Printable View
It's great to speak liberal cliches but it doesn't apply here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewie
First one should realize the danger of committing certain criminal acts. It is not the same as short skirts and makeup.
It's very on point to blame this victim for lack of vigilance or awareness. I'll never say she deserved it though.
Maybe you forgot that she was committing a criminal act and one that is known to involve a dangerous element.
abuse
Justice is supposed to be blind. Subsequently laws have to be applied irrespective of the circumstances within which they occur.
If we apply a moral judgement in situations like this we shift our focus from the offender to the victim. This is precisely why *rape shield* laws are in effect.
Sexual assault is defined at that precise point where consent no longer exists (or never existed in the first place). A person (man or woman) can engage in increasing sexualized behaviour with another and at any point along the way, up to and including penetration, if he/she says No, stop, or even by their actions indicates to any reasonable person that they no longer wish to continue, any furtherance of the behaviour is now criminal. Basically it's pull out and walk away time.
That a woman/man is a prostitute and sells sex is completely irrelevant. I cannot imagine how we can apply a different layer of basic human rights from one group from another.
Applying differential justice creates unspeakable moral dilemmas that none of us are even remotely entitled or equipped to navigate. For example, in the case of murder, would you consider it just to sentence someone to community service for killing a street person, but life in prison for killing a highly skilled professional? Would you amend the sentence if it was a situation where one street bum killed another, vs whether some rich guy killed a street bum in a dui situation (can we forget the novel Bonfire of the Vanities!).
There is a moral quicksand that we will all fall into if we try to consider who the deserving vs undeserving is. Is a prostitute automatically a morally bankrupt person. Would you consider one of the Fleet St/Wall St sharks more morally righteous. How do we measure the worth of another person, and whether they are valuable to our society or not.
Just my thoughts....
Your analogy would be more on point if applied it to criminals.Quote:
Originally Posted by kallieb
The examples you used have nothing to do with a person's lack of vigilence or awareness.
This was a prostitute and a john. In this example, she was comitting an illegal act.
This judge was idiot, however. If the judge said it was theft of services than it was rape. It means that in fact the prostitutes case was proven but the judge trivialized it.
I say it was rape but yes, THE PROSTITUTE WAS AN IDIOT AND DESERVES SOME BLAME FOR WHAT HAPPENED TO HER.
It seems when rape is involved everyone loves to say the cliched line, "don't blame the victim". By law, hell no you shouldn't.
However, if a two drug dealing brothers were making a buy of a kilo of cocaine and one gets shot in the buy....sure I'd say the guy who shot him should get jail time.
However, THE GUY WHO GOT SHOT DESERVES SOME BLAME FOR WHAT HAPPENED TO HIM.
He was comitting a criminal act which is known to involve that danger. He ain't a total victim.
The guy minding his own business that gets shot is.
I also love how people try to use the bum on the street and high paid professional as if that's somehow the same as a person comitting a criminal act.
Fanfuckingtastic. :ermm:
Interesting argument but life doesn't always fit into these neat little boxes. I stand by my position that applying a moral judgement to the application of wrong in a criminal proceeding defeats the purpose of blind justice.
You might tire of the ol' dead professional vs dead bum; but where do you draw the line. The edge of reason is easy to see; but what about the middle. When does one stop saying someone is to blame for their own tragedy. When you feel satisfied. Who is granted that exalted honour to determine who gets justice vs who does not. How do we choose these people. The venue of where these judgements occur has to be considered. Justice isn't meted out in some cheesy townhall meeting. This is in a highly structured court of law. Consider also the implications if these so called lesser criminals get off easy. Would it feel better for you if next time the loser jumps out and rapes your sister or neighbour?? Imagine the hue and cry. He should of been in jail....Why was he out....etc etc.
What if someone of value to you finds themselves in a court of law and being judged by someone who happens to be highly intolerant of a sub-class of society that this person is a member of. That justice is weighed against factors that are outside of what happened is unacceptable.
I appreciate the passion of your argument, but in all due respect, it is too simplistic for our complex times. Until you can satisfactorily work out all the nuances of the middle situations, and not just those edge cases, your rationale will not afford justice to all.
