There's also the issue of what we think happens with social punishment versus what actually happens. This was an interesting thread on the matter by a doctoral candidate who is researching sexual violence:
I recommend reading the whole thing, but the short version is that there is a massive gulf between what we think happens, versus what does happen, at least in the case of sexual violence. This was the one I felt was most chilling:
Yeah, I mean kind of the point of the MeToo movement was to highlight how ridiculously often sexual assault crimes go unpunished, with victims bearing all of the social ill will.
But it’s not clear to me where social punishment fits in. It doesn’t seem like society would benefit from limiting anyone’s education. Were there a way to limit the risk of re-offending (say by forcing them to school remotely or something), would it not be better to make sure both victim and criminal still got an education?
If risk minimization is infeesible, then I don’t know. I mean it’s not like they stop existing if they are expelled. So they will still have opportunities to reoffend.
Although I guess you would hope the more bad outcomes they have (get fired, expelled, etc), the more likely they would be to stop.
The woman he assaulted had to drop out of school, because the trauma of not just the assault, but the school basically doing nothing (not only did they not rule that he assaulted her until he graduated, but notified him of the ruling at the same time as they extended him an invitation to graduate school) made it such that she couldn't even look at the school logo. Through no fault of her own, her education was ruined.
And we're supposed to be concerned about the impact on him? You mentioned society doesn't benefit from limiting anyone's education, without any acknowledgement that his victim's education was profoundly limited. This is the whole problem that the researcher was trying to highlight.
I believe in restorative justice, but as part of that, I also believe that the first step must be contrition. And by that, I mean that the perpetrator must acknowledge and accept the harm done by their actions, and their own culpability in the matter.
I'm not sure what you're arguing with here. I never said that the example given was an optimal outcome. And quite obviously the first priority of the university should be to make sure the victim is safe, and has access to resources to help them.
But if they could simultaneously make sure that the victim was safe, and still allow the criminal to get an education, that still seems like a better outcome.
I just feel like employment/education are a poor way of punishing people as it often hurts society in general as well. Pushing more people into low wage, low skill jobs makes things harder on the folks who need those jobs and haven't done anything wrong. Not to mention you're forcing all the low skill labor to bear all the burden of working with socially and criminally convicted individuals.
That doesn't seem like a good outcome. That doesn't mean I think we should just ignore reports of abuse and force the victims to continue working/going to school alongside their attacker. Just that I question if maybe there is another approach (transferring criminal, making them school remotely, etc) that might lead to better outcomes than expelling/firing them and shifting the burden onto someone else.
The point here is this - you've barely mentioned the victim and how her life was pretty much shattered, to the point that she attempted suicide, and ultimately had to drop out because the school itself was causing her trauma. Instead, your focus has been on the abuser, and how we should create an outcome that is good for "both".
And then people wonder why there's so much anger in #MeToo.
I mentioned in a prior thread about the problems with the "redemption narrative", and this is one of the bigger ones - we get so focused on the perpetrators and "rehabilitation" that the victims fall by the wayside.
So there's no point in redemption and once you do anything you're now condemned to a lifetime of punishment no matter what?
That should go well.
Let me state my position again - the first step of restorative justice must be contrition. The perpetrator must acknowledge their actions and the harm they did, and accept responsibility. Which means accepting that their victim may not be able to forgive or coexist, and that their being the victim means that the perpetrator has to be the one to make compromises.
No, you're saying you want them to get a lifetime of extrajudicial punishment. And if not, know that's exactly what you're advocating for.
There's also the issue of what we think happens with social punishment versus what actually happens. This was an interesting thread on the matter by a doctoral candidate who is researching sexual violence:
I recommend reading the whole thing, but the short version is that there is a massive gulf between what we think happens, versus what does happen, at least in the case of sexual violence. This was the one I felt was most chilling:
Yeah, I mean kind of the point of the MeToo movement was to highlight how ridiculously often sexual assault crimes go unpunished, with victims bearing all of the social ill will.
But it’s not clear to me where social punishment fits in. It doesn’t seem like society would benefit from limiting anyone’s education. Were there a way to limit the risk of re-offending (say by forcing them to school remotely or something), would it not be better to make sure both victim and criminal still got an education?
If risk minimization is infeesible, then I don’t know. I mean it’s not like they stop existing if they are expelled. So they will still have opportunities to reoffend.
Although I guess you would hope the more bad outcomes they have (get fired, expelled, etc), the more likely they would be to stop.
The woman he assaulted had to drop out of school, because the trauma of not just the assault, but the school basically doing nothing (not only did they not rule that he assaulted her until he graduated, but notified him of the ruling at the same time as they extended him an invitation to graduate school) made it such that she couldn't even look at the school logo. Through no fault of her own, her education was ruined.
And we're supposed to be concerned about the impact on him? You mentioned society doesn't benefit from limiting anyone's education, without any acknowledgement that his victim's education was profoundly limited. This is the whole problem that the researcher was trying to highlight.
I believe in restorative justice, but as part of that, I also believe that the first step must be contrition. And by that, I mean that the perpetrator must acknowledge and accept the harm done by their actions, and their own culpability in the matter.
I'm not sure what you're arguing with here. I never said that the example given was an optimal outcome. And quite obviously the first priority of the university should be to make sure the victim is safe, and has access to resources to help them.
But if they could simultaneously make sure that the victim was safe, and still allow the criminal to get an education, that still seems like a better outcome.
I just feel like employment/education are a poor way of punishing people as it often hurts society in general as well. Pushing more people into low wage, low skill jobs makes things harder on the folks who need those jobs and haven't done anything wrong. Not to mention you're forcing all the low skill labor to bear all the burden of working with socially and criminally convicted individuals.
That doesn't seem like a good outcome. That doesn't mean I think we should just ignore reports of abuse and force the victims to continue working/going to school alongside their attacker. Just that I question if maybe there is another approach (transferring criminal, making them school remotely, etc) that might lead to better outcomes than expelling/firing them and shifting the burden onto someone else.
The point here is this - you've barely mentioned the victim and how her life was pretty much shattered, to the point that she attempted suicide, and ultimately had to drop out because the school itself was causing her trauma. Instead, your focus has been on the abuser, and how we should create an outcome that is good for "both".
And then people wonder why there's so much anger in #MeToo.
I mentioned in a prior thread about the problems with the "redemption narrative", and this is one of the bigger ones - we get so focused on the perpetrators and "rehabilitation" that the victims fall by the wayside.
So there's no point in redemption and once you do anything you're now condemned to a lifetime of punishment no matter what?
That should go well.
Let me state my position again - the first step of restorative justice must be contrition. The perpetrator must acknowledge their actions and the harm they did, and accept responsibility. Which means accepting that their victim may not be able to forgive or coexist, and that their being the victim means that the perpetrator has to be the one to make compromises.
That's hard to meaningfully legislate. In addition, society disagrees on the value of such contrition.
Can it be formalized, and will society accept this formalization? Because everything we propose here is contingent on acceptance of society or useless.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
There's also the issue of what we think happens with social punishment versus what actually happens. This was an interesting thread on the matter by a doctoral candidate who is researching sexual violence:
I recommend reading the whole thing, but the short version is that there is a massive gulf between what we think happens, versus what does happen, at least in the case of sexual violence. This was the one I felt was most chilling:
Yeah, I mean kind of the point of the MeToo movement was to highlight how ridiculously often sexual assault crimes go unpunished, with victims bearing all of the social ill will.
But it’s not clear to me where social punishment fits in. It doesn’t seem like society would benefit from limiting anyone’s education. Were there a way to limit the risk of re-offending (say by forcing them to school remotely or something), would it not be better to make sure both victim and criminal still got an education?
If risk minimization is infeesible, then I don’t know. I mean it’s not like they stop existing if they are expelled. So they will still have opportunities to reoffend.
Although I guess you would hope the more bad outcomes they have (get fired, expelled, etc), the more likely they would be to stop.
The woman he assaulted had to drop out of school, because the trauma of not just the assault, but the school basically doing nothing (not only did they not rule that he assaulted her until he graduated, but notified him of the ruling at the same time as they extended him an invitation to graduate school) made it such that she couldn't even look at the school logo. Through no fault of her own, her education was ruined.
And we're supposed to be concerned about the impact on him? You mentioned society doesn't benefit from limiting anyone's education, without any acknowledgement that his victim's education was profoundly limited. This is the whole problem that the researcher was trying to highlight.
I believe in restorative justice, but as part of that, I also believe that the first step must be contrition. And by that, I mean that the perpetrator must acknowledge and accept the harm done by their actions, and their own culpability in the matter.
