[quote]lixy wrote:
pat36 wrote:
I this case, if it is determined there was malicious intent, meaning she wasn’t raped but want to bring this guy down or something, then she should serve two years for every year he served. If it was just mistaken identity, then what can you do? It sucks, but if she honestly thought she had the right guy…what can you do. In that case, the attorneys on both sides then have culpability and should be investigated for flagrant mistakes in the case that ruined a person’s life for no fucking reason.
That’s nice and all in theory, but short of a confesion, it’s impossible to establish malicious intent.
I think the problem lies with the system wherein the accused is considered guilty until proven innocent. I support maximum punishment for established rapists (be the victim a kid or a grown-up), but I also believe in granting benefit of doubt. All that fancy DNA wizardry is pretty useless when it comes to establishing if a rape occurred. I mean, how hard is it for a gal to get a dude’s sperm? All you can establish with technology, is that there was sexual encounter. The chick (think a vengeful ex) can then get a few bruises (easy peasy!), and go to the cops in tears. A girl confessed to me (in a boastful way) that she did that. Needless to say that it was the last day I saw her.
I’m all for empowering women, but giving them a send people to jail free card is pretty irresponsible. I want to treat the kids’ cases differently (seeing that they’re prone to be victimized), but I’ve been a kid myself and know how manipulative one can get.
Orion speaks of 50% false rape accusations, but does it really matter? What would be a reasonable threshold? 25%? 10%? 5%? This is not a DUI or a drug dealing charge. It’s far far worse. If I had to choose, I’d rather be convicted of homicide than (child) rape.
Enough ramblin’…for now.[/quote]
Uh, thats what I said…the real problem were the lawyers…They did not do their job and should be held responsible. They are there to uncover to truth and they failed and ruined a guys life.
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
orion wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
orion wrote:
Plus, the people we really have to thank for that there are no more child rapes are the pedophiles themselves.
Most of them know it is wrong and simply do not act on their urges- Since around 20% of men seem to have pedophile fantasies (though I guess that depends on what you call a pedophile) there would be no way to stop them if they all acted on their impulses.
I think this is the key to that 20% number.
By American legal standards, it would possibly be a ‘pedophilic fantasy’ to look lustfully at a 16 y.o. girl, and I would wager that a lot more than 20% of men have been guilty of this.
On the flip side, I don’t think anywhere close to 20% of men have ever been sexually attracted to a seven y.o…
Now, had I written by American standards I would have been accused of being anti-American for the umpteenth time.
The legal age in Austria is 14.
I’ve been trying to figure out what your avatar is ever since you switched from the fuzzy purse.
I swear it looks like a chicken dressed up for Louis XIV’s court.
What is it?[/quote]
This is my version of a “European cosmopolitan Dandy”.
Apparently this was meant as an insult so I tried to come up with a picture that I think expresses best what my opponent was trying to say.
[quote]orion wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
orion wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
orion wrote:
Plus, the people we really have to thank for that there are no more child rapes are the pedophiles themselves.
Most of them know it is wrong and simply do not act on their urges- Since around 20% of men seem to have pedophile fantasies (though I guess that depends on what you call a pedophile) there would be no way to stop them if they all acted on their impulses.
I think this is the key to that 20% number.
By American legal standards, it would possibly be a ‘pedophilic fantasy’ to look lustfully at a 16 y.o. girl, and I would wager that a lot more than 20% of men have been guilty of this.
On the flip side, I don’t think anywhere close to 20% of men have ever been sexually attracted to a seven y.o…
Now, had I written by American standards I would have been accused of being anti-American for the umpteenth time.
The legal age in Austria is 14.
I’ve been trying to figure out what your avatar is ever since you switched from the fuzzy purse.
I swear it looks like a chicken dressed up for Louis XIV’s court.
What is it?
This is my version of a “European cosmopolitan Dandy”.
Apparently this was meant as an insult so I tried to come up with a picture that I think expresses best what my opponent was trying to say.
[quote]orion wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
orion wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
orion wrote:
Plus, the people we really have to thank for that there are no more child rapes are the pedophiles themselves.
Most of them know it is wrong and simply do not act on their urges- Since around 20% of men seem to have pedophile fantasies (though I guess that depends on what you call a pedophile) there would be no way to stop them if they all acted on their impulses.
I think this is the key to that 20% number.
