Katie's Revenge - child molester gets tagged.
- Thread starter lucky-E-leven
- Start date
SEVERUSMAX
Benevolent Master
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2004
- Posts
- 28,995
I understand Jenny's desire for maintaining proper law and order. However, prison is, well, PRISON! It's a place for rough and evil folk, intended to house those not fit for society (or supposedly not fit for society- I feel awful for those merely incarcerated over possessing pot or other consensual crimes). Like it or not, it is a subculture with its own rules and customs. If you will, prison, too, has a mos maiorum. That system of unofficial, unwritten rules deems crimes against children the most despicable of all. Child molesters are basically assigned to the 9th Circle of Hell, as it were (IMO, prison is the only actual Hell in existence). That just happens.
But I understand how she feels about the law and order. If this happened outside of prison, I would say, hard as it was to accept, those men should be punished for their assault on him. However, once you've gone to prison, what more can the authorities do to you? It's the fellow inmates you have to worry about it.
As for my idea, yes, it's founded in retribution. I hold with Aristotle that absolute justice is superior to mere social expediency. That's my take on it. A legal penalty more closely matching the crime would not only deter, but properly punish. Who would dare to rape or molest, if they knew that they would be sexually assaulted themselves for sure? And I don't mean in prison, where they might still prevent if they were tough enough. I mean, if it was a certainty? I know that it sounds harsh, but it's mathematically precise justice, which is what I prefer.
But I understand how she feels about the law and order. If this happened outside of prison, I would say, hard as it was to accept, those men should be punished for their assault on him. However, once you've gone to prison, what more can the authorities do to you? It's the fellow inmates you have to worry about it.
As for my idea, yes, it's founded in retribution. I hold with Aristotle that absolute justice is superior to mere social expediency. That's my take on it. A legal penalty more closely matching the crime would not only deter, but properly punish. Who would dare to rape or molest, if they knew that they would be sexually assaulted themselves for sure? And I don't mean in prison, where they might still prevent if they were tough enough. I mean, if it was a certainty? I know that it sounds harsh, but it's mathematically precise justice, which is what I prefer.
oggbashan
Dying Truth seeker
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2002
- Posts
- 56,017
Deprivation of liberty
A sentence to a term in prison is supposed to be punishment by deprivation of liberty and possibly a chance for reform.
It is not meant to be a sentence to be brutalised by other prisoners.
The lawlessness in US jails, and to a lesser extent in UK jails, should be abhorred. There is no way that prisoners can be rehabilitated into society if they are abused by other prisoners while the guards ignore what is happening. Prisoners learn that some people can get away with anything if they are violent enough.
It was no surprise to me that things went wrong with prisoners taken by the US in Iraq - the US applied the same rules as apply in US prisons - to let the other inmates and low level guards do what they like to the prisoners. That is NOT how it should be. Prisoners have human rights just as anyone else has. Those rights should include the right not to be killed, injured or abused.
The prison system needs reform so that prisoners can learn to live in a normal society and not commit further crimes. The recidivist rate is far too high and shows that imprisonment only works while the convicted criminal is inside.
There must be a better way.
Og
A sentence to a term in prison is supposed to be punishment by deprivation of liberty and possibly a chance for reform.
It is not meant to be a sentence to be brutalised by other prisoners.
The lawlessness in US jails, and to a lesser extent in UK jails, should be abhorred. There is no way that prisoners can be rehabilitated into society if they are abused by other prisoners while the guards ignore what is happening. Prisoners learn that some people can get away with anything if they are violent enough.
It was no surprise to me that things went wrong with prisoners taken by the US in Iraq - the US applied the same rules as apply in US prisons - to let the other inmates and low level guards do what they like to the prisoners. That is NOT how it should be. Prisoners have human rights just as anyone else has. Those rights should include the right not to be killed, injured or abused.
The prison system needs reform so that prisoners can learn to live in a normal society and not commit further crimes. The recidivist rate is far too high and shows that imprisonment only works while the convicted criminal is inside.
There must be a better way.
Og
Zeb_Carter
.-- - ..-.
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2006
- Posts
- 20,584
Having read the entire thread thus far I have several things to say on the three main subjects brought up.
1) Child Molesters/Abusers
They are the lowest form of life there is. They don't deserve to live among the decent people in our world.
2) Prison System
Our prison system has not lived up to the expectations that were first envisioned. They are currently a training ground for criminals. A place where they can learn the latest scams, cons and techniques of their trade. The criminals all rationalize their crimes and believe they are above the law.
3) Death Penalty
Although, as some have mentioned, it is no longer a deterrent it does provide us with a service. That service is, removing the offender from our society, permanently. A subtext to this is, could I take the life of another for the purpose of removing them from society for some wrong they have committed against society? Yes, of this I have no doubt. Time and time again studies have, from either side of the pew, been done on recidivism showing that criminals, for the most part, are not looking to be rehabilitated and leave prison to start their life of crime again.
