quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Holocaust is used I think for two reasons, because it refers mostly to death by fire, and because it's originally a hebrew word.
Greek, I think. Maybe Latin. Certainly not Hebrew.
That's what I thought too. Greek, anyway. And there is a greek word, " holokauston" which comes out to rougly "That which is totally burnt" but when I looked up the word and traced it's roots, I saw in a couple places that holokauston was a translation of a hebrew word, that I don't know how to type here or pronounce phonetically (I can't read Hebrew), but is translated as "that which goes up" (as in, goes up in smoke).
I'm more than willing to accept that it's of Greek roots, it's what I originally thought. And I'm hesitant to trust random internet searches for the sources of the word, but without any actual text on hand, I just went with what I saw.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I personally wouldn't turn in an acquaintance rape and undergo the additional trauma of a police investigation, jury trial, etc. Because it was someone I knew, I would have no doubts about the rapist's identity and their intent to rape. What I would do is shoot the rapist dead at point blank range, then turn myself in and explain what I did and why.
If the police then wanted to prosecute me for murder, that would be okay with me, but I would take my chances on that process, rather than the other one. In the meantime, justice would have been done with respect to the original crime.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, here is a situation that I was not sure how to take:
A guy, lets call him Dick, goes out with a girl, lets call her Jane. On their second or third date Dick and Jane get really really drunk. It would be hard to say who was more drunk. They then go up to his dorm room and have sex. Dick remembers the entire night and said it was great, if sloppy, with very willing partners. Jane wakes up and doesn't remember the night before. She can tell she had sex and says that Dick date raped her. He did not give her any drugs, and she doesn't claim he did. They were both very very drunk.
Now, assuming everything above is true, did he rape her? She was willing, but was so inebriated, she didn't know what was what. But he was just as inebriated. Obviously we can't know exactly what happened, but should we just assume rape and criminalize him?
(Upon re-reading it sounds like i'm talking about myself, i'm not. Dick is a guy i knew in college and Jane was one of our classmates.)
Edited for clarity
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: I personally wouldn't turn in an acquaintance rape and undergo the additional trauma of a police investigation, jury trial, etc. Because it was someone I knew, I would have no doubts about the rapist's identity and their intent to rape. What I would do is shoot the rapist dead at point blank range, then turn myself in and explain what I did and why.
If the police then wanted to prosecute me for murder, that would be okay with me, but I would take my chances on that process, rather than the other one. In the meantime, justice would have been done with respect to the original crime.
I don't think victim vigilantism is the best course of justice in this case.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
vonk, there's really no way to tell. I mean, if she doesn't remember, it's entirely possible that she DID say no, or it's possible that she was passed out, or it's possible that she consented. But I'm really wary of any guy who gets a girl drunk and has sex with her...it seems like a really predatory thing to do.
posted
vonk, I've heard it said that one is incapable of consent while drunk (and that, therefore, any sex with a drunk woman is date rape). I don't buy it. If a woman is absolved of responsibility when she is drunk, shouldn't the man be as well?
Now, having said that, I think we tend to conflate the moral reality of rape with the legal aspect of it. In the case you describe, we really will never know. It may have been. But whether you can prove it or not is another issue. I would be disinclined to convict in a situation like this, with an absence of proof--or even a clear memory on the part of the victim.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: But I'm really wary of any guy who gets a girl drunk and has sex with her...it seems like a really predatory thing to do.
-pH
"Gets a girl drunk"? Didn't she have a hand in getting drunk? Didn't he get drunk as well?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Icarus, about absense of proof: How much proof does a woman really need? I mean, let's say that she DID have a clear memory and clearly remembers saying no, but there isn't any physical evidence to corroborate her story.
posted
That's how I felt too. It's inherently wrong to have sex with someone that is that inebriated. But he was at least as drunk. so, if neither could technically consent, did they rape each other?
pH - I would defenitely agree with you if Dick set out to get her drunk so she wouldn't say no. But if both are out drinking together and they both get drunk and have sex, i'm not sure he would be a predator.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: But I'm really wary of any guy who gets a girl drunk and has sex with her...it seems like a really predatory thing to do.
-pH
"Gets a girl drunk"? Didn't she have a hand in getting drunk? Didn't he get drunk as well?
I'm not saying she didn't have a hand in getting drunk. I'm just saying that, in general, sex with drunk girls creeps me out.
It's like the guys who hang out at the college bars who aren't even in school and hang around to pick up drunk college girls.