I'm not sure what you're arguing with here. I never said that the example given was an optimal outcome. And quite obviously the first priority of the university should be to make sure the victim is safe, and has access to resources to help them.
But if they could simultaneously make sure that the victim was safe, and still allow the criminal to get an education, that still seems like a better outcome.
I just feel like employment/education are a poor way of punishing people as it often hurts society in general as well. Pushing more people into low wage, low skill jobs makes things harder on the folks who need those jobs and haven't done anything wrong. Not to mention you're forcing all the low skill labor to bear all the burden of working with socially and criminally convicted individuals.
That doesn't seem like a good outcome. That doesn't mean I think we should just ignore reports of abuse and force the victims to continue working/going to school alongside their attacker. Just that I question if maybe there is another approach (transferring criminal, making them school remotely, etc) that might lead to better outcomes than expelling/firing them and shifting the burden onto someone else.
The point here is this - you've barely mentioned the victim and how her life was pretty much shattered, to the point that she attempted suicide, and ultimately had to drop out because the school itself was causing her trauma. Instead, your focus has been on the abuser, and how we should create an outcome that is good for "both".
And then people wonder why there's so much anger in #MeToo.
I mentioned in a prior thread about the problems with the "redemption narrative", and this is one of the bigger ones - we get so focused on the perpetrators and "rehabilitation" that the victims fall by the wayside.
So there's no point in redemption and once you do anything you're now condemned to a lifetime of punishment no matter what?
That should go well. What's the outlook on a 100% recidivism rate?
yeah, he could go get an education somewhere that his sexual assault victim doesn't attend.
No they can't, that's the point.
It's not a matter of "just go somewhere else," because there is nowhere to go.
You're advocating that all crimes are now life sentences.
Why can't he go somewhere else? Your "there's nowhere else to go" argument doesn't make sense (and if you're going to argue that "his past will follow him", I recommend that you read the thread I posted, because that doesn't seem to be the case.)
And as many advocates point out, being a victim of rape or sexual assault is itself a "life sentence", with the trauma never going away completely.
There's also the issue of what we think happens with social punishment versus what actually happens. This was an interesting thread on the matter by a doctoral candidate who is researching sexual violence:
I recommend reading the whole thing, but the short version is that there is a massive gulf between what we think happens, versus what does happen, at least in the case of sexual violence. This was the one I felt was most chilling:
Yeah, I mean kind of the point of the MeToo movement was to highlight how ridiculously often sexual assault crimes go unpunished, with victims bearing all of the social ill will.
But it’s not clear to me where social punishment fits in. It doesn’t seem like society would benefit from limiting anyone’s education. Were there a way to limit the risk of re-offending (say by forcing them to school remotely or something), would it not be better to make sure both victim and criminal still got an education?
If risk minimization is infeesible, then I don’t know. I mean it’s not like they stop existing if they are expelled. So they will still have opportunities to reoffend.
Although I guess you would hope the more bad outcomes they have (get fired, expelled, etc), the more likely they would be to stop.
The woman he assaulted had to drop out of school, because the trauma of not just the assault, but the school basically doing nothing (not only did they not rule that he assaulted her until he graduated, but notified him of the ruling at the same time as they extended him an invitation to graduate school) made it such that she couldn't even look at the school logo. Through no fault of her own, her education was ruined.
And we're supposed to be concerned about the impact on him? You mentioned society doesn't benefit from limiting anyone's education, without any acknowledgement that his victim's education was profoundly limited. This is the whole problem that the researcher was trying to highlight.
I believe in restorative justice, but as part of that, I also believe that the first step must be contrition. And by that, I mean that the perpetrator must acknowledge and accept the harm done by their actions, and their own culpability in the matter.
I'm not sure what you're arguing with here. I never said that the example given was an optimal outcome. And quite obviously the first priority of the university should be to make sure the victim is safe, and has access to resources to help them.
But if they could simultaneously make sure that the victim was safe, and still allow the criminal to get an education, that still seems like a better outcome.
I just feel like employment/education are a poor way of punishing people as it often hurts society in general as well. Pushing more people into low wage, low skill jobs makes things harder on the folks who need those jobs and haven't done anything wrong. Not to mention you're forcing all the low skill labor to bear all the burden of working with socially and criminally convicted individuals.
That doesn't seem like a good outcome. That doesn't mean I think we should just ignore reports of abuse and force the victims to continue working/going to school alongside their attacker. Just that I question if maybe there is another approach (transferring criminal, making them school remotely, etc) that might lead to better outcomes than expelling/firing them and shifting the burden onto someone else.
The point here is this - you've barely mentioned the victim and how her life was pretty much shattered, to the point that she attempted suicide, and ultimately had to drop out because the school itself was causing her trauma. Instead, your focus has been on the abuser, and how we should create an outcome that is good for "both".
And then people wonder why there's so much anger in #MeToo.
I mentioned in a prior thread about the problems with the "redemption narrative", and this is one of the bigger ones - we get so focused on the perpetrators and "rehabilitation" that the victims fall by the wayside.
So there's no point in redemption and once you do anything you're now condemned to a lifetime of punishment no matter what?
That should go well. What's the outlook on a 100% recidivism rate?
yeah, he could go get an education somewhere that his sexual assault victim doesn't attend.
No they can't, that's the point.
It's not a matter of "just go somewhere else," because there is nowhere to go.
You're advocating that all crimes are now life sentences.
Why can't he go somewhere else? Your "there's nowhere else to go" argument doesn't make sense (and if you're going to argue that "his past will follow him", I recommend that you read the thread I posted, because that doesn't seem to be the case.)
And as many advocates point out, being a victim of rape or sexual assault is itself a "life sentence", with the trauma never going away completely.
We're absolutely not talking about rape or sexual assault as a central point of focus. Marijuana conviction, assault, anything. Those follow you, and there's social stigma associated with it.
You're being myopic and refocusing the topic on to your chosen section of the law, then accusing people of ignoring the victims.
I don't see why the victim's wishes matter wrt the convicted. The point of the justice system is that it's the state meting out justice and restitution. Both for the convicted in terms of punishment/rehabilitation/reintegration/etc and for the victim in terms of aid/restitution/etc.
That victims are left hanging is a fault of the system as a whole but it's a fault completely separate from the question of what happens to the accused.
The above twitter example is kinda useless though because it's basically "But what if the accused wasn't really punished at all and it was all dealt with internally by the university". Which is bad but not really related to the thread I think.
There's also the issue of what we think happens with social punishment versus what actually happens. This was an interesting thread on the matter by a doctoral candidate who is researching sexual violence:
I recommend reading the whole thing, but the short version is that there is a massive gulf between what we think happens, versus what does happen, at least in the case of sexual violence. This was the one I felt was most chilling:
Yeah, I mean kind of the point of the MeToo movement was to highlight how ridiculously often sexual assault crimes go unpunished, with victims bearing all of the social ill will.
But it’s not clear to me where social punishment fits in. It doesn’t seem like society would benefit from limiting anyone’s education. Were there a way to limit the risk of re-offending (say by forcing them to school remotely or something), would it not be better to make sure both victim and criminal still got an education?
If risk minimization is infeesible, then I don’t know. I mean it’s not like they stop existing if they are expelled. So they will still have opportunities to reoffend.
Although I guess you would hope the more bad outcomes they have (get fired, expelled, etc), the more likely they would be to stop.
The woman he assaulted had to drop out of school, because the trauma of not just the assault, but the school basically doing nothing (not only did they not rule that he assaulted her until he graduated, but notified him of the ruling at the same time as they extended him an invitation to graduate school) made it such that she couldn't even look at the school logo. Through no fault of her own, her education was ruined.
And we're supposed to be concerned about the impact on him? You mentioned society doesn't benefit from limiting anyone's education, without any acknowledgement that his victim's education was profoundly limited. This is the whole problem that the researcher was trying to highlight.
I believe in restorative justice, but as part of that, I also believe that the first step must be contrition. And by that, I mean that the perpetrator must acknowledge and accept the harm done by their actions, and their own culpability in the matter.
I'm not sure what you're arguing with here. I never said that the example given was an optimal outcome. And quite obviously the first priority of the university should be to make sure the victim is safe, and has access to resources to help them.
But if they could simultaneously make sure that the victim was safe, and still allow the criminal to get an education, that still seems like a better outcome.
I just feel like employment/education are a poor way of punishing people as it often hurts society in general as well. Pushing more people into low wage, low skill jobs makes things harder on the folks who need those jobs and haven't done anything wrong. Not to mention you're forcing all the low skill labor to bear all the burden of working with socially and criminally convicted individuals.
