babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
Actually, this is not true as far as I know. Many times people who have been violently sexual assaulted do keep their humanity and rise above vengeance.
It was a specific response to a specific point made by Rebecca but feel free to remove it from the context and turn it into something different.
Why not?
Everyone else does here.
I'm not sure I know what you mean. Are you being derogatory? My statements about pedophiles are what's currently documented about re-offense and what's currently accepted by the psychiatric community. If you have data that supports another view, by all means, present it. I'd be interested in hearing it.
A low fucking comment? To suggest that people on both sides of the sentencing argument, the victim as well as the one being sentenced, don't really know how the individuals are impacted, is making a low fucking comment? You think it's nasty to suggest that the permanent and irreperable damage done to the victim of violent sexual assault isn't given enough attention when considering the length of sentence for a perpetrator?Well Ape, you're not alone in your opinion. The perspective of the victim/survivor of violent sexual assault is still frequently dismissed when sentencing for sexual assault is considered by the courts. It's a shame, because it means that a woman or child who's been dehumanized by some monster is further devalued by a system that won't recognize the impact of the crime on them, a system that often fails to protect society against such people by releasing them unrehabilitated among the unsuspecting public.
A barbaric and racist response to a barbaric and sexist act. Very old testament. I suppose some people might consider "and eye for an eye" justice. I'm not sure whether execution wouldn't be less barbaric than 40 years without possibility of parole. Hard to say, both are beyond my comprehension and quite horrific to the imagination, completely removing hope that way.
I didn't mean to suggest that all sexual assault survivors are howling for blood. And I placed the word "humane" in parentheses for the very reason that what is humane and what is inhumane and barbaric is highly subjective.[ August 19, 2002: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]
I am sorry, I don't think I noticed any references in your response, so why don't you produce them first - I got my knowledge from a criminologist who taught me last year as well as the Newsnight programme I watched on the paedophile rehab hospital that is now closing that I mentioned above.
As for the low fucking comment, I think the justice system doesn't do anywhere near enough for victims, but you said that:
What the hell does that have to do with a judge's sentence? You can (and rightfully) criticise short sentences, but that is not the same (unless you live in some simple alternative universe!) What does the comment in quotes above have to do with:
NONE of that is what I said. I said that your comment was dismissive of anyone who disagrees with in'humane' sentences on the basis that they have never been a victim. Guess what, some of them have. Arguing for humane sentences is not dismissing the victim at all. Arguing for rehabilitation is not dismissing the victim, it is about trying to find a means of retribution that also involves getting the criminal to recognise the hurt they have caused, to realise the enormity of the crime they have committed, in its entirety, and to understand the consequences for the victim.
There is a hell of a lot of secondary victimization within the criminal justice system and a lot of it at the sentencing stage, but it is not as simple as the people arguing for humane sentencing (your translation = gets off lightly) meaning they want shorter sentences.
I imagine you want to lump me in with Jeff House. Before you do, look up this thread to my first post. I want HUMANE sentences, that does not mean I want SHORT sentences.
FFS.
Indeed, so I guess you think the law should be subjective rather than objective?
Both, of course.
---------------------------
As for Shenanigans' comments, they betray a lack of understanding of the way in which an offence, or indeed any fact, must be proven.
For example, take this comment:
Sexual intercourse is legal. Sexual intercourse may involve the exchange of fluids, and so, DNA.
So, the fact that there is DNA present proves only that a physical interaction did take place.
When the issue is whether the woman consented or not, it will be necessary for the woman to swear that she did not wish to have sexual intercourse.
This is hardly outrageous, but simply a requirement that each element of the crime be proven. Or should we presume, as Shenanigans suggests, that the presence of DNA has implications for the question of consent?
Shenanigans also points out that it rare to get 10 to 15 years for rape in Canada. Yes, it is. What I said in my earlier post was that the accused would likely get that sentence for THESE crimes, which were multiple, barbaric, and racist.
I am not aware of any case in which jail was not given for rape. Commonly in Ontario, sentences of two to three years jail are given for a first offence of sexual assault which amounts to rape.
