Forums > Social Discussion > Anti rape condoms
Login/Join to ParticipateGOLD Member
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posted:
so while reading up on new technologies and products i came across this
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/11/magazine/11ideas1-4.htmlhttps://
looks like it may have fallen over though since www.rapestop.net/ hasnt been updated since 2006
I think its a great invension as the rapist would have to go to hospital to have it removed and would be reported to the police. However the downside is the device could be worn for consensual sex as part of a malicious act of revenge or cruelty. Thoughts?
so while reading up on new technologies and products i came across this
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/11/magazine/11ideas1-4.htmlhttps://
looks like it may have fallen over though since www.rapestop.net/ hasnt been updated since 2006
I think its a great invension as the rapist would have to go to hospital to have it removed and would be reported to the police. However the downside is the device could be worn for consensual sex as part of a malicious act of revenge or cruelty. Thoughts?
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?
GOLD Member
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posted:
not at all, i enjoy a good discussion.
Written by :NathanielEverist
Ok, I'll remain blissfully ignorant. I hope I'm not touching any sensitive issues with Ben-ja-men here, am I overstepping my bounds?
not at all, i enjoy a good discussion.
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?
newbie
7 posts
Location: NSW, Australia
7 posts
Location: NSW, Australia
Posted:
hmmm... no thanks.
The condom will not prevent a rape of an individual woman. They have to be already being raped for it to work... As far as a deterent... maybe a short term, and short lived deterant... if enough women were wearing them, enough rapists were being caught by them, and if the word was out. I think the violence and rape would still be happening though, just in different forms. And what of the long term social cost of further putting the responsiblity on women to stop men from behaving in this way? 'Responsiblity' soon changes to 'blame'. I know I've heard the comment 'well she shouldn't have been in that park at night' in response to a woman being raped by two men in a public toilet directly across the street from a very busy nightspot. And the comments about what women wear provoking a rape, or a woman's occupation... etc. The victim should never be expected to take on responsibility for the perpertrators actions. That just breeds more of the same behaviour.
I think there are better, more effective ways that do not disempower women in the way that this idea does. An effective legal system where women are not further victimised for attempting to hold perpetrators accountable would be one of the starting points...
I think it is important for it to be mentioned that in countries such as the USA, UK, Canada and Australia it is much more likely that a woman will be raped by a person she knows well than a stranger.
Unfortunately this perpetuation of the image of the violent rapist getting us on the street stops us from solving the much more hidden and common raping of women by the men who are supposed to love them.
(Oh, and I know that violent rapes by strangers do happen - approx 10% I think - and I am in no way meaning to belittle or invalidate the experiences of women who have been victims to this kind of rape. I am just saying that because women are so trained to be fearful of 'strange men at night' we don't even always see the signs of when we need to protect ourselves in our own homes. This kind of protecting yourself from the stranger rapist kind of policy further distracts and disables us from acting powerfully in the much more likely event of impending danger within our close relationships).
I find it hard to see how this kind of invention could be more usefull or relevant in a developing or conflict affected nation than the above mentioned countries... But they were designed for use in South Africa where the particular dynamics involved may mean it could be a usefull part of an overall approach...? But I doubt it.
I wouldn't like for this kind of thing to divert attention and funding from real solutions and changes to thinking.
I am glad that everybody here has the same heart message of wanting to prevent rape.
You rock Icarus!
hmmm... no thanks.
The condom will not prevent a rape of an individual woman. They have to be already being raped for it to work... As far as a deterent... maybe a short term, and short lived deterant... if enough women were wearing them, enough rapists were being caught by them, and if the word was out. I think the violence and rape would still be happening though, just in different forms. And what of the long term social cost of further putting the responsiblity on women to stop men from behaving in this way? 'Responsiblity' soon changes to 'blame'. I know I've heard the comment 'well she shouldn't have been in that park at night' in response to a woman being raped by two men in a public toilet directly across the street from a very busy nightspot. And the comments about what women wear provoking a rape, or a woman's occupation... etc. The victim should never be expected to take on responsibility for the perpertrators actions. That just breeds more of the same behaviour.
I think there are better, more effective ways that do not disempower women in the way that this idea does. An effective legal system where women are not further victimised for attempting to hold perpetrators accountable would be one of the starting points...
I think it is important for it to be mentioned that in countries such as the USA, UK, Canada and Australia it is much more likely that a woman will be raped by a person she knows well than a stranger.
Unfortunately this perpetuation of the image of the violent rapist getting us on the street stops us from solving the much more hidden and common raping of women by the men who are supposed to love them.
(Oh, and I know that violent rapes by strangers do happen - approx 10% I think - and I am in no way meaning to belittle or invalidate the experiences of women who have been victims to this kind of rape. I am just saying that because women are so trained to be fearful of 'strange men at night' we don't even always see the signs of when we need to protect ourselves in our own homes. This kind of protecting yourself from the stranger rapist kind of policy further distracts and disables us from acting powerfully in the much more likely event of impending danger within our close relationships).
I find it hard to see how this kind of invention could be more usefull or relevant in a developing or conflict affected nation than the above mentioned countries... But they were designed for use in South Africa where the particular dynamics involved may mean it could be a usefull part of an overall approach...? But I doubt it.
I wouldn't like for this kind of thing to divert attention and funding from real solutions and changes to thinking.
I am glad that everybody here has the same heart message of wanting to prevent rape.
You rock Icarus!
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
Kind of split over this...
I don't support the death penalty, neither for rapists nor pedophiles - neither for terrorists nor murderers.
To me: Death penalty = wrong way.
"Why do we kill people who kill people to prove that the killing of people is wrong?"
I side Bens argument that we're all acting under our own responsibility: "ultimately it is their choice to commit the act."
Hence, as previously argued: How could we possibly determine a rape from a trap? I'm not so comfortable with the black and white attitude (here: women=good/men=bad)...
In cases of gang-rapes it might even result in the killing of the victim.
Kind of split over this...
I don't support the death penalty, neither for rapists nor pedophiles - neither for terrorists nor murderers.
To me: Death penalty = wrong way.
"Why do we kill people who kill people to prove that the killing of people is wrong?"
I side Bens argument that we're all acting under our own responsibility: "ultimately it is their choice to commit the act."
Hence, as previously argued: How could we possibly determine a rape from a trap? I'm not so comfortable with the black and white attitude (here: women=good/men=bad)...
In cases of gang-rapes it might even result in the killing of the victim.
the best smiles are the ones you lead to 
GOLD Member
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posted:
In a perfect world I agree
Why put them in jail, make them more violent and release them back into society?
The same way that a jury determines the difference between 1st degree murder and manslaughter, you have a trial where the evidence is examined. Someone going to hospital to have one removed means that the circumstances are investigated not they automatically recieve the death penalty.
EDITED_BY: ben-ja-men (1213893925)
Written by :FireTom
To me: Death penalty = wrong way.
In a perfect world I agree
Written by :FireTom
"Why do we kill people who kill people to prove that the killing of people is wrong?"
Why put them in jail, make them more violent and release them back into society?
Written by :FireTom
Hence, as previously argued: How could we possibly determine a rape from a trap?
The same way that a jury determines the difference between 1st degree murder and manslaughter, you have a trial where the evidence is examined. Someone going to hospital to have one removed means that the circumstances are investigated not they automatically recieve the death penalty.