That doesn't seem like a good outcome. That doesn't mean I think we should just ignore reports of abuse and force the victims to continue working/going to school alongside their attacker. Just that I question if maybe there is another approach (transferring criminal, making them school remotely, etc) that might lead to better outcomes than expelling/firing them and shifting the burden onto someone else.
The point here is this - you've barely mentioned the victim and how her life was pretty much shattered, to the point that she attempted suicide, and ultimately had to drop out because the school itself was causing her trauma. Instead, your focus has been on the abuser, and how we should create an outcome that is good for "both".
And then people wonder why there's so much anger in #MeToo.
I mentioned in a prior thread about the problems with the "redemption narrative", and this is one of the bigger ones - we get so focused on the perpetrators and "rehabilitation" that the victims fall by the wayside.
So there's no point in redemption and once you do anything you're now condemned to a lifetime of punishment no matter what?
That should go well. What's the outlook on a 100% recidivism rate?
yeah, he could go get an education somewhere that his sexual assault victim doesn't attend.
No they can't, that's the point.
It's not a matter of "just go somewhere else," because there is nowhere to go.
You're advocating that all crimes are now life sentences.
Why can't he go somewhere else? Your "there's nowhere else to go" argument doesn't make sense (and if you're going to argue that "his past will follow him", I recommend that you read the thread I posted, because that doesn't seem to be the case.)
And as many advocates point out, being a victim of rape or sexual assault is itself a "life sentence", with the trauma never going away completely.
So....make rape and sexual assault a life sentence, at least for repeat offenders? That's what you are arguing for.
There's also the issue of what we think happens with social punishment versus what actually happens. This was an interesting thread on the matter by a doctoral candidate who is researching sexual violence:
I recommend reading the whole thing, but the short version is that there is a massive gulf between what we think happens, versus what does happen, at least in the case of sexual violence. This was the one I felt was most chilling:
Yeah, I mean kind of the point of the MeToo movement was to highlight how ridiculously often sexual assault crimes go unpunished, with victims bearing all of the social ill will.
But it’s not clear to me where social punishment fits in. It doesn’t seem like society would benefit from limiting anyone’s education. Were there a way to limit the risk of re-offending (say by forcing them to school remotely or something), would it not be better to make sure both victim and criminal still got an education?
If risk minimization is infeesible, then I don’t know. I mean it’s not like they stop existing if they are expelled. So they will still have opportunities to reoffend.
Although I guess you would hope the more bad outcomes they have (get fired, expelled, etc), the more likely they would be to stop.
The woman he assaulted had to drop out of school, because the trauma of not just the assault, but the school basically doing nothing (not only did they not rule that he assaulted her until he graduated, but notified him of the ruling at the same time as they extended him an invitation to graduate school) made it such that she couldn't even look at the school logo. Through no fault of her own, her education was ruined.
And we're supposed to be concerned about the impact on him? You mentioned society doesn't benefit from limiting anyone's education, without any acknowledgement that his victim's education was profoundly limited. This is the whole problem that the researcher was trying to highlight.
I believe in restorative justice, but as part of that, I also believe that the first step must be contrition. And by that, I mean that the perpetrator must acknowledge and accept the harm done by their actions, and their own culpability in the matter.
I'm not sure what you're arguing with here. I never said that the example given was an optimal outcome. And quite obviously the first priority of the university should be to make sure the victim is safe, and has access to resources to help them.
But if they could simultaneously make sure that the victim was safe, and still allow the criminal to get an education, that still seems like a better outcome.
I just feel like employment/education are a poor way of punishing people as it often hurts society in general as well. Pushing more people into low wage, low skill jobs makes things harder on the folks who need those jobs and haven't done anything wrong. Not to mention you're forcing all the low skill labor to bear all the burden of working with socially and criminally convicted individuals.
That doesn't seem like a good outcome. That doesn't mean I think we should just ignore reports of abuse and force the victims to continue working/going to school alongside their attacker. Just that I question if maybe there is another approach (transferring criminal, making them school remotely, etc) that might lead to better outcomes than expelling/firing them and shifting the burden onto someone else.
The point here is this - you've barely mentioned the victim and how her life was pretty much shattered, to the point that she attempted suicide, and ultimately had to drop out because the school itself was causing her trauma. Instead, your focus has been on the abuser, and how we should create an outcome that is good for "both".
And then people wonder why there's so much anger in #MeToo.
I mentioned in a prior thread about the problems with the "redemption narrative", and this is one of the bigger ones - we get so focused on the perpetrators and "rehabilitation" that the victims fall by the wayside.
I have mentioned the victim. Several times. I understand that there was a heavy cost born by the victim because of the attack. But there will still be a heavy burden, born by the victim, no matter what we do to the criminal.
So what is the appropriate punishment then? Because there are negative costs to society (NOT THE CRIMIMINAL) that you are ignoring when you advocate just expelling/firing the criminal without a thought to where they will end up. And I think they should be considered.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
The focus is unclear at this moment. I don't think any of us have a discrete thesis that can be challenged
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
There's also the issue of what we think happens with social punishment versus what actually happens. This was an interesting thread on the matter by a doctoral candidate who is researching sexual violence:
I recommend reading the whole thing, but the short version is that there is a massive gulf between what we think happens, versus what does happen, at least in the case of sexual violence. This was the one I felt was most chilling:
Yeah, I mean kind of the point of the MeToo movement was to highlight how ridiculously often sexual assault crimes go unpunished, with victims bearing all of the social ill will.
But it’s not clear to me where social punishment fits in. It doesn’t seem like society would benefit from limiting anyone’s education. Were there a way to limit the risk of re-offending (say by forcing them to school remotely or something), would it not be better to make sure both victim and criminal still got an education?
If risk minimization is infeesible, then I don’t know. I mean it’s not like they stop existing if they are expelled. So they will still have opportunities to reoffend.
Although I guess you would hope the more bad outcomes they have (get fired, expelled, etc), the more likely they would be to stop.
The woman he assaulted had to drop out of school, because the trauma of not just the assault, but the school basically doing nothing (not only did they not rule that he assaulted her until he graduated, but notified him of the ruling at the same time as they extended him an invitation to graduate school) made it such that she couldn't even look at the school logo. Through no fault of her own, her education was ruined.
And we're supposed to be concerned about the impact on him? You mentioned society doesn't benefit from limiting anyone's education, without any acknowledgement that his victim's education was profoundly limited. This is the whole problem that the researcher was trying to highlight.
I believe in restorative justice, but as part of that, I also believe that the first step must be contrition. And by that, I mean that the perpetrator must acknowledge and accept the harm done by their actions, and their own culpability in the matter.
I'm not sure what you're arguing with here. I never said that the example given was an optimal outcome. And quite obviously the first priority of the university should be to make sure the victim is safe, and has access to resources to help them.
But if they could simultaneously make sure that the victim was safe, and still allow the criminal to get an education, that still seems like a better outcome.
I just feel like employment/education are a poor way of punishing people as it often hurts society in general as well. Pushing more people into low wage, low skill jobs makes things harder on the folks who need those jobs and haven't done anything wrong. Not to mention you're forcing all the low skill labor to bear all the burden of working with socially and criminally convicted individuals.
That doesn't seem like a good outcome. That doesn't mean I think we should just ignore reports of abuse and force the victims to continue working/going to school alongside their attacker. Just that I question if maybe there is another approach (transferring criminal, making them school remotely, etc) that might lead to better outcomes than expelling/firing them and shifting the burden onto someone else.
The point here is this - you've barely mentioned the victim and how her life was pretty much shattered, to the point that she attempted suicide, and ultimately had to drop out because the school itself was causing her trauma. Instead, your focus has been on the abuser, and how we should create an outcome that is good for "both".
And then people wonder why there's so much anger in #MeToo.
I mentioned in a prior thread about the problems with the "redemption narrative", and this is one of the bigger ones - we get so focused on the perpetrators and "rehabilitation" that the victims fall by the wayside.
I have mentioned the victim. Several times. I understand that there was a heavy cost born by the victim because of the attack. But there will still be a heavy burden, born by the victim, no matter what we do to the criminal.
So what is the appropriate punishment then? Because there are negative costs to society (NOT THE CRIMIMINAL) that you are ignoring when you advocate just expelling/firing the criminal without a thought to where they will end up. And I think they should be considered.
Angelhedgie and the doctoral thesis' point is that the entire punishment for an allegation of sexual assault is currently on the victim because the rapists feelings and future is apparently the only thing being considered. And here you are asking us to further consider the rapist?
