Sentencing for rapists
Sun, 2002-08-18 06:32
#1
Sentencing for rapists
Sun, 2002-08-18 06:32
#2
There is a lot of controversy in the Australian press at the moment concerning the severity of the sentence handed down for a 20 year old who was the leader of a gang of men who pack raped 7 teenage girls. The sentence is 55 years with a non-parole period of 40 years and the "bleeding hearts" are saying this is too much and will only embitter the perpetrator rather than rehabilitate him. They are also saying that at 20 he is just a boy and shouldn't be treated so harshly. My thoughts are that even a High School Boy of 13 or 14 knows right from wrong. I've written to the editor of the Melbourne Age newspaper voicing this opinion, what do others think, am I being to unforgiving. (A fellow rabble rouser has pointed out that my figures are incorrect - my source concerning the number of women (teenager girls) raped was The Melbourne Age, Friday, 17/08/2002. "Fourteen men of Lebanese Muslim background [not that it matters what ethnic/cultural background the men are from] some related to each other, have been convicted at trial or pleaded guilty to the attacks on seven teenage girls." It makes my blood boil.
[ August 18, 2002: Message edited by: germaine ]
Sun, 2002-08-18 08:22
#3
Not that it makes it any less heinous, but according to [url=http://abc.net.au/news/australia/2002/08/item20020816071240_1.htm]ABC Australia news[/url] it was three rapes, is the article wrong or is it leaving out prior rapes or something?
quote:
"We can't lock everybody up forever or we will just turn back to the sort of society that founded Australia in the first place, with transportation and ridiculous sentences for minor crimes."
Minor crimes? Obviously this ass has never been raped [img]mad.gif" border="0[/img]
I don't think you're being too unforgiving at all.
Sun, 2002-08-18 08:26
#4
First difficulty is 'bleeding hearts' being the emotive term used to describe an enemy by the non-'bleeding hearts', it is seen as covering a massive swathe of opinion that is itself wide and varied and often at odds.
Often the sentence given in court may well have many factors (punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation) taken into consideration and in this particular case, as horrific as it sounds, one has to also consider what other similar and less similar crimes have been given in sentencing - for instance, if a one-on-one rape is normally given 5 to 10 years with a mandatory period of 3 years (which does sound to me ridiculously low, but the UK is, I think, very unforgiveably slack when it comes to sentencing for rape), then this may be comparably very harsh.
You say:
quote:
My thoughts are that even a High School Boy of 13 or 14 knows right from wrong
But, as a group action, and perhaps as an impressionable younger member of the group, his responsibility for his actions may not be as clearcut as you imply. At 20, he is well past the age of criminal responsibility, and is considered an adult in every other sphere of his life, so his age is irrelevant as far as culpability goes, but, and I can see this point, if the purpose of prison is to rehabilitate (and like it or not, this is one of the reasons for it), then an overly long sentence can be counterproductive on that front. Some would also argue that 40 years is enough punishment for rape, others that no amount of time is enough punishment, and that the punitive aspect is not the most important part of this sentence - it may be extremely long as an attempt at deterrence, as a signal of what society finds unacceptable, though even here does that imply that somehow one-on-one rape is more acceptable than gang rape?
In fact, as a member of a group rather than an individual, and perhaps as not the leader of the group, then maybe he is less culpable than others - what were the other sentences? What role did he play in the rape - was he an instigator or the follower of the crowd?
I guess it depends what you prefer the aim of this sentence to be. Do you just see it as punitive and if so, do you think 40 years is enough punishment and if not, what would you prefer? Do you agree with the principle of rehabilitation, and if so, for all crimes or just some?
Would you like to eventually see remorse and a desire on his part to make a better life for himself than he has, or would you like to lock him up and throw away the key?
Rape is a horrendous crime, and sentencing in my opinion is far too light and indicates that some parts of society are not taking it seriously enough. This is not a case like that, but the harshness of the sentence must have a purpose and if that purpose is ever to rehabilitate him, then I would say 40 years is too long. If its purpose is only to punish, and deter, then 40 years is not too long.
If you do believe in forgiveness, then I would say you are being too unforgiving (though it is understandable why).
EDITED TO ADD:
All the above was written prior to reading the article. Having now read it, it is clear he was the leader, that he showed no remorse and the judge seems to have seen both punishment and deterrence as the underpins of his sentencing, and I think he was absolutely right. This is an example where forgiveness must take a back seat, I feel.
[ August 18, 2002: Message edited by: Apemantus ]
Sun, 2002-08-18 09:20
#5
I agree with everything you said in your post above, Apemantus. I also agree that considering the guy showed no remorse and was the leader, that the sentence was just.
But I also hate the term "bleeding heart" to describe someone who thinks differently. I think the world could use a lot more "bleeding hearts".
Sun, 2002-08-18 09:50
#6
So do I, Michelle, I agree. It is the deregatory association it now has that makes it a term of abuse that annoys me. Yet, if you asked, the non-bleeding hearts do care, they just care about themselves only. Bloodless hearts, I guess - mechanical rather than living. I could go on...
This is one of those instances, where I cannot help but say:
Good riddance to the guy! Hope he rots...
Sun, 2002-08-18 12:18
#7
I don't have a lot of sympathy for the rapists in this case, or any rapists for that matter. I would like to see more consistency in sentencing, and I would love to see longer sentences handed down in Canada. In fact I'd like to see how rape is handled in this country revamped altogether. The way it's handled now, it does more to protect men who are in positions of in power in this society, than the rape victims.
quote:
[not that it matters what ethnic/cultural background the men are from]
I want to address this. I think it does in many cases. The rates of conviction of rape are generally higher when the accused is a man of colour. Which really confirms for me, that the rape laws as they stand do more to protect men in power than they do victims.
Shenanigans
Sun, 2002-08-18 12:25
#8
If we think of the world we live in as what it SHOULD be (a society) then we have to acknowledge that as a group, we do what is best for the group over what is best for the individual. Unfortunately, we have recently started to move away from this idea and we are starting more and more to place the importance of the individual over the importance of the group.
If we were a pack of animals (which in all honesty, we are) and if a member of our pack was going around and hurting other members in a way that our pack "laws" deemed wrong, the culprit would either be killed or banished from the pack. However, now that we are placing so much more importance on the individual, we believe that these transgressors can be rehabilitated, and we sentence them too lightly, or in some cases not at all. Please don't read this as me believing we should do away with the rehabilitation process all together. Some people can be rehabilitated (although I think many of the people who can be generally don't need to be). But some crimes either are of the class where the culprit can't be rehabilitated or doesn't deserve to be.