Written by :FireTomif theres a black and white attitude i would say its rapists=bad, it just happens that in this case we are talking about male rapists due to the nature of the product.
I'm not so comfortable with the black and white attitude (here: women=good/men=bad)...
EDITED_BY: ben-ja-men (1213893925)
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?
SILVER Member
Momma Bear
4,525 posts
Location: Telford, Shrops, United Kingdom
Momma Bear
4,525 posts
Location: Telford, Shrops, United Kingdom
Posted:
I think a better idea would be to educate people on how much they are upsetting people when they carry out rape. It's not just a one off, it affects people for the rest of their lives pretty much.
I think a better idea would be to educate people on how much they are upsetting people when they carry out rape. It's not just a one off, it affects people for the rest of their lives pretty much.
Hoppers are angels who lift us to our feet when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly.
GOLD Member
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posted:
I 100% agree, but how do you achieve that on a large scale in the world we live in?
Written by :jo_rhymes
I think a better idea would be to educate people on how much they are upsetting people when they carry out rape. It's not just a one off, it affects people for the rest of their lives pretty much.
I 100% agree, but how do you achieve that on a large scale in the world we live in?
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?
SILVER Member
Momma Bear
4,525 posts
Location: Telford, Shrops, United Kingdom
Momma Bear
4,525 posts
Location: Telford, Shrops, United Kingdom
Posted:
I have no idea Ben, but it's gotta be better than stabbing people's willies!
I have no idea Ben, but it's gotta be better than stabbing people's willies!
Hoppers are angels who lift us to our feet when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly.
BRONZE Member
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
Posted:
Well willie stabbing is a pretty effective way to communicate 'i'm upset'..
Most people understand that rape is bad, and that the one being raped doesn't exactly like it.. The 'non-consensual' part is in the definition. The only problem is the target population that needs to be informed just doesn't care that they're upsetting someone by their actions.
More importantly, why does society insist on keeping them around? Even at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars (millions in some cases), AND the potential for more crime and suffering. Why do we feel the need to baby and encourage bad people who do bad things by telling them it's not their fault, they can't control their actions?
Well willie stabbing is a pretty effective way to communicate 'i'm upset'..
Most people understand that rape is bad, and that the one being raped doesn't exactly like it.. The 'non-consensual' part is in the definition. The only problem is the target population that needs to be informed just doesn't care that they're upsetting someone by their actions.
Written by :Firetom
"Why do we kill people who kill people to prove that the killing of people is wrong?"
More importantly, why does society insist on keeping them around? Even at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars (millions in some cases), AND the potential for more crime and suffering. Why do we feel the need to baby and encourage bad people who do bad things by telling them it's not their fault, they can't control their actions?
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored 
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
SILVER Member
enthusiast
315 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
enthusiast
315 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
I agree that free-will plays a part, but at the same time, I'm not even positive I believe in free will. How much freewill do we truly have when all our decisions are made on a neurological and psychological basis? We make our decisions based upon our memories, sense of morality (or lack of), beliefs and values etc, each of which is based upon our past experiences, which aren't really in our control.
I think deterministically, none of us are truly "free" we are all victims of circumstance. For example, were you or I put through exactly the same life that a rapist was put through, down to the smallest detail, I'd say there would be a very large chance that we would be rapists too, despite in our current state our opposition to it. And the same goes the other direction. I believe if a rapist were raised in our lives, they would be opposed to rape as we are. That's why I don't think it's right to kill them when I don't truly believe they are fully to blame.
Although it is impossible to prove this deterministic theory, as you would have to raise to biologically different people in exactly the same environments to determine the effect of their environments on their psyche (Truman Show style). This would obviously be a highly unethical experiment, not to mention a costly one, so until we have the means available to digitally simulate the human capacity, and even that may be deemed inethical.
Yes, but I feel that just because we don't live in a perfect world doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to create one. The world is never going to be perfect, but it's the constant attempt to make it better that improves it.
I read the links, as for your discussion on the death penalty for pedophiles, given the facts that you stated, I would fully support the death penalty. The key fact that you gave was that the prison system does not rehabilitate inmates. Given this, there is no real hope for them to change or become better people, they would probably become worse in jail. So, I would see it as unfortunate, but would feel that death the only feasible option in that situation. Although in some countries, the death penalty is more expensive than life-imprisonment, due to legal fees and such. If this were the case I'd just give them the life-sentence, and try and put them to good use through labour or something similar.
Me too
Agreed, but we need not to inform them that they're upsetting people, nearly certainly they are already aware of this, they just either don't care or actually enjoy it. We need to rehabilitate them as to the greater consequences of their upsetting people. Even if it takes some good 'ole fashioned brain-washing (Clockwork Orange style), that would be preferable to killing them.
To stop them from killing more people. From a utilitarian viewpoint, to kill a killer would be to prevent further murders, so although it is killing in itself, it is to prevent a greater level of killing, and therefore can be seen as a morally solid action.
Not all society insists on keeping them around, there is a large support base for the death penalty the world over, so to generalise and say "society" is probably incorrect. Agreed, it is stupid to waste precious resources maintaining their lives when they've already cost society through it's immoral actions. I don't think we're "babying" or "encouraging" bad people at all, how is putting them in jail for life encouraging them? I don't think there'd be many people who would tell a murdered or a rapist that it's not their fault and that they can't control their actions, I may think as such, but I wouldn't gentle stroke a rapists hair and shush them with such concepts. I certainly wouldn't encourage or baby them in the least, and where there are no better alternatives, would support the life-sentence or even the death penalty, I just feel that rehabilitation is a better alternative.
As for the waste of money, as mentioned above, the death penalty sometimes costs more than a life-sentence depending on the funds the accused has at their disposal for legal defense. That aside however, were the death penalty not allowed, would you support forced labour/slavery to ensure that they're making up for what they did and/or paying for the benefit of living? I probably would, and I know that this is already done, but I mean on a larger scale.
Written by : Ben-ja-men
I strongly disagree, while previous events act as an influencing factor they have their own free will, ultimately it is their choice to commit the act.
I agree that free-will plays a part, but at the same time, I'm not even positive I believe in free will. How much freewill do we truly have when all our decisions are made on a neurological and psychological basis? We make our decisions based upon our memories, sense of morality (or lack of), beliefs and values etc, each of which is based upon our past experiences, which aren't really in our control.
I think deterministically, none of us are truly "free" we are all victims of circumstance. For example, were you or I put through exactly the same life that a rapist was put through, down to the smallest detail, I'd say there would be a very large chance that we would be rapists too, despite in our current state our opposition to it. And the same goes the other direction. I believe if a rapist were raised in our lives, they would be opposed to rape as we are. That's why I don't think it's right to kill them when I don't truly believe they are fully to blame.
Although it is impossible to prove this deterministic theory, as you would have to raise to biologically different people in exactly the same environments to determine the effect of their environments on their psyche (Truman Show style). This would obviously be a highly unethical experiment, not to mention a costly one, so until we have the means available to digitally simulate the human capacity, and even that may be deemed inethical.
Written by : Ben-ja-men
sure in an perfect world
Yes, but I feel that just because we don't live in a perfect world doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to create one. The world is never going to be perfect, but it's the constant attempt to make it better that improves it.
