Early last Sunday morning a woman was raped in her home in Burleith. The crime itself is horrifying. Unfortunately, the misleading responses issued by both Georgetown and the Metropolitan Police Department are seriously dismaying and raise questions about how both organizations treat sexual assault.
Although the crime—which involved the suspect breaking into the house by removing a window air-conditioning unit—was virtually unpreventable, comments from both the univeristy and MPD focused on how potential victims should prevent crimes by locking their doors and taking other cautionary measures.
The careless attitude of MPD officers, and the overly vague University Public Safety Alert that failed to accurately reflect the seriousness of the crime, reflect an unacceptabe culture of accepting sexual assaults in the Georgetown community. as inevitable.
In an article in the Tuesday edition of The Hoya, MPD Lieutenant John Hedgecock called Sunday’s rape “a preventable crime,” and held up the crime as a reminder for students to lock their doors and walk in groups. For the same article, DPS Associate Director Joseph Smith recited a similar “safety lecture,” reminding students to “lock your doors and windows; walk to and from campus in groups.” While these statements are mostly unproductive in their own right, when read in the context of the actual events of Sunday morning they border on negligently misleading.
The police report of the crime, obtained by the Voice on Wednesday, reveals that the victim was in no way responsible for the suspect’s ability to enter her home. Far from quietly slipping through an unlocked door as Smith and Hedgecock’s comments suggested he did, the suspect removed an air conditioning unit from the victim’s front window, and climbed through the opening. No amount of locked doors and group walking could have prevented this crime. At best, MPD Lieutenant Hedgecock issued these statements before becoming fully aware of the facts of the case; at worst he has placed the blame for this terrible crime with its victim—in which case his reaction was an ugly example of the knee-jerk victim-blaming that often accompanies sexual violence.
The first response for those charged with the protection of the Georgetown community should never be to blame the victims of violent crimes. Blame falls squarely and fully with the burglar, the mugger, and the rapist. By making statements that inaccurately portray this incident as the result of inattention on the part of the victim, MPD and DPS are promoting an irresponsibly careless attitude toward student safety in general and toward sexual crimes in particular.
This is bullshit. DPS reported what it knew from MPD. DPS had nothing to do with the prevention, response, or reporting of this crime that happened off campus to a non-GU person. And, the constant reminder to lock doors and not walk alone, while perhaps not relevant to this incident, is very important since NEARLY EVERY incident does involve a person alone or an unlocked door. No one is blaming the victim, but people do need to take some responsibility as adults and not expect that there is going to be a police presence on every corner and every moment. Grow up.
DPS should still not jump to a “safety lecture” every time something like this happens. Even if they didn’t know all the facts – still unacceptable to jump to the conclusion that it was somehow her fault regardless of what has been the cause in the past. DPS officers and Georgetown should not so careless in their comments – especially before they know all the facts.
Saying a crime was preventable and saying that it is the victim’s fault or responsibility are two different things. For the editorial board to snidely jump from a safety lecture to accusations of victim-blaming is unconscionable and denigrates victims who are all-to-often actually blamed for the crimes committed against them. While Lt. Hedgecock’s comments may not be directly tied to the details of this crime, they are still the best advice students can be (and need to be) given in matters like this. Also, in what sick, voyeuristic sense should university PSAs be MORE detailed? It gave the details of the case, the location and time, and prevention tips. Now, I understand that perhaps part of the frustration represented by this editorial is linked to the idea that this crime was almost entirely UNpreventable. Nothing that MPD or this young woman would have or could have done in the course of her everyday activities would have successfully prevented this crime from occurring. Perhaps the Voice should save it’s indignation for actual policy problems.