Is this thread about the societal punishment of criminal action, or is it about sex crimes specifically?
The latter is always going to by a fraught topic, one where I personally side with the victim in all situations, but might not be a good conversation topic at this point. Maybe a higher level discussion needs to happen before getting into each subtopic.
There's also the issue of what we think happens with social punishment versus what actually happens. This was an interesting thread on the matter by a doctoral candidate who is researching sexual violence:
I recommend reading the whole thing, but the short version is that there is a massive gulf between what we think happens, versus what does happen, at least in the case of sexual violence. This was the one I felt was most chilling:
Yeah, I mean kind of the point of the MeToo movement was to highlight how ridiculously often sexual assault crimes go unpunished, with victims bearing all of the social ill will.
But it’s not clear to me where social punishment fits in. It doesn’t seem like society would benefit from limiting anyone’s education. Were there a way to limit the risk of re-offending (say by forcing them to school remotely or something), would it not be better to make sure both victim and criminal still got an education?
If risk minimization is infeesible, then I don’t know. I mean it’s not like they stop existing if they are expelled. So they will still have opportunities to reoffend.
Although I guess you would hope the more bad outcomes they have (get fired, expelled, etc), the more likely they would be to stop.
The woman he assaulted had to drop out of school, because the trauma of not just the assault, but the school basically doing nothing (not only did they not rule that he assaulted her until he graduated, but notified him of the ruling at the same time as they extended him an invitation to graduate school) made it such that she couldn't even look at the school logo. Through no fault of her own, her education was ruined.
And we're supposed to be concerned about the impact on him? You mentioned society doesn't benefit from limiting anyone's education, without any acknowledgement that his victim's education was profoundly limited. This is the whole problem that the researcher was trying to highlight.
I believe in restorative justice, but as part of that, I also believe that the first step must be contrition. And by that, I mean that the perpetrator must acknowledge and accept the harm done by their actions, and their own culpability in the matter.
I'm not sure what you're arguing with here. I never said that the example given was an optimal outcome. And quite obviously the first priority of the university should be to make sure the victim is safe, and has access to resources to help them.
But if they could simultaneously make sure that the victim was safe, and still allow the criminal to get an education, that still seems like a better outcome.
I just feel like employment/education are a poor way of punishing people as it often hurts society in general as well. Pushing more people into low wage, low skill jobs makes things harder on the folks who need those jobs and haven't done anything wrong. Not to mention you're forcing all the low skill labor to bear all the burden of working with socially and criminally convicted individuals.
That doesn't seem like a good outcome. That doesn't mean I think we should just ignore reports of abuse and force the victims to continue working/going to school alongside their attacker. Just that I question if maybe there is another approach (transferring criminal, making them school remotely, etc) that might lead to better outcomes than expelling/firing them and shifting the burden onto someone else.
The point here is this - you've barely mentioned the victim and how her life was pretty much shattered, to the point that she attempted suicide, and ultimately had to drop out because the school itself was causing her trauma. Instead, your focus has been on the abuser, and how we should create an outcome that is good for "both".
And then people wonder why there's so much anger in #MeToo.
I mentioned in a prior thread about the problems with the "redemption narrative", and this is one of the bigger ones - we get so focused on the perpetrators and "rehabilitation" that the victims fall by the wayside.
I have mentioned the victim. Several times. I understand that there was a heavy cost born by the victim because of the attack. But there will still be a heavy burden, born by the victim, no matter what we do to the criminal.
So what is the appropriate punishment then? Because there are negative costs to society (NOT THE CRIMIMINAL) that you are ignoring when you advocate just expelling/firing the criminal without a thought to where they will end up. And I think they should be considered.
Angelhedgie and the doctoral thesis' point is that the entire punishment for an allegation of sexual assault is currently on the victim because the rapists feelings and future is apparently the only thing being considered. And here you are asking us to further consider the rapist?
It's variable case by case.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Is this thread about the societal punishment of criminal action, or is it about sex crimes specifically?
The latter is always going to by a fraught topic, one where I personally side with the victim in all situations, but might not be a good conversation topic at this point. Maybe a higher level discussion needs to happen before getting into each subtopic.
It is intended to be about all criminal action. But sex crimes are a topic that weighs heavily, because they are a crime where social punishment tends to be the only punishment.
edit - but as others have pointed out, it is important to remember that the conventions we use in sex crimes cases are often used in other cases to ill effect.
Jebus314 on
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
There's also the issue of what we think happens with social punishment versus what actually happens. This was an interesting thread on the matter by a doctoral candidate who is researching sexual violence:
I recommend reading the whole thing, but the short version is that there is a massive gulf between what we think happens, versus what does happen, at least in the case of sexual violence. This was the one I felt was most chilling:
Yeah, I mean kind of the point of the MeToo movement was to highlight how ridiculously often sexual assault crimes go unpunished, with victims bearing all of the social ill will.
But it’s not clear to me where social punishment fits in. It doesn’t seem like society would benefit from limiting anyone’s education. Were there a way to limit the risk of re-offending (say by forcing them to school remotely or something), would it not be better to make sure both victim and criminal still got an education?
If risk minimization is infeesible, then I don’t know. I mean it’s not like they stop existing if they are expelled. So they will still have opportunities to reoffend.
Although I guess you would hope the more bad outcomes they have (get fired, expelled, etc), the more likely they would be to stop.
The woman he assaulted had to drop out of school, because the trauma of not just the assault, but the school basically doing nothing (not only did they not rule that he assaulted her until he graduated, but notified him of the ruling at the same time as they extended him an invitation to graduate school) made it such that she couldn't even look at the school logo. Through no fault of her own, her education was ruined.
And we're supposed to be concerned about the impact on him? You mentioned society doesn't benefit from limiting anyone's education, without any acknowledgement that his victim's education was profoundly limited. This is the whole problem that the researcher was trying to highlight.
I believe in restorative justice, but as part of that, I also believe that the first step must be contrition. And by that, I mean that the perpetrator must acknowledge and accept the harm done by their actions, and their own culpability in the matter.
I'm not sure what you're arguing with here. I never said that the example given was an optimal outcome. And quite obviously the first priority of the university should be to make sure the victim is safe, and has access to resources to help them.
But if they could simultaneously make sure that the victim was safe, and still allow the criminal to get an education, that still seems like a better outcome.
I just feel like employment/education are a poor way of punishing people as it often hurts society in general as well. Pushing more people into low wage, low skill jobs makes things harder on the folks who need those jobs and haven't done anything wrong. Not to mention you're forcing all the low skill labor to bear all the burden of working with socially and criminally convicted individuals.
That doesn't seem like a good outcome. That doesn't mean I think we should just ignore reports of abuse and force the victims to continue working/going to school alongside their attacker. Just that I question if maybe there is another approach (transferring criminal, making them school remotely, etc) that might lead to better outcomes than expelling/firing them and shifting the burden onto someone else.
The point here is this - you've barely mentioned the victim and how her life was pretty much shattered, to the point that she attempted suicide, and ultimately had to drop out because the school itself was causing her trauma. Instead, your focus has been on the abuser, and how we should create an outcome that is good for "both".
And then people wonder why there's so much anger in #MeToo.
I mentioned in a prior thread about the problems with the "redemption narrative", and this is one of the bigger ones - we get so focused on the perpetrators and "rehabilitation" that the victims fall by the wayside.
I have mentioned the victim. Several times. I understand that there was a heavy cost born by the victim because of the attack. But there will still be a heavy burden, born by the victim, no matter what we do to the criminal.
So what is the appropriate punishment then? Because there are negative costs to society (NOT THE CRIMIMINAL) that you are ignoring when you advocate just expelling/firing the criminal without a thought to where they will end up. And I think they should be considered.
Angelhedgie and the doctoral thesis' point is that the entire punishment for an allegation of sexual assault is currently on the victim because the rapists feelings and future is apparently the only thing being considered. And here you are asking us to further consider the rapist?
It's variable case by case.
I don't care about your hypotheticals.
Research says reality is the opposite of your hypothetical dreamworld. Victims lives are ruined, rapists lives are protected by the people who should be protecting the victims.
There's also the issue of what we think happens with social punishment versus what actually happens. This was an interesting thread on the matter by a doctoral candidate who is researching sexual violence:
I recommend reading the whole thing, but the short version is that there is a massive gulf between what we think happens, versus what does happen, at least in the case of sexual violence. This was the one I felt was most chilling:
Yeah, I mean kind of the point of the MeToo movement was to highlight how ridiculously often sexual assault crimes go unpunished, with victims bearing all of the social ill will.
