the law is an ass

In December 2006, 5 women were killed around Ipswich in the run-up to Christmas. The case is just coming to trial now - and being reported on now, in (you guessed it!) The Guardian. So I read with interest the highlights from the prosecution's opening address (which will continue for another couple days). Then this:

'The prosecutor, [Peter Wright QC] who told the court that he would probably spend today and part of tomorrow outlining the case against Wright, went on to say that all five victims had resorted to prostitution to fund their drug addiction.

He added: "In each of their cases, this decision was ultimately to prove fatal."'

Um... what decision? Their decision to become drug addicts? (I thought that 'no one said "I want to be a junkie when I grow up"'?) The decision to turn to prostitution to fund their habits? While possibly showing poor judgement in both cases, neither of those decisions was 'fatal'. Does Peter Wright QC actually mean to suggest that these women somehow had a hand in 'deciding' their deaths? Last time I checked, murder kinda took that decision out of the victims' hands ...

So I'm confused. I think it is enough that 5 women had to die in order for one death to be taken seriously (how many in Vancouver again?). I think these remarks are callous and reveal a continued unwillingness to consider these women as victims of a crime; they insist implicitly that these women were inviting such atrocities through their lifestyles. None of these women decided to die. To suggest anything otherwise is disgusting.