).

Within the criminal justice processes, victims not only endure their personal suffering, but also the speculation from juries who may perceive them as not having done enough to prevent the victimization. Studies of mock juries have found that ‘‘when presented with negative outcomes, people often engage in counterfactual thinking, imagining various ways that events might have been different’’ (Goldinger et al. 2003). Hence, when faced with a victim who has been injured by an abusive partner or sexually aggressive perpetrator, juries often imagine ways in which the victim’s behavior could have led the events to occur differently without consideration of the real factors affecting the decision-making process at the original moment. Victims may be blamed as ‘‘having poor judgment’’ without receiving acknowledgment for the fact that viewing information in hindsight yields opportunities for better responses than those determined within real-time life constraints.

Using simulations to examine the impact of a victim’s social role in the attribution of contributory fault in sexual assault cases, Pugh (1983) examined respondents’ perceptions of the victim’s moral character in an array of criminal cases. Through the manipulation of ‘‘the victims’ social roles (i.e., nuns, married women, and social workers vs. prostitutes, divorcees, and topless dancers), the victim’s attire (provocative vs. nonprovocative), and the victim’s previous sexual conduct (virgin vs. nonvirgin) [Pugh discovered that] contributory fault on the part of rape victims will reduce the likelihood of a guilty verdict’’ (Pugh 1983). The culpability for the crime is shifted from the perpetrator’s actions to the victim’s attributes or behavior. ‘‘Because of the preoccupation with the victim’s actions, the responsibility of the accused is diminished’’ (Rude 1999). Even more disturbing is the fact that discrimination may heighten the plight of victims of color. George and Martinez (2002) found that ‘‘in judgments about the certitude of rape, the victim’s culpability, the credibility of her refusal, and the perpetrator’s culpability, participants judged women raped interracially as more blameworthy than those raped intraracially’’ (2002). Although these issues are pertinent to the administration of family violence cases within the criminal justice system, one must also recognize the impact of the practice of victim blaming on the creation of social policies and the implementation of services for victims of crimes.

Social attitudes influence not only policies and services available for victims, but also the victim’s willingness to report the offense and seek assistance. Oftentimes, victims may remain silent about their suffering and not report their victimization for fear of experiencing the secondary victimization that follows when social systems respond with statements such as ‘‘Why did you stay?’’ or ‘‘Why didn’t you resist?’’ Victims of intimate partner abuse respond to the social cues of whether their plight will be taken seriously by responding to the reactions of those in ‘‘helping professions’’ as well as the media portrayal of abuse cases.

In an exploration of 150 cases of women killed in Zambia from 1973 to 1996, Rude (1999) found that

newspaper accounts of such killings create a secondary level of silence about domestic violence and homicide by blaming the victims and concealing the brutality of the attacks. . . . Cases are simply described as domestic disputes [and] women are judged to have ‘‘provoked’’ their perpetrators, whose violent reactions are all too often seen as inevitable, understandable, and therefore somewhat pardonable.

In one account used to describe the newspapers’ headlines, language, and tone when publicly describing abuse, Rude (1999) writes:

In 1986, Theresa Mwale was killed by her husband after she questioned him about a girl he accommodated in a hostel. The article, which appeared under the headline of ‘‘Nagging wife killer freed after custody’’, suggested the wife’s behavior was the real crime, not the husband’s fatal beating of her with a hosepipe.

Although the accounts from Zambia appear quite extreme, the silencing effects resulting from victim blaming are similar to those elsewhere in the world. Much like the work of Pugh (1983), who found that ‘‘the presumption of contributory fault . . . mitigates the behavior of the defendant,’’ Rude also discovered that the framework in which the abuse is described (i.e., blaming the victim) has an impact on the handling and support offered to the victims. The silencing effects of the abuse are intensified by the silencing effects of placing blame on victims.

Conclusion

Victim blaming has been studied multiple times within the context of sexual assaults, yet the practice of blaming victims remains prevalent. Intimate partner abuse inherently incorporates the use of psychological blaming of the victim, and the impact of victim blaming from social support systems cannot be underestimated. The significance of understanding victim blaming lies in the limitations such practices place on the services and support for victims. Blaming victims for their pain not only limits the services and support systems available to them, but also ‘‘shows a lack of compassion by disregarding victim’s undeserved suffering and by imposing additional suffering in criticizing the innocent’’ (Martin 2001).

