Did She "Ask for It"? Does it Matter?

By Pat Brown

A victim is a housewife, college student, go-go dancer, model, teacher, nun, virgin, slut, whore, churchgoer, caretaker, drug user, pervert, cop, criminal, social worker, thief.

She may be sweet. She may be a bitch. She may not have deserved it. Then, again, maybe she sorta did.

What a victim is, and what a victim does, doesn't matter. Or, what a victim is, and what a victim does, makes all the difference.

Over and over, we hear that the behavior of the victim is not the issue. No one deserves to be murdered. No one deserves to be raped. Even the suggestion that the victim might have in some way contributed to her unfortunate demise is considered blasphemy. When pushed, it might be admitted, in a politically correct manner, that the victim "may have lived a high-risk life-style that increased her chance of becoming a victim." This is a nice way of saying the victim's personal decisions and behavior got her in trouble. Her unfortunate choices range from opening the door without knowing who is on the other side, jogging at dusk, or working the streets as a prostitute.

The continued white-washing of the victim's character, and the refusal to examine her actions, can make it harder to find, profile and try attackers. We think we are doing women a favor when we refuse to acknowledge that their behavior helped make them victims. We are, in fact, clouding the thinking of investigators and jurors in their abilities to identify and convict the perpetrators of rape and sexual homicide.

Let's examine how this political viewpoint of women's responsibility has affected these areas.

The investigation of a sexual homicide depends heavily on accurate information about the victim. Victimology includes the past history of the victim, the personality and habits of the victim in the recent months prior to the crime, and the activities and relationships the victim was involved with in the minutes, hours, and days before the murder.

The desire to believe that a totally crazy bogeyman appeared out of nowhere and, for no reason, murdered this totally innocent person, keeps many relatives and friends from informing the police investigators of dangerous activities and habits that could have set up the victim as the target in the killer's crime. Since the victim didn't deserve to be killed, then nothing she could have done should be relevant to her death.

This belief wastes valuable time and leads that could have led them rapidly to the perpetrator. The longer it takes for truthful information to reach the police, the more time the offender has to move or eliminate evidence, create alibis and generally disappear under the radar. When investigators accept this bogeyman theory, they too can overlook important information.

Still, investigators mustn't carelessly attribute risky behaviors as factors leading to a rape or murder. A prostitute is not necessarily murdered by a john, nor is a drug dealer always killed over drugs. Hitchhikers aren't necessarily murdered by the people who pick them up. It's entirely possible that none of the victim's less-than-desirable behaviors contributed in any way to her death. A drug-using prostitute with a real mean streak could be hit over the head and dragged into the bushes on her way home from church. The perpetrator may have no clue to her personality or lifestyle. She was just there; a victim of opportunity.

Wonderful traits can make someone a target as well. Take the horrific case of Annie Le (left with her fiancé), Yale student killed by a worker in the lab. She was beautiful, brilliant, sweet and friendly ... maybe too sweet and too friendly. Maybe she was overly polite to someone she should have avoided or maybe she was just so perfect and successful that her killer resented her existence. Good traits can get you killed, too.

Investigators must analyze all elements of victimology before making any conclusions. Even after a theory is developed, room must be left for the other possibilities, regardless of how unlikely. Paying close attention to all aspects of the victim's life as quickly as possible increases investigative leads and brings to police attention suspects who might  otherwise have gone undiscovered. 

In the courtroom, the defense often focuses on the victim's character. In a strange twist of reasoning, the politically correct refusal to make the victim responsible in any way for her fate allows the defense to assassinate her character.  

Because no one deserves to be killed, and no one contributes to the killer's choice of victim or decision to kill, then the victim must be totally innocent and the perpetrator must be totally guilty -- a hard case to prove. 

When the issue is seen so black and white, the jury is emotionally prepared to love the victim and hate the perpetrator. Then the defense presents their well-dressed, humble, intelligent, well -loved family man defendant. And then it proceeds to chip away at the victim's character (Jasmine Fiore, right, the model killed by her quickie-Las Vegas-marriage hubby) by, say, noting that she had numerous sexual relationships over the recent months (one of the other boyfriends could have done it), she frequented bars (oh, yeah, she could have picked up a freak), she did drugs (a low-life drug dealer probably offed her), she was a real flirt and wore provocative clothing (she asked for it ... oops ... not politically correct, but, hey, maybe she was into freaky sex and s/m), and she was not very nice sometimes (geez, maybe she really upset this guy and he lost it). 

