FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Supreme Court expected to tackle 'sleeping sex slave' question (Page 0)

  This topic comprises 14 pages: 1  2  3  4  ...  12  13  14   
Author Topic: Supreme Court expected to tackle 'sleeping sex slave' question
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
I think the story suggests more than what's on the surface.

It's rather unusual for a School superintendent to get involved with micro-managing the cheer-leading squad at a high school. I've certainly never heard of a superintendent getting involved in disciplining a cheer leader, let alone instigating that disciplinary action immediately from the stands during a game.

When a girl accuses a popular or powerful male of raping her, there is nearly always a large segment of society that presumes, de facto, that shes a lying slut who's trying to destroy a nice guy. They think she's doing it for revenge, or attention, or some sort of personal gain because it couldn't possibly be true. This faction believe, contrary to all the evidence, that its impossible to defend yourself against a rape charge. So when the accused pleads guilty to the lesser charge, they assume he's really innocent but took the guilty plea to avoid jail time. He's the real victim and she should be punished for what she did to him.


Of course I'm just speculating, but it looks like what really happened is that a school superintendent was pissed off that this girl was still allowed to be a cheer leader after the "terrible thing she'd done to this poor basketball player". It seems like he was waiting in the stands for any excuse to punish her.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
Rakeesh: I'm seem to be missing the point on the first story...

As to the second, point taken, that is pretty horrible...and this worries me too...

quote:
But two separate courts ruled against her, deciding that a cheerleader freely agrees to act as a "mouthpiece" for a institution and therefore surrenders her constitutional right to free speech.
Don't join cheer...you give up your right to free speech!

Boots: Of course...I hadn't considered that.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Stone_Wolf,

The point of the first story is that when what was going on was treated lightly - quiet dismissals, 'sexual misconduct', etc. - it keeps happening. You don't send a message to society that rape and abusing power sexually is something that's got to stop by making really sure that, well, someone who behaves inappropriate is clearly recognized as a guy who 'just made a mistake' and needs more chances.

As for the second story, I actually - given what I know of it - agree with what the court decided about cheerleaders and free speech. I mean, it makes sense to me that if you're going to be on the squad you have to, well, perform as instructed. Pretty straightforward. The nugget of the situation - aside from a strange superintendent involvement along with a prompt ejection from the squad - is that the squad, the school, etc., insisted that part of her job as a cheerleader was to cheer by name for the guy who assaulted her.

And that's just according to the court, mind. That's what he plead to. Even if he was only guilty of assaulting her in a misdemeanor way, the school still said, "You've gotta cheer for this guy by name. If you don't, you're out." I mean, the unspoken, "...b@#ch," is really not very inaudible at all, is it?

Many men and women think that 'all it takes' to ruin a guy's reputation is to be accused of rape. That it's somehow really easy to make such a charge stick in court. That men are just one social misstep away from pissing off some angry woman who'll cry rape, and that's it, you're done. But the truth is, for some people it takes quite a lot more than a claim of rape against them to ruin their reputation.

This is where the problems of considering rape a heinous, evil, wicked crime that only the lowest of the low scumbags would ever do: makes it easy to start regarding rapists as something other than, well, people who are committing an appallingly frequent crime. It happens quite a lot. And while it's worthwhile to be emphatic about how wrong it is, it's also very easy to make it seem as though it were rare. And what happens when people start thinking that way is that they'll start siding with the accused, because most times, well, even bad guys don't look like heinous monsters. That's because most people hide their misbehavior.

----------

quote:
FYI, intrcourse when one is not ready and willing can be quite painful and even cause considerable physical trauma along with the emotional and psychological damage.
I rather thought this was a given as far as knowledge goes. But anyway, even if it didn't have the not inconsiderable chance of causing a lot of pain and physical damage, it would still be violence. You're not allowed to put hands (or body parts) on others without their permission. We don't have a problem teaching that to children - "Stop poking your brother!" - but at some point between childhood and adulthood (late childhood and adolescence, really) we start having all sorts of situations where, actually, we say you can put hands on someone without their permission, once you get them to agree to some social activities that are assumed to be permission for other things.

