Feminism

[M3J]

The justice system isn't supposed to let criminals get off easily, no matter their age, just because it hurts their future or whatever. And yet, here we are.

 

[xi0]

The justice system isn't supposed to let criminals get off easily, no matter their age, just because it hurts their future or whatever. And yet, here we are.

I don't think judges taking such things into account when determining sentencing is the issue, it's that it almost certainly isn't evenly applied, especially when it comes to the supposed crime in question.

For example, a judge deciding not to give a severe sentence to someone for sexual misconduct, but another judge following mandatory sentencing for someone committing a drug-related crime.

 

[M3J]

I don't think judges taken such things into account when determining sentencing is the issue, it's that it almost certainly isn't evenly applied, especially when it comes to the supposed crime in question.

For example, a judge deciding not to give a severe sentence to someone for sexual misconduct, but another judge following mandatory sentencing for someone committing a drug-related crime.

Not all of them do, but so far two judges did, which is ridiculous. Where's the justice in letting two rapists get off easily, while a black man who argued he wasn't a rapist was jailed for years? Now, I'm curious how many rapists get a lighter sentence than they deserve, I know majority do or did in India.

 

[shionoro]

The justice system isn't supposed to let criminals get off easily, no matter their age, just because it hurts their future or whatever. And yet, here we are.

Well it kinda is in most countries. I know the US works differently in that aspect, but in most countries, the justice system is supposed to give out the best possible outcome for society and peace.
And since we know that criminals at young age are often influenced negatively by jailtime, it is often a better solution to use other means.

 

[M3J]

The best possible outcome for society and peace is to lock up rapists and maybe try to reform them, not give them some sort of freedom where they can potentially go after others.

 

[shionoro]

The best possible outcome for society and peace is to lock up rapists and maybe try to reform them, not give them some sort of freedom where they can potentially go after others.

We know that that is not true. We know that early jailtime often impacts their criminal record negatively.
You have to let them go out some time, and if no jail penalty does a better job in reforming them than jailtime, then this is a reality we have to see.

There is another factor which is the punishment aspect, which is certainly part of the law.

But if, for example, a 17 years old rapes a woman, it is questionable whether the best possible solution we have in store is jailtime.
There are a lot of factors to be seen here. Is he generally well adjusted (so no other criminal record) so that it is an outlier?
Would it cause him to lose any probable chance to an adjusted life?

The US has a big problem with putting too many people in jail already, and we know that it let crimerates skyrocket because people oftentimes become more bound to crime when they go there.

In cases like the one i mentioned, there are other measures which can be more effective, like teen adjustment centres (if they are run right by actual medical personel, that is) and, of course, another punishment form like being forced to work in social instituations and paying money.

I know that this can come off as mockery for the victims, but that is the case with any severe crime.
We know that jailing people actually causes more crimes and we have to act accordingly.

 

[xi0]

The US has a big problem with putting too many people in jail already, and we know that it let crimerates skyrocket because people oftentimes become more bound to crime when they go there.

This is actually sort of related to the whole Brock Turner fiasco with him getting out of prison early. Almost all prisoners get out early if they have no blemishes on their record while there, because we simply can't house every single prisoner for the full duration of their sentences.

 

[shionoro]

This is actually sort of related to the whole Brock Turner fiasco with him getting out of prison early. Almost all prisoners get out early if they have no blemishes on their record while there, because we simply can't house every single prisoner for the full duration of their sentences.

The media often jump on cases like that.
There is a case to be made against (and yes i will use that word) general rapeculture on US campusses. the problem is that while people often deny even the problem, they quickly jump on the 'DESTROY THAT GUYS LIFE' train in cases where a clear perpetrator is made out.
We see the same in india with the recent public gangrape cases. The cry out for death penalty against them soothes conscience, but it does not exactly help the problem itself.

I am not categorically against high penalties for certain crimes if it makes sense. There are cases in which fast prison penalties make sense even if it was a first offense.
But in many cases, they don't. As i see it, shouting for high penalties for rapists is often used as a way to not actually talk about the fact that even decent people can become rapists.

 

[M3J]

We know that that is not true. We know that early jailtime often impacts their criminal record negatively.
You have to let them go out some time, and if no jail penalty does a better job in reforming them than jailtime, then this is a reality we have to see.

