Another Twist in the Issue of Sexual Predators

[Pangloss]

So two wrongs make a right, then? Any overgeneralization on your part is justified because of something you perceive that "they" are doing? A group of people, I might add, which you steadfastly refuse to identify as being anything other than anybody who doesn't agree with you.

 

Every post you make, Thomas, is the most eggregious example of two-wrongs thinking ever displayed in the entire time I've been present on these discussion boards. The fact that your behavior is tolerated, when I have seen it NOT tolerated when coming from far-right posters, is utterly inexplicable to me.

[Thomas Kirby]

Pangloss:

 

If I am mistaken about my evaluation of the political uses of the phenomenon of pedophilia, at least I am making my best attempt to actually explain what my problem is in that context. I am not getting personal with other members of the board on this issue. I am not even behaving so "badly" as using terms like "conspiracy theorist" to put someone down, or to accuse them of being about to shoot up a group of people. What happened, did you get some warning points? You do know that other people can't see those points, don't you? Even if I were overgeneralizing, which I don't think that I am, I don't think that what at worst might be called an honest mistake qualifies as a violation of board policy. The conservatives around here get away with jumping in and calling me a "conspiracy theorist" when I report certain historical facts, so I think you guys are getting quite enough leeway that you should be satisfied. I think that what is actually not tolerated from the far-right posters is when they descend to name-calling and bullying that they seem to feel entitled to after they have laid down the "word of God."

 

Back to topic: However awkwardly I am doing it, I am explaining that there is a pretty large, well-funded attempt to link every aspect of sexuality with pedophilia, using the phenomenon of pedophilia as a weight to sink everything else related to sexuality. Even I almost flipped to that side when I saw a certain news story today that I don't want to talk about. It could have been a very convincing conversion and very profitable. Very closely related is the habit of using the idea of protection of children from any sort of sexuality to close down adult book stores, prosecute people for making videos involving adults havings sex, prosecute people for having sex without taking videos, and to excuse special laws against sex that only involves consenting adults.

 

So, no, I am not making an overgeneralization. I am reporting one. I have even done it without overusing the word "exploitation." In short, two wrongs give me the write to draw and quote the offenders.

[Pangloss]

If I am mistaken about my evaluation of the political uses of the phenomenon of pedophilia, at least I am making my best attempt to actually explain what my problem is in that context. I am not getting personal with other members of the board on this issue.

 

Yes you are, you're characterizing anyone who disagrees with you as being "them", and then going on to demonize "them" in absolute terms. You characterized my comments in that manner in another thread, in spite of the fact that I'm obviously a moderate/centrist, and everyone on these boards knows it. Don't even think about pretending that you haven't been personal in your remarks.

 

 

What happened, did you get some warning points? You do know that other people can't see those points, don't you?

 

I have no idea what you're talking about here.

 

 

Even if I were overgeneralizing, which I don't think that I am, I don't think that what at worst might be called an honest mistake qualifies as a violation of board policy. The conservatives around here get away with jumping in and calling me a "conspiracy theorist" when I report certain historical facts

 

See? You just did it. You just labelled everyone who calls you a "conspiracy theorist" as a conservative!

 

Is it just completely incomprehensible to you that someone could disagree with you and NOT be a member of the vast right-wing conspiracy? Yeesh!

 

 

 

I think that what is actually not tolerated from the far-right posters is when they descend to name-calling and bullying that they seem to feel entitled to after they have laid down the "word of God."

 

Then we agree that labelling is a bad thing. So why do you participate in it?

 

Like I said, you are bound and determined to label anyone who disagrees with you as being a right-wing extremist. You are determined to force a two-wrongs atmosphere on this board.

 

That is detrimental to open debate, and I am calling it out.

 

 

Back to topic: However awkwardly I am doing it, I am explaining that there is a pretty large, well-funded attempt to link every aspect of sexuality with pedophilia, using the phenomenon of pedophilia as a weight to sink everything else related to sexuality.