Sure, the girls drank. But that doesn't make the men any less creepy.
quote:How much proof does a woman really need? I mean, let's say that she DID have a clear memory and clearly remembers saying no, but there isn't any physical evidence to corroborate her story.
Based on our standard of guilt, I would have a hard time convicting in that situation. "Reasonable doubt" when the only two witnesses disagree is almost inevitable, barring additional evidence.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
pH, in such a case, she has my sympathy, but you cannot convict in the absence of evidence (IMHO). It sucks, but that's the way it is.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm just saying that, in general, sex with drunk girls creeps me out
so drunk girls can't have sex? i know many many a lush lady that would disagree with you severely. Heck, my girlfriend doesn't really give me a choice if she's riled, randy and ready to go.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be precise, her testimony is evidence, and if the guy didn't get up on the stand and deny it, I'd vote to convict in a heartbeat, simply because the only evidence was for guilt (assuming I believed her, of course).
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
She has my sympathy if it's true. but if it's not and the guy is innocent, then i feel fairly bad for him for the shit he has had to put up with.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Okay, I can see what you're saying . . . I'd agree, except you make very specific assumptions, and I don't necessarily agree beyond those assumptions. I agree that guys who seek out women in the process of getting drunk, specifically in the hope of getting them to consent more easily to sex, are creepy. But "sex with drunk girls" goes beyond that narrow implication.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn, would you vote to convict me of murder if you were on my jury?
I don't consider it vigilante justice, because the guilt of the party is not in question. I don't drink, so that wouldn't be a confounding factor. I just think the correct venue for justice for this crime (acquaintance rape) isn't a public one in this situation.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it definitely is, if not vigilanteism, then some sort of private vengeance, and taking the law into your own hands. Does that mean I would vote to convict you? Beats me. I would never be on your jury.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: pH, I didn't see your reply to me.
Okay, I can see what you're saying . . . I'd agree, except you make very specific assumptions, and I don't necessarily agree beyond those assumptions. I agree that guys who seek out women in the process of getting drunk, specifically in the hope of getting them to consent more easily to sex, are creepy. But "sex with drunk girls" goes beyond that narrow implication.
I don't think that men who seek out women in the process of getting drunk is very narrow at all. In fact, I bet it applies to the majority of college-age guys.
I still think that sex with drunk girls in general is creepy. However, the creepiness factor fades if, say, the two are a couple and have had sex before.
posted
Tatiana - if you killed the guy that raped you and admitted to it on the stand, then yeah, you would get convicted. because you would be tried for murder, not inaccurately executing justice.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think that men who seek out women in the process of getting drunk is very narrow at all. In fact, I bet it applies to the majority of college-age guys.
i take extreme umbrage with this. i think it is obscenely inaccurate to say that most males between the ages of 18 and 24 are trying to take advantage of females, and also rather prejudiced. and frankly, insulting. i am of that age and neither I, nor any of my friends, are the kind of people you describe.
and i also know many girls that drink, pick up guys at bars and then go sleep with them. while i think this is unhealthy for a variety of reason, i'm not gonna call the guy creepy or a predator because he didn't say no when a girl came on to him.
I just don't think guys are as bad as you seem to think. yes, there are bad guys out there, very bad guys. and there are also very bad girls. but saying that the majority of guys are like this is not only false, but prejudiced.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tatiana, I would vote to convict you of murder in that circumstance. For one thing, we would have only your word that the guy raped you. If I didn't vote to convict you of murder, I'd be giving women permission to go kill any man they wanted and then say it was because he raped them. But more importantly, the rule of law only works when people follow it. That means reporting the rape to the police and letting them handle it. I would probably argue to give you a lighter sentence based on the circumstances, if I believed your testimony, but I most certainly would vote to convict.
Now, if you managed to kill him while he was attempting to rape you, I would find you not guilty due to self-defense in a heartbeat, and be happy about it.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: I don't think that men who seek out women in the process of getting drunk is very narrow at all. In fact, I bet it applies to the majority of college-age guys.
A) You misinterpreted me. I'm not saying it's narrow in that it's uncommon, but that your definition is much narrower than the broader "sex with drunk women."
"Sex with drunk women" != "seeking out drunk women to have sex with"
B) I disagree with you opinion that it applies to the majority of college-age guys. It certainly did not apply to me, and I don't think it applies to my friends either. I'm sorry that you see it otherwise. I wonder how other hatrackers, men and women, see it.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
vonk, I don't care if she came onto him or not. It bothers me. Period. A lot.