I am not saying that all criminals should be put to death, just those that the law provides for. Although, I do believe, child molesters and rapists should be added to the list.
1) Child Molesters/Abusers
They are the lowest form of life there is. They don't deserve to live among the decent people in our world.
2) Prison System
Our prison system has not lived up to the expectations that were first envisioned. They are currently a training ground for criminals. A place where they can learn the latest scams, cons and techniques of their trade. The criminals all rationalize their crimes and believe they are above the law.
3) Death Penalty
Although, as some have mentioned, it is no longer a deterrent it does provide us with a service. That service is, removing the offender from our society, permanently. A subtext to this is, could I take the life of another for the purpose of removing them from society for some wrong they have committed against society? Yes, of this I have no doubt. Time and time again studies have, from either side of the pew, been done on recidivism showing that criminals, for the most part, are not looking to be rehabilitated and leave prison to start their life of crime again.
I am not saying that all criminals should be put to death, just those that the law provides for. Although, I do believe, child molesters and rapists should be added to the list.
G
Guest
Guest
certain offenders can not be rehibilitated. this has been proven over and over again. im not arguing that the purpose of jail should be to reform...if it can be done. sadly, i don't believe that this purpose is met most of the time. so, i concur with your thoughts.oggbashan said:
it's easy to say there must be a better way but until we can come up with that way, we have to rely on what we know. (or think we know)
i have silly thoughts on this...silly dreams of sending people who can not be reformed to total isolation. however, how will you know if someone can not be reformed, what measure is there?
i keep thinking back to the days of torture... the iron maiden, ect. how many people were tortured and then returned to a previous indescreation? harsh, maybe but still something i wonder about. what about the serial killers, serial rapists...this kind of 'illness' can not be reformed and probably torture wouldn't fix that either. so, isolation seems the best way, to me.
im rambling now. sorry.
elfin_odalisque
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2004
- Posts
- 10,056
oggbashan said:
I agree totally.
oggbashan
Dying Truth seeker
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2002
- Posts
- 56,017
Mental illness/Personality disorder
Too many people in UK jails are mentally ill.
They may be mentally ill AND criminal. They may be mentally ill and made into criminals because they were not effectively treated for their mental illness.
Those with personality disorders are worst off. By definition they are untreatable/uncurable. Their disorder might be controlled or contained but they will always be a threat to themselves and others. How should they be dealt with? At the moment they can only be sent to jail after they have committed a crime. They cannot be sent to a mental hospital, not even a secure one, if places existed for them, because they are NOT 'ill'.
If we had places where people who are a threat to the community could be confined without punishment then those places would be appropriate for the mentally ill and those with personality disorders, but we don't have such places because of cost. Until such places exist there are people walking the streets of the UK who are living timebombs just waiting to explode and kill or injure someone. Once they have exploded - THEN they can go to prison.
Prevention is better than retribution.
Og
Too many people in UK jails are mentally ill.
They may be mentally ill AND criminal. They may be mentally ill and made into criminals because they were not effectively treated for their mental illness.
Those with personality disorders are worst off. By definition they are untreatable/uncurable. Their disorder might be controlled or contained but they will always be a threat to themselves and others. How should they be dealt with? At the moment they can only be sent to jail after they have committed a crime. They cannot be sent to a mental hospital, not even a secure one, if places existed for them, because they are NOT 'ill'.
If we had places where people who are a threat to the community could be confined without punishment then those places would be appropriate for the mentally ill and those with personality disorders, but we don't have such places because of cost. Until such places exist there are people walking the streets of the UK who are living timebombs just waiting to explode and kill or injure someone. Once they have exploded - THEN they can go to prison.
Prevention is better than retribution.
Og
G
Guest
Guest
its a lovely sentiment and one i wish could be seen to fruition.oggbashan said:
i believe the ones that scare me the most are the ones we don't see. the ones that are 'timebombs' but are outwardly 'normal' citizens.
ok, so this leads to 'how can we produce a utopia?' ect.
you never know till you know syndrom.
oggbashan
Dying Truth seeker
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2002
- Posts
- 56,017
vella_ms said:
I am not advocating a utopia. The dangerously mentally ill and those with dangerous personality disorders are KNOWN to the authorities. There is just no safe way to house them. There used to be but the secure mental hospitals were closed because 'Care in the community' is better for most mentally ill people. That is true but the fallacies were that it isn't cheaper and it can't cope with the potentially violent.