I read the links, as for your discussion on the death penalty for pedophiles, given the facts that you stated, I would fully support the death penalty. The key fact that you gave was that the prison system does not rehabilitate inmates. Given this, there is no real hope for them to change or become better people, they would probably become worse in jail. So, I would see it as unfortunate, but would feel that death the only feasible option in that situation. Although in some countries, the death penalty is more expensive than life-imprisonment, due to legal fees and such. If this were the case I'd just give them the life-sentence, and try and put them to good use through labour or something similar.
Written by : Ben-ja-men
not at all, i enjoy a good discussion.
Me too
Written by : Lurch
Most people understand that rape is bad, and that the one being raped doesn't exactly like it.. The 'non-consensual' part is in the definition. The only problem is the target population that needs to be informed just doesn't care that they're upsetting someone by their actions.
Agreed, but we need not to inform them that they're upsetting people, nearly certainly they are already aware of this, they just either don't care or actually enjoy it. We need to rehabilitate them as to the greater consequences of their upsetting people. Even if it takes some good 'ole fashioned brain-washing (Clockwork Orange style), that would be preferable to killing them.
Written by : Firetom
"Why do we kill people who kill people to prove that the killing of people is wrong?"
To stop them from killing more people. From a utilitarian viewpoint, to kill a killer would be to prevent further murders, so although it is killing in itself, it is to prevent a greater level of killing, and therefore can be seen as a morally solid action.
Written by : Lurch
More importantly, why does society insist on keeping them around? Even at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars (millions in some cases), AND the potential for more crime and suffering. Why do we feel the need to baby and encourage bad people who do bad things by telling them it's not their fault, they can't control their actions?
Not all society insists on keeping them around, there is a large support base for the death penalty the world over, so to generalise and say "society" is probably incorrect. Agreed, it is stupid to waste precious resources maintaining their lives when they've already cost society through it's immoral actions. I don't think we're "babying" or "encouraging" bad people at all, how is putting them in jail for life encouraging them? I don't think there'd be many people who would tell a murdered or a rapist that it's not their fault and that they can't control their actions, I may think as such, but I wouldn't gentle stroke a rapists hair and shush them with such concepts. I certainly wouldn't encourage or baby them in the least, and where there are no better alternatives, would support the life-sentence or even the death penalty, I just feel that rehabilitation is a better alternative.
As for the waste of money, as mentioned above, the death penalty sometimes costs more than a life-sentence depending on the funds the accused has at their disposal for legal defense. That aside however, were the death penalty not allowed, would you support forced labour/slavery to ensure that they're making up for what they did and/or paying for the benefit of living? I probably would, and I know that this is already done, but I mean on a larger scale.
BRONZE Member
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
Posted:
Why would that be perferable to killing them? They're not exactly contributing members of society are they?
Obviously you don't read many of my posts I'd be all for lining them up and shooting them to save on ammunition expenses. But some thing poorly of that idea. The people opposing capital punishment usually site that it's "not a deterrent". Well of course it's not when it's so easy to get out of. The only reason it costs so much is because of the countless appeals that only draw out the inevitable... I don't necessarily believe rape should be a capital crime in all circumstances, but sometimes it could warrant it.
And sure, I'm all for forced labor. I don't want them to be mistreated or abused, but prison should *not* be a fun place where you get 3 meals a day and sit in your cell watch HBO and play a playstation all day long.
Written by
Agreed, but we need not to inform them that they're upsetting people, nearly certainly they are already aware of this, they just either don't care or actually enjoy it. We need to rehabilitate them as to the greater consequences of their upsetting people. Even if it takes some good 'ole fashioned brain-washing (Clockwork Orange style), that would be preferable to killing them.
Why would that be perferable to killing them? They're not exactly contributing members of society are they?
Written by
Not all society insists on keeping them around, there is a large support base for the death penalty the world over, so to generalise and say "society" is probably incorrect. Agreed, it is stupid to waste precious resources maintaining their lives when they've already cost society through it's immoral actions. I don't think we're "babying" or "encouraging" bad people at all, how is putting them in jail for life encouraging them? I don't think there'd be many people who would tell a murdered or a rapist that it's not their fault and that they can't control their actions, I may think as such, but I wouldn't gentle stroke a rapists hair and shush them with such concepts. I certainly wouldn't encourage or baby them in the least, and where there are no better alternatives, would support the life-sentence or even the death penalty, I just feel that rehabilitation is a better alternative.
As for the waste of money, as mentioned above, the death penalty sometimes costs more than a life-sentence depending on the funds the accused has at their disposal for legal defense. That aside however, were the death penalty not allowed, would you support forced labour/slavery to ensure that they're making up for what they did and/or paying for the benefit of living? I probably would, and I know that this is already done, but I mean on a larger scale.
Obviously you don't read many of my posts
I'd be all for lining them up and shooting them to save on ammunition expenses. But some thing poorly of that idea. The people opposing capital punishment usually site that it's "not a deterrent". Well of course it's not when it's so easy to get out of. The only reason it costs so much is because of the countless appeals that only draw out the inevitable... I don't necessarily believe rape should be a capital crime in all circumstances, but sometimes it could warrant it.And sure, I'm all for forced labor. I don't want them to be mistreated or abused, but prison should *not* be a fun place where you get 3 meals a day and sit in your cell watch HBO and play a playstation all day long.
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
SILVER Member
enthusiast
315 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
enthusiast
315 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
I figured it would follow that it is possible to essentially "force" them to be contributing members of society. Even then though, just because they're not contributing members of society doesn't mean they should be put to death, arguably some heavily disabled, impoverished or just plain lazy people aren't exactly contributing members to society, and some would argue that they are actually a detriment to society, would you support putting such people to death also? I certainly wouldn't, but once somebody has been truly "rehabilitated" they should have the freedom of will to do as they please (as far as their new state of mind allows them, but I feel that we're all essentially brainwashed anyway, as you may've picked up from my previous post). Or, as you may prefer, we could brainwash them into becoming contributive members of society.
If we were to have the death penalty, I would agree that saving on ammunition would be recommendable, but I'm against the death penalty.
I don't hold the "not a deterrent" argument either. If I was weighing up whether to commit murder or not, and I knew that the worst I could get is life in jail, and jail isn't the worst of experiences (as it's not in some countries) it may tip the scales in murder's favour, as opposed to the death penalty. Even if such a thought process only occurs in a small number of people, that's still enough...
That said though, I still oppose the death penalty, based on moral and economic reasons.
Moral reasons: As stated previously, I believe that the criminal's mind state is a result of their life, and not truly their fault. That said, their actions are still unacceptable, and should not be tolerated. Instead it is up to us to prevent repeat offenses. Preferably through rehabilitation, but if that's not plausible, then either forced labour or if it comes to it death. The details of these arguments can be found in previous posts.
Economic reasons: The costs of putting somebody to death are greater than keeping them imprisoned due to legal reasons. You feel that this should not be, but I think that being put to death is a big deal, and the person has a right to fair trial and defense of the necessity for the death penalty. The American legal system goes a little far in it's ability for infinite appeals should the funding permit, but elsewhere, I think the accused has a right to defense.
That aside, think of the large amount of resources "invested" into keeping the accused alive to an age where they're capable of labour. To kill them would not only cost further resources, but would be wasting any potential productivity they possess, consensual or otherwise... They've already removed what we can presume to be (or will one day be) a productive contributer to society, why compound the loss by killing them too?