That's not going to be a problem when two people are on the same page and communicating clearly without addressing the issue directly. But how often does that happen? For example, is the sexually conservative young woman going to be on the same page as far as timing and what leads to what as the sexually liberal, assertive young man? Or vice versa? The answer is...maybe. So let's have our laws reflect that it's really important to be on the same page, because sometimes when we're not even without specific intent to do wrong, wrong is done, and it's pretty awful.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
So let's have our laws reflect that it's really important to be on the same page, because sometimes when we're not even without specific intent to do wrong, wrong is done, and it's pretty awful.
Well said!

ETA:
quote:
This is where the problems of considering rape a heinous, evil, wicked crime that only the lowest of the low scumbags would ever do: makes it easy to start regarding rapists as something other than, well, people who are committing an appallingly frequent crime.
I understand that not all rapists are the Adolph phantom of the opera bin Laden...but I think it makes them into scumbags (did you know that means used condom?) and there is a difference between me hoping that most women do not encounter entitled butt pirates who make them uncomfortable and not accepting the fact that rape is very very common, and therefore, scumbags are very very common.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Sigh. But it isn't just scumbags. Sometimes it is otherwise nice idiots who have too much to drink. This is why it is important to judge the act rather than the person.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Alright, but what good is hoping? Hope in and of itself never did anything except maybe make someone feel better while waiting for something to happen.

Hoping doesn't change the fact that unpleasant as it is, many women will encounter in the most awful, personal terms a rapist, and a much greater number of women will encounter someone who makes them deeply uncomfortable because of attitudes about when a woman has consented or not. It doesn't change the fact that, unless you know few women, there's a woman you know right now who's encountered such a person, but you don't know it. She's keeping it to herself-pretty understandably.

That's something to keep in mind when considering how important it is to protect men from false accusations.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
The message we need to convey to people is not that rapists are evil. The message is, "hey, you, nice guy, be aware that you might accidentally rape someone if you aren't careful."
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
But Boots...shouldn't nice idiots who have too much to drink be given a chance to learn from their mistakes...with very harsh penalties if they don't?

Rakeesh...sure hope by itself isn't very helpful, but I don't just hope. I put myself physically between a man who was hitting his pregnant girlfriend, and then chased him off. I walk the walk, and hope the hope.

As to protecting men from false accusations, you must be thinking of someone else, as this was not my concern and have never really spoken about it.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
shouldn't nice idiots who have too much to drink be given a chance to learn from their mistakes
What? What do you mean by this? You can't, you can't mean that the first rape is a freebie if you get drunk first.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
And I don't...the punishment I laid out for Bob is what I mean.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Sigh. But it isn't just scumbags. Sometimes it is otherwise nice idiots who have too much to drink. This is why it is important to judge the act rather than the person.
Well put.

quote:
But Boots...shouldn't nice idiots who have too much to drink be given a chance to learn from their mistakes...with very harsh penalties if they don't?
The time for that, without harsh penalties (though not as harsh as a highly violent kidnapping rapist) is before the traumatic crime against another human being. Generally once someone commits a crime against another human being, we say it's time to be punished pretty harshly and learn from their mistake.

Besides, shouldn't the nice idiot who drives drunk and maims someone be given a chance to learn from his mistake? Or do we instead say that some mistakes are really really bad, and will be punished?

And of course, what do we do for the victim in those cases, where we're saying to the man, "You're a nice guy, you just made a mistake-now don't do it again!"

quote:
As to protecting men from false accusations, you must be thinking of someone else, as this was not my concern and have never really spoken about it.
No, that was a more general remark.

quote:
And I don't...the punishment I laid out for Bob is what I mean.
That punishment being, if I'm not mistaken, no jail time, probation, community service, payment for therapy?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
Well Rakeesh, it is easy to throw stones (assuming you are that is) when you haven't spoken to what you feel is fair.

What do you think is a fair punishment for Bob?

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
Sexual assualt, second degree, in Wisconsin at least, is a Class C felony.

"For a Class C Felony, the penalty is a fine of up to $100,000, or imprisonment of up to 40 years, or both;"


That sounds about right - major fines and prison time. You don't think sexual assault, second degree is a probation and community service kind of crime, do you?

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
If you kill someone as a drunk driver it's $100K/25 years.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
kat...I laid out what -I- felt was fair for Bob awhile back...but have called sexual assault, second degree a "fair shake" previously.