I don't mind if guys hang out at bars to pick up girls. I mind if guys hang out at bars to pick up girls with whom to have sex that night. There's a huge difference.
It's good that you and your friends aren't like that, but a good portion of the men I've run into are.
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Lyrhawn, would you vote to convict me of murder if you were on my jury?
I don't consider it vigilante justice, because the guilt of the party is not in question. I don't drink, so that wouldn't be a confounding factor. I just think the correct venue for justice for this crime (acquaintance rape) isn't a public one in this situation.
Absent of any specifics or even a hypothetical, I'm loathe to make a blanket "yes" or "no." However, if you were raped, then totally sidestepped the legal process and murdered the man, or woman for that matter, who did it, then yes I'd probably be compelled to vote you guilty. If it was a violent, horribly traumatizing assault on you, then I'd feel very badly, but I'd still vote you guilty of murder. I'd be just as equally sad that you decided NOT to use the justice system, because it was either inconvenient or painful for you to do so.
It IS vigilante justice, becuase you are sidestepping the established justice system, and are acting as judge, jury and executioner, literally. You alone define the violation, it's severity, and the necessary punishment, which you then carry out. I'd say that's a posterchild example of vigilantism.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't consider it vigilante justice, because the guilt of the party is not in question. I don't drink, so that wouldn't be a confounding factor. I just think the correct venue for justice for this crime (acquaintance rape) isn't a public one in this situation.
Oh, it's definitely vigilante justice. Chance of error is only one of many problems with personal justice.
For one, the death penalty is unlikely to be warranted (under current 8th amendment jurisdprudence), so you don't even have the bad excuse of merely getting around an evidentiary problem. You're exacting a penalty specifically prohibited by law.
Second, there are mental elements to crimes, not just physical. As the victim, you're utterly incapable of evaluating those elements.
Third, one of the purposes of criminal law is to affect future behavior. ElJay elaborated quite thoroughly why such behavior must be discouraged.
Fourth, if you're going to have to detail the rape in your murder trial, what, exactly, are you gaining by going this route?
I would almost certainly vote to convict, although, like ElJay, I might argue for seriously lighter sentence.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: Icarus, what I'm saying is that I find BOTH of those instances (sex with drunk women and seeking out drunk women to have sex) creepy.
That's all. I, personally, think they're creepy.
-pH
Well, I think you said a bit more than that, but that's fine.
I don't think it's inherently creepy to have sex with drunk women--with the understanding that it can easily be creepy or worse, under certain circumstances--and it seems to me that you are holding men to a higher standard than women.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it assumes a certain inherent predatory nature in men that I don't think many here would agree is true of all, or even a majority of men.
Is sex with drunk men creepy? Is sex with ANYONE under the influence of ANY mind altering substance creepy?
Edit to add: I'm in that college age guy bracket, and a lot of my friends, and guys at work fall into that same category. None of them hang out at bars hoping to score a drunk girl. Some of them might go out to bars, and over the course of a night might get drunk with a girl and they end up sleeping together, but as far as I'm concerned, the grand majority of those cases aren't premeditated. And the premeditation is I think what you are taking the umbrage with.
But then, I know just as many (actually twice as many) girls at work who go to bars, get drunk and then go home with guys who come into work the next day feeling stupid, or satisfied with their decision. Thus, I don't like the double standard that if women are okay with it, it's okay, but when they feel it was a mistake, they are absolved of guilt and it must be the man's fault for taking advantage of her. Assume some personal responsibility already.
I'm wondering if men who get drunk and have sex, only to regret/deny it was consenual the next day for whatever reasons have the same grounds for levelling rape against a woman that women have against men. I'm fairly sure they don't. And while I'll agree that this is mostly a moot point (how often does it happen?), the fact that it might even happen once, and there's no recourse, is too much an injustice for me to accept as okay.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: A guy who goes out on a date with a girl and forces himself on her isn't any less serious than a violent rape. It probably has very different psychological effects, but I'm sure those can be just as devastating, and the attitude that "date rape" isn't "real" rape just adds to the problem.
Don't misunderstand me. "No" means "no". And a guy who disregards a "no" and keeps going is doing something very wrong. But you can't possibly equate that with someone minding her own business when she's attacked by a predator.
Assuming it is not a situation of mixed signals or miscommunication, a guy who disregards a clearly stated "no" is a predator, and is attacking her.