 

And claim that not only have you refused produce any supporting evidence for, but when your assertion is challenged, you label the respondent as a "conservative" (see above), ignore their contrary evidence, and repeat your assertion.

 

There's nothing wrong with unsubstantiated opinion, but it cannot be used in debate as contrary evidence. Opinions should be stated and the poster should move on. Yet you refuse to do that, once again contributing detrimentally to the spirit of open debate on this board.

 

You insist that the last word on your subjects, subjects which you have hijacked from other people, be your politically correct, far-left view, and anybody who says anything different, no matter how well substantiated, will be responded to in exactly the same manner with exactly the same repetition as before.

 

That is not debate, sir. That is contradiction. AND it is detrimental to the spirt and atmosphere of open debate on these boards.

 

 

I again accuse you and charge you of deliberately attempting to stall, obfuscate, derail and destroy open debate on these boards. How do you respond to this charge, sir?

 

 

In short, two wrongs give me the write to draw and quote the offenders.

 

Got it.

 

I rest my case.

[Thomas Kirby]

Pangloss:

 

If we simply must bring in material about a debate in another thread that you yourself wanted to end, then here is my reply to that: There is a good reason why I told you that I perceived you a certain way. I have every right to tell you what impression I am receiving from you. I was pretty annoyed. I kept it as civil as I could.

 

Here, I have kept it as impersonal as possible with regards to members of the board, and I think I've been good at it. I've seen you take things personally before that weren't aimed at you. In this discussion thread, what exactly is it that you seem to be taking personally? The fact that I am throwing the practice of demonization back in the faces of people who presumably aren't here reading this discussion? The fact that I criticize a practice that I sincerely believe exists? How about the fact that it is sometimes impossible to describe certain rhetorical tactics without to some degree appearing to use them?

 

I didn't label anyone a conservative in this thread until you complained that conservatives weren't getting a fair hearing. Don't even get me started on what I think a conservative considers to be a fair hearing. At that, I didn't even label a particular person a conservative.

 

My answer to the charges of stifling debate? This discussion thread is in its sixth page. I seem to have been superbly successful at stifling debate, haven't I?

 

I have every right to bear witness to what I have seen without formal requirements that I provide page and verse to support every statement. AFAIK, there is no requirement, especially in this particular part of this board, that I do this. Your accusations against me in this regard are just plain specious. First, this isn't a peer-reviewed journal. Second, if I sound like I know what I am talking about, maybe it's because I do. Third, there is a little more to being a bad little boy than having a certain writing style.

 

Give a man a chance to fully explain his point of view without also having to write a book report for a teacher who probably isn't going to read it through anyway.

 

OK, maybe I did label you a conservative in passing, but you have been handing out a few insults of your own.

[Pangloss]

If we simply must bring in material about a debate in another thread that you yourself wanted to end, then here is my reply to that: There is a good reason why I told you that I perceived you a certain way. I have every right to tell you what impression I am receiving from you. I was pretty annoyed. I kept it as civil as I could.

 

You're changing the subject. What we were discussing was hypocrisy. We weren't discussing the subject of why you label people. All I see above is just more justification.

 

 

The fact that I am throwing the practice of demonization back in the faces of people who presumably aren't here reading this discussion? The fact that I criticize a practice that I sincerely believe exists? How about the fact that it is sometimes impossible to describe certain rhetorical tactics without to some degree appearing to use them?

 

But the people you're labelling are reading these discussions, remember?

 

This is another example of something I mentioned in my last post -- if at first you don't succeed, rather than respond to the logical points that people challenge you with (such as my pointing out your hypocrisy by quoting your own words), rather than defend your assertions, rather than substantiate your claims, you simply repeat them.

 

Why can't you simply say what you believe, and then allow others to do the same? Is this a free country, or is it just a free country for Thomas?