The above arguments are cold, but they are purely economic in nature, not emotive.
Written by : Lurch
Why would that be perferable to killing them? They're not exactly contributing members of society are they?
I figured it would follow that it is possible to essentially "force" them to be contributing members of society. Even then though, just because they're not contributing members of society doesn't mean they should be put to death, arguably some heavily disabled, impoverished or just plain lazy people aren't exactly contributing members to society, and some would argue that they are actually a detriment to society, would you support putting such people to death also? I certainly wouldn't, but once somebody has been truly "rehabilitated" they should have the freedom of will to do as they please (as far as their new state of mind allows them, but I feel that we're all essentially brainwashed anyway, as you may've picked up from my previous post). Or, as you may prefer, we could brainwash them into becoming contributive members of society.
Written by
null
Written by : Lurch
Obviously you don't read many of my posts I'd be all for lining them up and shooting them to save on ammunition expenses. But some thing poorly of that idea. The people opposing capital punishment usually site that it's "not a deterrent". Well of course it's not when it's so easy to get out of. The only reason it costs so much is because of the countless appeals that only draw out the inevitable... I don't necessarily believe rape should be a capital crime in all circumstances, but sometimes it could warrant it.
If we were to have the death penalty, I would agree that saving on ammunition would be recommendable, but I'm against the death penalty.
I don't hold the "not a deterrent" argument either. If I was weighing up whether to commit murder or not, and I knew that the worst I could get is life in jail, and jail isn't the worst of experiences (as it's not in some countries) it may tip the scales in murder's favour, as opposed to the death penalty. Even if such a thought process only occurs in a small number of people, that's still enough...
That said though, I still oppose the death penalty, based on moral and economic reasons.
Moral reasons: As stated previously, I believe that the criminal's mind state is a result of their life, and not truly their fault. That said, their actions are still unacceptable, and should not be tolerated. Instead it is up to us to prevent repeat offenses. Preferably through rehabilitation, but if that's not plausible, then either forced labour or if it comes to it death. The details of these arguments can be found in previous posts.
Economic reasons: The costs of putting somebody to death are greater than keeping them imprisoned due to legal reasons. You feel that this should not be, but I think that being put to death is a big deal, and the person has a right to fair trial and defense of the necessity for the death penalty. The American legal system goes a little far in it's ability for infinite appeals should the funding permit, but elsewhere, I think the accused has a right to defense.
That aside, think of the large amount of resources "invested" into keeping the accused alive to an age where they're capable of labour. To kill them would not only cost further resources, but would be wasting any potential productivity they possess, consensual or otherwise... They've already removed what we can presume to be (or will one day be) a productive contributer to society, why compound the loss by killing them too?
The above arguments are cold, but they are purely economic in nature, not emotive.
BRONZE Member
nut.
756 posts
Location: Bouncing off the walls., England (UK)
nut.
756 posts
Location: Bouncing off the walls., England (UK)
Posted:
Hm.. I'd agree that sometimes crimes are not really the person committing them's fault.. Why else would most countries have an insanity clause?
A few years ago, a relative of mine was arrested for assaulting a nurse. She was, at the time, in a psychiatric ward, suffering from schitzophrenia, and was completely under the impression that the nurse concerned, who was trying to sedate her, was attempting to give her a lethal injection. Though of course I feel really sorry for the nurse concerned, would anyone really argue that should have been treated as a standard assault case?
As it happens, the stress of being charged for it (on what turned out to be the same day her husband said he was leaving) added to the fact she was still not exactly in a stable state of mind resulted in her fatally overdosing on her meds, so it never went to court.
Mental illness isn't always as clear cut as that though- one of the reasons I don't support the death penalty.
I'm sure there's rapists out there who firmly believe that's what women are for so if they object, they're objecting about their rightful place in the world, so can be ignored. It's quite a common view in some parts of the world.
I'm not advocating people in these circumstances should get away with it, but judging everyone as though they've had the same knowledge and experiences as you is pretty dangerous.
The death penalty's just too final- any mistakes or ambiguities that come to light later can't make a difference.
I don't have the complete faith in the criminal justice system (of any country) I'd need to support the death sentence.
I'm all for trying to get prisons to contribute more to society though- getting inmates involved in more productive stuff doesn't really seem to have a downside.
Just a thought- if you could get a version of these man-trap condoms that *didn't* get attached, I wonder if it would be possible, in countries where superstition and witchdoctors still pretty much rule, to get people to believe women using one are protected by .. I dunno.. the power of the porcupine.. which could act as a pretty good deterrent. Having it revealed as a little spiky rubber thing is just a bit too obvious.
Hm.. I'd agree that sometimes crimes are not really the person committing them's fault.. Why else would most countries have an insanity clause?
A few years ago, a relative of mine was arrested for assaulting a nurse. She was, at the time, in a psychiatric ward, suffering from schitzophrenia, and was completely under the impression that the nurse concerned, who was trying to sedate her, was attempting to give her a lethal injection. Though of course I feel really sorry for the nurse concerned, would anyone really argue that should have been treated as a standard assault case?
As it happens, the stress of being charged for it (on what turned out to be the same day her husband said he was leaving) added to the fact she was still not exactly in a stable state of mind resulted in her fatally overdosing on her meds, so it never went to court.
Mental illness isn't always as clear cut as that though- one of the reasons I don't support the death penalty.
I'm sure there's rapists out there who firmly believe that's what women are for so if they object, they're objecting about their rightful place in the world, so can be ignored. It's quite a common view in some parts of the world.
I'm not advocating people in these circumstances should get away with it, but judging everyone as though they've had the same knowledge and experiences as you is pretty dangerous.
The death penalty's just too final- any mistakes or ambiguities that come to light later can't make a difference.
I don't have the complete faith in the criminal justice system (of any country) I'd need to support the death sentence.
I'm all for trying to get prisons to contribute more to society though- getting inmates involved in more productive stuff doesn't really seem to have a downside.
Just a thought- if you could get a version of these man-trap condoms that *didn't* get attached, I wonder if it would be possible, in countries where superstition and witchdoctors still pretty much rule, to get people to believe women using one are protected by .. I dunno.. the power of the porcupine.. which could act as a pretty good deterrent. Having it revealed as a little spiky rubber thing is just a bit too obvious.
THE MEEK WILL INHERIT THE EARTH!
If that's okay with you?
SILVER Member
enthusiast
315 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
enthusiast
315 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Beautifully put.
Written by : hamamelis
I'm not advocating people in these circumstances should get away with it, but judging everyone as though they've had the same knowledge and experiences as you is pretty dangerous.
Beautifully put.
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
Scary scary.... Where do you draw the line?
How many people got 'proven guilty', convicted and then released (proven innocent) after xx years?
IMHO a government should not lower it's standards to that of criminals. We should not use the same intent. I remember that homosexuality (in the 1970s) has still been illegal... Society is changing and we were crawling out of our caves.
"Why put them in jail, make them more violent and release them back into society?"
"...why does society insist on keeping them around? Even at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars (millions in some cases), AND the potential for more crime and suffering."
"Why do we feel the need to baby and encourage bad people who do bad things by telling them it's not their fault, they can't control their actions?"
"They're not exactly contributing members of society are they?"
- If jail is making them "more violent" maybe we should start to reconsider how jails are organized? I understand that you speak from a US point of view. However, "they" are not necessarily "put back into society". Some face life terms, others get confined in therapeutic institutions after they completed their term, depending on their state-of-mind and the crime they committed.