One of the most helpful pieces of advice I ever received from someone was that "you are always in control of your own actions". I found this very empowering, but at the same time, it means that we are all have to take responsibility for our own actions. If we lead a gang of people on a rape-spree, we are responsible for that. Even if we are part of a group rather than the leader, and I don't care what people say about group mentality, you are still responsible. Even if you are drunk. No one forced you to drink in the first place, and you should be aware of how you'll act while under the influence.
Where I live, there was a while ago a very brutal and unforgivable crime committed by two young (upperclass) adult males. They got off light because they were drunk and the victim was a native american prostitute, despite the fact that everyone who knew them knew they had a history of drunken violence and date rape. One of the boys recently got released on parole after a veryveryvery short time in prison and just as quickly he got put back in (I believe on charges of assault).
I think it is very sad that we are so consumed with trying to sound PC that we forego the needs of our community/society in favour of the "rights" of the individual, even if that individual has chosen to place him/herself into a position where they give up their rights.
Sun, 2002-08-18 12:54
#9
I have a couple of issues with your comment.
Taking the last one first:
quote:
even if that individual has chosen to place him/herself into a position where they give up their rights
The whole point about rights is they cannot be 'given up'. They are RIGHTS. Of course, the state has a duty to override the right of one individual's freedom in order to protect the health/freedom of others, but the person has not 'given up' that right. The reason I draw this rather semantic point out, is that if we believe rights can be given up, then we are on the path to having someone determine when a right has been given up, which itself leads back down the road to the state (perhaps in the form of the criminal justice system) determining who has rights, rather than, as rights were originally intended, everyone having those rights by dint of being human and alive.
Linked, I guess, to this, and more pertinent to the topic (hoping you'll forgive me for the off-topic bit above) is your comment:
quote:
But some crimes either are of the class where the culprit can't be rehabilitated or doesn't deserve to be.
I think this misunderstands what rehabilitation is and what it involves and why it happens. The underlying implication is that some people deserve it, as if it is a desirable thing for them, and that others do not. Rehabilitation depends not on the crime, but on the person. It is often extremely painful for the person being rehabilitated, because it involves them fully confronting what they did, why, how and the consequences. Imagine, if you can, the scorn and hate with which we view paedophiles. The pain we feel at what they do etc. Then imagine that you come to a full realisation that that is you, that is the pain you have caused. Rehabilitation is a torturous process for the prisoner, because it involves a complete destruction of their former selves and a rebuilding of a new person. It is not the easy option.
I can understand how it may seem so from the outside, and why the media view it as the easy option, but the thought of being locked up for life is not as fightening as the murderer/rapist/paedophile being forced to confront what they are and what they have done. This is why not everyone is rehabilitated, because for some it is not an option - either it will just drive them insane, or they have other issues that makes it too difficult and too unlikely to be successful. But the judgement over whether they are suitable candidates for rehabilitation is not based on the severity of the crime, but on them and whether they have the strength, stamina and potential required.
One final point (and I can kinda guess how you might respond, but such is life):
quote:
I don't care what people say about group mentality, you are still responsible. Even if you are drunk. No one forced you to drink in the first place, and you should be aware of how you'll act while under the influence.
This is to do with culpability - how much of the crime is an individual responsible for? We accept that some murders (very few) are the result of someone acting whilst insane - the insanity may be permanent or temporary and is determined by medical experts. The reason a plea of insanity is important is that it indicates how much a person knew of what they were doing. Of course, a drunk person is theoretically aware before getting drunk what they may do, but can you honestly say that actions you perform when drunk are always ones you would do normally. The question of intent (mens rea) is important here - did the drunk driver intend to kill someone when they got in the car? Group influences do change human behaviour as numerous experiments as well as personal experience prove. It is less easy to act alone when the pressure of the group is present. These are factors that judges must take into account in sentencing and in this case, as the LEADER of the group, the judge considered that an aggravating factor and it increased the sentence. The reverse may also be true, and legal thought has taken this into consideration for centuries.
None of this is to excuse criminals, it is to gain a better understanding of the human mind, the criminal mind and the criminal act, and rehabilitation rests on the human emotion of hope. That we can do better than just locking people up - we can make them see the consequneces of their actions and have them change from being a negative influence in the "pack of animals" (which actually we are not, that is what makes humanity different!) to being a positive contributor.
Final point - none of this has anything to do with political correctness, it is methodical, rational argument and it is what divides us from being just a "pack of animals".
Sun, 2002-08-18 13:57
#10
It's funny how being a "pack of animals" has taken on such a derogatory sound. There are many things that are admirable about being a pack of animals. They concern themselves with group survival. They wouldn't knowingly continue to take steps that will lead to their extinction. Humans spend so much time trying to distance ourselves from the notion that we may still be animals that we've basically rendered ourselves useless.
quote:
This is to do with culpability - how much of the crime is an individual responsible for?
I can appreciate that there are times when people are acting beyond their ability to control themselves. But I think that we are getting to the point where we are going into the ridiculous. I think in 100 years people will look back on us in the same way we look back on the witch hunts. We are caught up in a fervor. We want so badly to come to an understanding with the human mind that we make great excuses for ourselves. We need to face up to the fact that sometimes we just need to be strong and take responsibility. Sooner or later we are going to find an "excuse" for every crime committed by everyone we want to be seen as innocent that everyone is going to be getting off with a small fine and a pat on the rump.
I'm sure there is probably a better alternative to remedying this than just putting everyone in jail (or on the moon). But we don't seem to be able to find it. Or we secretly all know what it is but won't do anything to change it. I think my real problem with rehab for criminals is that we're only doing it half-assed. We're still throwing them in a prison behind bars with countless other criminals of varying criminal backgrounds. We need to decide if our justice system supports punishment or rehab. And if it's a combination of the two, we need a better way of pulling it off. Does anyone know the stats on repeat offenders?
The point I was trying (clumsily) to make is that I think there are some crimes so evil that they can't or shouldn't be rehabed. And I think most of these crimes fall under the heading of "stealing innocence". Any sexual or violent crime aimed at someone who can't defend themselves or doesn't know any better. To give a cliche, Children are our most important resource. If someone were to start destroying the oil reserves we have, do you think that they would be let off with a minor sentence? No. They would feel the full wrath of the entire civilized world.
quote:
But the judgement over whether they are suitable candidates for rehabilitation is not based on the severity of the crime, but on them and whether they have the strength, stamina and potential required
But how can you determine this? Is it a hit-or-miss campaign? Do we just attempt to rehab someone and let them go and if they repeat offend, just chalk it up to them being of unsuitable character? People can fake their way through rehab. They can even believe that they are rehab'd but when they are released discover they don't have the strength to take it with them. This is where personal strength and control comes into play. I think everyone has the strength in them to not do these things, but we are trained from an early age that we are weak when it comes to our desires. The entire smoking industry is based on this. It was that above-mentioned piece of advice that got me to quit smoking. We're constantly told how hard it is to conquer the cravings. But all you have to do is do it. Quit. That's it. Just take personal responsibility and quit. I'll admit that it can be difficult at times, but what good is being able to be rational if you can't use that ability to think to take control of yourself and drive you through the hard times?