Now that the victim has been so degraded in the eyes of the jury, they feel guilty if they put Mr. Nice Guy Defendant away for a crime, well, gee, for a crime that seems like any of the victim's acquaintances could have committed or that the victim herself encouraged. 

The truth gets lost in the jury's emotional response -- disappointment that the victim wasn't perfect. Oddly enough, it is easier to convict a murderer who killed during a drug deal, because character isn't an issue for either the prosecution or defense. The killer and the victim are both criminals. The only issue is the fact that the victim was killed. The trial then focuses on the evidence, not personality. (I am not saying this is cut and dried. Certainly defense attorneys still play the-defendant-is-a-nice-guy game, but the jury is not so conflicted over what to focus on to reach its verdict.) 

The issue in court should not be whether the girl was "easy," but whether she was easy prey, a vulnerable target for the offender. It should be stressed to the courts that these easy catches are often practice runs an offender uses to hone his skills before he goes after more difficult game --people with less risky behavior. When the concept of "good versus evil" raises its head in a court of law, the jury loses the gray area in between. If the defendant is "evil," then the victim must be "good." If the victim is not "good," then the defendant is not "evil" -- and neither gets justice.

A good example of this was the OJ Simpson case. When Nicole Simpson's character was raked over the coals, she went from being the innocent party to being the guilty party. This in turn made OJ the innocent party, unjustly accused. Anyone less than totally evil could not have committed such a heinous act; therefore, OJ couldn't have done it because he is no longer totally evil (as Nicole Simpson is no longer totally innocent). 

The focus of the argument in court is skewed. We should not be concerned about innocence or guilt of the perpetrator in relation to the victim. Nor should we focus on the innocence or guilt of the victim in relation to the perpetrator. We should simply be convicting the defendant if he has committed the crime, regardless of the relationship between them, and in spite of any behavior of the victim that rendered her the status of victim.

Did he commit the crime?

 

Let's take two examples of rape occurring at the same location. Both victims claim they were raped at a party. Both victims are college students. Both victims are deaf. Everyone at the party was deaf (Gallaudet University, the only university for the deaf in the world, pictured left). The perpetrators were both deaf. Both victims and both perpetrators were drinking. Victim One said she entered a back bedroom willingly with the suspect. The suspect started kissing her, which she allowed. The suspect pulled her onto a bed and started removing her underpants from under her skirt. The room was dark, and though she signed "no" to him repeatedly, he continued and then attempted sexual intercourse. She tried to push him off, but as she was drunk, she had little success. The suspect ejaculated quickly, got up, pulled on his pants and staggered out of the room. Did he commit a rape? 

Victim Two was on her way to the bathroom when the suspect came up behind her and shoved her into a back room. He pushed her to the floor and started pulling off her clothes. She struggled, but as she was very inebriated had little strength. Each time she tried to push him off, he shoved her back on the floor. He had sexual intercourse with her, ejaculated, got up, spit on her and left the room. Did he rape her?

Both victims came to the hospital. Both had semen evidence in the vagina. Neither showed any other injuries. The district attorney refuses to take either case to court because he claims to have no proof of rape. While both cases fit the societal definition of rape (the male is supposed to have asked and received permission for the sexual act in question), the legal definition of rape is another matter, and proving it is another matter still. 

The offender must have committed an act in which the victim is forced or coerced into participating. Victim One entered the room willingly with the suspect. She made no effort to turn on the light which would have enhanced her ability to communicate with the male. The male pulled (not pushed) her onto the bed and although she claims she pushed on his chest to get him off, she did so ineffectively; the suspect did not receive a clear indication of her refusal to have intercourse. During intercourse she did not attempt to cause him any kind of pain such as biting or stabbing him with her fingernails. She says she did not want to hurt him. She claims she was not particularly scared. His actions, although not welcomed, were not threatening. 

Because she could have taken precautions upon entering the room to ensure communication and she could have inflicted some sort of pain as an indication of objection, this victim clearly did not take action to prevent the event from occurring. The suspect may well have had no clue he was committing a sexual act against her will.