- In some countries they would have to work while serving their term.
- Basically it's the US (land of the free) who incarcerates the largest percentage of it's population (to my current knowledge) - more than any other country on the planet. However, where do you find someone talking about 'encouragement'?
--- There have been and still are other "net-takers from society", where would you draw the line? History books tell us that
-murderers
-rapists
-criminals
-gypsies
-physically and mentally challenged
-homosexuals
-Jews
-communists
-critics
-priests
were incarcerated and killed by the Nazi regime. They were considered "not exactly contributing to society" either.
A basic disposition to "eradicate life that is not worth living" keeps the doors open for history to repeat itself.
Second as a society (in mainland Europe) we have chosen to keep the door open for those who dearly regret and show remorse. We have programs in effect that help criminals to get back on track. Sometimes more, sometimes less successful. It's our task to separate one from the other more efficiently.
Scary scary.... Where do you draw the line?
How many people got 'proven guilty', convicted and then released (proven innocent) after xx years?
IMHO a government should not lower it's standards to that of criminals. We should not use the same intent. I remember that homosexuality (in the 1970s) has still been illegal... Society is changing and we were crawling out of our caves.
"Why put them in jail, make them more violent and release them back into society?"
"...why does society insist on keeping them around? Even at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars (millions in some cases), AND the potential for more crime and suffering."
"Why do we feel the need to baby and encourage bad people who do bad things by telling them it's not their fault, they can't control their actions?"
"They're not exactly contributing members of society are they?"
- If jail is making them "more violent" maybe we should start to reconsider how jails are organized? I understand that you speak from a US point of view. However, "they" are not necessarily "put back into society". Some face life terms, others get confined in therapeutic institutions after they completed their term, depending on their state-of-mind and the crime they committed.
- In some countries they would have to work while serving their term.
- Basically it's the US (land of the free) who incarcerates the largest percentage of it's population (to my current knowledge) - more than any other country on the planet. However, where do you find someone talking about 'encouragement'?
--- There have been and still are other "net-takers from society", where would you draw the line? History books tell us that
-murderers
-rapists
-criminals
-gypsies
-physically and mentally challenged
-homosexuals
-Jews
-communists
-critics
-priests
were incarcerated and killed by the Nazi regime. They were considered "not exactly contributing to society" either.
A basic disposition to "eradicate life that is not worth living" keeps the doors open for history to repeat itself.
Second as a society (in mainland Europe) we have chosen to keep the door open for those who dearly regret and show remorse. We have programs in effect that help criminals to get back on track. Sometimes more, sometimes less successful. It's our task to separate one from the other more efficiently.
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
GOLD Member
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posted:
[Old link]
[Old link] however the reality is that society is unlikely to change in the near future (those with the power to make change have far to comfortable lives)
[Old link]
Lets assume its 1 in a hundred (im sure its much much lower) are innocent and 10% reoffend.
Which tradegy is worse? one innocent person sentenced to death or 10 innocent people sentenced to death/rape at the hands of the repeat rapists and murders who are let back into society?
consuming resources is different from ruining lives.
The Nazi regime didnt kill people because they wherent contributing, they used minorities as scape goats to divert the peoples attention from their crap quality of life in an effort to fuel their war effort .... a slighty different intent to punishing murders and rapists for their actions.
thats why you have a trial etc, there is no definitive line in the sand you have to assess each case based on its merits and surrounding circumstances.
Written by :NathanielEverist
I think deterministically, none of us are truly "free" we are all victims of circumstance.
[Old link]
Written by :NathanielEverist
Yes, but I feel that just because we don't live in a perfect world doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to create one. The world is never going to be perfect, but it's the constant attempt to make it better that improves it.
[Old link] however the reality is that society is unlikely to change in the near future (those with the power to make change have far to comfortable lives)
Written by :hamamelis
I'm not advocating people in these circumstances should get away with it, but judging everyone as though they've had the same knowledge and experiences as you is pretty dangerous.
[Old link]
Written by :FireTom
How many people got 'proven guilty', convicted and then released (proven innocent) after xx years?
Lets assume its 1 in a hundred (im sure its much much lower) are innocent and 10% reoffend.
Which tradegy is worse? one innocent person sentenced to death or 10 innocent people sentenced to death/rape at the hands of the repeat rapists and murders who are let back into society?
Written by :FireTom
There have been and still are other "net-takers from society", where would you draw the line? History books tell us that
consuming resources is different from ruining lives.
Written by :FireTom
were incarcerated and killed by the Nazi regime. They were considered "not exactly contributing to society" either.
The Nazi regime didnt kill people because they wherent contributing, they used minorities as scape goats to divert the peoples attention from their crap quality of life in an effort to fuel their war effort .... a slighty different intent to punishing murders and rapists for their actions.
Written by :FireTom
we have chosen to keep the door open for those who dearly regret and show remorse. We have programs in effect that help criminals to get back on track. Sometimes more, sometimes less successful.
thats why you have a trial etc, there is no definitive line in the sand you have to assess each case based on its merits and surrounding circumstances.
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
Sorry you had me listening to your ideas just up till there.
How about yourself being wrongfully accused, sentenced to death?
"ruining lives" - how about drunk driving, causing an accident, killing someone? Shoot them?
"The Nazi regime didnt kill people because they wherent contributing, they used minorities as scape goats to divert the peoples attention from their crap quality of life in an effort to fuel their war effort .... a slightly different intent to punishing murders and rapists for their actions." - please kindly quote peered websites that back up this claim, so I can verify. I find it increasingly disturbing how ppl attempt to change historical facts (on both sides of the Atlantic and both ends of the political spectrum).
"thats why you have a trial etc, there is no definitive line in the sand you have to assess each case based on its merits and surrounding circumstances." - so what is it now. Rape - death penalty? or not? Murder - death penalty? or not? What have the circumstances to do with anything?
Written by :ben-ja-menWritten by :FireTom
How many people got 'proven guilty', convicted and then released (proven innocent) after xx years?
Lets assume its 1 in a hundred (im sure its much much lower) are innocent and 10% reoffend.
Which tradegy is worse? one innocent person sentenced to death or 10 innocent people sentenced to death/rape at the hands of the repeat rapists and murders who are let back into society?
Sorry you had me listening to your ideas just up till there.
How about yourself being wrongfully accused, sentenced to death?
"ruining lives" - how about drunk driving, causing an accident, killing someone? Shoot them?
"The Nazi regime didnt kill people because they wherent contributing, they used minorities as scape goats to divert the peoples attention from their crap quality of life in an effort to fuel their war effort .... a slightly different intent to punishing murders and rapists for their actions." - please kindly quote peered websites that back up this claim, so I can verify. I find it increasingly disturbing how ppl attempt to change historical facts (on both sides of the Atlantic and both ends of the political spectrum).
"thats why you have a trial etc, there is no definitive line in the sand you have to assess each case based on its merits and surrounding circumstances." - so what is it now. Rape - death penalty? or not? Murder - death penalty? or not? What have the circumstances to do with anything?
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
GOLD Member
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posted:
If my options where to have been through the court system and wrongfully sentenced to death or to be murdered by a repeat offended. I would chose the wrong sentence (dont get me wrong i would be most upset, but i would be upset in either case). The reason being that atleast my tragic death would be as part of a system trying to remove elements that perpetuate the tragedy instead of being a by product of the self perpetuating system.