I feel I'm wandering. Ok. This is the point I'd like to get across. I think we are being told that we don't need to take responsibility for our actions because we as humans have weaknesses and we are too weak to stand up to them. We are also getting very good at passing the buck and blaming others for our actions. Take responsibility for your actions. That's the main thing.
And reform the justice system.
Sun, 2002-08-18 14:21
#11
There has to be some kind of flexibility in sentencing. There are different types of rapes, and I would not sentence a creep who date rapes a drunken woman the same way I'd sentence a serial rapist who stalks his victims, or beats or stabs his victims, and leaves them for dead.
One, in my mind, is rehabilitatable, (even if my inventive spelling and usage is not) and the other is not, and our system has to recognize that through sentencing and incarceration.
If a judge has good evidential reason to believe that a rapist is likely to re-offend, then a life sentence isn't inappropriate.
In the case instant, it seems to me the judge considers the rapist of the second type, and I have no issue with the sentence; for once we have a British based criminal justice system that recognizes female victims not as damaged chattels, but actual humans that have had the sanctity of personal liberty stolen, perhaps for their entire lives.
Quite unlike our system, isn't it?
Sun, 2002-08-18 14:30
#12
A very big part of rehabilitation is taking responsibility for your actions. Nonrehab prisoners don't have to (unless they want parole and then they can just say it to some extent), but it is central to those who undergo rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is precisely about taking responsibility for your actions and all of their consequences. Repeat offending is less likely with rehabilitation, but some argue that is in part because of the same bias you exhibit above that only certain types are proffered up to rehabilitation. The crime is not the relevant factor, however much it may revolt us.
It is true that rehabilitation in the community is more successful than that done in prison, on certain offenders (like young habitual offenders, drug offenders), but for paedophiles and sex criminals, an enclosed environment, to some extent like a hospital, is needed. You ask what the overall intention is of the criminal justice system - punishment or rehab? Both, and they are not mutually exclusive - rehabilitation can be more effective if after an element of punishment - the offender pays for their crime and then they get prepared for readmittance to society. I agree that we are going at it half-assed and that is because politicians are too keen to pander to the 'animals' argument and once criminals are labelled, it is very difficult for the public not to bay like a mob, especially at criminals that revolt us all. Making the case for rehabilitation of sex offenders (and they are actually often 'good' candidates for rehab) is not easy in such an environment. Yet society might be better served by rehabilitating them rather than locking them up and throwing away the key. But the perception (which it seems you have) that rehabilitation is the easy option and does not contain a punitive element is an argument advanced by people opposed to anything but the harshest punishments. Labelling their opponents politically correct (because that always gets them a cheer) does not deny the outdated nature of their arguments.
Many factors in the criminal justice system do need reform, but not necessarily in the direction you want. Rehabilitation is effective, it is not the easy option and it reduces re-offending. What is needed is for politicians to make the argument so that the public supports it, but they often go for the easy votes. Tough on law and order always seems to play well at the polls. But it never seems to impact on crime. I wonder why.
Sun, 2002-08-18 14:46
#13
I'm not sure I take rehabilitation lightly, nor am I the 'hang 'em high' type of person. I believe that those who remain beyond our ability to rehabilitate are in fact a very small minority.
But, they are a minority we have to keep incarcerated because we owe the non-criminal element of society some degree of safety.
Unfortunately it comes down in the end to how many resources we want to spend on persons that have transgressed our laws.
We can make the argument that rehabilitation, particularly with younger offenders is more cost effective in the long run, but it's a very hard sell.
The right loves to narrow down their accounting sheets on every issue, and likes to pick and choose what appears on that sheet, as it makes for better theatre, which you point out.
Sun, 2002-08-18 15:02
#14
quote:
But, they are a minority we have to keep incarcerated because we owe the non-criminal element of society some degree of safety.
Is anyone saying otherwise? If someone cannot be rehabilitated, then of course they must be somewhere they pose no danger to others. I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that point, but as you say, this is a small minority and it does not mean, for instance, that all rapists and all paedophiles are not suitable for rehabilitation.
quote:
We can make the argument that rehabilitation, particularly with younger offenders is more cost effective in the long run, but it's a very hard sell.
It is for sure, but it must be made, because irrelevant of the financial implications, it is better for society generally as well as those individuals, especially the young who have potentially so much to offer. The right is definitely picking and choosing on the balance sheet there, but it should not just be made on their battleground of cost implications, but on what is going to be most effective for society and not pursuing rehabilitation does no-one any good in the long run.
Apart from politicians.
Need I say more.
Sun, 2002-08-18 19:53
#15
I agree with rehab when it is possible. I think it much more effective and humane than locking someone up in a cell for their entire lives. But I also think that sometimes, even if rehab is an option for the person, it is wrong. I believe that there are some crimes which are so gruesome and evil that there can be no forgiveness. They are few and far between, but they exist. Someone kidnapping and locking up a small child to torture and use as a sexual object for days on end before finally killing them is an example.
Even if the person who did this could be rehab'd, why should they be? They have gone too far and deserve no second chance.
This is an extreme case, however. I think most people can be rehab'd and should be. Not only can they re-enter society as fully functioning non-criminals, but they can carry with them a perspective and a voice that others don't have. I remember in high school when people came in to give speeches against drinking and drugs. It was always more effective from someone who had been deeply involved in that life than someone who just felt strongly about it.
Mon, 2002-08-19 01:12
#16
I think in this case that the leader of the group was sentenced on 7 individual counts of rape, that's likely one of the main reasons for the long term.
A few years ago, I went to court for a friend who was raped by a friend of her boyfriend's. The jerk, who had been jailed many times on rape and other assault charges through the years before this, only got 4 months because he saw my friend that afternoon at a barbeque where she had been drinking and the judge upheld that he likely had reason to think she wanted sex with him based on the fact that women often get flirty when drinking. He came to the boyfriend's house very late that night after seeing the boyfriend in a local bar and finding out she was there alone waiting for him. She did not let him in willingly, she was sober by then. She tried to fight at first, but having been abused in her years of marriage, gave up after being hit a few times. The judge felt if she didn't want it, she would have put up more than token resistance.