 

 

I didn't label anyone a conservative in this thread until you complained that conservatives weren't getting a fair hearing. Don't even get me started on what I think a conservative considers to be a fair hearing. At that, I didn't even label a particular person a conservative.

 

More rationalization. You made a crass generalization. It doesn't matter why you did it. You don't like it when other people do it to you, but you seem to think it's okay when you do it to other people -- in your mind their bad behavior justifies any bad behavior on your part.

 

 

My answer to the charges of stifling debate? This discussion thread is in its sixth page. I seem to have been superbly successful at stifling debate, haven't I?

 

As I explained above, it isn't a debate. Debate isn't about the number of posts, Thomas, it's about whether people are allowed to express themselves, to challenge each other's assertions, to look deeper than the surface. You're stepping all over that.

 

How are you stepping on debate? By:

- Refusing to substantiate your claims, which you state as facts

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showpost.php?p=198137&postcount=89

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showpost.php?p=198157&postcount=91

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=13513&page=5

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showpost.php?p=196559&postcount=35

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showpost.php?p=196793&postcount=40

 

- Repeating your assertions when asked to substantiate them (when you could simply, politely say "well I don't know, that's just my opinion" and move along)

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showpost.php?p=196559&postcount=35

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showpost.php?p=195125&postcount=12

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showpost.php?p=195169&postcount=14

 

- Commenting off the subject, changing the subject into something that fits your "conservatives are evil" and "if you disagree with me you must be a conservative" agenda

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showpost.php?p=195111&postcount=10

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showpost.php?p=195499&postcount=30

 

- Rudely/sarcastically injecting your agendized remarks into other people's threads because you view those subjects as being counter to your purpose

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showpost.php?p=195111&postcount=10

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showpost.php?p=196804&postcount=3

 

- Making wild claims to get attention, and then refusing to stand behind your claims in any way, simply repeating them ad nauseum until the other party shuts up and goes away (see all of the above)

[Pangloss]

You know, debate is about more than expression of opinion, and you cannot browbeat people into submission by labelling them, or endlessly repeating your wildest unsubstantiated claims. If you want to say something and refuse to back it up, fine, do that! Just don't go back and REPEAT IT as if you have not been challenged. You were challenged, you LOST, get over it and move on. THAT's what debate is all about. You win some, you lose some, you move on and you try to learn.

 

If what instead you are looking for is submission, compliance, and a group of people who will simple nod sagely at whatever you say... well... quite frankly you've come to the wrong place.

 

Debate is as much about LISTENING as it is about talking.

[beautyundone]

i'm going to have to agree with pangloss here...

 

you've said variations of the same exact idea you originally posted here over the past 6 pages. if you have something new to contribute, by all means, please do. but if not, there is no need to repeat your point. it has already been stated.

 

and your ideas on adults being charged with owning pornography is quite radical. i haven't heard of any adults that are charged with pedophilia (having sexual relations with a child) because they own porn. nor have i ever heard of them being charged with ANY other crime just for owning porn. if they are purposely showing it to kids, that's one thing. but owning it is an entirely different thing. if it were true that owning pornography which could possibly be discovered by children were a crime, i know of quite a few people who would be in jail.

[Douglas]

I thought Kirby made an interesting observation and a fair point when he made this statement...........

 

Kirby.....You mentioned rape. Rape, real use of force against an individual to try to have sex with them, could be treated as aggravated assault and lose the special sexual component of the charges that so enhances the perception that a bad thing was done. ..............Post #73

Indeed, rape could be classified as aggravated assault. I would have thought that during the unisex generation, when woman were burning bra's, and brandishing M16's, they would have demanded that rape laws be repealed.

[Thomas Kirby]

Yes, Douglas, I would say that issues about "sexual predation" would be on topic for a discussion titled "Another Twist in the Issue of Sexual Predators. I was unaware of requirements that I be some kind of master debater who followed certain forms or dressed his essays up as if they were Ph.D. theses, so I still don't plan to try to do that.