Victim Two did not enter into the back room of her own free will. She gave no indication of a desire to have sexual relations with the suspect. By shoving her into the room and pushing her to the floor, his aggression put the victim in a state of fear. When she tried to push him off, she made it clear she didn't want to have sex with him. She said she was afraid to try to hurt him because he might react violently. At a party with no hearing guests, screaming would have brought no help. At the end of the sexual activity, the perpetrator spit on her, clearly indicating his contempt for her and his awareness that she had not been a willing partner. 

There is sufficient circumstantial evidence here to prove a forcible sexual act.

Suppose both these cases actual were tried in a court of law. The jury learns that Victim One is a virgin and rarely drinks. Victim Two is rather promiscuous and is on the pill. Victim Two also hits up a party every week. In this profiler's opinion, both of victims' characters and behaviors could have led the perpetrators to the choices they made. The victims' choices of response to each suspect's acts established or negated the legal definition of forcible sexual activity. 

When Victim One went willingly into the room, virgin or not, she negated that she was being forced. By not attempting to turn on the light, she negated her desire for clear communication. By not attempting to inflict any kind of injury to the suspect that would make him question her desire for the sexual act, she negated that he was forcing her.

Victim Two, however, was forced into the room. That clearly establishes that the activity was forced. If Victim Two at that point turned and signed "Hey, Big Boy, let's do it!" she would have established consent and negated any forcible issue. Instead, his actions showed he was forcing sexual activity on her. If, in court, the jury feels sorry for the virginal Victim One and doesn't think one more round of sex is a big deal to the more sexually experienced Victim Two, then no one receives justice. 

All victims of crime are indeed victims, but we mustn't ignore victim behaviors that can help us identify the offender; we mustn't over-focus on their behaviors and characters in court, and we should learn from those victims just how certain behaviors can make us victims as well.

Tweet

Sorry I Raped You; I'm a Sex Addict!

by Pat Brown

I made a comment on The Today Show last week that there was no such thing as sex addiction, and my commentary immediately netted me this email:

"Just saw you on the Today Show. There's no such thing as a 'sex addict?' Open your eyes, grasshopper. With whoppers like that, it won't be long before people question and doubt EVERYTHING that comes out of your mouth."

Yeah, well, he signed his real name, but he could have just written "Sex Addict." I bet his wife caught him viewing on-line pornography again or found the motel receipts.

I didn't back down. Later that evening on Issues with Jane Velez-Mitchell:

PAT BROWN, CRIMINAL PROFILER: "Absolutely. First of all, his father, Jane, saying he's a sex addict, is garbage. Sex addict simply means "I don't want to have sex in a moral, ethical, or legal manner, so I'm going to blame my choices on that."

Then, I got a nasty phone call pointing out my stupidity.

It was that kind of day until I got an email from Dr. Stanton Samenow, author of Inside the Criminal Mind and numerous other books, renowned psychologist, and my hero. He wrote:

"As a forensic psychologist, I was delighted to hear you say that there is no such thing as 'sexual addiction.' I have testified to this in civil (child custody) and criminal cases. This was a breath of fresh air."

Thank God. Someone with sense. Someone who doesn't buy into excuses for poor and illegal behavior. Dr. Samenow, like myself, believes in free will and individual choice.

But aren't we also affected by our upbringing? Of course we are. But if we blame our upbringing for everything we do, we might as well abolish the penal system and simply offer therapy. It's not that you can't keep it in your pants or that your pants are approaching little girls and unwilling women; no, it's that you are a sex addict. Yes, let's roll out the latest excuse for committing heinous crimes: sex addiction!

Who knew that wanting lots of sex meant one has to rape and murder to get enough? I guess since paying for it is breaking the law, one wouldn't want to do that; rape is the only answer. I have some "addictions" myself. I have a thing for Diet Pepsi, but I can't remember having shoplifted the sodas from convenience stores in recent months.

Manuel Garrido, father of Phillip Garrido (pictured left), the vile creature who kidnapped then 11-year-old Jaycee Lee Dugard and imprisoned her for eighteen years in his backyard, says this of his son:
"He was a sex addict, that was his problem. I believe my son killed the prostitutes."

Dad is referring to prostitutes who oddly disappeared near one of the locations Phillip Garrido worked. Dad thinks his son liked having sex with prostitutes. Dad also says he thinks Phillip and his wife, Nancy (pictured in court below), chose to kidnap a girl to "give them babies after discovering they could not have children together."