I'm glad that someone who lead this kind of attack on teens has gotten a sentence that will likely keep him from doing the same thing again. Someone with no remorse will not be rehabilitated. There have been many cases of people released or in halfway houses reoffending or murdering their victims after being jailed for crimes like this.
Mon, 2002-08-19 04:24
#17
I am only going to do this one more time, because I can imagine how tedious it is getting, but either you are misunderstanding my other posts, or deliberately misreading them, Dale.
quote:
But I also think that sometimes, even if rehab is an option for the person, it is wrong. I believe that there are some crimes which are so gruesome and evil that there can be no forgiveness....Even if the person who did this could be rehab'd, why should they be? They have gone too far and deserve no second chance.
AS Trisha says, someone who shows no remorse will not be rehabilitated. Rehabilitation is not about forgiveness, and not the easy option. You obviously still see it as such (along with many including the media), but as indicated above, it isn't. Being rehabilitated is not getting off lightly, it is more harsh on the individual than a locked cell.
Mon, 2002-08-19 08:49
#18
Shenanigans pointed out that cultural/ethnic backgrounds do make a difference in sentencing and that "whites" often receive lesser sentences. There was no intention on my part to imply that this is not the case, what I meant was that it doesn't matter what colour, race, religion, etc., etc., you are rape is rape and is a crime against women (mainly). There are many reasons given for raping others "she was wearing provocative clothes", "She asked for it" but no one can deny it is a callous act of one person exercising their physical strength over another for their own gratification. [img]mad.gif" border="0[/img]
Mon, 2002-08-19 09:53
#19
quote:
Making the case for rehabilitation of sex offenders (and they are actually often 'good' candidates for rehab) is not easy in such an environment.
Is this an assumption, or do you have actual statistics on rates of re-offending for people convicted of sex crimes? Pedophiles, actually, are considered to be "unrehabilitatable" because of the obsessive nature of the personality disorder that causes pedophilia. Sociopathic and psychopathic personalities are not rehabilitatible - regardless of the nature of the crime - because they can never see the full extent of their crime. They are incapable of empathy or conscience and are, I believe, always an unacceptable risk for re-offense, particularly after a period of incarceration in a system that begets violence and damage to already damaged individuals.
Absolutely, we do need to make changes to the system, to ensure that offenders don't come out in worse shape than they were when they first went in, and they need properly funded psychological and economic support once they've completed their sentence or have been paroled.
But.
It's all a colossal waste of time, effort and money if we don't address the root causes of criminal violence in general and sexual violence and violence against women and children in particular.
quote:
She did not let him in willingly, she was sober by then. She tried to fight at first, but having been abused in her years of marriage, gave up after being hit a few times. The judge felt if she didn't want it, she would have put up more than token resistance
I've heard of a couple of similar stories. The judge in question should be removed from the bench, fined, and forced to attend mandatory workshops on the nature of sexual violence and the role gender inequity plays in victim-blaming, as a condition to preventing himself/herself from being disbarred altogether.
[ August 19, 2002: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]
Mon, 2002-08-19 10:20
#20
Apemantus, certainly I appreciate your opinion on this, but don't feel you need to reply. I don't recall ever asking you to, so don't pretend it's an unwanted chore.
All I'm saying ( and I'm not disputing that rehab is a difficult road to go down) is that there is a reward at the end of that road and it's a reward that some people don't deserve. I know that the case I am proposing is unlikely. There are probably very few, if any, people who would do something that hideous and still be able to be rehab'd, but I'm just trying to get the point across that even if the option is available, it is not always desireable. This is the kind of situation where every case must be examined individually. Our justice system is too reliant on precedent.
By the way Apemantus, are you actually involved in the rehabilitation process in one way or another? I am not, but it seems to me like the kind of system that ideally would be a hard road to walk, but in reality, and for the sake of cutting down on paper work, would be the kind of thing where if you Praise Jesus enough, they'll declare you rehabilitated.
In retrospect, don't think I don't appreciate the fact that I AM asking you to reply to this one. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
[ August 19, 2002: Message edited by: dale cooper ]
Mon, 2002-08-19 10:49
#21
For a twenty year old, forty years without parole is a horrific sentence.
Usually, people who talk easily of forty years, or fifty five years have no meaningful idea of what such a sentence entails.
Ask yourself what you were doing forty years ago today. Or ask what your parents were doing. Then, think individually of each and every day of these forty years, in which hour after hour, you were locked up.
That won't begin to give you the feeling of such a sentence, but it may give an idea of the length.
I note that the Australian source cited found it important to include the fact that the perpetrators are Lebanese Muslims. I have no doubt that this played a role in the sentence being so severe.
It is a well-documented phenomenon that "the other", be it blacks, Muslims, or whatever, get much harsher sentences for rape in most jurisdictions.
In Canada, these crimes would get probably fifteen
years at most, and the perpetrators would be out after about ten. Is rape more out of control here because of this?
Mon, 2002-08-19 11:18
#22
quote:
Is this an assumption, or do you have actual statistics on rates of re-offending for people convicted of sex crimes?
Not specific statistics on hand, though it was covered by my criminal justice policy module last year, and various comparisons of rehab vs prison showed that rehab did reduce re-offending rates, and when fully financed and resourced reduced it by a lot. The rates of re-offending for sex crimes is high because the availability and funding for rehbailitation is low (ie the many convicted of sex crimes are seldom given the rehabilitation they need and are then also let out of prison having not had proper rehabilitation. Where they do get that rehabilitation - there was a recent furore in the UK about the closure of a specialist paedophile rehab unit that had a near 100% record on not re-offending).
quote:
Pedophiles, actually, are considered to be "unrehabilitatable" because of the obsessive nature of the personality disorder that causes pedophilia.
And you got that from...? I would imagine it depends on what is meant by rehabilitation, in that paedophiles take a lot more effort and a lot more time (and therefore money) than, for example, young offenders or habitual petty criminals. But they can and are rehabilitated where the facilities and resources exist, which sadly they often don't.
quote:
It's all a colossal waste of time, effort and money if we don't address the root causes of criminal violence in general and sexual violence and violence against women and children in particular.
Absolutely, and I am sure anyone who favours rehabilitation would be in agreement with you on that. But prison is also a colossal waste of time, effort and money for the same reason.
quote:
I don't recall ever asking you to, so don't pretend it's an unwanted chore.
You misunderstand, I meant it is a chore for the reader not for me.
quote:
there is a reward at the end of that road
Really? I don't think many who have been down that path or many involved in it would feel the same way. I can understand why you might think that, but that is a perception rather than a reality.
quote:
but in reality, and for the sake of cutting down on paper work, would be the kind of thing where if you Praise Jesus enough, they'll declare you rehabilitated.