As i mentioned in previous posts it comes down to the intention behind the act and making the punishment fit accordingly. You have to look at each individual case and the circumstances around it. I am not suggesting blanket rules life is not that simple.
thats the view my dad has expressed to me (he is a military history researcher) I will ask him for some sources.
someone who premeditates murder is different to someone who commits manslaughter. The end result is the same but the intention behind the act is different
Written by :FireTom
How about yourself being wrongfully accused, sentenced to death?
If my options where to have been through the court system and wrongfully sentenced to death or to be murdered by a repeat offended. I would chose the wrong sentence (dont get me wrong i would be most upset, but i would be upset in either case). The reason being that atleast my tragic death would be as part of a system trying to remove elements that perpetuate the tragedy instead of being a by product of the self perpetuating system.
Written by :FireTom
"ruining lives" - how about drunk driving, causing an accident, killing someone? Shoot them?
As i mentioned in previous posts it comes down to the intention behind the act and making the punishment fit accordingly. You have to look at each individual case and the circumstances around it. I am not suggesting blanket rules life is not that simple.
Written by :FireTom
please kindly quote peered websites that back up this claim, so I can verify. I find it increasingly disturbing how ppl attempt to change historical facts (on both sides of the Atlantic and both ends of the political spectrum).
thats the view my dad has expressed to me (he is a military history researcher) I will ask him for some sources.
Written by :FireTom
What have the circumstances to do with anything?
someone who premeditates murder is different to someone who commits manslaughter. The end result is the same but the intention behind the act is different
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?
SILVER Member
enthusiast
315 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
enthusiast
315 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Wow, this topic has come a long way from anti-rape condoms. We've argued things down to a discussion on determinism and quantum randomness in the brain, lol.
I don't understand how quantum amplification occurs. I understand the apparently random nature of quantum particles, but I don't see how this can be amplified to allow for truly random neurological processes. I will argue as best I can though. I feel that even if there was a degree of randomness in the brain, chemical and mechanical determinism would surely play a much larger part in decision making than events that occur at random on a quantum level. For example, if you were to drug somebody, the chemicals introduced into (or released by) the brain would have a much larger standing than quantum amplification. The same could be said for an electronic implant that electrically stimulated appropriate parts of the brain to influence decisions or movements. We can see such an occurrence in recent experiments with moths where electrodes were wired to a moth's brain to control it's movements. Where is quantum randomness in that instance? Would such an experiment be expendable to Human Brains (with more advanced technology of course)? And would you still feel that the "quantum brain" has effect.
These are extreme examples, but they're made as such to help convey that I feel that determinism still occurs within our brain, even if there was the presence of a random element.
And on the nature of randomness, is it not possible that in the quantum double slit experiment, that it is not truly random? Could it not follow a predetermined pattern, only it is one that we cannot predict due to our own lack of information? For example, could it be a recurring pattern only it recurs over such a large period of time that we cannot recognise repetition? Or maybe there are other elements that play a part in determining the outcome that we cannot yet foresee? These are as much genuine questions as counter-arguments, I don't know much about quantum physics, and I haven't got time to read the book you recommended (The Quantum Brain) so, I'm just doing the best I can.
Ok, I'm going to be brief before each post in this topic becomes a thesis. I agree, those with the most power to change generally wouldn't want to change. But I feel that combined, those of us with less power still have the ability to change society. Revolution! You're right, there probably won't be a change in the near future, but one step at a time, and we can make an effective improvement. Again, just because it's difficult and it's not going to happen straight away doesn't mean we shouldn't try our hardest.
I disagree, it's the lack of initiative to "alter" their behaviour that allows it to self perpetuate. You can hold the above view but still feel it necessary to punish them, rehabilitate them, or even put them to death if that's what you think. It's not the above belief that allows the abuse to perpetuate, it's the lack of action against it. (which can follow from such a view, but it doesn't have to)
Depends on what and how much you consume.
Agreed, Mens Rea is the key element in proving murder. It is also used to determine between crime and mere accident.
Man, I might have to call it quits on this discussion soon, such an involved argument came at a bad time for my exams.
Wow, this topic has come a long way from anti-rape condoms. We've argued things down to a discussion on determinism and quantum randomness in the brain, lol.
Written by : Ben-ja-men
I think that quantum amplification in the brain (an amplifying system) makes room for the possibility of free will to exist, meaning living things are not deterministic
I don't understand how quantum amplification occurs. I understand the apparently random nature of quantum particles, but I don't see how this can be amplified to allow for truly random neurological processes. I will argue as best I can though. I feel that even if there was a degree of randomness in the brain, chemical and mechanical determinism would surely play a much larger part in decision making than events that occur at random on a quantum level. For example, if you were to drug somebody, the chemicals introduced into (or released by) the brain would have a much larger standing than quantum amplification. The same could be said for an electronic implant that electrically stimulated appropriate parts of the brain to influence decisions or movements. We can see such an occurrence in recent experiments with moths where electrodes were wired to a moth's brain to control it's movements. Where is quantum randomness in that instance? Would such an experiment be expendable to Human Brains (with more advanced technology of course)? And would you still feel that the "quantum brain" has effect.
These are extreme examples, but they're made as such to help convey that I feel that determinism still occurs within our brain, even if there was the presence of a random element.
And on the nature of randomness, is it not possible that in the quantum double slit experiment, that it is not truly random? Could it not follow a predetermined pattern, only it is one that we cannot predict due to our own lack of information? For example, could it be a recurring pattern only it recurs over such a large period of time that we cannot recognise repetition? Or maybe there are other elements that play a part in determining the outcome that we cannot yet foresee? These are as much genuine questions as counter-arguments, I don't know much about quantum physics, and I haven't got time to read the book you recommended (The Quantum Brain) so, I'm just doing the best I can.
Written by :Ben-ja-men
My thoughts on changing society however the reality is that society is unlikely to change in the near future (those with the power to make change have far to comfortable lives)
Ok, I'm going to be brief before each post in this topic becomes a thesis. I agree, those with the most power to change generally wouldn't want to change. But I feel that combined, those of us with less power still have the ability to change society. Revolution! You're right, there probably won't be a change in the near future, but one step at a time, and we can make an effective improvement. Again, just because it's difficult and it's not going to happen straight away doesn't mean we shouldn't try our hardest.
Written by : Ben-ja-men
Its that attitude of its not the rapists fault they have a different culture so they shouldn't be judged by the law which allows the abuse to self perpetuate
I disagree, it's the lack of initiative to "alter" their behaviour that allows it to self perpetuate. You can hold the above view but still feel it necessary to punish them, rehabilitate them, or even put them to death if that's what you think. It's not the above belief that allows the abuse to perpetuate, it's the lack of action against it. (which can follow from such a view, but it doesn't have to)
Written by : Ben-ja-men
consuming resources is different from ruining lives.
Depends on what and how much you consume.
Written by : Ben-ja-men
As i mentioned in previous posts it comes down to the intention behind the act and making the punishment fit accordingly. You have to look at each individual case and the circumstances around it. I am not suggesting blanket rules life is not that simple.
Agreed, Mens Rea is the key element in proving murder. It is also used to determine between crime and mere accident.
Man, I might have to call it quits on this discussion soon, such an involved argument came at a bad time for my exams.