I also understand her frustration:
Rape is very hard to prove, because there are usually no witnesses other than the participants in the sexual intercourse. But I doubt that anyone wants people to go to jail for a crime which has not been proven, do they?
[ August 19, 2002: Message edited by: jeff house ]
Absolutely. I am all in favour of Victim Impact Statements having influence on the sentence. The state must not be allowed to steal the crime from those involved but must involve them in its resolution - often when they do, they find victims much more forgiving than those who purport to speak for them (the hang em and flog em brigade and the tabloid press). Restorative justice is an increasingly popular movement and one I mostly support as it is as much to do with resolving pain and restoring power as with punishment.
And do you think that is enough, Jeff House?
[img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
So what you have plenty of uses for rapists. yafuckinhoo, I don't. None at all. Waste of space and any money or effort spent on fixing them is nothing more than throwing good money after bad. Of course you wouldn't understand that now would you. After all you're the guy who would have them released to rape again and again with the excuse that it's the systems fault or societies hell anyone's fault but the rapist. Thanks for nothing. I am sure Paul Bernardo could use a kind word if you have some spare time.
Jeff I can understand your position being a lawyer and all, but I think it become evident that the pendulum that is justice has moved too far in the direction of educating career criminals and giving them another shot at the public who should protected by the justice system.
Just because your parents are or have done something, are you obligated to do the same thing. It's called freewill. Shifting the blame to someone or something else is nothing more than a crutch and a license to fuck up.
I'd like to think I know a thing or two about the legal process, not from a position of privilige to analyse it, but as a survivor and as a volunteer worker and student of Assaulted Women and Children's Counselling/Advocacy who watches continuously first hand how it plays itself out for women who are raped.
Thank you for pointing that out. I was using it as a more extreme example and would like to point out that rape may not leave any traces of DNA behind.
I'm not suggesting anything, don't put words into my posts. Having a woman swear to the crime is not outrageous, what is outrageous is the defense will do everything in their power to prove otherwise, that the woman did indeed give consent, even if verbally she said NO. Maybe she was wearing a short skirt, or had a drink or two that evening, she's disabled-who'd want to rape her, they're married, maybe she was menstruating and dreamt the whole thing up (which was used successfully as a defense in the US). And unbelievably, these ridiculous defenses work, as opposed to proving that the rape did not occur, it was whether she asked for it. This is sexist, it's wrong, it continues to allow many rapes to happen because it discourages many victims to seek "justice" through the legal system.
I certainly am. While I should specifics, client confidentiality and my ethics do not permit.
No one wants anyone to go to jail for a crime they are innocent of. It happens all too often when it boils down to race. Yet at the same time, there is a huge unbalance of men who are not going to prison because it was determined that the woman wanted the violence, by sexist a framework, or if convicted, the jail time is pathetic (and yes, 2 years is pathetic).
All in all, this discussion is actually a little moot, because more often than not if the crime is reported, charges are not laid. But it's a fun discussion nonetheless.
Shenanigans
Well, lump me sort of close. No, lump me even further in left field.
I don't believe in revenge; I don't even believe in punishment. (When I say I don't believe, I don't mean that I don't recognize people have these impulses, powerful, almost unbidden. I just don't think we have to be ruled by them. And I don't believe democracy can withstand them.)
I also think we are absolutely nowhere on understanding and sorting through the many different kinds of sexual assault that occur, and we are probably worse than nowhere on treating serious cases of pedophilia or murderous compulsion of several kinds.
I also think our courts are primitive in their dealings with victims of sexual crimes during the trials proper -- but I think that victim-impact statements are a travesty of justice.
I'm also convinced that the majority of violent criminals were themselves seriously abused or have FAS/FAE.
I recognize there are a lot of contradictions to be thought through there. But I think it's wimpy to refuse to consider all the harder truths, even when they are in apparent conflict, and I'm sure we'll never solve any of our problems if we dissolve into the sentimentalities each of those conditions tempts us to. And besides, Slick Willy told me to stop being a wimp.