No. Anyone actually involved in rehab (by which I mean the medical staff, the various personnel - parole boards, prison staff) would not take the word of the patient in the way you imply. I can imagine this as the common public perception of rehabilitation - as if it is some overworked (it is) government (it is) department just wanting to process the paperwork quickly (it isn't - it is way too dangerous!). Think of it like this - you're a rehab doctor/psychiatrist etc., you know very well the potential harm of releasing someone before they can cope, you know that if you process people quickly just to get them off your books, they may well re-offend, you would not agree to it on that basis, because if anything you are making more work not less and reducing the viability of what you do in the overseers' and the public's eyes.
That said, the huge lack of resources combined with understandable public cynicism (because of the way the criminal justice system and sentencing policy works) does mean that many people who should be rehabilitated are not, and many get only a fleeting chance in the rehab system, the end effect of which is either more re-offending or a need for rehab when they next come through the system. The point I am labouriously trying to make is that the faults (and there are many) are not to do with the rehab process itself nor those who work in it, so much as with the politicians/government, the legal system and public perceptions.
Hope some of that makes sense!!
Mon, 2002-08-19 11:33
#23
quote:
there was a recent furore in the UK about the closure of a specialist paedophile rehab unit that had a near 100% record on not re-offending).
All those pedophiles are now dead then?
I say when there is no question, rapists and pedophiles should be put to death. In Canada the best we can hope for is to have them put away under the dannerous offenders act. To hell with a second chance to rape someone or worse kill some kid because some doctor gets suckered into beleiving these fuckers are safe to release.
I am not worried about what it does mentally to the offender to be locked up for life. I think they have agreed to give up those rights when they decided to rape someone.
If you want to rehab someone put the money into repairing the damage done to people by rapists.
Mon, 2002-08-19 11:40
#24
quote:
I think they have agreed to give up those rights when they decided to rape someone.
I don't think this "agreement" exists. You are just making it up to justify your policy position.
Mon, 2002-08-19 11:48
#25
Slick Willy, such a considered and thoughtful reply.
Apart from relevant stuff like the all too common reality that the abused becomes the abuser (so those 'fuckers' were themselves abused as kids, which is why some of them are so sexually confused), you also don't actually solve the ongoing problem of child abuse and rape by just killing them - if you ever want it to stop, you have to do more than just kill the people who commit those crimes.
Not that I would expect you to understand.
[img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
(anything, in fact!)
Mon, 2002-08-19 12:16
#26
quote:
I would imagine it depends on what is meant by rehabilitation, in that paedophiles take a lot more effort and a lot more time (and therefore money) than, for example, young offenders or habitual petty criminals
Numerous studies, even pedophiles themselves, reveal that as yet no effective treatment has been found for the obsessive-compulsive disorder that is associated with pedophilia. I recall an interview with a pedophile for a documentary shown on a series called Witness, for CBC, a few years ago. He said that while he is aware of the impact of his crimes and takes full responsiblity, and willingly participated in a program that administered drugs to lower his libido, he cannot control his compulsion to rape and molest children and should never be released.
I would submit that the small percentage of convicted pedophiles who do not reoffend are not true pedophiles and/or are wrongly convicted of the crime of sexual assault against a child.
quote:
But prison is also a colossal waste of time, effort and money for the same reason.
No, prison keeps the public safe from dangerous offenders for the duration of their incarceration. Even if we want to redirect the focus of incarceration away from the punitive and towards rehab, until we find a better way of dealing with dangerous offenders, at the very least we need to protect the public from them.
quote:
Usually, people who talk easily of forty years, or fifty five years have no meaningful idea of what such a sentence entails
And usually people who talk forcefully about keeping the length of prison sentences to a "humane" period of time for sex offenders have never been the victim of a violent sexual assault. Living with the aftermath of such a violation IS a life sentence. Without parole. And is entirely innocent and blameless. We cannot say that about the individual who purposefully and willfully inflicted the permanent damage upon the victim. Still, it is possible that such an individual can be rehabilitated and released if they are remorseful and cognizant of the impact of their crime. In which case, parole is warranted.
It is my personal opinion that, unless there is a possibility that the individual was wrongly convicted, an individual who never takes responsibility or shows remorse for their crime should rot in prison indefinitely.
[ August 19, 2002: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]
Mon, 2002-08-19 12:51
#27
quote:
I note that the Australian source cited found it important to include the fact that the perpetrators are Lebanese Muslims. I have no doubt that this played a role in the sentence being so severe.
I believe that the references to the criminal's heritage is made frequently in this case because the group of men identified themselves in this way. Mark Steyn's article in the Post today (it isn't online but in the paper copy) says that they told their victims they were going to "find out what if feels like to be done the "LEB" way".
The criminals made a point of their heritage, not the media. They ganged raped women somehow in the "name" of being lebanese muslims... It was their common bond, I suppose.
Personally, I don't think the sentence is too long. I believe the crime was particularly horrible. As for whether or not it is comparitively heavy, I doubt very much that the Australian courts have much to compare it to.
The crimes had some particularly viscious and disturbing elements - the gang rape, the rape of children, the group's cultural basis of their gang, and the excuse that they were only raping "Australian" women... I would prefer to see them locked up forever...
I believe in rehabilitation, but I also believe in revenge. The criminal system in Canada is based on both these things. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive. I believe the system can perform both functions.
Whether or not someone can be rehabiltated is really a difficult question to answer. I can sympathize with the court, prison and rehabilitative professionals on that one... What a task to be charged with - deciding who's worth a second chance and who isn't...
Mon, 2002-08-19 13:22
#28
quote:
It is my personal opinion that, unless there is a possibility that the individual was wrongly convicted, an individual who never takes responsibility or shows remorse for their crime should rot in prison indefinitely.
assuming you are talking about serious crimes with this statement rather than all crimes, no prisoner convicted of a serious offence, especially a sexual or violent crime, is released unless they show remorse and take responsibility. It is a condition of their release.
As for what you write about paedophiles, there's not much I can say than go have a chat with Slick Willy, you might find some common ground.
And as for your comment that:
quote:
And usually people who talk forcefully about keeping the length of prison sentences to a "humane" period of time for sex offenders have never been the victim of a violent sexual assault
That's a pretty low fucking comment, because the only way it can be answered is by the person wanting humane sentences to then also have to reveal what has happened to them as that is the only way someone like you will feel they are justified in saying what they do.
Nasty.
Mon, 2002-08-19 13:27
#29
quote:
Still, it is possible that such an individual can be rehabilitated and released if they are remorseful and cognizant of the impact of their crime. In which case, parole is warranted.
Of course. And in the Australian case, the judge has decided that, whatever their level of remorse, etc, they cannot get parole for forty years.
