Discussion: Sexual Violence And Bystander Intervention

 

view a video case in which the circumstances for a potential act of sexual violence are put in motion. You analyze the bystander behavior in the video and the possible effects of sexual violence on survivors and bystanders.

Review the Learning Resources on sexual assault, dating violence, and bystander intervention. Focus on the theories of bystander intervention described in the assigned journal articles.

Watch the Johnson Family video case study. Consider the behavior of the people in the video, paying particular attention to a bystander’s decision whether to intervene.

Apply one bystander intervention theory to the behavior of those exhibited in the video. Then, describe a scenario in which a bystander could have influenced this scenario in a different way. Please use the Learning Resources to support your application of theory.

 

Sample Solution

, Vittola contends war is vital, not just for guarded purposes, ‘since it is legitimate to oppose power with power,’ yet additionally to battle against the treacherous, a hostile conflict, countries which are not rebuffed for acting shamefully towards its own kin or have unreasonably taken land from the home country (Begby et al (2006b), Page 310&313); to “show its foes something new,” however fundamentally to accomplish the point of war. This approves Aristotle’s contention: ‘there should be battle for harmony (Aristotle (1996), Page 187). In any case, Frowe contends “self-protection” has a majority of portrayals, found in Chapter 1, showing that self-preservation can’t continuously legitimize one’s activities. Considerably more risky, is the situation of self-preservation in war, where two clashing perspectives are laid out: The Collectivists, a totally different hypothesis and the Individualists, the continuation of the homegrown hypothesis of self-protection (Frowe (2011), Page 9& 29-34). All the more critically, Frowe disproves Vittola’s view on retaliation on the grounds that initially it enables the punisher’s position, yet additionally the present world forestalls this activity between nations through lawful bodies like the UN, since we have modernized into a moderately tranquil society (Frowe (2011), Page 80-1). Above all, Frowe further discredits Vittola through his case that ‘right aim can’t be blamed so as to take up arms in light of expected wrong,’ proposing we can’t simply hurt another on the grounds that they have accomplished something uncalled for. Different elements should be thought of, for instance, Proportionality.

Thirdly, Vittola contends that war ought to be stayed away from (Begby et al (2006b), Page 332) and that we ought to continue conditions strategically. This is upheld by the “final retreat” position in Frowe, where war ought not be allowed except if all actions to look for tact falls flat (Frowe (2011), Page 62). This implies war shouldn’t be pronounced until one party must choose the option to announce battle, to safeguard its domain and freedoms, the point of war. In any case, we can likewise contend that the conflict can never be the final hotel, considering there is dependably a method for attempting to stay away from it, similar to assents or mollification, showing Vittola’s hypothesis is defective.

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.