A topic for discussion?

[DVS]

I've just started this thread for some conversation. I'm not trying to say anything has been done correctly or incorrectly by a judge. But, when you think about it, don't most crimes start with a thought? And while we in BDSM have our share of devious thoughts, we do our best to explain to those who don't understand that the whole thing is between consenting adults.

Jump to thoughts about murder, and other disgusting things that the guy in the article I've linked was thinking. If you see it the way I do, he was having thoughts about this act he seemed to day dream about, but what he was thinking about wasn't just kidnapping. He was thinking about taking it the next step and killing people, in a rather disgusting way, and eating their flesh.


His lawyer had argued he was only engaged in online role-playing fantasy on fetish websites. But, he also used the internet to research the best rope for tying up people and to learn which chemicals render a person unconscious. And he supposedly visited a street that was home to a woman he had agreed to kidnap.

Going to the extent of searching for and then visiting someone's address, Googling what rope works best and how to drug someone seems to me more than just role play on a fetish site. Maybe I'm wrong?

Getting back to the way we are in BDSM, kidnapping someone isn't out of the question. But, it doesn't seem to me that any of this was being consented to by the other person involved. Now, that could be OK, as long as he doesn't take it any further. But, what he was said to be thinking about next was to kill and eat women he had kidnapped. That's going a bit beyond just tying them up for some BDSM style sexual torment. Killing is pretty final. Should we allow people who have such vivid thoughts about this free out on the street?

There was no crime committed, the judge said. It was all in his mind. But, there is a similar issue going on in the U.S. about guns and mentally disturbed people killing people, sometimes, just because it was in their thoughts to do it. Do we allow someone who is mentally ill with violent tendencies to just walk free among us, just because they haven't committed any crimes?

There is a scale in crime. Stealing a car, burglarizing a home, these are crimes against property, and other than the property being taken, nobody is really harmed any more than that. But, when you go into the crimes against people...assault and battery, sexual abuse and rape and on to murder, those are more harmful than property being stolen. A life is forever changed, and in some cases, lost.

I'm no doctor, but to me, this guy seems at least mentally misguided. If I were the judge, I'd at least have the guy see a doctor about his unusual thoughts. I know it's a fine line to cross, but heavily researched and non-consequential stalking is bad enough. But, if he were to act on his other thoughts, someone would have been killed...and eaten.

Do we wait until someone commits such a crime, before we act? How would you like to be the victim that finally put the guy away, because he acted on his thoughts? If that's what it takes before we can act, there is something wrong with society.

OK, I don't know what would be the thing to do, here. I'm just thinking out loud. But, just like the doctor who has to keep his connection with his patient private, there still should be a point when he has to know the person's thoughts could become more than thoughts. And when that happens, people die. That's the argument with many of the recent mass killings in this country. It's always been someone who had misguided thoughts of some kind and decided to act upon them.

Is this guy going to be the same? Are we going to eventually catch this guy after he's cooked some woman and eaten her? And do we have no choice but to wait until this happens? If we decide to stop it before it can happen, maybe we've saved a life. But we've also infringed on the guy's right to think such thoughts up until the moment he acts them out.


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-28113850

 

[bhndblueyes88]

It's a pretty hefty subject, isn't it?

IMO, when people like this (with very damaging impulses that they seem to be preparing to act upon) appear, they should attend a psychiatrist/s for thorough sessions to evaluate their mental state and danger to society. If the psychiatrist/s deems them safe, then release without further impediment would be warranted. Depending on how careful one wanted to be, probation-type period may be appropriate, but that'd probably entail policing on one's fetishes and sexual life. Obviously that's a pretty rocky road to start on! I think the best balance between individual right and societal protection (if one chose to try to strike it instead of choose either way) would be to encourage ongoing therapy to help the person control any urge (if present) to actually do these things, but not police their behavior. Then if it came up again, and they hadn't really pursued any recommended therapy...well that would look badly, in any case.

If psychiatrist/s deemed the person unsafe for entrance to society, I can see that become a nightmare. How do we maintain someone away from from society without actually greatly impeding on their quality of life(since, remember, they didn't actually commit a crime)? Would you be looking at a scrutinized probation? for life? Do you put them on a sex offender list, despite the fact they didn't do anything? None of that sounds particularly fair when someone hasn't hurt anyone. I would certainly hope that we've moved forward enough as a species not to lock someone up for divergent thoughts.

On top of everything, ALL of this would cost taxpayer money, which is it's own disaster!!

All in all, I don' think there will be ANY good/right/easy/just answer :[

 

[Collar_N_Cuffs]

This is incredibly complex...

Thank god there is no such thing as a thought crime, or I would not be so comfortably ensconced as I write this. However, once a person begins moving down the path towards reality, it becomes a slippery slope of no return.