But it’s not clear to me where social punishment fits in. It doesn’t seem like society would benefit from limiting anyone’s education. Were there a way to limit the risk of re-offending (say by forcing them to school remotely or something), would it not be better to make sure both victim and criminal still got an education?
If risk minimization is infeesible, then I don’t know. I mean it’s not like they stop existing if they are expelled. So they will still have opportunities to reoffend.
Although I guess you would hope the more bad outcomes they have (get fired, expelled, etc), the more likely they would be to stop.
The woman he assaulted had to drop out of school, because the trauma of not just the assault, but the school basically doing nothing (not only did they not rule that he assaulted her until he graduated, but notified him of the ruling at the same time as they extended him an invitation to graduate school) made it such that she couldn't even look at the school logo. Through no fault of her own, her education was ruined.
And we're supposed to be concerned about the impact on him? You mentioned society doesn't benefit from limiting anyone's education, without any acknowledgement that his victim's education was profoundly limited. This is the whole problem that the researcher was trying to highlight.
I believe in restorative justice, but as part of that, I also believe that the first step must be contrition. And by that, I mean that the perpetrator must acknowledge and accept the harm done by their actions, and their own culpability in the matter.
I'm not sure what you're arguing with here. I never said that the example given was an optimal outcome. And quite obviously the first priority of the university should be to make sure the victim is safe, and has access to resources to help them.
But if they could simultaneously make sure that the victim was safe, and still allow the criminal to get an education, that still seems like a better outcome.
I just feel like employment/education are a poor way of punishing people as it often hurts society in general as well. Pushing more people into low wage, low skill jobs makes things harder on the folks who need those jobs and haven't done anything wrong. Not to mention you're forcing all the low skill labor to bear all the burden of working with socially and criminally convicted individuals.
That doesn't seem like a good outcome. That doesn't mean I think we should just ignore reports of abuse and force the victims to continue working/going to school alongside their attacker. Just that I question if maybe there is another approach (transferring criminal, making them school remotely, etc) that might lead to better outcomes than expelling/firing them and shifting the burden onto someone else.
The point here is this - you've barely mentioned the victim and how her life was pretty much shattered, to the point that she attempted suicide, and ultimately had to drop out because the school itself was causing her trauma. Instead, your focus has been on the abuser, and how we should create an outcome that is good for "both".
And then people wonder why there's so much anger in #MeToo.
I mentioned in a prior thread about the problems with the "redemption narrative", and this is one of the bigger ones - we get so focused on the perpetrators and "rehabilitation" that the victims fall by the wayside.
I have mentioned the victim. Several times. I understand that there was a heavy cost born by the victim because of the attack. But there will still be a heavy burden, born by the victim, no matter what we do to the criminal.
So what is the appropriate punishment then? Because there are negative costs to society (NOT THE CRIMIMINAL) that you are ignoring when you advocate just expelling/firing the criminal without a thought to where they will end up. And I think they should be considered.
Angelhedgie and the doctoral thesis' point is that the entire punishment for an allegation of sexual assault is currently on the victim because the rapists feelings and future is apparently the only thing being considered. And here you are asking us to further consider the rapist?
I think that if you read my posts I have in almost every post considered the victims feelings, and have yet to even once make a statement about the criminals feelings.
Just to quote myself again:
quite obviously the first priority of the university should be to make sure the victim is safe, and has access to resources to help them.
But if they could simultaneously make sure that the victim was safe, and still allow the criminal to get an education, that still seems like a better outcome (FOR SOCIETY).
I just feel like employment/education are a poor way of punishing people as it often hurts society in general as well. Pushing more people into low wage, low skill jobs makes things harder on the folks who need those jobs and haven't done anything wrong. Not to mention you're forcing all the low skill labor to bear all the burden of working with socially and criminally convicted individuals.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
I really think people are far, far too eager to forgive.
Sure, some crimes are easy, lost money can be returned, property restored.
Some crimes have practicly no victims at all and all that is lost is either some tax money or corporate profits.
Other crimes might not have even that (like using recreational drugs).
Want to forgive those? Sure, i'm not going to hound anyone beyond whatever sentence they get, if even that.
Then, there are ones that can't just be settled with a bit of money, and the victims of can be hurt for life and never recover.
Manipultion, abuse, harrassment, rape...
Some crimes just should not start with the question "when do they get forgiven", but "If".
And "No", is a pefectly valid answer.
+6
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I really think people are far, far too eager to forgive.
Sure, some crimes are easy, lost money can be returned, property restored.
Some crimes have practicly no victims at all and all that is lost is either some tax money or corporate profits.
Other crimes might not have even that (like using recreational drugs).
Want to forgive those? Sure, i'm not going to hound anyone beyond whatever sentence they get, if even that.
The problem is you're not everyone, and people are having their lives ruined by those crimes you mention right there. Why is this something you and a few others here absolutely refuse to discuss?
I recently managed a young man who was a convicted sex criminal. He had a statutory rape charge, and was registered for life on the national sex offenders list. The story, corroborated by my own research into court records, is that he and his girlfriend recorded an adult video for their own entertainment. They were 17& 18 at the time, still in high school. The father of the young woman found the video, and notified the police. He was originally charged with creating and distributing, but plead down to statutory (even though their ages wouldn't make it statutory in this state).
Now, the fact that he was a bit of a dumbass and generally a poor worker aside, the punishment in his case didn't seem to fit the crime. They had no intention of disseminating the video, and he even confided they had intended on deleting it soon. The rest of his life was marred by that moment of poor judgement. Any time someone looked up his name or pulled a background check, he'd come up in the registry. After he got fired, he was a dish washer. This was a kid who could work fiberglass and build like... Car bodies and boats, but he couldn't even get those jobs without a favor from the hiring party. I came to think that the other-ing he was getting from society was slowly turning him into even more of an apathetic and angry youth. Over the years I knew him, his philosophies changed, and his attitude soured (something I also experienced while on probation).
I share this to kind of maybe break things up a bit? I don't think anyone is getting anywhere in the conversation. We can always circle back to a topic if we reach a deadlock, right?
I really think people are far, far too eager to forgive.
Sure, some crimes are easy, lost money can be returned, property restored.
Some crimes have practicly no victims at all and all that is lost is either some tax money or corporate profits.
Other crimes might not have even that (like using recreational drugs).
Want to forgive those? Sure, i'm not going to hound anyone beyond whatever sentence they get, if even that.
Then, there are ones that can't just be settled with a bit of money, and the victims of can be hurt for life and never recover.
Manipultion, abuse, harrassment, rape...
Some crimes just should not start with the question "when do they get forgiven", but "If".
And "No", is a pefectly valid answer.
Societal forgiveness also does not mean that people should be comfortable around you on a professional and personal level. The need to earn a living complicates everything, but forcing women to work with sexual predators while pretending there is nothing wrong is also not justice.
There's also the issue of what we think happens with social punishment versus what actually happens. This was an interesting thread on the matter by a doctoral candidate who is researching sexual violence:
I recommend reading the whole thing, but the short version is that there is a massive gulf between what we think happens, versus what does happen, at least in the case of sexual violence. This was the one I felt was most chilling:
Yeah, I mean kind of the point of the MeToo movement was to highlight how ridiculously often sexual assault crimes go unpunished, with victims bearing all of the social ill will.
But it’s not clear to me where social punishment fits in. It doesn’t seem like society would benefit from limiting anyone’s education. Were there a way to limit the risk of re-offending (say by forcing them to school remotely or something), would it not be better to make sure both victim and criminal still got an education?
If risk minimization is infeesible, then I don’t know. I mean it’s not like they stop existing if they are expelled. So they will still have opportunities to reoffend.
Although I guess you would hope the more bad outcomes they have (get fired, expelled, etc), the more likely they would be to stop.
The woman he assaulted had to drop out of school, because the trauma of not just the assault, but the school basically doing nothing (not only did they not rule that he assaulted her until he graduated, but notified him of the ruling at the same time as they extended him an invitation to graduate school) made it such that she couldn't even look at the school logo. Through no fault of her own, her education was ruined.
And we're supposed to be concerned about the impact on him? You mentioned society doesn't benefit from limiting anyone's education, without any acknowledgement that his victim's education was profoundly limited. This is the whole problem that the researcher was trying to highlight.
I believe in restorative justice, but as part of that, I also believe that the first step must be contrition. And by that, I mean that the perpetrator must acknowledge and accept the harm done by their actions, and their own culpability in the matter.
I'm not sure what you're arguing with here. I never said that the example given was an optimal outcome. And quite obviously the first priority of the university should be to make sure the victim is safe, and has access to resources to help them.