 

I would personally seriously consider repealing every law against the rape of a woman on several grounds. One of these is that men in prison who are raped never seem to be able to charge their aggressors with rape, that I am aware of. Another is that the rate of false accusations is high enough to make the laws of questionable worth. Certainly, I might consider repealing all of those laws, then never touch a woman again unless she forced me to, which would give me considerable peace. At the same time, though, I would allow claims of assault and battery pretty much as always, but not "sexual" battery. Frankly, in my own not very humble opinion, I don't think humanity is ready for it.

 

Women would still be quite free to form their little cliques that would exclude men from messing with them. If they would, just to be kind and sweet and civilized, please be clear on what they want when they approach a man for any reason, they could avoid a lot of misunderstandings. Coquettishness would have to be practiced with greater discretion. Whatever is right or wrong about "sexual" assault, I still say "don't tease the animals" and "take responsibility for yourself." I also say to men "If she waves it in your face and you don't trust the setup, leave the room, the house, maybe even the country or the planet."

 

It's one of the other things that I am tired of seeing used as an excuse to ban pornography, sexual devices, and some sexual practices. A lot of the people, and I am just talking about what I have seen with my own eyes, a lot of the people who want sexually explicit materials banned aren't themselves grown up. They carry a hugely unhealthy measure of self-hatred in them. They are violent. One person I know who postured about keeping sexual information away from his children also allowed those children to run wild, vandalize the neighborhood, and steal whatever wasn't nailed down. Another such person made a career of beating her children as painfully and in as prolonged a manner as she could any time she felt like it and could excuse it. A whole coven of them at the elementary school I went to had to be able to hold that posture. It was the only thing they had to prove that they had any connection whatsoever to anything that could even be mistaken for "human decency." I could really use a means to rub their faces in the fact that "decency" requires a lot more of a person than that they simply not have sex with certain people.

 

Getting rid of any laws against any form of sex would scare the life out of these people, these predators. They've always had "perverts" to use as human shields. In fact, I could compile a list of rules that they use to identify "perverts." The first rule is, the kids actually like the suspect. The other rules, in no particular order: The supect treats the kids as if they were human beings. He fails to treat them like dirt. He actually tries to help kids who aren't doing as well with their schoolwork. He sticks up for kids who are bullied. He actually has non-adversarial relationships with the children.

 

By the rules of the neurotics, a man or a woman who is like this is either having sex with one or more of the kids, or he or she is thinking about it or is going to.

 

It would scare these people literally to death if they had to play on a level playing field. With today's setup, any investigation of child abuse is likely to stop right where they find a "sexual predator." It doesn't matter if the real predators used an innocent man or woman. They don't care. They would sacrifice him, a bus full of children, anyone, just to keep from having to own up to their own offenses. They would also commit suicide. The number one killer of neurotics is being forced to examine their own lives.

[beautyundone]

are you saying that you do not think there should be laws against rape? do you have ANY idea how much harm that would bring to anyone of the female gender? men would go crazy; they would rape without thinking twice, because it would no longer be illegal. it would be like legalizing murder.

 

if a woman tells a man "no", he is required by law to back off at that moment. if he proceeds to have sex with the woman, he has raped her. she did not give her consent. it doesn't matter how much the woman may have led the man on or how much he thought she "wanted" it. he has committed a crime by ignoring her "no".

 

It's one of the other things that I am tired of seeing used as an excuse to ban pornography, sexual devices, and some sexual practices. A lot of the people, and I am just talking about what I have seen with my own eyes, a lot of the people who want sexually explicit materials banned aren't themselves grown up. They carry a hugely unhealthy measure of self-hatred in them. They are violent. One person I know who postured about keeping sexual information away from his children also allowed those children to run wild, vandalize the neighborhood, and steal whatever wasn't nailed down. Another such person made a career of beating her children as painfully and in as prolonged a manner as she could any time she felt like it and could excuse it. A whole coven of them at the elementary school I went to had to be able to hold that posture. It was the only thing they had to prove that they had any connection whatsoever to anything that could even be mistaken for "human decency." I could really use a means to rub their faces in the fact that "decency" requires a lot more of a person than that they simply not have sex with certain people.

