Yep, I'm certainly not perfect!nateup2 wrote:Its "a" premise, not "an" premise.
A nation of butthurts ~ Death Penalty for kiddie diddlers.
-
lordofduct
- Next-Gen
- Posts: 2907
- Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 12:57 pm
- Location: West Palm Beach
I've been away at a con and have missed most of this early discussion. I agree with both sentiments listed here.
*EDIT* OK, about statutory rape... I disagree also that it's usually someone trying to hide a mistake. When someone is still in school, particularly middle or high school, an adult does still hold some authority. Any time someone in authority coerces someone over whom they have authority into something they may not want to do that has criminal overtones. Now, if it's a matter of people with only a couple years between them in a consensual act and someone cries foul after the fact because of some feeling of regret, some of the solutions I discuss below might help with that.
Rape is indeed often a violent and unprovoked crime, unlike what Mozgus suggests. Sometimes yes, it can be the result of a bad decision, but more often it is the result of a violent or troubled person enacting their frustrations on someone who doesn't deserve any of it. That said, rapists are often capable of being rehabilitated, particularly in cases where rape is a misunderstanding or a result of very specific circumstances. And there are others who will always be dangerous. There is that risk with all people convicted of crimes. Some are criminals of circumstance and can be rehabilitated. Others are criminals of the sort who will go on again and again and commit crimes over and over, regardless of circumstances. Each case must be evaluated on its own merit.
It has always been acceptable to criticize the function of law in the US. Welcome to the democratic republic. In fact, the Supreme Court questioned and criticized laws dealing with the punishment of child rape. They are the ones who said you can't kill the perpetrators. This nation does not, and should not, operate under the credo "love it or leave it". We make this nation what it is and we have a right to speak our dissent.
Also, it should be noted that our legal system is not based on the wants of the victims. There is no way to truly be fair, but the system is created such that there is some kind of fairness or appropriateness to punishments. I think in many cases things are out of whack, particularly with rape punishments (usually a little on the lightweight side) and drug charges (quite a bit on the heavy side). But whatever motivating factors are there, the wants of the victim are less important than the impact on society. There are many people who are mugged who want their muggers killed, but that doesn't make it right to kill them. However strong an effect rape has on many of the victims, their desire to see the perp killed does not mean they should be. Many rape victims go on to lead happy and productive lives and some victims of simple robberies become paranoid freaks who are afraid of everyone of the same color or creed as the original robber. We must treat rape victims as human being who can be helped and brought back into society, not as permanent emotional cripples. The more stigma we attach to being a rape victim the less likely victims are to report the crimes against them.
Now, pedophiles are a difficult case (I'm referring to people who go after 13 year olds and younger, pre-puberty stuff). I don't recall the sources but I've read and heard through a number of venues that pedophiles are extremely likely to commit the same crime again. While rape can often be circumstantial pedophilia is not. There is no circumstance, not in today's society, in which a normal adult could find sexual contact with a child appropriate. Pedophiles often have deeper problems than many other criminals and rehabilitation is not something that is easily undertaken, if indeed rehabilitation is possible.
As for the issue with 13 and up... Yes, historically as soon as reproduction is possible one could be considered an adult. At the same time, the younger the person the more important age differences become. Many states have laws indicating if the people involved in the act are within 2 or 3 years of age it isn't "corrupting a minor" or whatever. Not all do, but many do. When I was 17 I was dating another 17 year old. I turned 18 first, by several months. In some parts of the country our relationship would have to be called off until she turned 18 also. What magic switch was flipped in me when I turned 18? None. Thus why some states allow this leeway.
This aside, adulthood is as much about education, societal expectations, and emotional and mental maturity as much as physical maturity and growth. Nowdays with education stretching further in life and people waiting longer to enter independent society 18 isn't exactly an inappropriate age if an arbitrary one must be set. And for stuff like cigarettes, driving, drinking, and such other activities a set age is just fine. But with issues of sex and personal relationships the law must be made flexible to consider the circumstances of the situation.