There is another factor which is the punishment aspect, which is certainly part of the law.

But if, for example, a 17 years old rapes a woman, it is questionable whether the best possible solution we have in store is jailtime.
There are a lot of factors to be seen here. Is he generally well adjusted (so no other criminal record) so that it is an outlier?
Would it cause him to lose any probable chance to an adjusted life?

The US has a big problem with putting too many people in jail already, and we know that it let crimerates skyrocket because people oftentimes become more bound to crime when they go there.

In cases like the one i mentioned, there are other measures which can be more effective, like teen adjustment centres (if they are run right by actual medical personel, that is) and, of course, another punishment form like being forced to work in social instituations and paying money.

I know that this can come off as mockery for the victims, but that is the case with any severe crime.
We know that jailing people actually causes more crimes and we have to act accordingly.

If there's no punishment for crimes committed, the criminals will keep committing the crime/s. If rapists don't get punished, then they might continue to rape and force the victims to keep their mouths shut. Jail or not, criminals need to be punished, and registering Turner as a sex offender may not be enough.

Many times jailtime has succeeded in reforming prisoners. Though, I'm not sure about sexual predators, truth be told. But it's ridiculous rapists get a light sentence while the victims have to live with what happened forever. Turner did a very wrong thing, he took an unconscious woman behind a dumpster and had sex with her when she couldn't say no. That's pretty messed up. Plus, I'm pretty sure race comes into this. A quick Google search on the first page shows black men getting long sentences while most white men get short sentences or reduced sentences.

The US puts people who smoke weed in jail, or people who haven't committed a big crime. These people have jailtime on their record and find it hard, if not difficult, to start afresh because of their past. In some cases, it's a well deserved repercussion for whatever bad crime they committed, whether it's rape, murder, or robbery.

By jailing people causing more crime, do you mean for everyone jailed, or for most people?

The media often jump on cases like that.
There is a case to be made against (and yes i will use that word) general rapeculture on US campusses. the problem is that while people often deny even the problem, they quickly jump on the 'DESTROY THAT GUYS LIFE' train in cases where a clear perpetrator is made out.
We see the same in india with the recent public gangrape cases. The cry out for death penalty against them soothes conscience, but it does not exactly help the problem itself.

I am not categorically against high penalties for certain crimes if it makes sense. There are cases in which fast prison penalties make sense even if it was a first offense.
But in many cases, they don't. As i see it, shouting for high penalties for rapists is often used as a way to not actually talk about the fact that even decent people can become rapists.

Death penalty is seen as a hopeful deterrent, and as the best punishment for horrible people who raped and even killed their victims. If there was something seen as worse than death (there are, tbh), then people would support that as punishment instead. They're hoping it does help the problem, though I'm sure that's not their primary thought.

Once decent people become legitimate rapists, they cease to be decent. How hard is it to NOT have sex when a person says no? A woman might want to have sex but if she changes her mind at the last second, she's well within her rights to do so, and the guy should not force her to have sex.

 

[shionoro]

If there's no punishment for crimes committed, the criminals will keep committing the crime/s. If rapists don't get punished, then they might continue to rape and force the victims to keep their mouths shut. Jail or not, criminals need to be punished, and registering Turner as a sex offender may not be enough.

Many times jailtime has succeeded in reforming prisoners. Though, I'm not sure about sexual predators, truth be told. But it's ridiculous rapists get a light sentence while the victims have to live with what happened forever. Turner did a very wrong thing, he took an unconscious woman behind a dumpster and had sex with her when she couldn't say no. That's pretty messed up. Plus, I'm pretty sure race comes into this. A quick Google search on the first page shows black men getting long sentences while most white men get short sentences or reduced sentences.

The US puts people who smoke weed in jail, or people who haven't committed a big crime. These people have jailtime on their record and find it hard, if not difficult, to start afresh because of their past. In some cases, it's a well deserved repercussion for whatever bad crime they committed, whether it's rape, murder, or robbery.

By jailing people causing more crime, do you mean for everyone jailed, or for most people?

If there is punishment for the crime of a juvenile who is subsequently taken out of schook or work, it makes it more likely that he will stay a delinquent all his life.
He HAS to be punished, yes, but getting early out of jail is not a bad thing, or not getting into jail and having to do a service.