Forgive me for not looking it up and posting it a third time, I'm pressed for time and you guys can look it up just as easy.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Olivet
Member
Member # 1104

 - posted      Profile for Olivet   Email Olivet         Edit/Delete Post 
To be fair, the "honest mistake of an idiot" and false accusations of rape are both far less common than situations like this:

http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2011/05/27/a-cheerleaders-rape-in-a-small-texas-town/

Though it is interesting to discuss extreme borderline cases to determine our own moral stance on them, a case like Bob's would be one in a mass of much less tricky cases.

The jury in the NYC cop rape case believed the defendant was guilty, but didn't convict because he left no DNA evidence (DUH, he was a cop). They call that the "CSI" effect - the mistaken belief that you have to have DNA evidence to convict.

Another jury deadlocked on a rape that was recorded on a 911 call because the victim may have used drugs and may have owed the defendant money. ( http://www.dreamindemon.com/2011/06/03/jury-deadlocks-on-case-of-alleged-rape-caught-on-tape/ )

Stuff like that is why victims don't report rape, and why men believe, often rightly, that they can get away with it. The sickness is in our culture more than our legal system.

Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
You've gone a bit back and forth about what you tink Bob deserves - could you state it again.

You recently agreed to sexual assault, second degree. Are you taking that back?

Because probation and community service is what you get for minor misdemeanors. Are you saying it should be a minor misdemeanor? Even peeping Toms get jail time, you know, much less those who commit sexual assault.

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
Sexual crimes are crimes. Crimes = jail time, a lot of the time, especially when there is a clear victim.

If sexual crimes are put into another category, it is because the penalties are HARSHER, not lighter. Are you saying you're against all that?

From everything you've said, you're definitely going easier on Bob because he was drunk. That still doesn't make sense to me.

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Olivet, that's even more damning than what I read about the case, actually. Ugh.

quote:
Well Rakeesh, it is easy to throw stones (assuming you are that is) when you haven't spoken to what you feel is fair.
I was asking for a clarification, if you still believe now what you mentioned then. Probation, suspended sentence, payment of therapy for the victim being what is done for the 'nice guy who made a mistake'?

Treating it like an actual crime instead of a 'slap on the wrist' kind of misdemeanor, as has been described recently (prison time and major fines) sounds very reasonable to me. Even if Bob really is a nice guy who made a mistake.

That crap doesn't fly for drunk driving. It doesn't fly if she ended up pregnant. It doesn't fly if he gets plastered and smacks her upside the head.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
kat...not a lot of time...I stand by what I laid out...which shouldn't be hard to find...I also think that sexual assault 2nd degree is fair...not what I would pick for him, but also not unfair.

And what I laid out wasn't probation, it was an axe hanging over his head to make sure the lesson is learned...

As to the rest...will address, but can't atm, very busy.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
And what I laid out wasn't probation, it was an axe hanging over his head to make sure the lesson is learned...

What does that mean? Probation plus a threatening phone call every morning?

Why is the answer that's fair not something you'd pick for him?

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
And what I laid out wasn't probation, it was an axe hanging over his head to make sure the lesson is learned...
That's a synonym for probation, Stone_Wolf_.

"A sentence whereby a convict is released from confinement but is still under court supervision; a testing or a trial period. Probation can be given in lieu of a prison term or can suspend a prison sentence if the convict has consistently demonstrated good behavior.

The status of a convicted person who is given some freedom on the condition that for a specified period he or she act in a manner approved by a special officer to whom the person must report."

Pretty basic stuff.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
Probation isn't always with suspended sentence...in this case, it's "probation for ten years, and a ten year suspended sentence"...so yes, Eesh, (may I call you Eesh? or is it Keesh, or Rak?) probation is part of it, but not the whole truth and very misleading.

Kat...what you laid out sounds harsh but fair to me, what I laid out sounds about right. Where is the confusion?

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
No jail time is a slap on the wrist. Peeping Toms get jail time. People who view certain kinds of pornography get jail time. Punching someone in a bar fight, writing hot checks, evading taxes - those all come with jail time. Here we have a case of one-on-one sexual assault, and you want something much easier than what you'd get for any of the above.

I'm confused why you want a slap on the wrist instead of what you agreed is fair.

(I can think of several reasons, none of which are flattering to you and most of which put you in with the people you have said deserve to get shot. I want to give you a chance to say why first.)

[ June 10, 2011, 10:36 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
What is the upside of being jailed? The likelihood that Bob will be raped in turn? You want him to be punished right? You want Bob to suffer?