Yes, he is. And no, it's not the same thing. Good God, has everyone lost perspective entirely? You don't have to say it's the same thing to make the case that it's utterly horrendous and unjustiable.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Holocaust is used I think for two reasons, because it refers mostly to death by fire, and because it's originally a hebrew word.
Greek, I think. Maybe Latin. Certainly not Hebrew.
That's what I thought too. Greek, anyway. And there is a greek word, " holokauston" which comes out to rougly "That which is totally burnt" but when I looked up the word and traced it's roots, I saw in a couple places that holokauston was a translation of a hebrew word, that I don't know how to type here or pronounce phonetically (I can't read Hebrew), but is translated as "that which goes up" (as in, goes up in smoke).
I'm more than willing to accept that it's of Greek roots, it's what I originally thought. And I'm hesitant to trust random internet searches for the sources of the word, but without any actual text on hand, I just went with what I saw.
Yes, holocaust is used as a translation for the olah offering, in which the sacrifice was burned completely.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: I personally wouldn't turn in an acquaintance rape and undergo the additional trauma of a police investigation, jury trial, etc. Because it was someone I knew, I would have no doubts about the rapist's identity and their intent to rape. What I would do is shoot the rapist dead at point blank range, then turn myself in and explain what I did and why.
If the police then wanted to prosecute me for murder, that would be okay with me, but I would take my chances on that process, rather than the other one. In the meantime, justice would have been done with respect to the original crime.
I don't think victim vigilantism is the best course of justice in this case.
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: I personally wouldn't turn in an acquaintance rape and undergo the additional trauma of a police investigation, jury trial, etc. Because it was someone I knew, I would have no doubts about the rapist's identity and their intent to rape. What I would do is shoot the rapist dead at point blank range, then turn myself in and explain what I did and why.
If the police then wanted to prosecute me for murder, that would be okay with me, but I would take my chances on that process, rather than the other one. In the meantime, justice would have been done with respect to the original crime.
I don't think victim vigilantism is the best course of justice in this case.
I do.
Really? You think women should have the right to kill men whenever they feel violated? Why do you think this is the best course of action?
Should men be allowed to kidnap the children of their ex-wives if they feel they aren't being treated right? or just because they feel they could be better parents?
Totally different situation, but I'm curious as to what your feelings on the matter are.
Dag -
I'd call it justice, if you like the term "vigilante justice" anyway. I'd call it justice only in the sense that it is justice as defined in the eye of the beholder. It's not my justice, it certainly isn't American justice. But then again, what happens in tribal Africa or under Islamic Sharia law isn't really what I'd call justice either, though it is to them.
It's Tatiana, and apparently starLisa justice. It's not American justice. It's certainly not fair justice. I wouldn't call it moral justice either.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Icarus, I honestly don't think that all men are evil. I like guys. Typically, I have more male friends than female friends.
To tell you the truth, I'm just very...annoyed. Because I've had some bad, bad experiences, and I've been LUCKY in that nothing completely awful has happened, knock on wood. And I'm pissed because it's only recently that I've discovered that like...wow, some guys really don't think it's a huge, big favor to me to avoid pressing the sex issue.
Maybe I'm just a creep magnet. I remember one night, I ran into a classmate while I was out at a pub two blocks from my house. He offered to drive me home. I figured it was safer than walking, even though it wasn't very far. He went all the way out of his way to drop his friend off first (I, for some reaason, figured that this meant that maybe it meant less driving for him...like maybe it was a straight shot from the friend's house to my house to his house). When he got to my apartment building, I thanked him, told him I'd see him in class, and got out of the car.
He told me during the next class that he was absolutely shocked that I hadn't invited him up. After all, he'd driven me home!
Naturally, he also worded it in a way that would be completely inappropriate for this forum.
I am still baffled by this line of thinking. I just really cannot wrap my mind around such a concept.
And that's only one of the many, many unpleasant experiences I've had with college-age men.
Unfortunately, a lot of girls also seemed to reinforce those kinds of assumptions.
quote:Originally posted by pH: As to mixed signals or miscommunication: Some men have the unique ability to interpret just about anything as "she wants me." So I'm very skeptical of the miscommunication or mixed signal angle.
-pH
I wish I was one of those guys, life would be simpler. (maybe)
So pH makes an equally good point, the fact that a date rape is done by someone who knows the victim has the added element of shattered trust involved. A random act would be easier to rationalize in your mind, because it could have happened to anyone, it just happened to you by accident. A rape by someone who knows the victim will haunt the victim in a different way because they might feel that it was in some way their fault, since they misjudged the person who did it. That's likely part of why these things are reported less often.