But if they could simultaneously make sure that the victim was safe, and still allow the criminal to get an education, that still seems like a better outcome.
I just feel like employment/education are a poor way of punishing people as it often hurts society in general as well. Pushing more people into low wage, low skill jobs makes things harder on the folks who need those jobs and haven't done anything wrong. Not to mention you're forcing all the low skill labor to bear all the burden of working with socially and criminally convicted individuals.
That doesn't seem like a good outcome. That doesn't mean I think we should just ignore reports of abuse and force the victims to continue working/going to school alongside their attacker. Just that I question if maybe there is another approach (transferring criminal, making them school remotely, etc) that might lead to better outcomes than expelling/firing them and shifting the burden onto someone else.
The point here is this - you've barely mentioned the victim and how her life was pretty much shattered, to the point that she attempted suicide, and ultimately had to drop out because the school itself was causing her trauma. Instead, your focus has been on the abuser, and how we should create an outcome that is good for "both".
And then people wonder why there's so much anger in #MeToo.
I mentioned in a prior thread about the problems with the "redemption narrative", and this is one of the bigger ones - we get so focused on the perpetrators and "rehabilitation" that the victims fall by the wayside.
I have mentioned the victim. Several times. I understand that there was a heavy cost born by the victim because of the attack. But there will still be a heavy burden, born by the victim, no matter what we do to the criminal.
So what is the appropriate punishment then? Because there are negative costs to society (NOT THE CRIMIMINAL) that you are ignoring when you advocate just expelling/firing the criminal without a thought to where they will end up. And I think they should be considered.
Angelhedgie and the doctoral thesis' point is that the entire punishment for an allegation of sexual assault is currently on the victim because the rapists feelings and future is apparently the only thing being considered. And here you are asking us to further consider the rapist?
It's variable case by case.
I don't care about your hypotheticals.
Research says reality is the opposite of your hypothetical dreamworld. Victims lives are ruined, rapists lives are protected by the people who should be protecting the victims.
Still variable case by case beyond trends. This is not hypothetical, exceptions exist and must be addressed.
But you already know this. I don't think we're actually arguing.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I really think people are far, far too eager to forgive.
Sure, some crimes are easy, lost money can be returned, property restored.
Some crimes have practicly no victims at all and all that is lost is either some tax money or corporate profits.
Other crimes might not have even that (like using recreational drugs).
Want to forgive those? Sure, i'm not going to hound anyone beyond whatever sentence they get, if even that.
The problem is you're not everyone, and people are having their lives ruined by those crimes you mention right there. Why is this something you and a few others here absolutely refuse to discuss?
It's been discussed at length, especially over in the #metoo in gaming thread this spun out of. What we are not doing is coming to conclusions you would like while discussing it.
Can we stop acting like any discussion must be a blanket statement?
You know why we have misdemeanor, felonies, civil crimes, sex crimes, something I'm surely missing, and a dozen levels of criminality within those categories?
Because this is case by case.
If we want to talk about a policy or societal change in regards to vagrancy law & punishment, we should be able to do that without also having to discuss rapists.
I recently managed a young man who was a convicted sex criminal. He had a statutory rape charge, and was registered for life on the national sex offenders list. The story, corroborated by my own research into court records, is that he and his girlfriend recorded an adult video for their own entertainment. They were 17& 18 at the time, still in high school. The father of the young woman found the video, and notified the police. He was originally charged with creating and distributing, but plead down to statutory (even though their ages wouldn't make it statutory in this state).
Now, the fact that he was a bit of a dumbass and generally a poor worker aside, the punishment in his case didn't seem to fit the crime. They had no intention of disseminating the video, and he even confided they had intended on deleting it soon. The rest of his life was marred by that moment of poor judgement. Any time someone looked up his name or pulled a background check, he'd come up in the registry. After he got fired, he was a dish washer. This was a kid who could work fiberglass and build like... Car bodies and boats, but he couldn't even get those jobs without a favor from the hiring party. I came to think that the other-ing he was getting from society was slowly turning him into even more of an apathetic and angry youth. Over the years I knew him, his philosophies changed, and his attitude soured (something I also experienced while on probation).
I share this to kind of maybe break things up a bit? I don't think anyone is getting anywhere in the conversation. We can always circle back to a topic if we reach a deadlock, right?
One of the more common uses of statutory rape charges in the South is to convict the male member of an underaged mixed race couple of a sex crime when they turn 18. Like the national trend of prosecutors using sexting to turn teenagers engaged in dubious but consenting sexual acts into sex criminals or the former use of these crimes to criminalize homosexuality, they are perversions of the law that should be discussed in isolation from what we should do at a society-level about sexual offenders who need to earn a living.
I really think people are far, far too eager to forgive.
Sure, some crimes are easy, lost money can be returned, property restored.
Some crimes have practicly no victims at all and all that is lost is either some tax money or corporate profits.
Other crimes might not have even that (like using recreational drugs).
Want to forgive those? Sure, i'm not going to hound anyone beyond whatever sentence they get, if even that.
Then, there are ones that can't just be settled with a bit of money, and the victims of can be hurt for life and never recover.
Manipultion, abuse, harrassment, rape...
Some crimes just should not start with the question "when do they get forgiven", but "If".
And "No", is a pefectly valid answer.
Who is doing the forgiving here exactly? The government? Some nebulous concept of "society"? What does "forgiven" even mean in this context?
I have a really hard time parsing the need for societal justice after a person has served the time for the crimes they were convicted for.
Everything about that signals that once a person has done a crime they beyond redemption eg. once a convicted sex offender always a sex offender.
Because we are using "justice" as a shorthand for, "Should be hired and managed on an equal standing with other job candidates." It's a huge issue in general with employment among felons, but we cannot ignore that there is an extra component with people convicted of sexual crimes and the level of personal contact needed for most workplaces to function.
I recently managed a young man who was a convicted sex criminal. He had a statutory rape charge, and was registered for life on the national sex offenders list. The story, corroborated by my own research into court records, is that he and his girlfriend recorded an adult video for their own entertainment. They were 17& 18 at the time, still in high school. The father of the young woman found the video, and notified the police. He was originally charged with creating and distributing, but plead down to statutory (even though their ages wouldn't make it statutory in this state).
Now, the fact that he was a bit of a dumbass and generally a poor worker aside, the punishment in his case didn't seem to fit the crime. They had no intention of disseminating the video, and he even confided they had intended on deleting it soon. The rest of his life was marred by that moment of poor judgement. Any time someone looked up his name or pulled a background check, he'd come up in the registry. After he got fired, he was a dish washer. This was a kid who could work fiberglass and build like... Car bodies and boats, but he couldn't even get those jobs without a favor from the hiring party. I came to think that the other-ing he was getting from society was slowly turning him into even more of an apathetic and angry youth. Over the years I knew him, his philosophies changed, and his attitude soured (something I also experienced while on probation).
I share this to kind of maybe break things up a bit? I don't think anyone is getting anywhere in the conversation. We can always circle back to a topic if we reach a deadlock, right?
Yeah, one issue here is probably lack of context on societal responses. "Sex offender" is a good example of that - it's both overly broad and excessively punitive (up to and including "how the fuck is this legal" indefinite imprisonment under the guise of treatment programs).
It covers a range of behavior from teens being dumb to serial rapists, but the connotation of the label is the latter. This is primarily a legal punishment issue I think (constant tough on crime/think of the children one-upping), but also serves as an example of how social consequences clearly go too far. Someone hears "registered sex offender" and their brain shuts off.
I really think people are far, far too eager to forgive.
Sure, some crimes are easy, lost money can be returned, property restored.
Some crimes have practicly no victims at all and all that is lost is either some tax money or corporate profits.
Other crimes might not have even that (like using recreational drugs).
Want to forgive those? Sure, i'm not going to hound anyone beyond whatever sentence they get, if even that.
Then, there are ones that can't just be settled with a bit of money, and the victims of can be hurt for life and never recover.
Manipultion, abuse, harrassment, rape...
Some crimes just should not start with the question "when do they get forgiven", but "If".
And "No", is a pefectly valid answer.
Who is doing the forgiving here exactly? The government? Some nebulous concept of "society"? What does "forgiven" even mean in this context?
I think it means that after a suitable amount of time, perhaps twice the sentence*, court records are automatically removed and put in a sealed or cold storage. I'd also like the box to have a specific time limit in all situations, applying for jobs in California is awesome, because the applications all say ".. in the last 5(7)-years", make that a federal mandate.
I think just making the information less available, and putting a time limit on how far back you can ask, will do a lot to mediate how society treats people.