We all have basic rights, and not just those afforded to us only when others think we are deserving. That is not a society that I would feel proud of, nor wish to be a member of.
During a very difficult political debate in my country, a wise leader made a very compelling argument that sticks with me still: When it comes to a question of human rights, since when do we consider it acceptable for the majority to consider what the rights should be for a minority.
Reflect on these words. They are very wise.
rape sux bastards should be castrated thats why it happens every day if there were stiff conseqenses people may think twice if not castrated maybe something that would make someone think
Sighhh, your paragraphs are wasted on me, Jonno....Quote:
Originally Posted by kallieb
I already said that the law is the law. One shouldn't get away with breaking the law or his/her actions trivialized by law, due to lack of vigilance or awareness by the the victim.
However, your analogies have nothing to do with this case and the prostitute deserved, if nothing else, a scolding by the judge, and at the most, a penalty because she broke the law too.
This is only drawing this type of response because it was rape. This is not a woman that was simply scantily dressed.
My situation with the person buying cocaine is more appropriate.
The person that shot him deserves to be punished to the full extent of the law. He does not deserve to get off because the guy he shot was committing a criminal act (buying cocaine from him).
However, to say that there should be no words of scrutiny and blame for his own actions is idiotic and cliche.
Yeah uh huh...in some cases, the victim deserves some blame for their own actions if it is the main cause of them being the victim in the first place. Again, I don't discount the act of the aggressor at all.
This is you:
This is the article:Quote:
However, your analogies have nothing to do with this case and the prostitute deserved, if nothing else, a scolding by the judge, and at the most, a penalty because she broke the law too.
My thoughts:Quote:
He asked if she'd have sex with his friend, too, and she agreed for another $100. The friend showed up without money, the gun was pulled and more men arrived.
When a fifth man arrived and was invited to join, DeSipio said, he asked why the girl was crying - and declined. He helped her get dressed so she could leave.
Granted all the facts of the case are not being presented but what is stated is that a gun was introduced into the mix, and at least 3 more men had sex with this woman, stopping at the last man who indicates that she is crying. Are you suggesting that someone is capable of making informed consent when a gun is pointed at them.
Sexual assault occurs when consent is withdrawn in a manner that is either stated or implied. I suggest that a gun negates any presumption of consent. Suggesting otherwise is just hanging onto an opinion out of stubbornness.
You again:
Me:Quote:
Yeah uh huh...in some cases, the victim deserves some blame for their own actions if it is the main cause of them being the victim in the first place. Again, I don't discount the act of the aggressor at all.
So Scholar, please suggest some legal language as to how our laws need to be re-written to manage all these various scenarios where you feel the victim needs to shoulder some of the blame. Shall we say that Sexual Assault sections of various Criminal Codes be re-written to say....if the victim has acted recklessly or provocatively the crime committed is a lesser offense.
Who determines such subjectivity.
It's so easy and flippant to make such bold statements as...the victim deserves some blame....but you need to translate that into law, policy and procedures that then blankets us all. What kind of fallout do you think will occur then? Will people be better served by the justice system, or will be go backwards.
Judges cannot act arbitrarily. They are entrusted to determine what weight is to be assigned to evidence, and then apply this evidence the the applicable law.
I for one do not desire to see justice applied arbitrarily, and when it is I then say welcome to the dark ages.
Two criminal acts, both disgusting but, in my opinion, the rape is far more so regardless of the circumstances. It seems to me that there should be charges for all involved, the men for rape and the woman for prostitution.
Wow do you have a reading comprehension problem?Quote:
Originally Posted by kallieb
I never said the victim shoulder the blame law-wise.
In fact I have said that over and over and over and over.
As per the discussion I have said that the judge is an idiot. If the case for theft of services was proven then so was rape.
Jonno, you never fail at trying to show you're smart just for showing you're smartsake and act like you miss everything else. Why do you go through motions of relaying what sexual assault is? Get off your podium.
Again this is not simply the girl in a short skirt and, yet again, my example of the coke buyer fits this perfectly.
However, the victim does deserve a scolding since she was committing a crime that ultimately led to her being a victim.
Newsflash*** A scolding doesn't mean the law goes against her. Hell judges do it with people that get off on technicalities ALL THE TIME.