I agree with your last point, that's why I said "misunderstandings," with quotes. Its possible that a man could be stupid enough to think that the victim "wanted it," you only need to look at a few darwin award winners to know that. However there is a greater likelihood that this is simply the justification/excuse constructed afterward.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
"To tell you the truth, I'm just very...annoyed. Because I've had some bad, bad experiences, and I've been LUCKY in that nothing completely awful has happened, knock on wood. And I'm pissed because it's only recently that I've discovered that like...wow, some guys really don't think it's a huge, big favor to me to avoid pressing the sex issue."
This isn't going to sound fair, because it isn't entirely the case, but I think you may have some bad judgement about who you date/hang out with. Not to sound like a criticism, what I mean is that you are probably attracted to a quality in people which presents itself as positive, but turns out not be so great. This is an unconscious process if it does happen, but I imagine you might find something alluring or endeaoring in a type of person who would also treat you badly. In a way we all have these things about our personalities, we like things that are different and exciting, except different and exciting often turns into scary and aggressive when you need the person to be a little more understanding and rational.
Its like the old lament: "girls only like jerks, why?" Because the guys that treat some women badly are also attractive in some other un-specific way, like they are spontaneous, or they are more physically demonstative, or more confident. So a confident guy makes a good first impression and it turns out later that he isn't confident at all, he just treats everyone like they don't matter, he's a total jerk.
I often notice that when a girl flirts with me the first time we meet, it will turn out she doesn't really like me that much. This isn't the fault of the girl, but I have learned that I give people an initial impression that is different from my lasting interactions, I am a different person when you get to know me. I still have alot of friends, but my real friends know me in a different way, and though I can seem attractive on first meeting to some girls, the qualities they see in me will turn out to be the part of me that talks to people I don't know. I don't have alot of romantic relationships, but when I do, they are with people who didn't actually start out liking me, these are the people who actually connect with me more over time.
So my advice after all that is to distrust your first instinct and maybe spend time with people who you wouldn't normally. This sounds dumb, but spend time with people who bore you, safe people, because its likely you are attracted to a quality in people that makes them exciting, but also too agressive.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
pH, you spend a lot of time in bars, and with bandmembers? And you meet people in the bars or clubs, rather than going to the bars with people you already know?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is one thing I may never get. The idea of going to a bar to try and meet someone is just awful sounding to me. Can't see how people do it, or why they'd want to.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, thanks, everyone! I'll take my lighter sentence. That works for me. Though perhaps the fact that I was unrepentant, and would feel I did the right thing, and would be glad I had done it, and willing to do it again in the same circumstances, might make you reluctant to go easy on me. However, it's quite easy for anyone to be safe from me, just don't rape me. I would feel sad for the poor guy, I suppose, but still would believe I did the right thing.
The reason why bringing out the details of the rape at my trial for murder would be okay is that he would already be dead by then. What's not acceptable is for me to be essentially raped again (virtually) by the police, judge, jury, etc. and then for him to be let off.
I expect if it ever happened, there would be lots of physical evidence backing up my story, as I tend to shift quickly into all-out fight-back mode nowadays when abused or threatened with physical violence. And yes, ElJay, I would do my best to kill him right then, rather than waiting until later, but if I couldn't for some reason, then I would go back and kill him as soon as I could.
posted
So you'd kill him to save yourself from the invonvenience and uncertainty of a trial?
Besides, afterwards, not only will you have to live with being raped, AND having killed him. You'll do it in a small cell, shared with dozens of other women, where you face a very real possibility of having further sexual wrongdoing inflicted upon you. Not to mention the fact that you will STILL be 'virtually raped' by the court during your murder trial.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, Lyrhawn, I'd kill him because he raped me.
I think if I'm known as someone who kills (at whatever cost to herself) anyone who rapes her, then I should be fairly safe in prison.
The court is welcome to second guess me after he's dead. I will know I did the right thing, so it won't be particularly traumatic for me. What would be wrong is for them to be given stewardship over the justice for the rape, because that justice is mine.
Dags, you're right that my own limited abilities to discern his mental competence, etc. will be what is used, rather than the court's. I feel he forfeits his right to be judged by anyone but me by raping me. I might extend mercy based on incompetence or some other extenuating circumstances. Or I might not.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: pH, you spend a lot of time in bars, and with bandmembers? And you meet people in the bars or clubs, rather than going to the bars with people you already know?