It cannot be said that 'many times jailtime as succeeded'.
It is rather that some people get reformed DESPITE the jail. Jails are not reforming people, exspecially in the US. They are meant to be horrible so other people will not commit the same crime. And that is a problem, because it leads to higher crimerates.
I know that there are reforms and there are programs, but then, why do people get upset about him getting out of jail early? BEcause they put pubishment above common sense here.

It's not like i am for putting some potkids into jail. That is part of the problem that has to stop.
But don't you see how you say that the stoner kids after that have it very hard to reform?
The same applies tenfold for the rapist. He did a worse thing, but we, as a society, still want him to reform.
In most cases, it is unlikely that he will do it again, or at least less likely if we don't destroy his life.

People should be jailed if they either repeatedly committed crimes or if they pose a danger to society or committed a crime so severe that social peace would be threatened if they didnt face a lock up.
When a crime is that severe is up to interpretation , and rapes, in general, definitely are crimes which warrant a lockup.
But the problem here, is that people wanted him to be locked up longer.
Why? It hinders his chances to reform.
We can lock up everyone for 5 years, but we can't lock them up forever and you can hardly kill everybody.
And after those 5 years, chances are, they ar emuch more prone to crime in their destroyed life after hanging out decades with other criminals than they were before they got in.

Death penalty is seen as a hopeful deterrent, and as the best punishment for horrible people who raped and even killed their victims. If there was something seen as worse than death (there are, tbh), then people would support that as punishment instead. They're hoping it does help the problem, though I'm sure that's not their primary thought.

Once decent people become legitimate rapists, they cease to be decent. How hard is it to NOT have sex when a person says no? A woman might want to have sex but if she changes her mind at the last second, she's well within her rights to do so, and the guy should not force her to have sex.

Death penalty is the same bullshit. It let's crimerates skyrocket and puts revenge over common sense.
If your prisons become so bad that people rather kill than getting into prison, you got the opposite effect of what you wanted.

And no. A person does not suddenly change because they did a horrible thing.
It is the same person.
If a good friend of you gets shitfaced drunk and drives a car, it is the same guy you always liked.
Noone becomes a monster suddenly, not even after a rape.

 

[M3J]

Brock Turner had sex with an unconscious girl, and he knew he was doing something bad because he hid behind the dumpster before doing it. Most rapists are either already monsters or become monsters after raping, because otherwise how can anyone have sex with someone who says no? You're taking away the victim's right to not have sex and in most cases, overpowering them.

How do you know a rapist is less likely to rape again? What if a rapist can just find a way to avoid getting caught next time? He should be punished, and him getting out early is not punishment. It just shows that if you're white and/or wealthy, you're likely not going to be punished much. Makes absolutely no sense potheads are jailed for a long time, but rapists get off in a short time.

Also makes no sense that people are losing their shit over Kaepernick kneeling, but they don't care about boycotting NFL because the organization is lax towards domestic violence.

 

[xi0]

Also makes no sense that people are losing their shit over Kaepernick kneeling, but they don't care about boycotting NFL because the organization is lax towards domestic violence.

Sorry, this is pure, unadulterated horseshit. Just look at Ray Rice, who still hasn't received another job offer after my team cut him due to his incident with his wife. There is much more awareness now in the league regarding issues of domestic violence. I am by no means a fan of the NFL and how they operate, but acting like the Kaepernick stuff is treated more substantively than domestic violence shows you don't actually understand either issue at all.

 

[M3J]

Sorry, this is pure, unadulterated horseshit. Just look at Ray Rice, who still hasn't received another job offer after my team cut him due to his incident with his wife. There is much more awareness now in the league regarding issues of domestic violence. I am by no means a fan of the NFL and how they operate, but acting like the Kaepernick stuff is treated more substantively than domestic violence shows you don't actually understand either issue at all.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/09/11/report-real-belief-that-ray-rice-will-play-again/ ?? any other example or just Ray Rice?

how many people got pissed over few incidents of domestic violence compared to Kaepernick not kneeling?

 

[xi0]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/09/11/report-real-belief-that-ray-rice-will-play-again/ ?? any other example or just Ray Rice?

how many people got pissed over few incidents of domestic violence compared to Kaepernick not kneeling?