Barbaric and racist. Can anyone come up with an Australian case in which such a sentence was imposed on a white defendant of twenty years of age?
Mon, 2002-08-19 13:46
#30
Barbaric and racist? What? The sentence or the crime?
The crime sounds barbaric and racist according to the accounts posted here.
Oh, and I thought this one was particularly amusing,
quote:
no prisoner convicted of a serious offence, especially a sexual or violent crime, is released unless they show remorse and take responsibility. It is a condition of their release.
I can sleep at night now.
Mon, 2002-08-19 13:54
#31
quote:
A few years ago, I went to court for a friend who was raped by a friend of her boyfriend's. The jerk, who had been jailed many times on rape and other assault charges through the years before this, only got 4 months because he saw my friend that afternoon at a barbeque where she had been drinking and the judge upheld that he likely had reason to think she wanted sex with him based on the fact that women often get flirty when drinking...The judge felt if she didn't want it, she would have put up more than token resistance.
This is the beauty of the Canadian legal system when it comes to rape. Even if there is DNA evidence linking the SOB raper to the rape victim, she still has to prove that in some way, she did not want to be raped. Whether she didn't fight enough, if she had a drink, if she lost her virginity at the age of 15 instead of 16, if she's a woman of colour, if the man is in a position of power, you name it. It's something that cannot be proven, which is why rape has the lowest conviction rate in Canada for crimes. The whole legal process goes to revictimize and scores of women do not even bother going through the legal system, because chances are, they're going to have their whole sexual history drug up and the offender is going to get a slap on the wrist.
It is VERY rare that in Canada a man convicted of raping a woman gets 10-15 years, if they get any time at all.
Shenanigans
Mon, 2002-08-19 13:59
#32
quote:
And usually people who talk forcefully about keeping the length of prison sentences to a "humane" period of time for sex offenders have never been the victim of a violent sexual assault.
Actually, this is not true as far as I know. Many times people who have been violently sexual assaulted do keep their humanity and rise above vengeance.
Mon, 2002-08-19 14:00
#33
quote:
Oh, and I thought this one was particularly amusing
It was a specific response to a specific point made by Rebecca but feel free to remove it from the context and turn it into something different.
Why not?
Everyone else does here.
Mon, 2002-08-19 14:23
#34
quote:
assuming you are talking about serious crimes with this statement rather than all crimes, no prisoner convicted of a serious offence, especially a sexual or violent crime, is released unless they show remorse and take responsibility. It is a condition of their release.
Well of course I'm talking about "serious" crimes with that statement. What else would I mean? Given the thread title, the fact that every single reference I make in every single one of my posts is to violent crime, violent offenders and sexual offenders. Unremorseful and unrepentant offenders are released all the time. When their sentence is concluded and not before. It's only those who are being considered for parole who need to be remorseful and accept responsibility.
quote:
As for what you write about paedophiles, there's not much I can say than go have a chat with Slick Willy, you might find some common ground
I'm not sure I know what you mean. Are you being derogatory? My statements about pedophiles are what's currently documented about re-offense and what's currently accepted by the psychiatric community. If you have data that supports another view, by all means, present it. I'd be interested in hearing it.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And usually people who talk forcefully about keeping the length of prison sentences to a "humane" period of time for sex offenders have never been the victim of a violent sexual assault
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------That's a pretty low fucking comment, because the only way it can be answered is by the person wanting humane sentences to then also have to reveal what has happened to them as that is the only way someone like you will feel they are justified in saying what they do.
Nasty.
A low fucking comment? To suggest that people on both sides of the sentencing argument, the victim as well as the one being sentenced, don't really know how the individuals are impacted, is making a low fucking comment? You think it's nasty to suggest that the permanent and irreperable damage done to the victim of violent sexual assault isn't given enough attention when considering the length of sentence for a perpetrator?
Well Ape, you're not alone in your opinion. The perspective of the victim/survivor of violent sexual assault is still frequently dismissed when sentencing for sexual assault is considered by the courts. It's a shame, because it means that a woman or child who's been dehumanized by some monster is further devalued by a system that won't recognize the impact of the crime on them, a system that often fails to protect society against such people by releasing them unrehabilitated among the unsuspecting public.
quote:
Barbaric and racist. Can anyone come up with an Australian case in which such a sentence was imposed on a white defendant of twenty years of age
A barbaric and racist response to a barbaric and sexist act. Very old testament. I suppose some people might consider "and eye for an eye" justice. I'm not sure whether execution wouldn't be less barbaric than 40 years without possibility of parole. Hard to say, both are beyond my comprehension and quite horrific to the imagination, completely removing hope that way.
quote:
Actually, this is not true as far as I know. Many times people who have been violently sexual assaulted do keep their humanity and rise above vengeance
I didn't mean to suggest that all sexual assault survivors are howling for blood. And I placed the word "humane" in parentheses for the very reason that what is humane and what is inhumane and barbaric is highly subjective.
[ August 19, 2002: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]
Mon, 2002-08-19 14:39
#35
Rebecca:
I am sorry, I don't think I noticed any references in your response, so why don't you produce them first - I got my knowledge from a criminologist who taught me last year as well as the Newsnight programme I watched on the paedophile rehab hospital that is now closing that I mentioned above.
As for the low fucking comment, I think the justice system doesn't do anywhere near enough for victims, but you said that:
quote:
And usually people who talk forcefully about keeping the length of prison sentences to a "humane" period of time for sex offenders have never been the victim of a violent sexual assault
What the hell does that have to do with a judge's sentence? You can (and rightfully) criticise short sentences, but that is not the same (unless you live in some simple alternative universe!) What does the comment in quotes above have to do with:
quote:
people on both sides of the sentencing argument, the victim as well as the one being sentenced, don't really know how the individuals are impacted, is making a low fucking comment? You think it's nasty to suggest that the permanent and irreperable damage done to the victim of violent sexual assault isn't given enough attention when considering the length of sentence for a perpetrator?
NONE of that is what I said. I said that your comment was dismissive of anyone who disagrees with in'humane' sentences on the basis that they have never been a victim. Guess what, some of them have. Arguing for humane sentences is not dismissing the victim at all. Arguing for rehabilitation is not dismissing the victim, it is about trying to find a means of retribution that also involves getting the criminal to recognise the hurt they have caused, to realise the enormity of the crime they have committed, in its entirety, and to understand the consequences for the victim.
There is a hell of a lot of secondary victimization within the criminal justice system and a lot of it at the sentencing stage, but it is not as simple as the people arguing for humane sentencing (your translation = gets off lightly) meaning they want shorter sentences.
I imagine you want to lump me in with Jeff House. Before you do, look up this thread to my first post. I want HUMANE sentences, that does not mean I want SHORT sentences.