Victim-blaming theories have received considerable attention from social psychologists, yet little has been done to end the practice of shifting the culpability of unfortunate events from the offenders to the victims. Taking responsibility for one’s safety may ensure a specific level of protection, yet it does not provide a guarantee that no bad events will take place. Until the populace gains an awareness of the harm caused by the simple act of blaming victims, victims will continue to suffer needlessly.

Also check the list of domestic violence research topics and all criminal justice research topics.

Bibliography:

  1. Danis, Fran S. ‘‘Domestic Violence and Social Work Education: What We Know, What We Need to Know?’’ Journal of Social Work Education 39, no. 2 (Spring/Summer 2003): 215–224.
  2. Davis, Liane V., and Jan L. Hagen. ‘‘The Problem of Wife Abuse: The Interrelationship of Social Policy and Social Work Practice.’’ Social Work 37, no. 1 (January 1992): 15–20.
  3. Garimella, Ramani, et al. ‘‘Physicians, Beliefs about Victims of Spouse Abuse and about the Physician Role.’’ Journal of Women’s Health and Gender-Based Medicine 9, no. 4 (2000): 405–411.
  4. George, William H., and Lorraine J. Martinez. ‘‘Victim Blaming in Rape: Effects of Victim and Perpetrator Race, Types of Rape, and Participant Racism.’’ Psychology of Women Quarterly 26, no. 2 (Summer 2002): 110.
  5. Goldinger, Stephen D., et al. ‘‘‘Blaming the Victim’ under Memory Load.’’ Psychological Science 14, no. 1 (January 2003): 81–85.
  6. Johnson, Lee M., Rehan Mullock, and Charles L. Mulford. ‘‘General Versus Specific Victim Blaming.’’ Journal of Social Psychology 142, no. 2 (2002): 249–263.
  7. Karmen, Andrew. Crime Victims: An Introduction to Victimology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson, 2004.
  8. Lerner, Melvin J. The Belief in a Just World: A Fundamental Delusion. New York: Plenum Press, 1980.
  9. Lerner, Melvin J., and D. T. Miller. ‘‘Just World Research and the Attribution Process: Looking Back and Ahead.’’ Psychological Bulletin 85 (1978): 1030–1051.
  10. Lipkusa, I. M., C. Dalbert, and I. C. Siegler. ‘‘The Importance of Distinguishing the Belief in a Just World for Self Versus for Others: Implications for Psychological Well- Being.’’ Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 22, no. 7 (1996): 666–677.
  11. Martin, Mike W. ‘‘Responsibility for Health and Blaming Victims.’’ Journal of Medical Humanities 22, no. 2 (2001): 95–106.
  12. Pugh, M. D. ‘‘Contributory Fault and Rape Convictions: Loglinear Models for Blaming the Victim.’’ Social Psychology Quarterly 46, no. 3 (September 1983): 233–242.
  13. Rude, Darlene. ‘‘Reasonable Men and Provocative Women: An Analysis of Gendered Domestic Homicide in Zambia.’’ Journal of Southern Africana Studies 25, no. 1 (March 1999): 7–27.

Upvote ↑ 0 / 0 Downvote ↓


Share


Comment


💭 Thought by azeem 8 days ago. | Public

this is an extremely bad proposal with too many negative ramifications and side effects to be feasible or viable as a plan of action.


WIRED

The Race for Space-Based Solar Power

Once a sci-fi staple, the ability to beam solar power from space now seems closer than ever—but a lot of work remains.

HTTPS://WWW.WIRED.COM/STORY/SUN-BASED-SOLAR-POWER-ESA-ENERGY/




Share


Comment


💭 Thought by z 8 days ago. | Public

🎯


GoComics

The Boondocks by Aaron McGruder for July 17, 2024 | GoComics.com

Huey: Hello? Is this the FBI's anonymous terrorism tip line? Phone: That's correct, Mr. Freeman. What have you got for us? Huey: Anonymous?! Phone: Oh, spare me the surprised indignation, Huey. You know we've been tapping your phone for years. Whatcha got?