So, here is what I originally posted (and still agree with):

quote:
Now, here's what I think should happen to Bob: he should be charged with the misdemeanor crime "Sexual Misconduct" which carries with it a suspended sentence of ten years and a non-suspended sentence of 100 hours of community service and having to pay for 100 hours of therapy for the victim, Olivia.

The suspended ten years stay suspended over his head for the next ten years and if during that time he has zero sex related charges to which he is found guilty, are removed. If he is found guilty of any sexual related charges during those ten years, those suspended ten years are added to his other sentence, as well as any further sexually related charges become felonies if they were not before.

It should be noted that 100 hours of therapy is not cheap, likely to be around $10,000.

Perhaps knowing Bob's intent (as I invented him) makes me more lenient then if I had to guess, say if I were on his jury.

I think in the range of "fair" that sexual assault 3rd degree is fair, on the harsh end of the fair spectrum, but fair none the less.

If Olivia wanted him charged with full first degree rape, it wouldn't be fair, but it wouldn't be the worst injustice in the world either.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
Why should jail exist at all? Why did the Peeping Tom have to go to jail? The person who writes hot checks? Why do we even have jail for anyone but the worst of the worst.

And yes, I want Bob to understand that sexual assalt - having sex with a woman without her permission - is an honest-to-goodness heinous crime. Not a mistake, not hijinks, not something recoverable.

Olivia doesn't get a pass on the consequences - she's still been raped. She's been raped, she's been physically hurt, and she's been damaged. Giving Bob a slap on the wrist is not only minimizing what happened to her, it is putting all women in danger because it says to men "If you're drunk, you won't get into real trouble."

What it really says, and what I guessed you meant but hoped you might have a different explanation, is that even when a woman has been assaulted, even when she's been raped, even when all women now have to live in fear, even when society in general dismisses their hurt as regrettable but acceptable damage, men matter more.

You care more about Bob than his victim, and you care more that he's shielded from any chance of future hurt than you do that women are.

For all the strutting about how you want rapists to die, you care more that men are free and safe than you do if women are. Women being scared, threatened, and raped is sad, but acceptable as long as the men are safe.

That's despicable.

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
I doubt you are surprised when I disagree about my own beliefs, kat, but that's okay. I don't feel your above rant was very fair or true and I accept that you think that. *shrug*

The difference between us is I can accept your assessment of what is fair (which according to you doesn't necessarily have jail time involved) without judging your character (wrongly).

quote:
"For a Class C Felony, the penalty is a fine of up to $100,000, or imprisonment of up to 40 years, or both;"
You can think what you like about my beliefs, you can say what you like about my beliefs, but that doesn't make them true.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
You agree that that's what's fair, but you want what is unfair. You prefer what's not fair, what's tilted greatly towards Bob.

I do think favoring Bob and favoring men at the expense of women is a serious problem, fundamentally.

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
There is a difference between "falls within the range of what is fair" and "what I believe is exactly fair for this exact case".

And I'm sure what I think is exactly fair for you us unfair on the lenient side. That doesn't mean all that stuff you said about what you think I believe though.

Please explain to me how my punishment is "favoring men at the expense of women".

ETA: There is also a major consideration here that we will simply not be able to factor in. What Olivia wants.

A. Olivia wants Bob prosecuted to the full extent of the law, the maximum sentence for the most serious charges.

B. Olivia wants Bob prosecuted for a lessor charge, with appropriate sentence considering Bob wished her no harm.

C. Olivia wants an apology and nothing more to do with Bob.

There are a myriad of things that Olivia might want, and we can't really discuss it as I am comfortable setting up the scenario, I'm very uncomfortable guessing how it would be responded to by the victim.

[ June 10, 2011, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
What is the upside of being jailed? The likelihood that Bob will be raped in turn? You want him to be punished right? You want Bob to suffer?
Well, as for me, I don't view the criminal justice system as you seem to. (And yes, I say 'as you seem to' because you've repeatedly said things like wishing the death penalty for a variety of crimes, despising criminals, etc. Please don't tell me I'm telling you what your beliefs are when I say that.) I don't view it as an instrument of vengeance for society and victims.

Two of the most important goals of the criminal justice system are to protect society and to help prevent future crime. Jail time does this in two ways: one, it isolates the criminal (or in this case, 'sexual miscreant') from society, protecting society from him. It also sends a strong message that men are not permitted to just assume that if a woman is drunk and if she's made out with you that she's opted into sex. It sends the message, "Don't have sex with severely intoxicated women when you don't know you've got their consent."