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
Yeah, sure - easy statement as long as you're not put on death row yourself, Ben.
However - [Old link]...
Thanks for specifying your claim as your dads opinion and not as a fact - I'll wait for links to verify it.
However, there often has been the demand for capital punishment for rapists (and pedophiles). Though I agree that there should be harsher penalties IMO the death penalty might increase violence and rate of killings committed.
As we're talking about the law and the circumstances: What would be the odds of a male who was looking for consensual sex with a female - who herself (for any reasons) decided to harm him by wearing a rapex? Should he also regard himself in the lucky position that his tragic injury and subsequent conviction "would be as part of a system trying to remove elements that perpetuate the tragedy instead of being a by product of the self perpetuating system?"
Don't get me wrong - I'm all against non-consensual intercourse, may it be in the form of rape, molestation or drugging.
Rapex are on the market, therefore out there already. Nothing wrong with it, however thanks for the 'warning' to probe.
Yeah, sure - easy statement as long as you're not put on death row yourself, Ben.
However - [Old link]...
Thanks for specifying your claim as your dads opinion and not as a fact - I'll wait for links to verify it.
However, there often has been the demand for capital punishment for rapists (and pedophiles). Though I agree that there should be harsher penalties IMO the death penalty might increase violence and rate of killings committed.
As we're talking about the law and the circumstances: What would be the odds of a male who was looking for consensual sex with a female - who herself (for any reasons) decided to harm him by wearing a rapex? Should he also regard himself in the lucky position that his tragic injury and subsequent conviction "would be as part of a system trying to remove elements that perpetuate the tragedy instead of being a by product of the self perpetuating system?"
Don't get me wrong - I'm all against non-consensual intercourse, may it be in the form of rape, molestation or drugging.
Rapex are on the market, therefore out there already. Nothing wrong with it, however thanks for the 'warning' to probe.
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
GOLD Member
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posted:
like i said id be plenty upset, but of the two ways to die its what i would prefer.
As I said before having to go to hospital to have it removed would result in an investigation not an automatic conviction.
Written by :FireTom
Yeah, sure - easy statement as long as you're not put on death row yourself, Ben.
like i said id be plenty upset, but of the two ways to die its what i would prefer.
Written by :FireTom
Should he also regard himself in the lucky position that his tragic injury and subsequent conviction "would be as part of a system trying to remove elements that perpetuate the tragedy instead of being a by product of the self perpetuating system?"
As I said before having to go to hospital to have it removed would result in an investigation not an automatic conviction.
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?
newbie
7 posts
Location: NSW, Australia
7 posts
Location: NSW, Australia
Posted:
wow. All this death penalty talk is pretty scary. I live in Australia where there is no death penalty, and I truly like it that way! As a woman who has been raped... I would not have wanted the death penalty for him. But a legal system that supported me through the process of reporting, charging and bringing to trial would have been welcome. And a criminal justice system that actually rehabilitates rather than 'punishes' would also have been very welcome to me, along with a sentence that would have seen him in prison long enough for that rehabilitation to actually happen. Unfortunately that is not the case, so I never reported, and he is still out there, probably no better educated and not being held accountable for his actions still.... but I cant be sure... we don't keep in touch
I have to disagree about the comments claiming that all rapists know what they are doing and the harm they are causing... I don't think so, not all...not even most. I think a lot of rapes and other sexual assaults happen by men having a twisted view of 'concensual sex', what is meant by the different terms of sexual assault, rape, cohersion etc, and women feeling they are not in a powerful enough position to fight like hell and fury to get out of it, or to recognise it for what it is. As I mentioned before, the majority of rapes are not the stereotypical 'stranger jumps out at woman at night kind of situation'; they are by men she knows. Our cultures in western countries still hold pretty degrading views of women and women's roles around sex and violence. The power imbalances in many relationships are incredible and go unquestioned. Our cultural attitudes seem to get a little blurry around what is consensual sex within an intimate relationship for example.
(and I am being gender specific, I know, but most rape happens by men with the victims being women, so I'll just go with it... but I do know that the reverse is also true, and also the same sex rapes.)
I would much rather see our precious taxpayer money spent on activities which help our children grow up with a healthy respect and a better understanding of what is acceptable behaviour towards women (and all people).
It is sad that we all need to be educated about what a rape is, what sexual assault is, what domestic violence is... but that is the reality. And I'm glad to see it is starting to happen here.
Women also need educating about what is acceptable behaviour. Many women dont recognise when they are in a domestic violence situation. Many women don't call a rape a rape. They just suffer quietly, not understanding why they are so hurt by the experience, and not seeking help.
What I find encouraging is where men are talking about the issues, with women, to come up with solutions... even if I don't necessarily agree with the solutions.
There is an interesting program in south africa started by a man who recognised that non offending men are key players in changing the rates of violence against women. He started a program called the 5 in 6 program which basically recognises that if 1 in 6 men (in south africa, I dont know about in US or UK or whereever) are violent towards women, that means that there are 5 in 6 men who can do something about it. The program educates men about violence towards women, raises self esteem among the men, and builds social networks among both men and women. I like the idea of men taking responsibilty and action about the violence in their community, rather than women being left to do it all as has been the case for so long.
I see the key factors in rape and other violence towards women being about derogatory views that objectify women, and a disenfranchising of men from the positive aspects of being a man, along with the unhealed trauma and conditioning of growing up. I think if we build on the strengths of both men and women and connect people with people then we can do a lot about reducing all violent crimes, including rape.
As for the work programs in prisons... if they are run with the intention of building skills and self-esteem among the prisoners then they have been shown to have a huge impact on reducing both violence while incarcerated and also reoffending upon release. The slave labour style of work doesn't work. Also, leisure activities in prisons are not there to make it a cushy stay for prisoners. They are an effective way of reducing violent behaviour and are part of the rehabilitation process. Education while in prison is also another important part of that.
I understand that it can be difficult for victims of crimes to know that the offenders get to live, be educated etc, while their loved ones are dead or traumatised.
I don't see the 'kill them or let them rot' kind of attitudes solving anything though, other than satisfying a desire for retribution... but is that really healthy for victims or their families anyway?
Anyhows...it is so good that folks are talking about the issues... be well
wow. All this death penalty talk is pretty scary. I live in Australia where there is no death penalty, and I truly like it that way! As a woman who has been raped... I would not have wanted the death penalty for him. But a legal system that supported me through the process of reporting, charging and bringing to trial would have been welcome. And a criminal justice system that actually rehabilitates rather than 'punishes' would also have been very welcome to me, along with a sentence that would have seen him in prison long enough for that rehabilitation to actually happen. Unfortunately that is not the case, so I never reported, and he is still out there, probably no better educated and not being held accountable for his actions still.... but I cant be sure... we don't keep in touch
I have to disagree about the comments claiming that all rapists know what they are doing and the harm they are causing... I don't think so, not all...not even most. I think a lot of rapes and other sexual assaults happen by men having a twisted view of 'concensual sex', what is meant by the different terms of sexual assault, rape, cohersion etc, and women feeling they are not in a powerful enough position to fight like hell and fury to get out of it, or to recognise it for what it is. As I mentioned before, the majority of rapes are not the stereotypical 'stranger jumps out at woman at night kind of situation'; they are by men she knows. Our cultures in western countries still hold pretty degrading views of women and women's roles around sex and violence. The power imbalances in many relationships are incredible and go unquestioned. Our cultural attitudes seem to get a little blurry around what is consensual sex within an intimate relationship for example.