Finally, probation shouldn't just be an extra (heavy) tax on the probationer. They should offer job placement services, addiction care services. Finally? If we're making a wish-list, an education grant for felons wanting to go to college after they've completed their sentence. This is a population generally in poverty, helping drag those people up into a higher class for them and their families will only lower recidivism and better the societal whole.
*If on probation for 10 years, after 20 total years the records are removed.
I have a really hard time parsing the need for societal justice after a person has served the time for the crimes they were convicted for.
Everything about that signals that once a person has done a crime they beyond redemption eg. once a convicted sex offender always a sex offender.
So, do you think that Brock Turner has paid his debt to society after serving the 3 months for rape?
On a fundamental level he should have if the crimes he committed merited that sanction. We can absolutely talk about sex offenses not being tried to the fullest extent of the law, however that is different from societal justice.
But do I think 3 months is an adequate sentence, no.
PS4 - Mrfuzzyhat
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I really think people are far, far too eager to forgive.
Sure, some crimes are easy, lost money can be returned, property restored.
Some crimes have practicly no victims at all and all that is lost is either some tax money or corporate profits.
Other crimes might not have even that (like using recreational drugs).
Want to forgive those? Sure, i'm not going to hound anyone beyond whatever sentence they get, if even that.
Then, there are ones that can't just be settled with a bit of money, and the victims of can be hurt for life and never recover.
Manipultion, abuse, harrassment, rape...
Some crimes just should not start with the question "when do they get forgiven", but "If".
And "No", is a pefectly valid answer.
What do you do with a person that has reached the point of can not be forgiven? Are you suggesting the should be in jail forever? Because the sentencing for rape/harassment/etc is not usually a life sentence, and I think most people would agree it shouldn't be.
So you now have a person, who has to exist in society, but you've made it ok for them to never be able to get a job or have any kind of a social life. Regardless of what we think that person deserves, that doesn't seem like it will have a good outcome for the innocent people who live around that person.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
I have a really hard time parsing the need for societal justice after a person has served the time for the crimes they were convicted for.
Everything about that signals that once a person has done a crime they beyond redemption eg. once a convicted sex offender always a sex offender.
So, do you think that Brock Turner has paid his debt to society after serving the 3 months for rape?
That's a different discussion entirely. That's a failure of the justice system.
While I agree with where you are coming from, often times the point of social punishment is to fill the gaps of a failed judicial system. So it could make sense to take people who have clearly gotten off to easy and add some kind of social cost.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
+1
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Just popping in here on proper University policy.
Which is to say that under no circumstance, ever, should a rapist be allowed into a university classroom where he has raped someone at that university. You aren't entitled to a college education, and more important than the right to make good after you serve your criminal time is the sanctity of a university as a safe place for those who are seeking knowledge. Also: professors are just as likely to be raped by a student as the other way around. There are plenty of cases each year of female professors being stalked, attacked, and raped by their students and that is unacceptable.
That rapist can find another university, in another state, or just go online and get a degree from a for profit institution that way. By taking violent action against another student he loses that privilege to be considered part of the university community. Some crimes you never are fully atoned for, because you can't undo the past. Rape is one. Murder is another. While I totally support criminal reform, as a university administrator I am appalled by the decision of that school and frankly, their accreditation should be put under review for doing so in the way they did.
I really think people are far, far too eager to forgive.
Sure, some crimes are easy, lost money can be returned, property restored.
Some crimes have practicly no victims at all and all that is lost is either some tax money or corporate profits.
Other crimes might not have even that (like using recreational drugs).
Want to forgive those? Sure, i'm not going to hound anyone beyond whatever sentence they get, if even that.
Then, there are ones that can't just be settled with a bit of money, and the victims of can be hurt for life and never recover.
Manipultion, abuse, harrassment, rape...
Some crimes just should not start with the question "when do they get forgiven", but "If".
And "No", is a pefectly valid answer.
What do you do with a person that has reached the point of can not be forgiven? Are you suggesting the should be in jail forever? Because the sentencing for rape/harassment/etc is not usually a life sentence, and I think most people would agree it shouldn't be.
So you now have a person, who has to exist in society, but you've made it ok for them to never be able to get a job or have any kind of a social life. Regardless of what we think that person deserves, that doesn't seem like it will have a good outcome for the innocent people who live around that person.
Crimes that are inherently selfish and victimizing, like murder and sexual assault, really require rehabilitation. Lots of therapy and assistance to change the person's way of thinking, since it is obviously flawed.
The U.S. federal government has proven incapable of providing such a service, at least one that isn't just a horror story given life, and society seems intent on making those people a source of revenue instead of something broken needing fixing.
It would require a sea change, and probably a miracle, for a county like the U.S. to help those people. I'm not trying to be nihilistic, I just don't see a bright spot in it. I vaguely remember reading about some county like... Denmark or Norway that was having success with rehabilitation with sex criminals, but their prison populations are low enough to experiment like that (not to mention their culture wildly different at large).
+9
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I have a really hard time parsing the need for societal justice after a person has served the time for the crimes they were convicted for.
Everything about that signals that once a person has done a crime they beyond redemption eg. once a convicted sex offender always a sex offender.
So, do you think that Brock Turner has paid his debt to society after serving the 3 months for rape?
That's a different discussion entirely. That's a failure of the justice system.
While I agree with where you are coming from, often times the point of social punishment is to fill the gaps of a failed judicial system. So it could make sense to take people who have clearly gotten off to easy and add some kind of social cost.
That's fair, yeah.
I still think it's problematic in the sense that we have a racially biased justice system so any continuing bias against people who commit crimes is going to be largely racially and very heavily socioeconomically weighed. That's why this is a bigger subject that just sexual assault.
I really think people are far, far too eager to forgive.
Sure, some crimes are easy, lost money can be returned, property restored.
Some crimes have practicly no victims at all and all that is lost is either some tax money or corporate profits.
Other crimes might not have even that (like using recreational drugs).
Want to forgive those? Sure, i'm not going to hound anyone beyond whatever sentence they get, if even that.
Then, there are ones that can't just be settled with a bit of money, and the victims of can be hurt for life and never recover.
Manipultion, abuse, harrassment, rape...
Some crimes just should not start with the question "when do they get forgiven", but "If".
And "No", is a pefectly valid answer.
What do you do with a person that has reached the point of can not be forgiven? Are you suggesting the should be in jail forever? Because the sentencing for rape/harassment/etc is not usually a life sentence, and I think most people would agree it shouldn't be.
So you now have a person, who has to exist in society, but you've made it ok for them to never be able to get a job or have any kind of a social life. Regardless of what we think that person deserves, that doesn't seem like it will have a good outcome for the innocent people who live around that person.
Then, you don't forgive them?
Like, we don't jail people because we are angry at them.
Problem is not that we are too strict to rapists (outside some rather unfortunate circumstances), like the whole metoo thread has had a constant "but what about the abusers" thing going on.
I think everyone should be entitled the things like housing, food, clothes, some reasonable amount of money for things beyond basic necessities.
People are not entitled for people to not look at them at disgust for their actions.
I'd be much more open to this concern over abusers if practice was not that they get away without consequence and their victims get blamed even more.
I have a really hard time parsing the need for societal justice after a person has served the time for the crimes they were convicted for.
Everything about that signals that once a person has done a crime they beyond redemption eg. once a convicted sex offender always a sex offender.
So, do you think that Brock Turner has paid his debt to society after serving the 3 months for rape?
That's a different discussion entirely. That's a failure of the justice system.
Except that the social response to Turner (which included making him the literal textbook example of a rapist) and the judge who handed down the sentence (including his recent dismissal from a job as a middle school tennis coach) stem from that failure (which, because of our laws prohibiting double jeopardy, cannot be corrected by extending his sentence.)
There's also the issue of what we think happens with social punishment versus what actually happens. This was an interesting thread on the matter by a doctoral candidate who is researching sexual violence:
I recommend reading the whole thing, but the short version is that there is a massive gulf between what we think happens, versus what does happen, at least in the case of sexual violence. This was the one I felt was most chilling:
Yeah, I mean kind of the point of the MeToo movement was to highlight how ridiculously often sexual assault crimes go unpunished, with victims bearing all of the social ill will.
But it’s not clear to me where social punishment fits in. It doesn’t seem like society would benefit from limiting anyone’s education. Were there a way to limit the risk of re-offending (say by forcing them to school remotely or something), would it not be better to make sure both victim and criminal still got an education?
If risk minimization is infeesible, then I don’t know. I mean it’s not like they stop existing if they are expelled. So they will still have opportunities to reoffend.