"She asked for it" is, I presume, a crude way of saying that "she consented." If she consented, then the rape did not occur, since rape is sex without consent.
As for this comment:
Rape was taken out of the Criminal Code and replaced by the crime of sexual assault. The MAIN people demanding this change were feminists. They argued that since rape required proof of actual penetration, it was demeaning to the witness/complainant. Further, some writers on rape, such as Loren Clarke, argued that "rape" was a crime involving the husband or father's "possession" of the woman's reproductive system. They argued that as such, it was a historical artifact, and should be replaced with a less-compromised crime, "sexual assault."
At the time, I thought it was a bad idea, because
one loses, among other things, information about the prevalence of rape specifically. As it is, it is hard to get a real sense of the sentences for rape, because one often cannot find out, in the reported decisions, exactly what was the act which led to a conviction.
If she consented, I doubt that except for a small minority of cases, she would be there in court accusing someone of rape. However under a sexist framework, consent can be (and is!) established by one of the various examples I brought up that were edited out of your post. For some odd reason, saying no is not enough.
I understand why it was taken out, thanks for the refresher. But there are differences of opinions among feminists, and while many have argued for the word to be changed, there are many you will find who still frequently use the word. But I mentioned that as a trivial part of my post, no biggie to me either way.
Shenanigans
I'm sorry but this was not justice. I would never advise a woman to report a rape after this. The same day, a 15 year old girl had to testify about being raped by her mother's boss and he got off free too. Again, the judge decided the kid wanted it because she was coming to the office after school, supposedly as the man said, to flirt with him.
True pedophiles have a brain disorder that so far has no cure. They do not think like "normal" men in that they see children in a sexual manner, whether the child is acting this way or not. This is in all the psychiatric literature on the subject. There are cases of pedophile behaviour in men who are not true pedophiles under this definition and I think some of those may be able to be rehabilitated. I'd like to know what program that clinic was using. If it was some form of revulsion therapy, that has been proven to have only a temporary effect.
Treating pedophilia? How do you treat pedophilia?
What makes you think you can? Is this one of those ideas where you can "treat" homosexuality so that gay men can live a hetrosexual lifestyle and thus be "fixed praise the lord" shit?
As much as some people want to wish it away, rapists and pedophilacs don't have some chemical imbalance or just the wrong idea about sex.
They choose to attack people not because they think it is how life works. They know it's wrong and they are fine with that.
Are any of you saying that this isn't a violent act and is sexual?
[ August 20, 2002: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]
Oh, what's this - its "words in mouth" arguing? Where do I say that, Slick?
Is it just my imagination thinking that time and again, I made the point that for rehab to be effective the rapist must accept that it is their fault, that they are responsible for the crime and all the consequences. But why bother reading someone's posts when you can just put words in their mouth, ey, Slick?
You're all heart, Slick [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
(All heart and no mind)
Edited for grammar.
[ August 20, 2002: Message edited by: Apemantus ]
And out of interest, when did you get these great insights into the paedophile's mind. What makes you so sure that "they know it's wrong and they are fine with that." In any case, your logic seems a bit flawed here - you start by making the point that paedophilia can't be treated, the implication being that it is not something people have any choice over, then you finish by saying that they choose paedophilia. Now, which do you think it is, Willy? Do they choose to be paedophiles or not? If you accept that it is not a choice they have, then the next question is like, for example, married gay men, do they have the choice whether to 'express' their paedophilia, to which the answer is yes, they could have seeked help before committing the act, there a variety of systems and people they can seek help from (although I wonder whether you think these should exist, seeing as you see it as untreatable - do you think we should just wait for paedophiles to commit their first offence, then having identified them AFTER that offence, deal with them (in your world, presumably lock 'em up and throw away the key)? Or do you think it is right that there should exist systems to try and identify and stop paedophiles prior to the first offence? And if so, you are admitting that something can be done (unless you think those systems should be just a cell into which admitted paedophiles with no criminal convictions should be put).
I think you need to clarify (calmly as it might make it easier for yourself) what your thinking is and then we can take it from there.
Why don't you try reading their posts, Willy? I can't see anyone on this thread saying that they are not violent and sexual, can you?