And yes, we'll tell men and women, "This is what 'know' means." Not what they think they know, but what they actually know. People 'know' all kinds of stupid crap. How many people still 'know' that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were directly linked, just as an easy example? As a society we're perfectly comfortable telling people, "This is the way it is, regardless of what you consider your intent to be," for other things-such as drunk driving.

quote:
It should be noted that 100 hours of therapy is not cheap, likely to be around $10,000.
It hardly matters if it's cheap or not. She was raped. She is owed help with mental health recovery. If it cost $1,000,000 it wouldn't be unfair to expect Bob to help her get past the effects of the crime he committed.

quote:
You can think what you like about my beliefs, you can say what you like about my beliefs, but that doesn't make them true.
The truth is that while Katharina's anger was misplaced in more than a few places (I don't think you actually prefer the safety of men to the prevention of rape), you're all over the place on this matter. For example, even here-you say that you want community service, probation, payment of therapy. And then when you're criticized for that being too lenient, you hold up as an example a higher range of punishments and say, "See? I don't think what you say I think."

We're not just guessing, you're either changing your mind frequently or you're just communicating badly about a few issues. For example, in the initial scenario you posed, over and over again you've gone out of your way to explain that first what Bob did wasn't so bad in and of itself, and then eventually that what he did was bad, but he's still a perfectly OK guy, and it's important we don't punish him too harshly.

Then strange variations on fair and unfair, harsh and not harsh, etc. Given our history I expect you'll just disregard these observations, or possibly even get angry or tell me to bite you. *shrug* I can't do anything about that. But there's a reason you're having inconsistencies pointed out to you over and over again, and it's not because most other people are dishonest about what you believe.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Please explain to me how my punishment is "favoring men at the expense of women".
Bob raped a woman. For this, there is no jail time, it's not even to be considered a felony. It should be remembered, in your repeated statements, that they both had a hand in her getting raped-not just Bob. Bob didn't know he was raping her, and that should be taken into account-of course not changing the fact that he did rape her.

Overall, you're favoring Bob in this situation at her expense simply because his intent is of substantially greater weight in your outlook than the crime that was actually committed at the most basic level: rape. This carries deeply troubling implications for other rapes and sexual crimes as well: that what the man intends should be considered more important to determining sentence than what actually happened.

"I didn't mean to-no, listen, I really didn't mean to!" doesn't change what was actually done. It may, however, mean that the intent was not as bad as it sometimes is in other cases. But to boil it down another way...

You want a rape to be punished as a misdemeanor. It's pretty straightforward.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
To be fair, Stone_Wolf is getting a lot of new information and working on seeing a perspective that is new to him. I think a bit of flailing about is reasonable for someone processing new stuff.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
I do too, actually. There's a reason I'm not throwing around the 'picable' word.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
(And yes, I say 'as you seem to' because you've repeatedly said things like wishing the death penalty for a variety of crimes, despising criminals, etc. Please don't tell me I'm telling you what your beliefs are when I say that.)
I'm still reading, but I wanted to say something about this real quick...

You can say what I "seem" to be thinking all day long and I won't mind. I only mind when you tell me what I'm thinking, especially when it directly goes against what I say I'm thinking.

Speculation is acceptable. Suggestion is acceptable (perhaps you believe this?), refuting is not acceptable.

Back to reading the rest of the post.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
It becomes less unacceptable, in my opinion, if/when one (anyone, not just you) has said something in the past that specifically contradicts things.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dobbie
Member
Member # 3881

 - posted      Profile for Dobbie           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:
(And yes, I say 'as you seem to' because you've repeatedly said things like wishing the death penalty for a variety of crimes, despising criminals, etc. Please don't tell me I'm telling you what your beliefs are when I say that.)
I'm still reading, but I wanted to say something about this real quick...

You can say what I "seem" to be thinking all day long and I won't mind. I only mind when you tell me what I'm thinking, especially when it directly goes against what I say I'm thinking.

Speculation is acceptable. Suggestion is acceptable (perhaps you believe this?), refuting is not acceptable.

Back to reading the rest of the post.