How many here have researched any of our myriad BDSM topics and never acted on them? But what of those that went out and purchased the handcuffs, or the rope, or the latex cat suit, etc. There is usually no turning back at that point, those people are going to act.

Therefore I understand the judge's decision. The man in question researched the rope, but he did not buy the rope. OR... they could not prove he bought the rope. On the other hand, he did go check out the woman's street that she lived on, and that one step is just too close to the precipice in my opinion.

The fact that he was stopped by the criminal proceedings may be enough to keep this man in check. Had he not been stopped, I have little doubt that he would have acted.

And yes, there are untold parallels with what goes on in our lives, and around here. And no, there are no simple answers...

 

[Endless_Night]

This whole concept is such a slippery slope. Could any of us afford to stand in judgement regarding our thoughts? I certainly couldn't, and, any way you slice it, thought is not action.

This topic brings to mind the movie, Minority Report.

 

[IrisAlthea]

I don't think thoughts and research are things that should be considered criminal. That's a slippery slope a lot of us would be sliding down in no time.
There is a point though where you start preparing, by actually buying the gear and hanging out in front of the bank/ peoples house or something like that to map peoples schedule. Then it becomes preparations and I think that's the point where you can intervene.

At least here there is such a thing as preparation for (insert crime here), which makes it possible to deal with the person hanging out underneath someones bedroom window, wearing a skimask and with duct tape in the pockets.
Even in those cases they have to have passed some point of no return. If fantasising about killing your ex and owning duct tape would be illegal, prisons would be filling up really fast.

And yes, Minority Report comes to mind, as does Orwell's 1984, Huxley's Brave New World and from my country, Boye's Kallocain (the book named after a truth serum).

 

[LWulf]

I bought a $100 paddle 12 years ago. Never used it.

Intent doesn't mean complicity.

 

[Collar_N_Cuffs]

I bought a $100 paddle 12 years ago. Never used it.

Intent doesn't mean complicity.

Point taken. I have a few, very few things I have bought but never used. But why did you buy the paddle in the first place? Did you ever use a paddle? If it was the only paddle you owned, would you have used it? Not sure if this is the best example. I still say that moving fantasy into real life actions, such as making purchases and going to recon a location, signal imminent other, real life actions, for the most part.

 

[All_4_Love]

The moment that he crossed the line and went to her house was the moment that he became guilty of more than unconventional thoughts. I think the judge ruled wrong in this case.

If someone is caught with a certain amount of drugs in their possession, they will more than likely be charged, and possibly convicted, for “intent to distribute.” Technically, they aren’t guilty of distribution, only possession, but in the eyes of the law, they are. It is all based on assumption that there was intent.

Surely, the judge could have applied this type of logic to this case. He went to her house. He was not just fantasizing at that point. We will never know the reason why he didn’t act further….THAT time, but it’s very likely that there would have been, and could still be, another time when he will.

He did act on his thoughts, just not to the point that there was any physical harm done to the victim, yet still psychological, I am sure. There seems to have still been a crime committed. Perhaps, stalking?

 

[Endless_Night]

The moment that he crossed the line and went to her house was the moment that he became guilty of more than unconventional thoughts. I think the judge ruled wrong in this case.

I have to disagree. Going to her house and checking out the neighborhood is just an extension of his fantasy. Now if he'd trespassed, or broken stalking laws, or otherwise harassed her, the situation would be different.

 

[StrayKat]

This is incredibly complex...

Very complex. I dont think I could decide what to conclude even just for my personal inner discussion. The fact is that person is outed, he lost his job apparently? and his name is all over internet. It is enough punishment for something he never did.

On the other side I believe everyone with more extreme kinks should keep those in check in some way. I know I dont let myself dig too deep in things I believe other people may find disturbing. What again depends on how aware the person is that something may be off and how willing are they to bury that. He went a bit too far even for a roleplay, in my opinion, but probably not in his..... so it really is a tough subject and not one with simple, if any solution.

 

[NaughtynSweet]

I have to disagree. Going to her house and checking out the neighborhood is just an extension of his fantasy. Now if he'd trespassed, or broken stalking laws, or otherwise harassed her, the situation would be different.

Legally, I agree that the judge made the correct call from a precedence standpoint..just driving by is not a sufficient act to cross over into an attempt.

Hopefully this gentleman is getting some much needed mental health therapy - although I can't imagine spending 18 months in prison, then told he did nothing wrong will have done much to rehabilitate him.

 

[All_4_Love]

I understand that it’s the judge’s responsibility to make sure the law is effectively put into place here by not falsely holding someone accountable for a crime not genuinely committed, but part of his responsibility is also taking the victim and/or possible future victims into account.