 

many of those circumstances mentioned above would be considered crimes. sexual abuse is not in any way "covering up" other child abuse. it is a form of it.

 

by the rules of normal people, those kinds of people are not considered to be perverts. there are going to be neurotics and looney people in this world. they'll find SOMETHING to be paranoid about no matter what. you can't stop them from doing this unless you lock THEM up somewhere. for being extra protective of their kids. is that a crime?

[Dak]

I would personally seriously consider repealing every law against the rape of a woman on several grounds. One of these is that men in prison who are raped never seem to be able to charge their aggressors with rape, that I am aware of.

 

right. if thats true, then its wrong. and should be rectified (no pun intended). but surely it would be better to increase the enforsment of the rape laws as applicable to men, rather than just cancel the laws across the board.

 

just because women could be raped and the perpetrator not punished wouldnt make it ok whenever a man is raped.

 

Another is that the rate of false accusations is high enough to make the laws of questionable worth.

 

like the last comment, legalising rape is not the answre. you cant seriously be sujjesting that we allow women to be raped in order to protect men from false accusations?

 

At the same time, though, I would allow claims of assault and battery pretty much as always, but not "sexual" battery. Frankly, in my own not very humble opinion, I don't think humanity is ready for it.

 

the reason that a distinction is made is that sexual assault is generally more damaging, same as aggregated assault.

 

I know id take longer to recover from being raped than from being punched.

 

Women would still be quite free to form their little cliques that would exclude men from messing with them. If they would, just to be kind and sweet and civilized, please be clear on what they want when they approach a man for any reason, they could avoid a lot of misunderstandings. Coquettishness would have to be practiced with greater discretion. Whatever is right or wrong about "sexual" assault, I still say "don't tease the animals" and "take responsibility for yourself." I also say to men "If she waves it in your face and you don't trust the setup, leave the room, the house, maybe even the country or the planet."

 

I think you have the idea that 99% of rape cases go like this:

 

Woman: "hey big boy, want some fun?"

 

Man: "ok"

 

Woman "Ooh baby, that was great"

 

--later--

 

Woman: "he raped me"

 

which is shit. most rape is people forsing themselfs onto women who clearly dont want them to.

 

It's one of the other things that I am tired of seeing used as an excuse to ban pornography, sexual devices, and some sexual practices. A lot of the people, and I am just talking about what I have seen with my own eyes, a lot of the people who want sexually explicit materials banned aren't themselves grown up. They carry a hugely unhealthy measure of self-hatred in them. They are violent. One person I know who postured about keeping sexual information away from his children also allowed those children to run wild, vandalize the neighborhood, and steal whatever wasn't nailed down. Another such person made a career of beating her children as painfully and in as prolonged a manner as she could any time she felt like it and could excuse it. A whole coven of them at the elementary school I went to had to be able to hold that posture. It was the only thing they had to prove that they had any connection whatsoever to anything that could even be mistaken for "human decency." I could really use a means to rub their faces in the fact that "decency" requires a lot more of a person than that they simply not have sex with certain people.

 

Which doesnt quite have any relevance to using rape to ban sexual toys etc.

 

Getting rid of any laws against any form of sex would scare the life out of these people, these predators. They've always had "perverts" to use as human shields. In fact, I could compile a list of rules that they use to identify "perverts." The first rule is, the kids actually like the suspect. The other rules, in no particular order: The supect treats the kids as if they were human beings. He fails to treat them like dirt. He actually tries to help kids who aren't doing as well with their schoolwork. He sticks up for kids who are bullied. He actually has non-adversarial relationships with the children.

 

which doesnt quite justify repealing the laws that regulate sex.