There are other examples of players being suspended without pay or being cut, yes. College players with domestic abuse convictions were even barred from participating in the NFL Combine. Greg Hardy was suspended for 10 games, and even he (despite being an obvious shitbag) was never convicted. Yet still wasn't resigned and another team didn't even invite him to tryout, despite being as talented a player was Rice was/is. Adrian Peterson missed almost an entire season without pay due to his incident.

This is a false equivalency. Kaepernick isn't breaking the law. The whole thing is blown out of proportion because the NFL season happened to start around the same time as the 15th anniversary of 9/11. More players have come out in support of him and this whole thing will no longer be reported upon. Regardless of how you feel about what these players are doing, the fact that anyone gives a single fuck about it is one part chauvinism and one part media sensationalism. For a long time I've been of the opinion that the flag and national anthems don't even belong at sporting events that aren't an international competition...but that's another discussion.

The issue of actual crimes being committed by players, including domestic violence, actually matters and the NFL has addressed it quite sternly. Rice went from being an All-Pro player, to not playing for 2 whole seasons. And keep in mind, he was not actually ever convicted of a crime. He is not someone I would want on my team, and had no issue with the Ravens cutting him when it happened, but in reality, he was treated unfairly by the league. The Commissioner himself admitted this, and he was actually awarded a portion of his salary back after the Ravens took it from him in the wake of the incident. He's even pledged to donate an future salary to domestic-abuse charities.

Like most things, the Kaepernick topic is more current and has huge media attention, that's why it appears to you that more people care. But in reality, people's opinions of it don't really matter, there's no crime being committed.

 

[shionoro]

Brock Turner had sex with an unconscious girl, and he knew he was doing something bad because he hid behind the dumpster before doing it. Most rapists are either already monsters or become monsters after raping, because otherwise how can anyone have sex with someone who says no? You're taking away the victim's right to not have sex and in most cases, overpowering them.

How do you know a rapist is less likely to rape again? What if a rapist can just find a way to avoid getting caught next time? He should be punished, and him getting out early is not punishment. It just shows that if you're white and/or wealthy, you're likely not going to be punished much. Makes absolutely no sense potheads are jailed for a long time, but rapists get off in a short time.

Also makes no sense that people are losing their shit over Kaepernick kneeling, but they don't care about boycotting NFL because the organization is lax towards domestic violence.

I know from actual statistical evidence that the longer the jailtime, the more likely the delinquent is to lead a criminal life even after getting out.
Rapists are no exception here.

The problem of black people being sentenced to a more severe punishment is a wholely different problem.

 

[kkck]

Well, it is a bit off topic but here is a Washington post article about the effect prisons have on criminals (and yes, criminals do have a tendency to walk out of prison as hardened criminals).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...on-worse-doesnt-reduce-crime-it-increases-it/

 

[Spirit]

Well, it is a bit off topic but here is a Washington post article about the effect prisons have on criminals (and yes, criminals do have a tendency to walk out of prison as hardened criminals).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...on-worse-doesnt-reduce-crime-it-increases-it/

Well that might because the system is wrong, or it might be due to the treatment they get within the prison itself. Prisons don't focus enough on actually rehabilitating criminals

 

[Single Soul]

this picture describe feminist is the best

 

[shionoro]

@M3J

Odd as you're okay with releasing rapists very early or not wanting them to face punishment.

I never said that I generally want every rapist to release early or even not face punishment.
Every rape should be punished and taken serious, even grey areas. That is what feminism is partially about.
That it is clear to everybody that rape is not okay under any circumstances. And not only the image of 'stranger in the forest' rape, but daterape or exerting force via authority as well.

In feminism, rape is used in more circumstances than the actual legal definition of rape. For example, the case you mentioned before, brock turner, was not a rapist. Simply because the law in his state defines rape is penetrating a woman with your penis against her will, and he didnt.
It is still seen as rape in the public eye and of course in feminist circles.
What i want to say here is that there are many different forms of rape and circumstances of rape, and naturally, our law has to judge accodingly, as in any other crime.
The problem is not and never was that we do not judge rape cases harshly enough. The problem is that most rapists go totally free or even get sympathy because the women is not believed. Or they go free because the woman is too ashamed to sue. Or go free because the woman is dependend on her abuser.
Or go free because she did not scream loud enough.