If you do answer this post, can you respond to what I DO say rather than what I don't, please, as your outbursts above are based on your own biases rather than anything I actually wrote in the thread.
Thanks.
Show remorse and take responsibility? I can see the "I'm sorry" bit but how does a pedophile take responsibility for molesting children? By listing them, maybe getting togeather after release from prison (yes I'm sure that is the first thing someone who has been raped wants) maybe do a little restitution work for the victim?
Hey stupid! If someone is willing to commit rape or is a pedophile they are not to likely to have a problem with not being entirely honest if it means they can get off the skinner floor.
Or do you think those master minds down in parole will just use their "mad skills" and weed out those who might do a little fibbing to get let out to have some more fun?
Talk about not having a clue!
I can't say as I really care if they are rehabilitated or punished. Just as long as they can never be a threat to the public again is good enough for me. And that means, for the benefit of Apey here, that they never get released from prison untill they are so frail and weak that a 6 year old girl could drop them to the ground with a good shriek.
Just how fucked up a thing to say is that. Being Gay isn't being a pedophiliac. Maybe it's just that you don't know or something but homosexuality is consentual between two adults. Homosexuals don't need to be "fixed" by you, god or anyone else for that matter.
Enough people have already been hurt by those like yourself who think they know it all and though they never actually play the game have all sorts of opinions on how it should be played. You're part of a group of people who would be the first to throw their hands up in the air and say oh well when a repeat offender ruins another family or someone life just for the chance to win an argument.
It is the same stupid argument that moves pedophiles from one diocies to the next in the Catholic Church, just to save face. Yes I am sure they were terribly sorry for what they did. Didn't prevent anything though.
You should be ashamed of yourself but I am sure that this is something you could never understand.
In fact, it's been recorded time and time again that women who live with the nightmare of their rapes for years are released from their torment when they confront their assailants in person, under safe circumstances. Suddenly, the monster is just a man. And she is able to tell that man exactly how she feels, exactly what she experienced and experiences.
It's also been recorded that men who are offered the opportunity to meet with those they assaulted are afraid to do so.
I encourage those who want to learn more about this dynamic to read "Sexual Offending and Restoration" by Mark Yantzi, Herald Press ISBN 0-8361-9081-5.
[ August 20, 2002: Message edited by: writer ]
Um, Apemantus, was this a typo? Did you mean to type "homosexuality" instead of "paedophilia"?
That could be an explanation for the comment, Slick...I can't imagine Apemantus thinking that gay men are pedophiles - he doesn't strike me as the homophobic type.
From my experience with them it's quite common, so perhaps that's what he was thinking.
This line blurring could soon become a danger in Canada, since "sexual orientation" has not been defined by our Parliament in our laws. Hopefully that will be dealt with in the upcoming session, as Svend Robinson's PMB asks for "sexual orientation" to be protected under the Charter. It won't go through, but perhaps it could draw attention to the big problem that the term has not been defined to exclude pedophilia, necrophilia and bestiality.
There is no such thing as no meaning yes. There is no such thing as "they asked for it" (meaning the victim of the crime.
Every rapist knows, even as little as seconds prior to the act itself, that what they are doing is wrong. You can't tell me a rapist in any way shape or form thinks that what he or she is doing is acceptable societal behaviour -- hence why these things occur behind closed doors, in dark secluded areas and often involve threat of death if the victim makes any noise. That alone is a crime... uttering death threats.
There should be no distinction in what type of rape it is. And IMHO, life in prison with no possibility of parole is too short for those who commit rape. There is no excuse or this crime. Period.
But do we really expect the perpetrator to convict himself? I think the conviction rate would then really go down.
Further I dare any one of them to put their freedom on the line for the actions of a rapist or pedophile upon their release that they will not reoffend.
Of COURSE they have to be proven guilty. And since the rape victim is the person the crime was committed against, then yes, that means that the rape victim is usually the star witness for the prosecution. You can't have it any other way - when you're dealing with an accused person's life and liberty, they have to have the same benefit of the doubt that anyone else has.