FFS.
Mon, 2002-08-19 14:41
#36
quote:
what is humane and what is inhumane and barbaric is highly subjective
Indeed, so I guess you think the law should be subjective rather than objective?
Mon, 2002-08-19 14:53
#37
It's already highly subjective. What I'm suggesting is that victim impact be considered AT LEAST to the extent that the rights of the offender are. Until the system ceases to ignore the victim (at best) or brutalize and demonize the victim (at worst) then it can't claim to be just in any way.
Mon, 2002-08-19 14:56
#38
quote:
Barbaric and racist? What? The sentence or the crime?
Both, of course.
---------------------------
As for Shenanigans' comments, they betray a lack of understanding of the way in which an offence, or indeed any fact, must be proven.
For example, take this comment:
quote:
Even if there is DNA evidence linking the SOB raper to the rape victim, she still has to prove that in some way, she did not want to be raped.
Sexual intercourse is legal. Sexual intercourse may involve the exchange of fluids, and so, DNA.
So, the fact that there is DNA present proves only that a physical interaction did take place.
When the issue is whether the woman consented or not, it will be necessary for the woman to swear that she did not wish to have sexual intercourse.
This is hardly outrageous, but simply a requirement that each element of the crime be proven. Or should we presume, as Shenanigans suggests, that the presence of DNA has implications for the question of consent?
Shenanigans also points out that it rare to get 10 to 15 years for rape in Canada. Yes, it is. What I said in my earlier post was that the accused would likely get that sentence for THESE crimes, which were multiple, barbaric, and racist.
I am not aware of any case in which jail was not given for rape. Commonly in Ontario, sentences of two to three years jail are given for a first offence of sexual assault which amounts to rape.
I also understand her frustration:
quote:
It's something that cannot be proven, which is why rape has the lowest conviction rate in Canada for crimes.
Rape is very hard to prove, because there are usually no witnesses other than the participants in the sexual intercourse. But I doubt that anyone wants people to go to jail for a crime which has not been proven, do they?
[ August 19, 2002: Message edited by: jeff house ]
Mon, 2002-08-19 15:15
#39
quote:
It's already highly subjective. What I'm suggesting is that victim impact be considered AT LEAST to the extent that the rights of the offender are. Until the system ceases to ignore the victim (at best) or brutalize and demonize the victim (at worst) then it can't claim to be just in any way.
Absolutely. I am all in favour of Victim Impact Statements having influence on the sentence. The state must not be allowed to steal the crime from those involved but must involve them in its resolution - often when they do, they find victims much more forgiving than those who purport to speak for them (the hang em and flog em brigade and the tabloid press). Restorative justice is an increasingly popular movement and one I mostly support as it is as much to do with resolving pain and restoring power as with punishment.
Mon, 2002-08-19 15:17
#40
quote:
Commonly in Ontario, sentences of two to three years jail are given for a first offence of sexual assault which amounts to rape.
And do you think that is enough, Jeff House?
Mon, 2002-08-19 15:50
#41
In the absence of evidence of forced penetration, or a combination of DNA and evidence of physical assault, it's very hard to prove a rape. It comes down to credibility, and given the position a woman occupies in society, she's fairly easy to undermine. And, of course, sometimes women do file false charges (though for the life of me, I can't imagine why anyone would want to be put through that particular hell unless she absolutely had to be).
Mon, 2002-08-19 16:49
#42
Oh yes the poor poor rapist. Tut tut apemantis, you're making me weep with sorrow for them.
[img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
So what you have plenty of uses for rapists. yafuckinhoo, I don't. None at all. Waste of space and any money or effort spent on fixing them is nothing more than throwing good money after bad. Of course you wouldn't understand that now would you. After all you're the guy who would have them released to rape again and again with the excuse that it's the systems fault or societies hell anyone's fault but the rapist. Thanks for nothing. I am sure Paul Bernardo could use a kind word if you have some spare time.
Jeff I can understand your position being a lawyer and all, but I think it become evident that the pendulum that is justice has moved too far in the direction of educating career criminals and giving them another shot at the public who should protected by the justice system.
Just because your parents are or have done something, are you obligated to do the same thing. It's called freewill. Shifting the blame to someone or something else is nothing more than a crutch and a license to fuck up.
Mon, 2002-08-19 17:04
#43
Let me state that I use the term rape or I use sexual violence. I notice that there has been a trend in the legal system to say sexual assault, but to me (and a lot of my counterparts) that doesn't significantly convey the horrific crime it is.
quote:
As for Shenanigans' comments, they betray a lack of understanding of the way in which an offence, or indeed any fact, must be proven.
I'd like to think I know a thing or two about the legal process, not from a position of privilige to analyse it, but as a survivor and as a volunteer worker and student of Assaulted Women and Children's Counselling/Advocacy who watches continuously first hand how it plays itself out for women who are raped.
quote:
Sexual intercourse is legal. Sexual intercourse may involve the exchange of fluids, and so, DNA. So, the fact that there is DNA present proves only that a physical interaction did take place.
Thank you for pointing that out. I was using it as a more extreme example and would like to point out that rape may not leave any traces of DNA behind.
quote:
When the issue is whether the woman consented or not, it will be necessary for the woman to swear that she did not wish to have sexual intercourse. This is hardly outrageous, but simply a requirement that each element of the crime be proven. Or should we presume, as Shenanigans suggests, that the presence of DNA has implications for the question of consent?[/
I'm not suggesting anything, don't put words into my posts. Having a woman swear to the crime is not outrageous, what is outrageous is the defense will do everything in their power to prove otherwise, that the woman did indeed give consent, even if verbally she said NO. Maybe she was wearing a short skirt, or had a drink or two that evening, she's disabled-who'd want to rape her, they're married, maybe she was menstruating and dreamt the whole thing up (which was used successfully as a defense in the US). And unbelievably, these ridiculous defenses work, as opposed to proving that the rape did not occur, it was whether she asked for it. This is sexist, it's wrong, it continues to allow many rapes to happen because it discourages many victims to seek "justice" through the legal system.
quote:
I am not aware of any case in which jail was not given for rape. Commonly in Ontario, sentences of two to three years jail are given for a first offence of sexual assault which amounts to rape.
I certainly am. While I should specifics, client confidentiality and my ethics do not permit.
quote:
Rape is very hard to prove, because there are usually no witnesses other than the participants in the sexual intercourse. But I doubt that anyone wants people to go to jail for a crime which has not been proven, do they?
No one wants anyone to go to jail for a crime they are innocent of. It happens all too often when it boils down to race. Yet at the same time, there is a huge unbalance of men who are not going to prison because it was determined that the woman wanted the violence, by sexist a framework, or if convicted, the jail time is pathetic (and yes, 2 years is pathetic).