By American legal standards, it would possibly be a ‘pedophilic fantasy’ to look lustfully at a 16 y.o. girl, and I would wager that a lot more than 20% of men have been guilty of this.
On the flip side, I don’t think anywhere close to 20% of men have ever been sexually attracted to a seven y.o…
Now, had I written by American standards I would have been accused of being anti-American for the umpteenth time.
The legal age in Austria is 14.
I’ve been trying to figure out what your avatar is ever since you switched from the fuzzy purse.
I swear it looks like a chicken dressed up for Louis XIV’s court.
What is it?
This is my version of a “European cosmopolitan Dandy”.
Apparently this was meant as an insult so I tried to come up with a picture that I think expresses best what my opponent was trying to say.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
Hell no! They should release the child rapist to the custody of the kid’s parents. Or if the kid doesn’t have parents, emasculate them. For some crimes, death is to kind a punishment.[/quote]
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Hell no! They should release the child rapist to the custody of the kid’s parents. Or if the kid doesn’t have parents, emasculate them. For some crimes, death is to kind a punishment.
My thoughts exactly.[/quote]
This kind of thinking doesn’t really help anyone. This is why I think the death penalty is a good thing; it has economic benefits and it permanently stops the offender from offending again.
The criminal system should not be about punishment for the sake of satisfying a sadistic need to see people suffer, it should be about either rehabilitating a person, or deterring them from ever committing a crime again — and where either approach is too generous or inefficient, the death penalty should be justified.
The idea of punishment purely to see someone suffer helps no-one and only fosters hate within society.
^ Good point. Kind of like if a dog bites twice, you put it down for good. Not because you “hate” it, but because it’s dangerous.
The problem is how do you keep the wrongfully convicted from being executed?
There’d need to be like a “three-strikes” clause or something.
Nobody will be wrongfully convicted of sex crimes on three separate occasions. At least one of the convictions would have to be real. It’s too improbable.
A three strike sort of system would be pretty reliable, of course nothing is perfect.
I don’t think anyone really has an answer to the mistaken conviction of the innocent.
The whole point of the court system in relation to criminal offences is to find out whether someone is guilty. It’s the only consensual measure of ‘truth’ we have. Obviously though, the ‘truth’ of a criminal proceeding is not absolute truth or infalliable, it’s simply relative to what evidence can be presented within the context of law.
So unfortunately, we can’t even get a statistic of how many innocent people are wrongfully convicted outside the highly relative truth of the legal system.
Consequently, we can never really calculate what an acceptable margin of error is for mistaken convictions. Perhaps 50% of all convicted persons are innocent, perhaps 99% are guilty… who knows?
As long as we have a presumption of innocence I’m satisfied. I don’t think that merely having someone at the scene of a crime should ever constitute guilt in itself no matter how dubious the circumstances might seem. I’ve watched too many thrillers where someone is framed for murder to believe that anything but absolute evidential certainty should be enough for conviction, but such certainty would make it impossible to prosecute in almost any circumstance.
As for the death penalty (replacing life imprisonment, etc)
Pros:
Economic benefits
Perhaps preferable or more humane than life imprisonment
Cons:
Cannot later find out that someone is innocent if new evidence is put forth (as Nikiforos said)
Might foster the view that dealing death is ok. Desensitizing the populace to death like this may make murders (or even war crimes, etc) seem more acceptable
[quote]Legionnaire wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Hell no! They should release the child rapist to the custody of the kid’s parents. Or if the kid doesn’t have parents, emasculate them. For some crimes, death is to kind a punishment.
My thoughts exactly.
This kind of thinking doesn’t really help anyone. This is why I think the death penalty is a good thing; it has economic benefits and it permanently stops the offender from offending again.
The criminal system should not be about punishment for the sake of satisfying a sadistic need to see people suffer, it should be about either rehabilitating a person, or deterring them from ever committing a crime again — and where either approach is too generous or inefficient, the death penalty should be justified.
The idea of punishment purely to see someone suffer helps no-one and only fosters hate within society.
[/quote]
One of the theoretical justifications of state-administered punishment is that the state usurps the private vengeance function. Citizens give up their right to seek private vengeance in exchange for the promise of the state to vigorously pursue their claims for justice. This is a strong argument, both for retaining the death penalty, and applying it in this type of case. Even moreso now, because with all of these technologies available for proving innocence, there should be a much reduced chance of wrongful conviction.