You don't really mean that.
Posts: 1794 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
We're not just guessing, you're either changing your mind frequently or you're just communicating badly about a few issues.
There have been a few issues I changed my mind about...one being that Olivia was indeed raped. But that was a very clear reversal with an understanding that I still do not hold Bob as a rapist. About possibly communicating badly...I have no doubt in my mind that there have been substantial miscommunication during this discussion, but I feel that a lot was from people assuming much about what I said and not based upon what I have specifically said.

I am happy to clear up any miscommunications that pop up.

quote:
And then when you're criticized for that being too lenient, you hold up as an example a higher range of punishments and say, "See? I don't think what you say I think."
Please reiterate, I do not follow.

quote:
You want a rape to be punished as a misdemeanor. It's pretty straightforward.
This is me wanting all crimes to be considered in an of themselves and the punishment to fit the crime. You can strawman my feelings about one specific case (one which is intentionally in a grey area and on the fringe of reality) into a world view about men's and women's rights (although in the post above you say you don't think this is what I think), but it will not be helpful nor fair.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Please reiterate, I do not follow.
Katharina objected to what she felt was a too-lenient idea of how Bob should be sentenced, an idea you were quite specific about. You rejected her criticism, and claimed to be misrepresented by her, and as evidence of that you showed what is the max for Class C felonies-but you wanted it to be treated as a misdemeanor.

quote:
This is me wanting all crimes to be considered in an of themselves and the punishment to fit the crime. You can strawman my feelings about one specific case (one which is intentionally in a grey area and on the fringe of reality) into a world view about men's and women's rights (although in the post above you say you don't think this is what I think), but it will not be helpful nor fair.
It's hardly strawmanning. You can make accusations of dishonesty all you like, though. However, given that this crime is very closely related to men and women's rights, there is some connection. And in this situation, you're not just talking about Bob-that scenario you posed was far from unlikely.

Right now your worldview as expressed is pretty strange when it comes to rape. When we're talking about 'real' rape (the kind that is actually heinous and not just a 'misunderstanding'), well, hardly any punishment or even explicit vengeance is too severe. Castration, death, execution by you personally.

Over on this other end we've got misdemeanor rape. No jail time, probation, community service, and payment for the therapy she will quite possibly need ought to be considered part of Bob's punishment, rather than some measure of setting things to rights. If one of your kids steals a cookie from the cookie jar, addressing that will probably start at 'one less cookie in the future', rather than being considered a burden on your kid for being down one future cookie.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Stone_Wolf, one more thing to take into consideration that is a problem with intent is that rape is already excruciatingly difficult to prove. As the links people have posted show, already rapists are getting off with a slap on the wrist. If all a rapist needs to do is show he has had a couple of drinks, he is home free.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
You guys keep saying "probation, community service and paying for therapy" is missing a major part of what I suggested...a ten year suspended sentence...I have said as much very clearly in the past. Also, I posted what kat wrote about C felonies to show that they don't always carry jail time, by her own words.

It is strawmanning when I say here is what I think is fair for this case and she says, "So all drunk first time rapers get a misdemeanor." And you say "You want a rape to be punished as a misdemeanor. It's pretty straightforward." Strawman.

What's hard to understand? Someone who grabs a stranger off the street and physically holds them down and rapes them should get life in prison (in reality) and if I had magical abilities and I knew they were guilty I would use my mind powers to pop their head like an overripe grape.

What's hard to understand about me always saying that I don't think Bob was guilty of rape? You guys think that it is appropriate to call it all rape, and I don't, and look at all the confusion which has happened...even to the point that you are putting your confusion because of your insistence on the semantic on me and my beliefs.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
Sure Boots, but how does "having a couple of drinks" have anything to do with what I've said...

Nevermind, I know, you guys think to the ends of the earth that I want to give him a lighter sentence because he was drunk and there is nothing on God's green earth that I can do to persuade you otherwise.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
No. That isn't it. What I am saying is that I think you are saying that Bob made a mistake due to being drunk. What I am saying is that in addition to the fact that lots of people who commit rape don't really mean to commit rape (my list of excuses) it makes the "mistake" defense more credible.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:

What's hard to understand about me always saying that I don't think Bob was guilty of rape? You guys think that it is appropriate to call it all rape, and I don't, and look at all the confusion which has happened...even to the point that you are putting your confusion because of your insistence on the semantic on me and my beliefs.

