 Vagina dentata today, A new rape prevention device |
  |
 May 18 2006, 06:00 PM
Post
#51
|
|
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence  Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715  |
Our legal system is built on the concept that it is better for ten guilty people to go free than for one innocent person to be convicted. Philosophically, you may not agree with that, and that's fine, but that's how it is. Any system is going to have errors in both directions.
|
 |
 
|
|
May 18 2006, 06:01 PM
Post
#52
|
|||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 |
haha, are they? i read through bits and pieces of the FAQ, that's about it. well, i did say i could be wrong. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 18 2006, 06:10 PM
Post
#53
|
|||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
No. I'm saying fix the system so that people who are actually rapists get their due process and civil rights, ending the process as legal rapists.
Neither do I. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
May 18 2006, 07:03 PM
Post
#54
|
|
|
Old Man Jones Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 4,415 Joined: 26-February 02 From: New York Member No.: 1,699 |
I think the point is that until they are actually convicted, they are not rapists, but accused rapists.
Thus the difference between the practical and legal definitions or "rapist". -karma |
|
|
|
|
May 18 2006, 07:23 PM
Post
#55
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
No, they are most definitely rapists. They aren't legal rapists, but you don't need legality to have truth.
If I walk up to you, punch you in the face, take your wallet, and piss on you but you don't take it to court, does that mean that it never happened? Of course not. Obviously you were the victim of an assault and a robbery. Legally I got away with it, but that doesn't change history. |
|
|
|
|
May 18 2006, 07:43 PM
Post
#56
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,589 Joined: 28-November 05 Member No.: 8,019 |
How the hell would you make the rapist the victim?
|
|
|
|
|
May 18 2006, 08:02 PM
Post
#57
|
|||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
By saying that something the victim did induced the rapist to lose control over their actions. There's more possible truth to it than most people would like to admit (the myth of total self-control is strong), but ultimately one needs to realize that it doesn't make that large a difference—whether one willfully committed a crime or is incapable of a certain level of self-control, it is clear that some sort of protective action (incarceration and treatment) is likely required. It is only when we consider judicial action to be punitive rather than rehabilitative that the distinction becomes meaningful. ~J |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 18 2006, 08:04 PM
Post
#58
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 314 Joined: 25-February 06 Member No.: 8,307 |
emo:
Courts are very good at that. :( By forcing the victim to present evidence, by the defense trying to call the character of the victim in to question, by making the victim recount the incident repeatedly and then questioning the truth of those statements. Our justice system is flawed, but this is one area where it fails disastrously. |
|
|
|
|
May 18 2006, 08:06 PM
Post
#59
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 314 Joined: 25-February 06 Member No.: 8,307 |
I think what James is saying is that they are still a rapist, whether they are convicted or not. If they committed the act, then they are one by definition, even if not in the eyes of the law. Edit: Sorry, just re-read what you wrote, and my explanation seems to be moot. (Although there shouldn't be a difference between practical and legal definitions of anything, especially in this case) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 18 2006, 08:10 PM
Post
#60
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,353 Joined: 5-June 02 Member No.: 2,840 |
Oh jeez yeah, defense lawyers are monsters for doing that stuff. Often, they drag the victim's sex life out into the open, and if she has a large number of partners, they'll call her a slut and say she wanted it and is trying to frame the guy. They put the victim under a microscope and if something is off even by one micron, they'll blow that up into something bigger than it actually is to get their scumbag client off. Reading about cases like these makes me wish The Punisher really existed...and that he'd go after the lawyers as well as the criminals :grr: "I believe in monsters and things that go bump in the night, Jack. May they rot in hell along with their attorneys." - Jamie Ross, "Law & Order" |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 18 2006, 11:22 PM
Post
#61
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 6,640 Joined: 6-June 04 Member No.: 6,383 |
I'm seriously disappointed that most of you didn't know what Monkey Steals Peach is. That's, like, a part of everyone's education. Making Monkey Steals Peach jokes. Seriously.
|
|
|
|
|
May 18 2006, 11:33 PM
Post
#62
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 6,640 Joined: 6-June 04 Member No.: 6,383 |
I'd rather not throw away our civil liberties (innocent until proven guilty) for anything. The complaining how the judicial system so mean and monstrous on this thread is annoying me. (A bunch of people have done it.) It just shows how people take their civil liberties for granted. I mean, seriously. Would it be better if every time someone was accused of rape they got legally penalized without proof beyond a reasonable doubt? How can you possibly consider that as a better alternative? Yes, if someone got away with murder (i.e. it couldn't be legally proven in a federal court of law, not dealing with the issue of civil suits right now) they're not legally a convict even if they factually did murder someone. But what would be *worse* is if we could convict this guy in spite of lack of evidence or proof just because we felt like it. I mean, really. I can't believe so many people are condoning KKK style lynch mob justice where we should be able to go and get some guy even if there's no proof just because we don't like him. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 18 2006, 11:51 PM
Post
#63
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
Nobody is aying to throw away civil liberties. What I'm saying is that it doesn't take a court to determine what reality is. It takes a court to determine if that person will become a criminal with that crime on their record, but no matter what the jury decides the person that performed a rape is still a rapist. Thinking otherwise is quite frankly the stupidest thing I've ever heard in a discussion about the law. It's akin to "if I didn't see it, it didn't happen," which is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard in a philosophical discussion. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 18 2006, 11:52 PM
Post
#64
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Hint: just because you reject it doesn't make it stupid.