 

It would scare these people literally to death if they had to play on a level playing field. With today's setup, any investigation of child abuse is likely to stop right where they find a "sexual predator." It doesn't matter if the real predators used an innocent man or woman. They don't care.

 

I think youll find that the normal legal requirements are needed before someone is convicted of a sex crime, such as 'evidence' and 'proof'. they dont just find the nearest person on the sex-offenders register and whack 'em in jail.

 

They would sacrifice him, a bus full of children, anyone, just to keep from having to own up to their own offenses. They would also commit suicide. The number one killer of neurotics is being forced to examine their own lives.

 

source?

[Dak]

men would go crazy; they would rape without thinking twice, because it would no longer be illegal.

 

that needed a 'some' before it, if you dont mind.

[Pangloss]

I would personally seriously consider repealing every law against the rape of a woman on several grounds. One of these is that men in prison who are raped never seem to be able to charge their aggressors with rape, that I am aware of. Another is that the rate of false accusations is high enough to make the laws of questionable worth.

 

What is the rate of false accusation? WHAT laws against the rape of women? Aren't they against rape, period? What evidence do you have that men are treated less fairly than women? Who says men never sue for being raped in prison? Why are you comparing (confusing) civil lawsuits with criminal charges?

[beautyundone]

sorry... *some* men would go crazy.

[Thomas Kirby]

No one else here knows of any statistics for false accusations of rape or child molestation, do they? It is interesting that anyone here would just know that I am wrong without knowing of any studies to prove me wrong or them right, one way or the other.

 

Dak, I'm not all that sure that they care about evidence or witnesses.

 

Here is just one link to one investigator's estimate of the number of false accusations made: Charles McDowell

[beautyundone]

very few rapes are reported (something like 1/10). out of those, only about 16% end in a conviction. considering those statistics, i really do not think that there would be much room for false accusations. at least none that would end in jailtime.

[Dak]

Dak' date=' I'm not all that sure that they care about evidence or witnesses.

 

Here is just one link to one investigator's estimate of the number of false accusations made: Charles McDowell

 

from your link only roughly 5% of all rape accusations result in a false imprisonment.

 

So do you say that it would be better to allow the rapes to prevent these 5% of false imprisonments? rather than, say, working on better ways of detecting false accusations and increasing the sentaces for the women who make false accusations.

 

Thats pretty unworkable, dontcher think? One could say a similar thing about assault; often its not clear who threw the first punch, and undoubtably mistakes are made and people are wrongly convicted of assault. wouldnt doing away with the laws that prohibit assault be a good way to remidy that situation? im sure the increase in violence would be more than tolerable, concidering the false imprisonments that would be avoided.

 

hell, lets stop putting people in jail altogether, thus attaining a 0% rate of false imprisonment.

 

Sure, violence, rape, murder, theft, child-abuse and whatnot would probably become significantly more common, but atleast no-one would be falsly imprisoned.

 

raped, beaten and robbed, yes; but not falsly imprisoned.

[Pangloss]

No one else here knows of any statistics for false accusations of rape or child molestation' date=' do they? It is interesting that anyone here would just know that I am wrong without knowing of any studies to prove me wrong or them right, one way or the other.

 

Dak, I'm not all that sure that they care about evidence or witnesses.

 

Here is just one link to one investigator's estimate of the number of false accusations made: Charles McDowell

 

I didn't say you were wrong. Do not lie or otherwise mischaracterize my statements.

 

You made the assertions. You get to present your evidence. That's how it works. You don't get to make an assertion and then accuse others of being wrong because they can't prove it. That is detrimental to a fair and open exchange of ideas.

 

Let's take a look at what you have:

 

Your link suggests that 212 of 1218 cases were disproved (17%). Congratulations, you've supported your claim that false accusations take place. See how much fun this can be?

 

 

But let's review your statement:

 

I would personally seriously consider repealing every law against the rape of a woman on several grounds. One of these is that men in prison who are raped never seem to be able to charge their aggressors with rape, that I am aware of. Another is that the rate of false accusations is high enough to make the laws of questionable worth.