Let me make it clear I'm not advocating the law look the other way if a 22 year old tries to pick up a 15 year old. I think 3 or 4 years should be the largest age difference allowed, and that difference should grow as people get older. Meaning 13 year olds are not a good match for 17 year olds. And I have problems with the idea of 13 year olds having sex anyway. Most will have just passed into puberty. Even 13-16 year olds should have time to grow accustomed to their bodies before being expected to use them. If a 13 and 14 year old are caught together exploring physicality I don't think it's appropriate for there to be legal remedy, just a stern talking to by their parents. Perhaps if it's a 16 year old and a 13 year old, then it might be appropriate for some minor legal remedy, just enough to let the 16 year old he's fishing below his or her limit.
I guess, in summary, I simply disagree with both of you. I prefer nuanced solutions, because the world is not black or white.
*EDIT* OK, about statutory rape... I disagree also that it's usually someone trying to hide a mistake. When someone is still in school, particularly middle or high school, an adult does still hold some authority. Any time someone in authority coerces someone over whom they have authority into something they may not want to do that has criminal overtones. Now, if it's a matter of people with only a couple years between them in a consensual act and someone cries foul after the fact because of some feeling of regret, some of the solutions I discuss below might help with that.
Rape is indeed often a violent and unprovoked crime, unlike what Mozgus suggests. Sometimes yes, it can be the result of a bad decision, but more often it is the result of a violent or troubled person enacting their frustrations on someone who doesn't deserve any of it. That said, rapists are often capable of being rehabilitated, particularly in cases where rape is a misunderstanding or a result of very specific circumstances. And there are others who will always be dangerous. There is that risk with all people convicted of crimes. Some are criminals of circumstance and can be rehabilitated. Others are criminals of the sort who will go on again and again and commit crimes over and over, regardless of circumstances. Each case must be evaluated on its own merit.
It has always been acceptable to criticize the function of law in the US. Welcome to the democratic republic. In fact, the Supreme Court questioned and criticized laws dealing with the punishment of child rape. They are the ones who said you can't kill the perpetrators. This nation does not, and should not, operate under the credo "love it or leave it". We make this nation what it is and we have a right to speak our dissent.
Also, it should be noted that our legal system is not based on the wants of the victims. There is no way to truly be fair, but the system is created such that there is some kind of fairness or appropriateness to punishments. I think in many cases things are out of whack, particularly with rape punishments (usually a little on the lightweight side) and drug charges (quite a bit on the heavy side). But whatever motivating factors are there, the wants of the victim are less important than the impact on society. There are many people who are mugged who want their muggers killed, but that doesn't make it right to kill them. However strong an effect rape has on many of the victims, their desire to see the perp killed does not mean they should be. Many rape victims go on to lead happy and productive lives and some victims of simple robberies become paranoid freaks who are afraid of everyone of the same color or creed as the original robber. We must treat rape victims as human being who can be helped and brought back into society, not as permanent emotional cripples. The more stigma we attach to being a rape victim the less likely victims are to report the crimes against them.
Now, pedophiles are a difficult case (I'm referring to people who go after 13 year olds and younger, pre-puberty stuff). I don't recall the sources but I've read and heard through a number of venues that pedophiles are extremely likely to commit the same crime again. While rape can often be circumstantial pedophilia is not. There is no circumstance, not in today's society, in which a normal adult could find sexual contact with a child appropriate. Pedophiles often have deeper problems than many other criminals and rehabilitation is not something that is easily undertaken, if indeed rehabilitation is possible.
As for the issue with 13 and up... Yes, historically as soon as reproduction is possible one could be considered an adult. At the same time, the younger the person the more important age differences become. Many states have laws indicating if the people involved in the act are within 2 or 3 years of age it isn't "corrupting a minor" or whatever. Not all do, but many do. When I was 17 I was dating another 17 year old. I turned 18 first, by several months. In some parts of the country our relationship would have to be called off until she turned 18 also. What magic switch was flipped in me when I turned 18? None. Thus why some states allow this leeway.
This aside, adulthood is as much about education, societal expectations, and emotional and mental maturity as much as physical maturity and growth. Nowdays with education stretching further in life and people waiting longer to enter independent society 18 isn't exactly an inappropriate age if an arbitrary one must be set. And for stuff like cigarettes, driving, drinking, and such other activities a set age is just fine. But with issues of sex and personal relationships the law must be made flexible to consider the circumstances of the situation.
