haha, are they? i read through bits and pieces of the FAQ, that's about it. well, i did say i could be wrong.

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.

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

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)

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

"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"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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?

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

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.

Failure of logic.

How do you figure?

yes, you could think that, if you were an idiot. if you were not an idiot, you might think "oh man, i'd better make sure my friend takes a can of mace when she goes out, and that she doesn't go anywhere alone. if something bad does happen, though, i'm sure the guilty parties will be convicted. the threat of going to jail should, hopefully, keep most people who might be tempted from following through on their temptations."

Blind faith at its worst.

The fact that justice depends on 12 people who are so idiotic as to believe defense lawyer tricks makes sure that a shitload of these guys go free. And even if they are convicted, I've heard of RIDICULOUSLY low prison sentences for them!

I ain't talking about getting rid of due process completely. I'm just saying when it fails...well, in the words of Frank Castle:

"In certain extreme situations, the law is inadequate. In order to shame its inadequacy, it is necessary to act outside the law, to pursue natural justice."

Yeah, he's a comic book character, but so what. I just happen to agree with it.

You're right, even though I know several people of both genders who have been raped, I have never been concerned about them just because they're walking home at night or because they're going out to a dance club.

There are two reasons for this. The first reason is that, while I will admit several of the rapes of people I know I don't know the details of (I don't tend to press questions, I hope you'll understand), I have yet to know someone who was raped at a dance club or walking home at night. At home with family or family friends, yes. By a significant other, yes. By an elder member of the sports team, yes. Walking home at night or at a dance club? Not a one.

The second reason is that I do my best to not fear what I can't control. It doesn't always work well, but in this case I guess it has.

More importantly, though, even though you were coincidentally correct, as others have pointed out fear does not need to override logic.

~J

Well apparently neither of them work, so where does that leave us? Afraid for our lives and those of our loved ones. Living in fear is no way to live.

There's gotta be a better way than what we have right now.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Um, no.

The court gets concerned AFTER the fact. Only when a crime has apparantly been committed does the judiciary system swing into place. That's it's job, to determine guilt or innocence and levy any appropriate penalties.

Prevention is not the duty of the court system. Therefore blaming the courts for your friend being in danger as she walks down a dark alley is faulty logic. Until a crime has actually happened, it's not their job.

That's the job of the police. They are there, in theory, to try and prevent the "might happen" from becoming "did happen".

If you are concerned about your friend get up off your ass and walk her home. The law does not stop you from doing that, or from defending her and yourself from a possible attacker. Or at least have 911 ready on your cellphone.

The law is what seperates civliized man from savages. Don't dismiss it so lightly.


-karma

Yeah, IF they're convicted and a scumbag lawyer doesn't get them off through dirty tricks.

I've heard of murderers being convicted on lesser sentences like involuntary manslaughter; I'm willing to bet some rapists have been sentenced likewise.

Oh, and they're all SOOOO trustworthy and dutiful.

Pfft.

If a woman steals a load of bread from a baker she is denying him his natural rights. If a court then aquits her because it was the only way to feed her starving children I suppose that it is okay for the baker to rape an dkill her in revenge because the law is "inadequate."

By careful of the claims you support and how they can be construed.

Back at you.

I happen to know a number of cops, and for the most part they are in fact trustworthy and dutiful. You don't become a cop for the money, that's for damn sure.

There are always a few bad eggs, yes. Even among cops. But you can't paint all of them with the same brush.

I know of quite a few sports stars that got convicted of major crimes. Should I therefore also conclude that all sports stars are criminal types?

As mfb points out, we in the US have one of the safest, most prosperous civilizations on the planet. Something's working, obviously. And somehow I don't think it's vigilantes doing it.


-karma