Bandmembers, yes. I spend a lot of time with bandmembers and other individuals who are involved in music. But I don't DATE bandmembers, and bad experiences in that particular area of my life are very, very, very, very rare. They do happen, but the ratio of bad band boy experiences to good band boy experiences is much lower than the ratio of bad college boy experiences to good college boy experiences.
Bars? *shrug* Not anymore. I went out to bars with friends a lot more often when I still lived on campus. If I met people, cool. I like to socialize, and I like to talk to people. I didn't generally go out there specifically to meet people to DATE, and I certainly didn't go out there to find people to start relationships with. I don't do that anyway; I'm not a boyfriend-hunter by nature.
As for the types of guys I date...I don't have a type. That's the thing. There's not any one personality or one look or one ANYTHING that's common among the guys I've dated. There's not even that much in common among the ones who actually became my boyfriends. And I've had bad experiences with guys I wasn't even dating, e.g. that classmate who gave me a ride home.
Also, I don't really think people at Hatrack are representative of the general population.
posted
No, I don't think so. But I also don't think any goup of people with a given commonality can be representative of the general population.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: No, Lyrhawn, I'd kill him because he raped me.
I think if I'm known as someone who kills (at whatever cost to herself) anyone who rapes her, then I should be fairly safe in prison.
The court is welcome to second guess me after he's dead. I will know I did the right thing, so it won't be particularly traumatic for me. What would be wrong is for them to be given stewardship over the justice for the rape, because that justice is mine.
Do you see how this:
quote: What would be wrong is for them to be given stewardship over the justice for the rape, because that justice is mine.
Undermines this:
quote:I don't consider it vigilante justice, because the guilt of the party is not in question. I don't drink, so that wouldn't be a confounding factor. I just think the correct venue for justice for this crime (acquaintance rape) isn't a public one in this situation.
And by the way. You're going to be in jail with other murderers. I don't think you're going to be safe from people that've killed other people, just because you did too. It just levels the playing field.
You don't get to decide what the law is, anymore than me getting to execute you if you rearended my car. You could argue that a fender bender isn't the same thing as sexual assault, and you'd be right. But you'd only be trying to justify your vigilantism by arguing semantic degrees of severity.
You know, my mom was hit by a wreckless driver a few years ago, and lives in intense pain everyday from bone chips that were lodged in her spine as a result of the accident. He had crap insurance, and declared banktrupcy when she threatened to sue him. Now by Tatiana law, we should be able to find his new house, and rob it, and then burn it to the ground, after taking a sledgehammer to his back so he can live out his life as a paraplegic. Sound fair to you? Well I don't care if it does, because that's MY justice.
You might think you are justified because you were violated, but really you're just advocating a system worse than Draconian law, where everyone can act as their own judge, jury and executioner, and can take the law into their own hands.
Final question: Let's say the man who raped you, and who you killed, has a family. Can his wife kill you? Can his children? Can his parents? Can his brothers and sisters? I'd say by the Tatiana system of law, they'd be well within their rights.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see why private justice is inconsistant with saying that justice is under the stewardship of the victim for this particular crime. Only if the perpetrator was personally known to the victim, so that no mistake of identity could have been possible, I would never vote to convict a rape victim of murder in that situation, because I would myself do the same thing.
I don't claim private justice is appropriate for all crimes, but it is for this one. Actually, I don't even go so far as to judge in advance what is appropriate for other people. I just have stewarship over choosing my own reponse to such a crime, and that's what I would choose. It might not be the right choice for other people, but it would be the right choice for me.
There is no Tatiana system of law. There's just my individual response to that situation. I would kill him. Then I would accept any consequences that arose.
I would not choose to administer justice myself, for instance, for the murder of a family member. I have faith in the system, and the law of the land obviously has stewardship in such cases. What I'm saying is that the natural stewardship for justice for rape by someone well-known to the victim (so that there is no danger of mistaken identity) doesn't rightfully belong to the courts, but instead to the victim. Then the stewardship over whether to prosecute the victim for murder or not, belongs to the state.
I don't know how much you know about prison. I have some friends who have worked in various prisons (including maximum security, and death row prisons, as well as general population type prisons) for several decades. I have a fair idea of what things are like there. Of course nothing is sure, but if it's well known that you will fight fiercely if bothered, and if you don't bother anyone first, you should be okay.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