Clearly, since Jaycee Dugard had children by Garrido when she was 14 and 17, she was raped. But was this so that Garrido could have children or sex-on-demand? He liked the idea of sex slaves, so I'm guessing the sex angle is more believable than the need to procreate. Garrido raped little girls and had sex with prostitutes. How does this logically connect to some supposed label like sex addict?

First, let's look at the definition for this supposed "disease" or "syndrome" from Medicinenet.com:

"The term 'sexual addiction' is used to describe the behavior of a person who has an unusually intense sex drive or an obsession with sex. Sex, and the thought of sex, tend to dominate the sex addict's thinking, making it difficult to work or engage in healthy personal relationships. Sex addicts engage in distorted thinking, often rationalizing and justifying their behavior and blaming others for their behavior. They generally deny they have a problem and make excuses for their actions.

"Sexual addiction also is associated with risk-taking. A person with a sex addiction engages in various forms of sexual activity, despite the potential for negative and/or dangerous consequences. In addition to damaging the addict's relationships and interfering with his or her work and social life, a sexual addiction also puts the person at risk for emotional and physical injury. For some people, the sex addiction progresses to involve illegal activities, such as exhibitionism (exposing oneself in public), making obscene phone calls, or molestation. However, it should be noted that sex addicts do not necessarily become sex offenders."

Behaviors associated with sexual addiction include:
Compulsive masturbation
Multiple extra-marital affairs
Multiple or anonymous sexual partners and/or one-night stands
Consistent use of pornography
Unsafe sex
Phone or computer sex (cyber sex)
Prostitution or use of prostitutes
Exhibitionism
Obsessive dating through personal ads
Voyeurism (watching others) and/or stalking
Sexual harassment
Molestation/rape

Phillip Hodson, fellow of the British Association for Counseling and Psychotherapy, thinks the concept of sexual addiction is rot. He calls supposed sex addition a behavior better described as obsessive, compulsive or greedy. He further comments that successful men - say, someone like Roman Polanski (little girls), Michael Jackson (little boys), or Michael Douglas (young beautiful women he hoped his wife didn't find out about) - because "some very successful men have a habit of thinking they can get away with anything, especially behavior they view as exciting," he says.

Michael Douglas' first wife divorced him because he was a womanizer. She must have been right because he was likely already bedding Catherine Zeta-Jones, an actress young enough to be his daughter (young thing pictured left with old thing). Apparently sexual addiction for Douglas is so target-specific, he never hit on women his own age.

But Douglas was merely a cad. He wasn't breaking a law, and he wasn't using the label "sex addict" as anything more than a way to excuse his greed for hot women and bad behavior.

Phillip Garrido's defense lawyer will likely try to toss this label into court. Ryan Jenkins, the millionaire reality-TV star who stuck his murdered wife in a suitcase, had already used "sex addiction" to avoid a jail sentence -- for beating up another woman before beating up Jasmine Fiori, his wife. Apparently, he suffered from alleged sex addiction just as much as his victim suffered from its result. When girls wouldn't give it up, he got ticked off.

Using this logic, all crimes would fall under the same category: "entitlement," as in "I should get what I want or else."

Jenkins had no trouble getting sex, but because he couldn't get it from everyone he wanted whenever he wanted, he thought he was deprived. What a greedy little bastard! He had zero empathy for the women; apparently, their needs and desires didn't matter. Jenkins was found hanging in a hotel room in British Columbia in August, choosing suicide over life in prison. I guess he wouldn't be able to feed his kind of sex addiction behind bars, poor baby.

Phillip Garrido could get sex. He could get a lot of sex from prostitutes if he weren't such a cheap schmuck. What does killing these women have to do with getting sex, unless you don't want to pay or you like murdering women? He also could get sex from his wife, who clearly made a fine doormat. But that wasn't good enough for him. So what was his real problem? He gave us a clue when he told one of his rape victims that the Romans were lucky to have sex slaves.

Garrido wanted a sex slave. Not because he can't control himself, but because he likes control over others. Sex is not the problem. Mr. Hudson puts it correctly when he talks about the adrenaline rush being the real issue. Sex provides an adrenaline rush. So does sex with women 20 years younger than you, sex with your next-door neighbor's wife, raping little girls. Ditto for knocking over a convenience store, robbing people, and killing the innocent. Even that chocolate I love causes an adrenaline spike.