So now you don't think it was rape?

quote:
It is strawmanning when I say here is what I think is fair for this case and she says, "So all drunk first time rapers get a misdemeanor." And you say "You want a rape to be punished as a misdemeanor. It's pretty straightforward." Strawman.
That's not a strawman. That's a straightforward statement of your beliefs, as expressed by you. And I'll note again that for all you've gotten angry with me in the past, here you are accusing me directly of being dishonest. Even though I'm actually quoting you. You want a rape to be treated as a misdemeanor. That's a true statement. You've said so over and over again. That's what I said you said. Pointing that out isn't a strawman.

Here's some speculation: I think what is frustrating you is that when I say, "You want a rape to be treated as a misdemeanor," (those are your own words), well...there it's right out there in black and white. But to you, rape is this truly awful thing in which a man must intend to be physically violent, beating, or violate an uinconscious woman. I'm really just guessing there, though.

Bob was guilty of rape. He wasn't guilty of intentional rape, in the same way that if I shoot someone while out hunting because I don't practice safe hunting methods, I'm guilty of killing someone due to negligence, not first degree murder. You're persisting in viewing rape as a crime of intent.

It's not. That's been explained over and over. Intent matters, yes-and that's why Bob shouldn't get life in prison or prompt execution. But it doesn't change that she was raped.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
I'm sorry, but we have covered this ground so many times, and I could have sworn there was progress, but me shouting my side over and over, and you shouting your side over and over isn't a discussion. Everything I think and wanted to add to this particular thread I've said at least twice, often more like four or five times.

I accept we can not see eye to eye about a few small details, and that we agree on most of the is and should be.

Stick a fork in me I'm done.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
I think there is a disconnect between Olivia being raped (which I think that we all agree she was) and Bob committing rape (which SW, I think) believes requires intent.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I think there is a disconnect between Olivia being raped (which I think that we all agree she was) and Bob committing rape (which SW, I think) believes requires intent.
I thought that was it too-and then Stone_Wolf said that it wasn't rape.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
You guys keep saying "probation, community service and paying for therapy" is missing a major part of what I suggested...a ten year suspended sentence...I have said as much very clearly in the past.
I'm not clear what you see as the difference between "a ten year suspended sentence" and "probation". From wikipedia

quote:
A suspended sentence is a legal term for a judge's delaying of a defendant's serving of a sentence after they have been found guilty, in order to allow the defendant to perform a period of probation. If the defendant does not break the law during that period, and fulfils the particular conditions of the probation, the judge usually throws out the sentence.
quote:
Probation literally means testing of behaviour or abilities. In a legal sense, an offender on probation is ordered to follow certain conditions set forth by the court, often under the supervision of a probation officer. Offenders are ordinarily required to refrain from subsequent possession of firearms, and may be ordered to remain employed, abide to a curfew, live at a directed place, obey the orders of the probation officer, or not leave the jurisdiction. The probationer may be ordered as well to refrain from contact with the victims (such as a former partner in a domestic violence case), with potential victims of similar crimes (such as minors, if the instant offense involves child sexual abuse), or with known criminals, particularly co-defendants. Additional restrictions can include: a ban on possession or use of alcoholic beverages, even if alcohol was not involved in the original criminal charges. Offenders on probation might be fitted with an electronic tag (or monitor), which signals their whereabouts to officials. Also, offenders have been ordered to submit to repeated alcohol/drug testing or to participate in alcohol/drug or psychological treatment, or to perform community service work.
In my mind, probation is normally only granted after some portion of the prison sentence has been served and the period of probation typically matches that of the original sentence.

What you call a "ten year suspended sentence" is a form of probation and a rather lenient form of probation in that Bob would not spend any actual time in prison and if he behaves himself will likely be let off with much less than 10 years of probation.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
It appears my last post was not clear...

I have put considerable time and effort into this particular discussion, and find that quite a bit of my attempts to communicate clearly have failed, be that my own fault or that of the reader's. I find I no longer wish to contribute to this thread, instead using my time on more fruitful endeavors.

I am sorry we could not in the end understand where the other side was coming from, but alas, it is time to move on. Considering that many of my beliefs were in the vast minority, my absence should make this thread run quite a bit smoother.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Smooth is boring.

Anyway, I hope that you did get some new information to think about.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
Yes, thank you.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 14 pages: 1  2  3  4  ...  12  13  14   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2