 

1) You have asserted that men who are raped never charge their aggressors with rape. Do you have any supporting evidence for this? If you don't, we'll simply have to take that as unsubstantiated opinion, and judge its worth on that (low) level.

 

2) You have asserted that there are laws against the rape of women (specifically). Do you have any supporting evidence that such laws exist? If not, we'll simply have to assume that this statement is false.

 

3) You have implied that men are treated less fairly than women. Seems like an interesting hypothesis. Can you back it up?

 

4) You asserted that the rate of false accusations is "high enough to make the laws of questionable worth". (This is the one you supported this with evidence, now the onus is upon the reader to challenge that assertion in turn.)

 

Three points need to be backed up there.

[Pangloss]

By the way, Thomas, repealing rape laws is a conservative cause. Note that nobody here is labelling you a conservative, however. Labelling is so unfair, don't you think?

[Douglas]

sorry... *some* men would go crazy.

How about changing that to......a few ?...

[beautyundone]

How about changing that to......a few ?...

 

nah, that's alright =) i'll leave it the way it is.

[Thomas Kirby]

Everyone did catch the fact that I thought that rape should be considered to be a form of assault, right? What I want to remove is the way that sex makes it so very special. Holding the attacker responsible for damage to someone's personal parts is quite acceptable. I'm tired of the way that sex crimes have a super special oh my god status. I'm even more tired of the way people obsess about them. Someone committed a sex crime, let's design ways to be more violent to more of our fellow humans in order to solve this problem, even if we know that doesn't work. While we're at it, let's treat all other violent crime as if it is nothing special, business as usual, and let's not worry about it unless they do something sexual. That's the mindset that I see. I also see a lot of glorification of violence by people who say bad things about sex.

[Dak]

what you have to remember is that sexual violence is usually very traumatising to the victim, to an extent that non-sexual violence generally isnt; hence why its treated seperately and, usually, punished more severely.

[Pangloss]

Everyone did catch the fact that I thought that rape should be considered to be a form of assault, right? What I want to remove is the way that sex makes it so very special. Holding the attacker responsible for damage to someone's personal parts is quite acceptable. I'm tired of the way that sex crimes have a super special oh my god status. I'm even more tired of the way people obsess about them. Someone committed a sex crime, let's design ways to be more violent to more of our fellow humans in order to solve this problem, even if we know that doesn't work. While we're at it, let's treat all other violent crime as if it is nothing special, business as usual, and let's not worry about it unless they do something sexual. That's the mindset that I see. I also see a lot of glorification of violence by people who say bad things about sex.

 

A reasonable argument. I don't entirely agree with Dak there, because the purpose of law is not retribution/revenge, it's to enforce fairness (e.g. "justice") -- to establish equal opportunity under law.

 

The only thing I would add would be in the area of minors. Assault on an adult is not the same thing as assault on a young child. The latter should constitute a stiffer penalty, not because a child might be traumatized, but because children are less capable of defending themselves. For the purposes of establishing equality, on other words, one can argue that it's a different criminal act. With that stipulation, however I would generally agree with the point.

 

 

Now here's the fun part: Would you agree to removing criminals with a history of violence against very young children (not sexual acts, mind you -- violent felonies) from hurricane shelters, with the stipulation that reception rooms and meeting facilities at a local prison would be made available as an alternative?

[Dak]

I dont tend to think of the purpose of law as retribution, revenge or fairness; i more think of it in terms of prevention.

 

Sexual assaut, and assaults on minors, are worse and so imo a deterent of greater magnitude is needed than is required for non-sexual assaults/assaults against adults.

 

And, as you said, young childeren are less able to defend themselves, making them more in need of protection and further justifying a greater punishment (to act as a greater deterrent) for child-abusers.

 

good question btw. ill leave it for thomas to answre.