Everything we like to do and feels good to us comes with an adrenaline boost. But the difference between Garrido's adrenaline rush and mine is legality. This is why we make laws. It's true that the adrenaline rush I get whenever I chomp down a Toblerone dark chocolate bar could encourage me to eat my way into diabetes and heart failure, hurting myself, hurting others. But this self-destructive behavior is not illegal. I overeat, cause myself pain, cause others pain, they run away, and I pay the price.

Garrido has broken the law, and no phony addiction label should be used to house him in a mental facility until he gets his supposed addiction under control.

Sexual addiction seems to be the rage for explaining away kidnapping, rape, and murder. Even if one decides to follow a path that might lead to destructive behavior (excessive masturbation, sex with strangers, sadism, etc.), the choice to step over the legal line and force violent perversions on others is not a psychiatric matter. It's a legal one. Let's keep it that way.

Tweet

**Breaking News***Real Life in Reality Television?

By Stacy Dittrich

Frequently when I turn on the news, I hear the anchor say, “Seriously, folks, we really don’t make this stuff up.” I was a little behind the eight ball this week and out of touch, so when I happened to walk past my television and heard, “…the body of the mutilated model found in a suitcase was identified by breast implants,” I paused. What was I hearing? A new drama series? A warped comedian? No, none of these. I was listening to the report of a brutal and vicious murder that took place days earlier. If using serial numbers on breast implants to identify the victim wasn't strange enough, the murder's other details clearly have the makings of a movie of the week.

Jasmine Fiore, 28, was an aspiring model and Playboy hostess. Early reports claimed Fiore was a former Playboy model—a claim the magazine vehemently denied. Probably the most credible gig Fiore had under her belt was a brief appearance on a late-night party-line ad.

This past March, she met aspiring reality-TV show star Ryan Alexander Jenkins, 32, marrying him just a few weeks later. Just three months after the wedding, Fiore was having an under-the-radar fling with a former boyfriend, Robert Hasman, in Los Cabos, Mexico, while Jenkins was off filming his show. Known to be violently jealous, Jenkins would have gone over the edge right then had he found out. A month prior to the murder, Jenkins was charged with misdemeanor domestic violence for punching Fiore in the arm with such force it knocked her into a swimming pool—fully clothed. He was scheduled to appear in court for that charge in December.

Understandably, Fiore was terrified of Jenkins and his violent temper. Friends say she kept a second (secret) cell phone, because Jenkins searched her phone on a nightly basis, reading all her text messages and e-mails. The day before her murder, Fiore sent a series of text messages to Hasman, stating she wanted to visit him in Las Vegas. The week of her murder, Fiore and Jenkins checked into the L’Auberge Del Mar Hotel near San Diego, CA. On Friday morning, August 14, Jenkins was caught on a hotel surveillance video leaving the hotel carrying a suitcase—alone. Later that day, Hasman received a text from Fiore’s phone that said, “suck it.” Authorities believe Fiore was already dead. The next day, Fiore’s body was found in an Orange County dumpster, stuffed into a suitcase. Her teeth and fingers had been removed, in a gruesome attempt to hide her identity.

Considering Jenkins' history, coupled with the fact he reported Fiore missing, law enforcement set their sights on him. A nationwide manhunt ensued in hopes of locating Jenkins, who'd already escaped to his native Canada. I feel certain authorities used every available resource to locate Jenkins in hopes of bringing him to justice. Murder is murder. However, anyone who goes so far as to pull the teeth and cut off fingers of a victim rises to an entirely different level of disturbed. I don't think many people realize the force required to pull 32 teeth, one by one, from someone's mouth.

Then, late last evening, Canadian officials announced that Jenkins was found dead in a hotel on the outskirts of Hope, British Columbia. He'd died by hanging in an apparent suicide. Very few details are known at the time of this posting. However, based on my experience in law enforcement, I know the investigation will continue. Authorities still have the task of processing the suicide scene with an eye toward uncovering evidence linking Jenkins to the murder scene and body dump.

The tragedy of all this is that Jasmine Fiore should have had a long life ahead of her. No matter what her lifestyle entailed, she didn't deserve to die, especially not such a horrible and gruesome death. For her surviving family members, that notion alone will haunt them for years to come.

Tweet