[queequeger]

This incident served to arouse a discussion today, and an interesting one at that. Rape is a singularly grating crime. Because of our attitudes toward sex, forcing another into sexual intercourse, or any other molestation, is probably the most humiliating and degrading act conceivable. I don't think there is anyone on this forum that argues that point.

SO, that being said, and it is right and good that a rapist be punished (as the rapists in this case reportedly were), the reason this woman is being punished is somewhat unconnected to her rape. She was punished for being in a car with an unrelated male (who was also raped). So the question I raise is, does her victimization absolve her responsibility for her crime?

My gut reaction, of course, is yes. We always tell underage women (or men) that they wont be prosecuted for things like underage drinking or drug use when reporting a rape. This is in interest of fair reporting on the victim's part. But ignoring for the moment that we completely disagree with the laws against women's rights, is it right to absolve this victim from her crime because she was wronged some other way?

Because of the ridiculousness of the saudi religious laws, I'll put forth an analogy that I used earlier today. A woman burgles a house, and in the process is discovered by the owner and he decides to rape her, maybe to "teach her a lesson." When the cops arrive and find the woman's been raped, is she given immunity based on the circumstances her rape?

And if she IS given immunity, at what point DO we begin to prosecute her crimes? Does she have to murder someone? Is there ever a circumstance when a rape victim is prosecuted?

Just something I've been thinking about.