And the problem is that if feminists talk about rape culture and sexist ideas hold in our society which can play a big role in sexual crimes, they get laughed at.
We have the case that rape victims or people who wanr about mindsets which correlate with rape are both laughed at and ridicouled UNTIL there is an honest to god unambigous rape case.
Where no 'well she wanted it' or 'bet she lies for the attention' can apply.
At that moment, suddenly, the public view shifts to 'HE IS A MONSTER! A MONSTER! THEY SHOULD KILL HIM'.

And that is bullshit. That is the public wanting to rid itself from an ugly truth by condemning the effect of causes they want to ignore.
We have the same picture in Indie at the moment. There were several high profile rape cases in which even some people died.
Naturally, the public was enraged. But there were no real policies implemented to change something about misogyny. Instead, they killed the rapists so that the public got their blood and didn't change anything.
And THAT is something feminism should actively fight against.

In the case we talked about, the sentencing made sense. He got 6 month in prison, which (as usual if you handle yourself well enough in prison) got cut down to 3. And he is on a probation for a long time and has to partake in therapy.
I understand fully well that this sounds very low, exspecially to the victim. But on the other hand, no sentencing would ever be enough for crimes like that.
Three month in prison if you are some college kid are not a fun ride, and if he ever does something again he is in there for years.
We talk about someone without any criminal record. If the judge had actually sentenced him for the 5 years the accusation wanted, that would have simply meant thathis life would be destroyed, too.
You can say that you are fine with that, but then we are in the territory of nonsense law and order politics and you can aswell just kill every offender.
Fact is that destroying the life of a criminal makes him more likely to commit crime when he comes out, not less likely.
It leads to more victims.
This is necessary in some cases. If the guy does anything again, he WILL get into prison for 5 years. That's no joke, and he knows that now.
If he still does it, then it cannot be helped, he has to be locked away.
But as i said, if we would do it with every such case, we'd look at more rapes and other crimes.

It would help hell of a lot more to convict every rape which is not convicted now for some month in prison than to convict the some rapists we actually do convict for thousands of years.
But people do not focus on that.
They ignore it when there is misogynist talk most of the time and women are devalued.
That is all fine and dandy. People who do that can run for president or make music and go to talkshows.
But god forbid we only sentence someone to a time which makes sense instead destroying his life.
That is totally antifeminist then.

 

[M3J]

There are other examples of players being suspended without pay or being cut, yes. College players with domestic abuse convictions were even barred from participating in the NFL Combine. Greg Hardy was suspended for 10 games, and even he (despite being an obvious shitbag) was never convicted. Yet still wasn't resigned and another team didn't even invite him to tryout, despite being as talented a player was Rice was/is. Adrian Peterson missed almost an entire season without pay due to his incident.

This is a false equivalency. Kaepernick isn't breaking the law. The whole thing is blown out of proportion because the NFL season happened to start around the same time as the 15th anniversary of 9/11. More players have come out in support of him and this whole thing will no longer be reported upon. Regardless of how you feel about what these players are doing, the fact that anyone gives a single fuck about it is one part chauvinism and one part media sensationalism. For a long time I've been of the opinion that the flag and national anthems don't even belong at sporting events that aren't an international competition...but that's another discussion.

The issue of actual crimes being committed by players, including domestic violence, actually matters and the NFL has addressed it quite sternly. Rice went from being an All-Pro player, to not playing for 2 whole seasons. And keep in mind, he was not actually ever convicted of a crime. He is not someone I would want on my team, and had no issue with the Ravens cutting him when it happened, but in reality, he was treated unfairly by the league. The Commissioner himself admitted this, and he was actually awarded a portion of his salary back after the Ravens took it from him in the wake of the incident. He's even pledged to donate an future salary to domestic-abuse charities.

Like most things, the Kaepernick topic is more current and has huge media attention, that's why it appears to you that more people care. But in reality, people's opinions of it don't really matter, there's no crime being committed.

Reactions are the issues for me here, not crime.

has Rice actually done that though?

I know from actual statistical evidence that the longer the jailtime, the more likely the delinquent is to lead a criminal life even after getting out.
Rapists are no exception here.