All in all, this discussion is actually a little moot, because more often than not if the crime is reported, charges are not laid. But it's a fun discussion nonetheless.
Shenanigans
Mon, 2002-08-19 17:16
#44
quote:
I imagine you want to lump me in with Jeff House.
Well, lump me sort of close. No, lump me even further in left field.
I don't believe in revenge; I don't even believe in punishment. (When I say I don't believe, I don't mean that I don't recognize people have these impulses, powerful, almost unbidden. I just don't think we have to be ruled by them. And I don't believe democracy can withstand them.)
I also think we are absolutely nowhere on understanding and sorting through the many different kinds of sexual assault that occur, and we are probably worse than nowhere on treating serious cases of pedophilia or murderous compulsion of several kinds.
I also think our courts are primitive in their dealings with victims of sexual crimes during the trials proper -- but I think that victim-impact statements are a travesty of justice.
I'm also convinced that the majority of violent criminals were themselves seriously abused or have FAS/FAE.
I recognize there are a lot of contradictions to be thought through there. But I think it's wimpy to refuse to consider all the harder truths, even when they are in apparent conflict, and I'm sure we'll never solve any of our problems if we dissolve into the sentimentalities each of those conditions tempts us to. And besides, Slick Willy told me to stop being a wimp.
Mon, 2002-08-19 17:34
#45
quote:
And unbelievably, these ridiculous defenses work, as opposed to proving that the rape did not occur, it was whether she asked for it.
"She asked for it" is, I presume, a crude way of saying that "she consented." If she consented, then the rape did not occur, since rape is sex without consent.
As for this comment:
quote:
Let me state that I use the term rape or I use sexual violence. I notice that there has been a trend in the legal system to say sexual assault, but to me (and a lot of my counterparts) that doesn't significantly convey the horrific crime it is.
Rape was taken out of the Criminal Code and replaced by the crime of sexual assault. The MAIN people demanding this change were feminists. They argued that since rape required proof of actual penetration, it was demeaning to the witness/complainant. Further, some writers on rape, such as Loren Clarke, argued that "rape" was a crime involving the husband or father's "possession" of the woman's reproductive system. They argued that as such, it was a historical artifact, and should be replaced with a less-compromised crime, "sexual assault."
At the time, I thought it was a bad idea, because
one loses, among other things, information about the prevalence of rape specifically. As it is, it is hard to get a real sense of the sentences for rape, because one often cannot find out, in the reported decisions, exactly what was the act which led to a conviction.
Mon, 2002-08-19 17:50
#46
quote:
"She asked for it" is, I presume, a crude way of saying that "she consented." If she consented, then the rape did not occur, since rape is sex without consent.
If she consented, I doubt that except for a small minority of cases, she would be there in court accusing someone of rape. However under a sexist framework, consent can be (and is!) established by one of the various examples I brought up that were edited out of your post. For some odd reason, saying no is not enough.
quote:
Rape was taken out of the Criminal Code and replaced by the crime of sexual assault. The MAIN people demanding this change were feminists. They argued that since rape required proof of actual penetration, it was demeaning to the witness/complainant. Further, some writers on rape, such as Loren Clarke, argued that "rape" was a crime involving the husband or father's "possession" of the woman's reproductive system. They argued that as such, it was a historical artifact, and should be replaced with a less-compromised crime, "sexual assault."
I understand why it was taken out, thanks for the refresher. But there are differences of opinions among feminists, and while many have argued for the word to be changed, there are many you will find who still frequently use the word. But I mentioned that as a trivial part of my post, no biggie to me either way.
Shenanigans
Mon, 2002-08-19 19:14
#47
The whole thing of proof is laid on the victim, not on the perpetrator. My friend was badly bruised, had a black eye, scratches and cuts. The medical report said there was internal bruising and still the judge figured a divorced woman, partying with men in the afternoon, having had been drinking, etc. wasn't raped. The perp claimed in his statement that she liked it rough. The charge was reduced to something called sexual interference to justify the four months he had spent in jail waiting for the trial. He got out that day, kicked in the door of her house, threatened to do it again in front of me. He also laughed right in front of the lawyers and said "I always get away with it. Women just want me." right in the courthouse.
I'm sorry but this was not justice. I would never advise a woman to report a rape after this. The same day, a 15 year old girl had to testify about being raped by her mother's boss and he got off free too. Again, the judge decided the kid wanted it because she was coming to the office after school, supposedly as the man said, to flirt with him.
True pedophiles have a brain disorder that so far has no cure. They do not think like "normal" men in that they see children in a sexual manner, whether the child is acting this way or not. This is in all the psychiatric literature on the subject. There are cases of pedophile behaviour in men who are not true pedophiles under this definition and I think some of those may be able to be rehabilitated. I'd like to know what program that clinic was using. If it was some form of revulsion therapy, that has been proven to have only a temporary effect.
Mon, 2002-08-19 20:16
#48
I was thinking about this string this afternoon and my mind started wandering to A Clockwork Orange. I'm not suggesting I necessarily agree with this idea, but doesn't the idea of rehabilitation sort of remind you....
Mon, 2002-08-19 21:37
#49
quote:
I also think we are absolutely nowhere on understanding and sorting through the many different kinds of sexual assault that occur, and we are probably worse than nowhere on treating serious cases of pedophilia or murderous compulsion of several kinds.
Treating pedophilia? How do you treat pedophilia?
What makes you think you can? Is this one of those ideas where you can "treat" homosexuality so that gay men can live a hetrosexual lifestyle and thus be "fixed praise the lord" shit?
As much as some people want to wish it away, rapists and pedophilacs don't have some chemical imbalance or just the wrong idea about sex.
They choose to attack people not because they think it is how life works. They know it's wrong and they are fine with that.
Are any of you saying that this isn't a violent act and is sexual?
Mon, 2002-08-19 22:08
#50
Edited because I can't maintain rationality for too long on this subject, and the post was too fine and example of this.
[ August 20, 2002: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]
Tue, 2002-08-20 05:56
#51
quote:
After all you're the guy who would have them released to rape again and again with the excuse that it's the systems fault or societies hell anyone's fault but the rapist
Oh, what's this - its "words in mouth" arguing? Where do I say that, Slick?
Is it just my imagination thinking that time and again, I made the point that for rehab to be effective the rapist must accept that it is their fault, that they are responsible for the crime and all the consequences. But why bother reading someone's posts when you can just put words in their mouth, ey, Slick?
You're all heart, Slick [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
(All heart and no mind)
Edited for grammar.
[ August 20, 2002: Message edited by: Apemantus ]