One of the dangerous ones, over six feet tall and weighing over 220 lbs, used to visit my shop. One day, because he had argued with his social worker and felt angry he attacked one of my customers. I, and the customer, knew that he was mentally ill and therefore not responsible for his actions. Fortunately for all concerned the attacked customer was a professional karate instructor who was able to immobilise the mentally ill man until the police arrived. The mentally ill man was returned to the nearby hostel where he lived. No action could be taken against him because he was incapable of understanding that what he did was wrong. The social worker and his colleagues were not aware that their 'customer' had left the premises. Why should they be? The residents were free to come and go as they wanted. I couldn't claim for the damage to my premises nor could my customer claim for damage to his clothing because no 'criminal' act had been committed.
The system is mad.
Og
Jenny_Jackson
Psycho Bitch
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2006
- Posts
- 10,872
There are certain insanities/criminals who are incurable - Rapists, Serial Murderers, etc. Among these are certain child molestors, but not all.
The problem is separating those in society who are not only mentally defective in these catagories, but also who are likely to act on these defects. In other words, because the defect exists in a person does not mean that he will ever act out his defective cravings.
Prison, prison mental wards and so on for life is an option for those who do act commit the crimes. But there are still many more walking the streets who are either uncaught or not acting.
I still perfer a rule of law with respect to these people. Do you test everyone and weed out those with these cravings and incarcerate them even though they've done nothing wrong? That goes too far for me.
Unfortunately, someone, in the case of molestation, a child, has to be hurt or killed to define the crime for the courts. But what choice do we have? Incarceration by the Justice system deprives the individual of basic human rights. Without that defined action, do we have the right to deny those rights to anyone?
And once incarcerated, don't we as a society also have a responsibility to the inmate who we have placed in an environment where we have deprived him of all protections other than those we provide? I cannot sit back and say, "Gee. Tought Shit. He was a child molestor." That's bullshit. By incarcerating this person, we have taken on a legal duty to protect him. The guards and wardens at that prison should be held responsible along with the inmates who did the tatoo.
The problem is separating those in society who are not only mentally defective in these catagories, but also who are likely to act on these defects. In other words, because the defect exists in a person does not mean that he will ever act out his defective cravings.
Prison, prison mental wards and so on for life is an option for those who do act commit the crimes. But there are still many more walking the streets who are either uncaught or not acting.
I still perfer a rule of law with respect to these people. Do you test everyone and weed out those with these cravings and incarcerate them even though they've done nothing wrong? That goes too far for me.
Unfortunately, someone, in the case of molestation, a child, has to be hurt or killed to define the crime for the courts. But what choice do we have? Incarceration by the Justice system deprives the individual of basic human rights. Without that defined action, do we have the right to deny those rights to anyone?
And once incarcerated, don't we as a society also have a responsibility to the inmate who we have placed in an environment where we have deprived him of all protections other than those we provide? I cannot sit back and say, "Gee. Tought Shit. He was a child molestor." That's bullshit. By incarcerating this person, we have taken on a legal duty to protect him. The guards and wardens at that prison should be held responsible along with the inmates who did the tatoo.
S-Des
Comfortably Numb
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2005
- Posts
- 6,944
I agree JJ, but there is only so much people can do. In this case, it sounds like it might have been planned (if you don't believe some guards actually participate in crimes, you're fooling yourself). But in the majority of prison assaults, they just can't stop them until they've happened (much like in the outside world). Gangs are rampant in prison, and there are a lot of people who have to commit heinous acts to be accepted by their peers. Since you'll be living with these people for years (or even forever), there is nothing that will deter them from acts of violence.Jenny_Jackson said:
It's sad, but unless you hired a guard (with a gun) for every single inmate, there will always be violence that can't be prevented. I knew a guy who was in jail when we were younger. He was 19 and a thin, effeminate kid. He was arrested for stealing money from his girlfriend's father and given a short sentence. His story was that the girlfriend took the money and they went out to spend it together (she was 17 and the father hated him, so he pressed charges). He didn't make it out of the first month in prison before he was raped by several members of a gang. That is the reality of prison. I wish they had been able to protect him, because he was not a menace to society. But they couldn't watch him 24 hours a day.
That's why I said shit happens. I wasn't being flippant. When you are surrounded by dangerous men with nothing to lose, bad things are going to happen, no matter what anyone does to try to prevent it. It's why arguments like Sev's fall flat. It might make you feel good to say harsher punishments would deter crime, but they wouldn't. Good people do stupid things because they don't consider the consequences (no one wants to spend time in jail). Bad people will commit crimes even if they believe they probably won't get away with it. They are either so driven by their impulses that nothing would stop them, or they have such a fatalistic view of life, they don't care. They already know that things like that happen in prison, yet don't hesitate to commit the crimes.
Belegon
Still Kicking Around
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2003
- Posts
- 17,051
vella_ms said:
sweetheart...I have no judgment in my heart about you...you have lived through and survived horrors. I admire you greatly and I meant it when I said I love you dearly.
That said, I would push you to the side as I kicked him out the door and went "Braveheart" on him with one of my swords. I would never want you to have to carry any doubts because you had taken a life. Not even one that deserved to be ended.