Does a drunk driver get to keep on driving drunk until he/she kills someone? Does the person who gets caught in a sting for soliciting sex from an underage child get to walk free because the “victim” was really a cop?

This man was a cop! He was on the internet not only discussing killing, cooking, and eating other women, but also his own wife! That hardly qualifies as a kink!

He acted on his thoughts. He went to this woman’s home, for goodness’ sake.

He should have been held accountable for his actions. In my opinion, the judge failed in this case, big time.

 

[LWulf]

Point taken. I have a few, very few things I have bought but never used. But why did you buy the paddle in the first place? Did you ever use a paddle? If it was the only paddle you owned, would you have used it? Not sure if this is the best example. I still say that moving fantasy into real life actions, such as making purchases and going to recon a location, signal imminent other, real life actions, for the most part.

It was my first instrument. I bought it at the suggestion of a friend who made them. It was cocobolo wood or something similar. She promised it wouldn't break skin and it was exceedingly finely sanded and smoothed. I had been having problems with hand spanking, where my hand would black and blue clear through to the other side. I always swore off instruments, but realized maybe it was time and probably for the best to use something besides my hand. I didn't have too many chances to use it since purchasing it, but the times I did, I didn't use it. Too skeerd I might do something wrong and cause more harm than intended.

No, not a perfect example, but for simply the idea of purchasing and not using something...
My step father purchased a shotgun. He never intended to kill anybody, and never shot it in all his life. Is that a better example?

 

[All_4_Love]

My step father purchased a shotgun. He never intended to kill anybody, and never shot it in all his life. Is that a better example?

My thoughts are, no, it's not a better example. The intent behind the purchase of the shotgun, more than likely without knowing your stepfather, was to protect himself and his family.

I'm a concealed handgun carrier. My intent is to protect myself. I will, hopefully, never have to shoot my gun and kill another person; however, my intent would still be to protect myself if that was the case.

Not the same, by a long shot (no pun intended).

I'm pretty amped about this case. That's why I keep saying the intent. Any action has an intent. It's never just the action. It's the intent behind the action. We are always still free to entertain any thoughts that we wish to; no harm, no foul.

 

[LWulf]

My thoughts are, no, it's not a better example. The intent behind the purchase of the shotgun, more than likely without knowing your stepfather, was to protect himself and his family.

You are missing my point. What you SAY you are going to do with your gun, doesn't mean you can PROVE that's all you intended to use it for. Does your purchasing a gun mean when you bought it, you intended to immediately kill someone?
That's spurious logic to say you had malicious intent.

This is why you are innocent until PROVEN guilty.

He abused his position as an officer to look someone up, no argument. When I worked at the power company, we used to look up friends and neighbors in the system to look at their credit scores. That's something that is freely available to people who work at the power company. Likewise I used to look up old friends in any customer data base when one was available at other jobs. That too is abuse of power or abuse of position. If found out, I could have lost my job too, or at least gotten a stiff reprimand.

I knew a sheriff who, anytime she met a guy she would look him up in their database to see if there was any priors etc. That too is abuse of position. Who do you think doesn't really do that? You could say she was doing it for "defensive" purposes, but no, she was using it for personal use, which is against the rules.

Without a criminal act, it's all circumstantial.

 

[KoPilot]

As grotesque as I find this man, I find myself siding with the judge. It was disturbing that he was EVER part of law enforcement, but I'm glad he's been "sacked", as the article put it, I'm glad he's been named, and I'm glad he spent time in jail for his unauthorized use of the database.

I'm pretty much in agreement with Endless_Night. If he'd done anything more than simply go near his fantasy victim's house--if he'd knocked on the door, peered inside, trespassed, asked neighbors about her--then personally that would put it over the line for me.

If someone is caught with a certain amount of drugs in their possession, they will more than likely be charged, and possibly convicted, for “intent to distribute.” Technically, they aren’t guilty of distribution, only possession, but in the eyes of the law, they are. It is all based on assumption that there was intent.

Intent laws are really ugly and oftentimes are just used to scare people more than prevent crime. In a lot of areas carrying more than one condom on you at a time means you "intend" to engage in prostitution. Which is bollocks, IMO.

 

[All_4_Love]

Without a criminal act, it's all circumstantial.

So, you don't believe that with all of the gray areas in our justice system that the judge could have felt that a crime had been committed?

I only say that based on the fact that he could clearly be placed at what could have potentially been the scene of a crime. That's the part that gets me. That he went to where she lived.

I am way off topic here, I know. The OP was originally what could be done about something like this where no physical harm was actually committed. Sadly, I can't say. I don't think there is any way that we can predict what someone will do, not even to the trained professional.