(and I am being gender specific, I know, but most rape happens by men with the victims being women, so I'll just go with it... but I do know that the reverse is also true, and also the same sex rapes.)
I would much rather see our precious taxpayer money spent on activities which help our children grow up with a healthy respect and a better understanding of what is acceptable behaviour towards women (and all people).
It is sad that we all need to be educated about what a rape is, what sexual assault is, what domestic violence is... but that is the reality. And I'm glad to see it is starting to happen here.
Women also need educating about what is acceptable behaviour. Many women dont recognise when they are in a domestic violence situation. Many women don't call a rape a rape. They just suffer quietly, not understanding why they are so hurt by the experience, and not seeking help.
What I find encouraging is where men are talking about the issues, with women, to come up with solutions... even if I don't necessarily agree with the solutions.
There is an interesting program in south africa started by a man who recognised that non offending men are key players in changing the rates of violence against women. He started a program called the 5 in 6 program which basically recognises that if 1 in 6 men (in south africa, I dont know about in US or UK or whereever) are violent towards women, that means that there are 5 in 6 men who can do something about it. The program educates men about violence towards women, raises self esteem among the men, and builds social networks among both men and women. I like the idea of men taking responsibilty and action about the violence in their community, rather than women being left to do it all as has been the case for so long.
I see the key factors in rape and other violence towards women being about derogatory views that objectify women, and a disenfranchising of men from the positive aspects of being a man, along with the unhealed trauma and conditioning of growing up. I think if we build on the strengths of both men and women and connect people with people then we can do a lot about reducing all violent crimes, including rape.
As for the work programs in prisons... if they are run with the intention of building skills and self-esteem among the prisoners then they have been shown to have a huge impact on reducing both violence while incarcerated and also reoffending upon release. The slave labour style of work doesn't work. Also, leisure activities in prisons are not there to make it a cushy stay for prisoners. They are an effective way of reducing violent behaviour and are part of the rehabilitation process. Education while in prison is also another important part of that.
I understand that it can be difficult for victims of crimes to know that the offenders get to live, be educated etc, while their loved ones are dead or traumatised.
I don't see the 'kill them or let them rot' kind of attitudes solving anything though, other than satisfying a desire for retribution... but is that really healthy for victims or their families anyway?
Anyhows...it is so good that folks are talking about the issues... be well
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
Ali, yours is one of the best and most differentiated posts I have read here in a long time. Thanks for sharing your experience and thoughts
Not sure to understand why you didn't report him. I do believe in the laws of Karma and therefore he won't get away with it, however - he might not get the clue as he might have never heard of Karma to begin with. You say that many women suffer quietly - I hope you're not joining them.
--- (some) "men having a twisted view of 'consensual sex'"
That unfortunately is very true and you can do something about it. Empower yourself and raise awareness.
--- the majority of rapes are not the stereotypical 'stranger jumps out at woman at night kind of situation'; they are by men she knows.
Which is so extremely frightening to know and also why I believe that "rapex" do not necessarily protect a woman sufficiently. She might not wear it in a situation of trust - in company of men she knows.
Therefore: Empower yourself.
--- Our cultures in western countries still hold pretty degrading views of women and women's roles around sex and violence.
And here is one of the key ingredients. I mean on one side we're certainly talking about very limited men, caught up in their sexuality and entangled in power-struggles. In the middle we do face the fact that (almost) every man has got a mother, who could educate him. On the other side we do have women who still utilize their gender (and men's limitations) and objectify themselves for short term benefits.
(Please understand that I'm in no way trying to justify or any perpetrator - I'm just suggesting to look at the entire range)
--- I would much rather see our precious taxpayer money spent on activities which help our children grow up with a healthy respect and a better understanding of what is acceptable behavior
Exactly my POV. For both sides, men and women. Women need to be able to draw a line - at the right time, with men, themselves and other women. Same applies to men. Personal integrity needs to be emphasized more, I feel.
--- a criminal justice system that actually rehabilitates rather than 'punishes' would also have been very welcome to me, along with a sentence that would have seen him in prison long enough for that rehabilitation to actually happen.
If inmates are not working, but simply sitting there, serving their term, their obligation towards the victims and society is not diminished by any means. If inmates would constructively do something to benefit the society, I'm almost certain that rehabilitation would be more possible. Educational programs and labor in jails will be the only way to re-merge criminals with society.
The program of fear and deterrence has failed for ages, society needs to go to the roots (education) rather than the symptoms (punishment).
And speaking of 'empowerment': I continue to advise all women to participate in martial arts/ self defense courses as to gain sufficient self esteem and to break the victim-perpetrator relationship. If you got daughters - send them to a Wing-Chun course, let them learn how to utilize their bodies and lead them to a broader range of responses to physical threats.
Ali, yours is one of the best and most differentiated posts I have read here in a long time. Thanks for sharing your experience and thoughts
Not sure to understand why you didn't report him. I do believe in the laws of Karma and therefore he won't get away with it, however - he might not get the clue as he might have never heard of Karma to begin with. You say that many women suffer quietly - I hope you're not joining them.
--- (some) "men having a twisted view of 'consensual sex'"
That unfortunately is very true and you can do something about it. Empower yourself and raise awareness.
--- the majority of rapes are not the stereotypical 'stranger jumps out at woman at night kind of situation'; they are by men she knows.
Which is so extremely frightening to know and also why I believe that "rapex" do not necessarily protect a woman sufficiently. She might not wear it in a situation of trust - in company of men she knows.
Therefore: Empower yourself.
--- Our cultures in western countries still hold pretty degrading views of women and women's roles around sex and violence.
And here is one of the key ingredients. I mean on one side we're certainly talking about very limited men, caught up in their sexuality and entangled in power-struggles. In the middle we do face the fact that (almost) every man has got a mother, who could educate him. On the other side we do have women who still utilize their gender (and men's limitations) and objectify themselves for short term benefits.
(Please understand that I'm in no way trying to justify or any perpetrator - I'm just suggesting to look at the entire range)
--- I would much rather see our precious taxpayer money spent on activities which help our children grow up with a healthy respect and a better understanding of what is acceptable behavior
Exactly my POV. For both sides, men and women. Women need to be able to draw a line - at the right time, with men, themselves and other women. Same applies to men. Personal integrity needs to be emphasized more, I feel.
--- a criminal justice system that actually rehabilitates rather than 'punishes' would also have been very welcome to me, along with a sentence that would have seen him in prison long enough for that rehabilitation to actually happen.
If inmates are not working, but simply sitting there, serving their term, their obligation towards the victims and society is not diminished by any means. If inmates would constructively do something to benefit the society, I'm almost certain that rehabilitation would be more possible. Educational programs and labor in jails will be the only way to re-merge criminals with society.
The program of fear and deterrence has failed for ages, society needs to go to the roots (education) rather than the symptoms (punishment).
And speaking of 'empowerment': I continue to advise all women to participate in martial arts/ self defense courses as to gain sufficient self esteem and to break the victim-perpetrator relationship. If you got daughters - send them to a Wing-Chun course, let them learn how to utilize their bodies and lead them to a broader range of responses to physical threats.
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
© 1998 - 2025 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com