SeaCat
Hey, my Halo is smoking
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2003
- Posts
- 15,378
S-Des said:
S-Des,
As I said, I am not civilised. I am hard, I am harsh and I have been shaped by the life I have lived. (As well as the beliefs I learned as I grew up.)
No I do not have a son, I have no children because of what I did when I was younger.
I do have family.
I also have a Code of Honor.
If it ever came to pass that a member of my family was accused of rape or molestation, (Child Sexual Abuse) I would look into the matter on my own. If I found enough proof, in my own mind, that they were guilty of such acts. (Even if they are cleared by the Courts of the Land.) (And this is well known in my family) I would personally and without remorse remove them from the land of the living. I would do so knowing full well the punishments I must deal with, both personal and criminal.
One of the comments people have often heard me say, even here, is "Show me the Proof." I don't like conjecture or theory. I like Proof.
My wife was the victim of rape at the tender age of 20. Her parents didn't believe her, the ones who did it were the sons of their friends. (Friends who were quite active and powerful in their Church.) I learned of it more than a year later, after we had started dating.
Cat
S-Des
Comfortably Numb
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2005
- Posts
- 6,944
But my question was, if you found out your child was innocent, how would you feel about someone like yourself taking matters into their own hands? Would you then have to go "remove them from the land of the living" for killing your innocent child? I'm sorry about your personal experience, I guarantee we both have been shaped by life (and not in a good way). My problem is that people make the sweeping statements, but never see the other side of the equation. OJ was found not guilty, so if you were Mr. Goldman, would you shake his hand and walk away (after all, the court said he was innocent, so he must be...right)?SeaCat said:
There are plenty of people out there who would happily string up someone they felt was guilty. The problem is, what happens when you're wrong? How exactly do you apologize for raping, torturing, or murdering someone else's child because you felt justified because of what a court said? Using your own reply, you would be honor bound to kill yourself because of what you did (and the fact that the person was in fact, innocent). Courts saying someone is guilty has a lot to do with how much money you have to defend yourself, where you live, the color of your skin and luck of being able to prove you didn't do it (again, I'm just talking about the innocent here, it's too hard to talk about both groups at the same time).
I'm not trying to provoke an argument here. I'm with you most of the time on your opinions. My problem is that you are saying it's ok to exact whatever vengeance you feel is appropriate based on the findings of a court. From your other posts, I'm reasonably sure you aren't making the argument that courts are 100% right, 100% of the time. So the question is, what do you do when you're wrong? How do you take it back, once the accused is gone?
Jenny_Jackson
Psycho Bitch
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2006
- Posts
- 10,872
It looks like this has come back to the same old argument - The courts define punishment not the Lynch mob.
CharleyH
Curioser and curiouser
- Joined
- May 7, 2003
- Posts
- 16,771
Jenny_Jackson said:
The N.A. court is fucked up and defines on the basis of 1) judeo-christian law 2) judeo-christian philosophy and 3) never on the basis of any other belief or religious system other than the Judeo-Christian one. :
SeaCat
Hey, my Halo is smoking
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2003
- Posts
- 15,378
S-Des said:
S-Des,
I understand your arguments. I also respect them. I do not claim my views are right for all or even most.
Re-read my original post and you will see something different. I said that I will investigate and will decide on my own regardless of what the Courts may have decided.
If I decide, on my own investigation that a family member is guilty, then they will cease to exist.
As I said above, I am also willing to accept responsibility for my actions. If I am wrong then I must pay for it, just as I will pay for my actions as decided by a Court of Law. I am willing to accept this. (I understand that this is something many people find hard to believe much less understand.)
As I mentioned above, I have no children, but this also pertains to other members of my family such as my brother, sister and parents.
Cat
SeaCat
Hey, my Halo is smoking
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2003
- Posts
- 15,378
CharleyH said:How do you define rape and against whom?You talk of charges against your family? How would you feel if a member of your family (as you have defined) was raped by a family member or stranger?
Charley,
Rape is sex forced upon another without their agreement. (Pedophilia is rape in my mind because the children don't know enough to either agree or disagree.) The force can be either physical, (most common) or psychological in nature.
If a member of my family was raped, I would react quite violently. I feel quite strongly about this. There is no compromise. (My family members know this.) If a member of my family was the one doing the rape, they too would pay.
Maybe this is why I am viewed as a bit of an outcaste by my brother and Sister?
Cat
Liar
now with 17% more class
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2003
- Posts
- 43,715
Sure, if you were the only one paying the price- Those you judge pay too.SeaCat said:
Um...yes? What does that have to do with your agression?
Not saying that you are either judgemental or agressive, mind you. Just trying to figure out how you view the world. It's a little alien to one like me who has a busy time properly judging myself, to trust myself to pass that unto others.
Similar threads