HTTPS://WWW.GOCOMICS.COM/BOONDOCKS/2024/07/17




Share


Comment


💭 Thought by z 8 days ago. | Public

🆒


ArcaMax

Blondie for 7/17/2024

Created by Dean Young, Blondie and Dagwood Bumstead are the quintessential American family: working, raising kids, and pointing out the humor in everyday life. At over seventy years old, Blondie is still going strong.

HTTPS://WWW.ARCAMAX.COM/THEFUNNIES/BLONDIE/S-3325738




Share


Comment


💭 Thought by z 8 days ago. | Public

fact check:


FactCheck.org

Second Night of the GOP Convention - FactCheck.org

On a night when the focus was on safety and unity at the Republican convention, a number of GOP leaders also offered up some misleading and false claims we have seen before.

HTTPS://WWW.FACTCHECK.ORG/2024/07/SECOND-NIGHT-OF-THE-GOP-CONVENTION/




Share


Comment


💭 Thought by z 8 days ago. | Public

🙏🏽💐 🔬🥼


YouTube

Seed Oils, Chronic Disease, Diet & Religious Cults, Mainstream Medicine vs. Independent Research

Full versions of episodes in the Independent Scholars Series are available to paid subscribers of my Substack (mindandmatter.substack.com) or paid members of...

HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/J_ABZFFETVS


Comments

z 8 days ago

the TLDR:

cut omega 6 fatty acids from seed oils and processed foods, junk food, etc, and increase omega 3 fatty acids with a supplement, fish oil, etc.


Upvote ↑ 0 / 0 Downvote ↓


Share


Comment


💭 Thought by z 8 days ago. | Public

if we can't even have fair games, how can we have a fair society? y'all dont even know how to make a game fair let alone a civilization.

Comments

z 8 days ago

If I got the money these studios did, I would make a better game, one that's fair.


If the game isn't fair, the winning/success doesn't count. 


Thus an unfair game robs everyone of all joy.


The same applies to civilization

Upvote ↑ 0 / 0 Downvote ↓


Share


Comment


💭 Thought by z 8 days ago. | Public

originally inspired by horrible games but it applies to everything creative: my bro gave me his ps5 & games but the games are horrible & don't even match older AAA game quality. you know your product is bad if nobody even wants it for free.

Tags: i'm grateful to my bro, i'm mad yall ripped him off and made him pay money for these shit games, your software sucks and your console is a piece of shit, xbox doesnt work either, nintendo might be legally trigger happy on protecting their IP but at least their games are good, i only fuck with nintendo and steam, quality matters

Comments

z 8 days ago

The specific games:


The whole Spiderman series had stupid subs -- the PS4 and PS5 Peter Parker and Miles Morales games. 


I've played every Spiderman game and objectively the Gamecube version was the nicest -- these new ones felt like a revamp of the Gamecube game engine but with worse storylines and horrible cameras.


ghost of tsushima is the example of the worst game I've ever played recently.


It had such good source material but the execution was garbage.


The cameras even on fast are agonizingly slow and unrealistic, I can turn my head faster irl than the game camera does.


The gameplay and swordplay, like the number of steps or basic controls were never thought out, and not being accurate with game input is the worst thing a game can do.


The storyline sucked and the art was pathetic, especially given the rich heritage, source material, and gpu power of the console.


gran turismo couldn't get Lotus Cars in a racing game. Fail. You are missing the best handling cars in the world and you call yourself the ultimate racing sim?


Asseto Corsa FTW. 


The gaming industry and studios skimp out on actual details and game engines and it ruins the product.


If I were Sony I would refuse to allow garbage games to even be released for my console. I rather have less games like only a few hundred excellent games, instead of 1000+ mediocre choices.


At least I know whatever it is would be well developed and a fun experience.


People buy games to have fun, not to be aggravated or have to buy dlcs or loot boxes.


Like Konami was stupid to throw away Hideo Kojima as well.