The problem of black people being sentenced to a more severe punishment is a wholely different problem.

If some of the sources are true, that is due to the bad treatment they get, as well as the hardship they face after getting out of jail, where it might harder for them to get jobs. Plus, how do we know rapists aren't more likely to rape again if they get out so quickly?

@M3J



I never said that I generally want every rapist to release early or even not face punishment.
Every rape should be punished and taken serious, even grey areas. That is what feminism is partially about.
That it is clear to everybody that rape is not okay under any circumstances. And not only the image of 'stranger in the forest' rape, but daterape or exerting force via authority as well.

In feminism, rape is used in more circumstances than the actual legal definition of rape. For example, the case you mentioned before, brock turner, was not a rapist. Simply because the law in his state defines rape is penetrating a woman with your penis against her will, and he didnt.
It is still seen as rape in the public eye and of course in feminist circles.
What i want to say here is that there are many different forms of rape and circumstances of rape, and naturally, our law has to judge accodingly, as in any other crime.
The problem is not and never was that we do not judge rape cases harshly enough. The problem is that most rapists go totally free or even get sympathy because the women is not believed. Or they go free because the woman is too ashamed to sue. Or go free because the woman is dependend on her abuser.
Or go free because she did not scream loud enough.

And the problem is that if feminists talk about rape culture and sexist ideas hold in our society which can play a big role in sexual crimes, they get laughed at.
We have the case that rape victims or people who wanr about mindsets which correlate with rape are both laughed at and ridicouled UNTIL there is an honest to god unambigous rape case.
Where no 'well she wanted it' or 'bet she lies for the attention' can apply.
At that moment, suddenly, the public view shifts to 'HE IS A MONSTER! A MONSTER! THEY SHOULD KILL HIM'.

And that is bullshit. That is the public wanting to rid itself from an ugly truth by condemning the effect of causes they want to ignore.
We have the same picture in Indie at the moment. There were several high profile rape cases in which even some people died.
Naturally, the public was enraged. But there were no real policies implemented to change something about misogyny. Instead, they killed the rapists so that the public got their blood and didn't change anything.
And THAT is something feminism should actively fight against.

In the case we talked about, the sentencing made sense. He got 6 month in prison, which (as usual if you handle yourself well enough in prison) got cut down to 3. And he is on a probation for a long time and has to partake in therapy.
I understand fully well that this sounds very low, exspecially to the victim. But on the other hand, no sentencing would ever be enough for crimes like that.
Three month in prison if you are some college kid are not a fun ride, and if he ever does something again he is in there for years.
We talk about someone without any criminal record. If the judge had actually sentenced him for the 5 years the accusation wanted, that would have simply meant thathis life would be destroyed, too.
You can say that you are fine with that, but then we are in the territory of nonsense law and order politics and you can aswell just kill every offender.
Fact is that destroying the life of a criminal makes him more likely to commit crime when he comes out, not less likely.
It leads to more victims.
This is necessary in some cases. If the guy does anything again, he WILL get into prison for 5 years. That's no joke, and he knows that now.
If he still does it, then it cannot be helped, he has to be locked away.
But as i said, if we would do it with every such case, we'd look at more rapes and other crimes.

It would help hell of a lot more to convict every rape which is not convicted now for some month in prison than to convict the some rapists we actually do convict for thousands of years.
But people do not focus on that.
They ignore it when there is misogynist talk most of the time and women are devalued.
That is all fine and dandy. People who do that can run for president or make music and go to talkshows.
But god forbid we only sentence someone to a time which makes sense instead destroying his life.
That is totally antifeminist then.

Most rapists shouldn't be killed, but they shouldn't be let out without punishment or some sort of a way to tell them they're in deep shit if they sexually assault anyone. Brock damaged the life of his victim, why shouldn't he get punished for that? if he got out early, then he could get out early again. It isn't as simple as groping someone, he actually took her to an isolated area and proceeded to have sex with her, all while she was unconscious. That alone says he knew he wasn't doing the right thing.

Criminals deserve some sort of punishment. Speeders get tickets, serial killers get capital punishment, embezzlers and frauds get jail time, so why shouldn't a teenage/near-adult person get punished for having sex without consent?