Let me make it clear I'm not advocating the law look the other way if a 22 year old tries to pick up a 15 year old. I think 3 or 4 years should be the largest age difference allowed, and that difference should grow as people get older. Meaning 13 year olds are not a good match for 17 year olds. And I have problems with the idea of 13 year olds having sex anyway. Most will have just passed into puberty. Even 13-16 year olds should have time to grow accustomed to their bodies before being expected to use them. If a 13 and 14 year old are caught together exploring physicality I don't think it's appropriate for there to be legal remedy, just a stern talking to by their parents. Perhaps if it's a 16 year old and a 13 year old, then it might be appropriate for some minor legal remedy, just enough to let the 16 year old he's fishing below his or her limit.
I guess, in summary, I simply disagree with both of you. I prefer nuanced solutions, because the world is not black or white.
Mozgus wrote:Chances are likely that your "Friend" wanted it, got it, regretted it, and lied to salvage her reputation. Chances are further likely that you'll learn this info yourself in a few years, and feel very much used like a cry pillow.The Apprentice wrote:All of them. Since when is it acceptable to criticize the laws against and punishment of child rape? And the whole thing with teenagers? I have plenty of friends at school. If you expect me to learn about a good friend of mine getting raped by some sick bastard, and not want the guy killed, all of you are crazy. There's no "understanding" and "proffesional help" for rapists. They are jailed for life, or killed, depending on the damage done to the victim.
Last edited by marurun on Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Are we talking chemical ones, or guillotines just for the heck of it?Ack wrote:What do you guys think about the use of court-ordered castrations?
I agree with the more humane (?) chemical ones in some cases. Re-incidence in particular, but I didn't know about the voluntary option for early release as mentioned here, seems perfectly nice as far as I'm concerned. But with much of this stuff, case by case. I think it's a good option as far as punishment goes, for the judges to have and apply when they deem fit for sexual crimes.
Not at all related to the discussion so far (sort of motivated by the "castration" talk), but what about a man getting raped by a woman? Or I guess a woman raping another woman? It's incredibly rare I bet, but it probably happens?
castration doesn't fix the mental issue and it certainly doesn't fix someone from violating a child.Ivo wrote:Are we talking chemical ones, or guillotines just for the heck of it?Ack wrote:What do you guys think about the use of court-ordered castrations?
I agree with the more humane (?) chemical ones in some cases. Re-incidence in particular, but I didn't know about the voluntary option for early release as mentioned here, seems perfectly nice as far as I'm concerned. But with much of this stuff, case by case. I think it's a good option as far as punishment goes, for the judges to have and apply when they deem fit for sexual crimes.
Not at all related to the discussion so far (sort of motivated by the "castration" talk), but what about a man getting raped by a woman? Or I guess a woman raping another woman? It's incredibly rare I bet, but it probably happens?
Steam / PSN / Twitter: aaronjohnmiller
Any kind of rape, statutory or otherwise, is as much, if not more, about power than about sex. It's a way of demonstrating control over someone. Chemical castration may work for some people, especially those who deal in child porn, but it's unlikely to help many of those who actually sexually abuse children.
-
nocturnalnerd
- 64-bit
- Posts: 350
- Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 11:51 pm
- Location: Gaffney, SC
Re: A nation of butthurts ~ Death Penalty for kiddie diddler
I would actually prefer we do these things to child rapists as opposed to the death penalty. Our current execution methods are not painful enough to fit the crime.Mozgus wrote:
So what can you do? Gee, I dunno, wreak havoc on the rapists own anus? You think I'm joking, but I'm not. They should take an object, scale it to size as if he were the little boy or girl, and rip his ass to shreds. Make it so he'll shit his pants for the rest of his life. Why isn't that an option? It would work. Or why not just lob their cock and balls off? No anesthetic, because the victim never had that. I promise you, the pain and psychosis that man will go through will be equal to the victim's. It WILL work, and it WILL prevent it from ever happening again.
-
nocturnalnerd
- 64-bit
- Posts: 350
- Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 11:51 pm
- Location: Gaffney, SC
-
nocturnalnerd
- 64-bit
- Posts: 350
- Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 11:51 pm
- Location: Gaffney, SC
yep.marurun wrote:Any kind of rape, statutory or otherwise, is as much, if not more, about power than about sex. It's a way of demonstrating control over someone. Chemical castration may work for some people, especially those who deal in child porn, but it's unlikely to help many of those who actually sexually abuse children.
Steam / PSN / Twitter: aaronjohnmiller