Having worked with 3d modeling, and web development, Game developement has frequently intersected with my life -- I know what it takes to make a game and I know that it's hard, but I also know excellent games exist because I HAVE THEM.  I've played them.


I know what a good game is and what a bad one is.




Upvote ↑ 0 / 0 Downvote ↓


Share


Comment


💭 Thought by z 9 days ago. | Public

bless up


YouTube

Out Of Context: LL Cool J And Charlamagne Tha God

Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE to see all of CThaGod's latest exclusive interviews and content!Follow Charlamagne on social media!Instagram: https://www.instagram...

HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/QOAGACXE2CI


Comments

z 9 days ago

we should preserve and remember the good and fix the bad.


every generation is supposed to be better than the last.


and as a problem solver i would just add to the convo that we shouldn't have to renounce our passport to make amends to the indigenous etc -- there's always a way to choose the best path forward with manners and respect, like was mentioned earlier in the conversation.


and at the end, you can choose not to conquer, nor surrender -- you don't have to be a slavemaster to be free, etc.


bigups

Upvote ↑ 0 / 0 Downvote ↓


Share


Comment


who shall i be afraid of? none.
z published 🧠 9 days ago. | Public
| Be the first person to star this idea.

Share


Comment


💭 Thought by z 9 days ago. | Public

in all spiritual traditions this is true: bless up.


YouTube

When Goodness Comes Into Your Direction, It Hurts Them | Mufti Menk

All Official Links from the Mufti Menk Channel can be found here:► https://muftimenk.com----BEWARE OF SCAMMERS WHO OPERATE IN THE COMMENTS SECTION PRETENDING...

HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/NFVADSFJ8BI




Share


Comment


💭 Thought by z 9 days ago. | Public

what a day


YouTube

WHAT A DAY

Provided to YouTube by ColumbiaWHAT A DAY · Tyler, The CreatorCALL ME IF YOU GET LOST: The Estate Sale℗ 2023 Columbia Records, a Division of Sony Music Enter...

HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/J3OLMH9IV0K




Share


Comment


💭 Thought by z 9 days ago. | Public

from the horse's mouth


HTTPS://WWW.HAARETZ.COM/ISRAEL-NEWS/2024-07-07/TY-ARTICLE-MAGAZINE/.PREMIUM/IDF-ORDERED-HANNIBAL-DIRECTIVE-ON-OCTOBER-7-TO-PREVENT-HAMAS-TAKING-SOLDIERS-CAPTIVE/00000190-89A2-D776-A3B1-FDBE45520000


Comments

z 9 days ago

IDF Ordered Hannibal Directive on October 7 to Prevent Hamas Taking Soldiers Captive

'There was crazy hysteria, and decisions started being made without verified information': Documents and testimonies obtained by Haaretz reveal the Hannibal operational order, which directs the use of force to prevent soldiers being taken into captivity, was employed at three army facilities infiltrated by Hamas, potentially endangering civilians as well

Upvote ↑ 0 / 0 Downvote ↓


Share


Comment


💭 Thought by azeem 9 days ago. | Public

on the death of ownership rights


YouTube

How Companies Profit off Unfixable Devices (ft. Louis Rossmann)

Go to https://brilliant.org/coldfusion for 20% off!Have you noticed? The devices and software we buy is no longer our own. From hostile software updates to p...

HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/6IZE7KJIJG4


Tags: right to repair, right to own a product you bought, violations of consent, breach in contract law, Data Rights, privacy, repairability, circular economy



Share


Comment


💭 Thought by z 9 days ago. | Public

this asswipe talks about committment to rule of law while flagrantly violating US domestic Leahy Laws and International Law against Genocide. bless up Janta Ka they always have good clips and coverage.


YouTube

US official’s cruel joke, says human rights, human dignity core American values | Janta Ka Reporter

US State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller has said that core values of hai country included human rights and human dignity. This despite the fact that ...

HTTPS://YOUTU.BE/XN_RZDQ-MU4


Comments

z 9 days ago

Excellent Segment on the Hannibal Directive


Upvote ↑ 0 / 0 Downvote ↓


Share


Comment