But I really think we have better things to do with this thread than discuss solipsism. ~J |
|
|
|
|
May 18 2006, 11:56 PM
Post
#65
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
Who said to do that? I can partially agree with that statement, it's the "just because we don't like them" part that is wrong and nobody here (that I can remember) has said we should do. There's "proof" and then there's "proof that convinces a jury" in the face of a slimy defense lawyer who thinks that because a woman's recollection of the rape is jumbled that she is lying. Or in the face of a moronic jury who thinks that a low cut dress means you deserve to get raped. Or men that think "her lips say no but her eyes say yes." If my daughter were raped and provided proof that failed to convince a jury beacuse of the reasons mentioned above I would find a way to make that person pay. If it requires a lynch mob then so be it. "Law and Order every time" is a great concept until the system fails. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 18 2006, 11:59 PM
Post
#66
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
That is when you change or overthrow the system.
I'm a big believer in mob justice, but not against individuals. I am only in support of mob violence against the government (and those acting in an official capacity for it). Vigilante justice against garden-variety criminals does not cut it—it doesn't fix the system, and it doesn't destroy an unfixable system. All it does is break it a little more. ~J |
|
|
|
|
May 19 2006, 12:00 AM
Post
#67
|
|||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
True, and the reverse is also true. Just because you accept it doesn't make it right. If your mindset is such that you need a court to tell you what truth is then you're in serious need of some psychological help. So then you're saying that if I, as with the example above, walked up to you, punched you in the face, stole your wallet, and walked away, then I'm not a mugger until you take me to court and prove it? You really believe that?
True. That's an entirely different discussion for an entirely different day. Not that you can ever resolve it. The solipsist cannot be convinced that you're not just a figment of their imagination trying to convince them that you're not. And when two solipsists get together... let's just say it can be the funniest train wreck you've ever seen. :) |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
May 19 2006, 12:02 AM
Post
#68
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
Not everything is about fixing the system Sometimes you have to go around the system because there's no way to fix the system in time to right the wrong or punish the guilty. Yep, the system sucks. Yep, it needs to be fixed. Yep, people are working daily to fix it. That doesn't change that's it's broken now and that some things need resolution now. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 19 2006, 12:13 AM
Post
#69
|
|||
|
Old Man Jones Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 4,415 Joined: 26-February 02 From: New York Member No.: 1,699 |
Other than the people immediately involved, who can say whether the accused is a rapist or not? The person accused could indeed be a rapist. Or the victim could also be lying about it. That's the point of the "accused" qualifier. It's to seperate the "may have" from the "definately did". We use the court of law to determine the difference because to do otherwise is to render summary judgement. Summary judgement is bad. It's what lynchings are all about. Mob justice. Your attitude is very much in the "guilty until proven innocent" vein. That's fine. It's definately not the same belief structure that everyone has, however. -karma |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 19 2006, 12:21 AM
Post
#70
|
|||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 6,640 Joined: 6-June 04 Member No.: 6,383 |
Yeah, nothing is slimier than due process. This whole thing about everyone being entitled to legal defense? What a load of bull crap. It would be funnier if the public defender was only pretending to help you out but instead betrayed you at the last minute and made your case go south.
Civil suit. Preponderance of evidence. But you'd rather cut to a lynch mob? So, wait, what was that you were saying about respecting rights, like trial by jury? |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
May 19 2006, 12:28 AM
Post
#71
|
|||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
He her recolection is jumbled it doesn't mean that she is lying but it certainly means that he recolection isn't reliable. Eyewitness identification can be unreliable in the most ideal circumstances. Being the victim of a violent crime is hardly ideal. The fact is that sometimes the victim is simply wrong, as is proven by the fact that some individuals who were convicted on victim testimony alone have later been proven innocent by DNA testing. Saying "I'm sorry but the victim could be wrong" is not the same as saying "the victim is lying" or "the victim was asking for it" no matter what some overzealous advocates want us to believe. This may not be a pleasent reality but being unpleasent doesn't make it untrue. Would you convict a man whom you know was innocent just because you felt sorry for the victim? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 19 2006, 12:29 AM
Post
#72
|
|||||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Not necessarily, no—like I think I said above, this is into definitions messier than what I've sorted through. However, it's time for another hint: just because someone doesn't think an idea is stupid doesn't mean they subscribe to it.
I haven't yet been convinced that some things need resolution now to such a degree that they supersede the system or the fix or the fight against it. ~J |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
May 19 2006, 12:34 AM
Post
#73
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,353 Joined: 5-June 02 Member No.: 2,840 |
Then you obviously haven't been concerned for a female friend of yours just because she's walking home at night, or because she's going out to a dance club. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 19 2006, 12:36 AM
Post
#74
|
|||||
|
Beetle Eater Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 4,797 Joined: 3-June 02 From: Oblivion City Member No.: 2,826 |
Failure of logic. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
May 19 2006, 12:37 AM
Post
#75
|
|||||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,353 Joined: 5-June 02 Member No.: 2,840 |
How do you figure? |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 23rd February 2026 - 04:05 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.