Thankfully, this man's potential victims are aware of the truth. There has probably been a few lives saved.

 

[Collar_N_Cuffs]

It was my first instrument. I bought it at the suggestion of a friend who made them. It was cocobolo wood or something similar. She promised it wouldn't break skin and it was exceedingly finely sanded and smoothed.


My step father purchased a shotgun. He never intended to kill anybody, and never shot it in all his life. Is that a better example?

The paddle sounds like a beauty
As to your stepfather, why, you may never know how close you came...
Im not sure the shotgun is a better example though. In the case cited by DVS, we had both on line activity and real life activity, so we are able to draw some conclusions, even if they are faulty. In the case of your stepfather, we have only his real life activity, and no idea where he was framing his thoughts up. So no, I think that is still apples and oranges.

 

[BiBunny]

Without a criminal act, it's all circumstantial.

^^^^ That.

As grotesque as I find this man, I find myself siding with the judge. It was disturbing that he was EVER part of law enforcement, but I'm glad he's been "sacked", as the article put it, I'm glad he's been named, and I'm glad he spent time in jail for his unauthorized use of the database.

I'm pretty much in agreement with Endless_Night. If he'd done anything more than simply go near his fantasy victim's house--if he'd knocked on the door, peered inside, trespassed, asked neighbors about her--then personally that would put it over the line for me.

Intent laws are really ugly and oftentimes are just used to scare people more than prevent crime. In a lot of areas carrying more than one condom on you at a time means you "intend" to engage in prostitution. Which is bollocks, IMO.

And also that. ^^^^


With all the research I have to do online for my various jobs--and for my fiction writing--I shudder to think what would happen should my Google history ever be used as evidence against me.

 

[Collar_N_Cuffs]

With all the research I have to do online for my various jobs--and for my fiction writing--I shudder to think what would happen should my Google history ever be used as evidence against me.

BiBunny is making a great point here, and one that I had not considered. Researching the best rope on the internet, and then one step further of purchasing that rope (or whatever it may be) so she can better write about it, and she is still not guilty of anything at all, even though she has taken both on line and real life action. I don't know... my gut tells me that BiBunny is innocent and Cannibal Cop is guilty This is a conundrum...

 

[Endless_Night]

With all the research I have to do online for my various jobs--and for my fiction writing--I shudder to think what would happen should my Google history ever be used as evidence against me.

This^^^^

When I think of all the stuff I've googled just since joining Lit!!!! Something as simple as trying to look up some of the regulars' more offbeat kinks (no offense anybody, just educating myself ) has taken me to some, well, unusual places.

Add into that my own interest in consensual nonconsent and I shudder to think what might happen if the powers that be wanted to sift through my history.

 

[All_4_Love]

You are missing my point. What you SAY you are going to do with your gun, doesn't mean you can PROVE that's all you intended to use it for. Does your purchasing a gun mean when you bought it, you intended to immediately kill someone?

I get your point.

All I'm saying is that when I purchased my gun, I did so for one reason, and that is to kill someone. I'm not a gun collector. I hate guns. I'm absolutely terrified of them.

So, if I kill someone with my gun, then my intent has to be taken into consideration to prove my innocence. I feel like that's what the judge should have done in this case.

This man wasn't just standing on this woman's street. Thoughts are thoughts, yes. But they are also energy. Once we focus on a thought so much, at some point it will become our reality. This man's thoughts were gaining momentum. Actions were taken.

*shrugs*

Maybe it's a good thing I'm not a judge.

I'm usually all for mercy over justice, but not when it comes to harming another living being.

 

[All_4_Love]

I don't know... my gut tells me that BiBunny is innocent and Cannibal Cop is guilty This is a conundrum...

lol...

Too cute, CNC.

 

[IrisAlthea]

So, you don't believe that with all of the gray areas in our justice system that the judge could have felt that a crime had been committed?

I only say that based on the fact that he could clearly be placed at what could have potentially been the scene of a crime. That's the part that gets me. That he went to where she lived.

I am way off topic here, I know. The OP was originally what could be done about something like this where no physical harm was actually committed. Sadly, I can't say. I don't think there is any way that we can predict what someone will do, not even to the trained professional.

Thankfully, this man's potential victims are aware of the truth. There has probably been a few lives saved.

We certainly don't want those grey areas used against us, do we?
Any place could potentially be a scene of crime and as I understand it from the article, he wasn't hanging around, scouting the place out.

It's not that this seems to be a nice man, it's the fact that we don't want judges to rule, based on their thoughts about who is nice.

 

[LWulf]

The more judges convict in grey areas of the law, is the more appeals judges rule in favor of the defendant.

Judges that have a spotty record of having their judgements often overruled, may result in the impeachment of their position.