Although I guess you would hope the more bad outcomes they have (get fired, expelled, etc), the more likely they would be to stop.
The woman he assaulted had to drop out of school, because the trauma of not just the assault, but the school basically doing nothing (not only did they not rule that he assaulted her until he graduated, but notified him of the ruling at the same time as they extended him an invitation to graduate school) made it such that she couldn't even look at the school logo. Through no fault of her own, her education was ruined.
And we're supposed to be concerned about the impact on him? You mentioned society doesn't benefit from limiting anyone's education, without any acknowledgement that his victim's education was profoundly limited. This is the whole problem that the researcher was trying to highlight.
I believe in restorative justice, but as part of that, I also believe that the first step must be contrition. And by that, I mean that the perpetrator must acknowledge and accept the harm done by their actions, and their own culpability in the matter.
I'm not sure what you're arguing with here. I never said that the example given was an optimal outcome. And quite obviously the first priority of the university should be to make sure the victim is safe, and has access to resources to help them.
But if they could simultaneously make sure that the victim was safe, and still allow the criminal to get an education, that still seems like a better outcome.
I just feel like employment/education are a poor way of punishing people as it often hurts society in general as well. Pushing more people into low wage, low skill jobs makes things harder on the folks who need those jobs and haven't done anything wrong. Not to mention you're forcing all the low skill labor to bear all the burden of working with socially and criminally convicted individuals.
That doesn't seem like a good outcome. That doesn't mean I think we should just ignore reports of abuse and force the victims to continue working/going to school alongside their attacker. Just that I question if maybe there is another approach (transferring criminal, making them school remotely, etc) that might lead to better outcomes than expelling/firing them and shifting the burden onto someone else.
The point here is this - you've barely mentioned the victim and how her life was pretty much shattered, to the point that she attempted suicide, and ultimately had to drop out because the school itself was causing her trauma. Instead, your focus has been on the abuser, and how we should create an outcome that is good for "both".
And then people wonder why there's so much anger in #MeToo.
I mentioned in a prior thread about the problems with the "redemption narrative", and this is one of the bigger ones - we get so focused on the perpetrators and "rehabilitation" that the victims fall by the wayside.
So there's no point in redemption and once you do anything you're now condemned to a lifetime of punishment no matter what?
That should go well. What's the outlook on a 100% recidivism rate?
yeah, he could go get an education somewhere that his sexual assault victim doesn't attend.
No they can't, that's the point.
It's not a matter of "just go somewhere else," because there is nowhere to go.
You're advocating that all crimes are now life sentences.
In the US, all felonies are life sentences. Because you now have to check that box at every job application, or apartment rental, or loan application.
Posts
No, you're saying you want them to get a lifetime of extrajudicial punishment. And if not, know that's exactly what you're advocating for.
You make a mistake, your life is over.
That's hard to meaningfully legislate. In addition, society disagrees on the value of such contrition.
Can it be formalized, and will society accept this formalization? Because everything we propose here is contingent on acceptance of society or useless.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Why can't he go somewhere else? Your "there's nowhere else to go" argument doesn't make sense (and if you're going to argue that "his past will follow him", I recommend that you read the thread I posted, because that doesn't seem to be the case.)
And as many advocates point out, being a victim of rape or sexual assault is itself a "life sentence", with the trauma never going away completely.
We're absolutely not talking about rape or sexual assault as a central point of focus. Marijuana conviction, assault, anything. Those follow you, and there's social stigma associated with it.
You're being myopic and refocusing the topic on to your chosen section of the law, then accusing people of ignoring the victims.
That victims are left hanging is a fault of the system as a whole but it's a fault completely separate from the question of what happens to the accused.
The above twitter example is kinda useless though because it's basically "But what if the accused wasn't really punished at all and it was all dealt with internally by the university". Which is bad but not really related to the thread I think.
So....make rape and sexual assault a life sentence, at least for repeat offenders? That's what you are arguing for.
I have mentioned the victim. Several times. I understand that there was a heavy cost born by the victim because of the attack. But there will still be a heavy burden, born by the victim, no matter what we do to the criminal.
So what is the appropriate punishment then? Because there are negative costs to society (NOT THE CRIMIMINAL) that you are ignoring when you advocate just expelling/firing the criminal without a thought to where they will end up. And I think they should be considered.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Angelhedgie and the doctoral thesis' point is that the entire punishment for an allegation of sexual assault is currently on the victim because the rapists feelings and future is apparently the only thing being considered. And here you are asking us to further consider the rapist?
The latter is always going to by a fraught topic, one where I personally side with the victim in all situations, but might not be a good conversation topic at this point. Maybe a higher level discussion needs to happen before getting into each subtopic.
It's variable case by case.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
It is intended to be about all criminal action. But sex crimes are a topic that weighs heavily, because they are a crime where social punishment tends to be the only punishment.
edit - but as others have pointed out, it is important to remember that the conventions we use in sex crimes cases are often used in other cases to ill effect.
I don't care about your hypotheticals.
Research says reality is the opposite of your hypothetical dreamworld. Victims lives are ruined, rapists lives are protected by the people who should be protecting the victims.
I think that if you read my posts I have in almost every post considered the victims feelings, and have yet to even once make a statement about the criminals feelings.
Just to quote myself again:
Sure, some crimes are easy, lost money can be returned, property restored.
Some crimes have practicly no victims at all and all that is lost is either some tax money or corporate profits.
Other crimes might not have even that (like using recreational drugs).
Want to forgive those? Sure, i'm not going to hound anyone beyond whatever sentence they get, if even that.
Then, there are ones that can't just be settled with a bit of money, and the victims of can be hurt for life and never recover.
Manipultion, abuse, harrassment, rape...
Some crimes just should not start with the question "when do they get forgiven", but "If".
And "No", is a pefectly valid answer.
The problem is you're not everyone, and people are having their lives ruined by those crimes you mention right there. Why is this something you and a few others here absolutely refuse to discuss?
Now, the fact that he was a bit of a dumbass and generally a poor worker aside, the punishment in his case didn't seem to fit the crime. They had no intention of disseminating the video, and he even confided they had intended on deleting it soon. The rest of his life was marred by that moment of poor judgement. Any time someone looked up his name or pulled a background check, he'd come up in the registry. After he got fired, he was a dish washer. This was a kid who could work fiberglass and build like... Car bodies and boats, but he couldn't even get those jobs without a favor from the hiring party. I came to think that the other-ing he was getting from society was slowly turning him into even more of an apathetic and angry youth. Over the years I knew him, his philosophies changed, and his attitude soured (something I also experienced while on probation).
I share this to kind of maybe break things up a bit? I don't think anyone is getting anywhere in the conversation. We can always circle back to a topic if we reach a deadlock, right?
Societal forgiveness also does not mean that people should be comfortable around you on a professional and personal level. The need to earn a living complicates everything, but forcing women to work with sexual predators while pretending there is nothing wrong is also not justice.
Still variable case by case beyond trends. This is not hypothetical, exceptions exist and must be addressed.
But you already know this. I don't think we're actually arguing.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
It's been discussed at length, especially over in the #metoo in gaming thread this spun out of. What we are not doing is coming to conclusions you would like while discussing it.
You know why we have misdemeanor, felonies, civil crimes, sex crimes, something I'm surely missing, and a dozen levels of criminality within those categories?
Because this is case by case.
If we want to talk about a policy or societal change in regards to vagrancy law & punishment, we should be able to do that without also having to discuss rapists.
One of the more common uses of statutory rape charges in the South is to convict the male member of an underaged mixed race couple of a sex crime when they turn 18. Like the national trend of prosecutors using sexting to turn teenagers engaged in dubious but consenting sexual acts into sex criminals or the former use of these crimes to criminalize homosexuality, they are perversions of the law that should be discussed in isolation from what we should do at a society-level about sexual offenders who need to earn a living.
Who is doing the forgiving here exactly? The government? Some nebulous concept of "society"? What does "forgiven" even mean in this context?
Everything about that signals that once a person has done a crime they are beyond redemption eg. once a convicted sex offender always a sex offender.
So, do you think that Brock Turner has paid his debt to society after serving the 3 months for rape?
Because we are using "justice" as a shorthand for, "Should be hired and managed on an equal standing with other job candidates." It's a huge issue in general with employment among felons, but we cannot ignore that there is an extra component with people convicted of sexual crimes and the level of personal contact needed for most workplaces to function.
Yeah, one issue here is probably lack of context on societal responses. "Sex offender" is a good example of that - it's both overly broad and excessively punitive (up to and including "how the fuck is this legal" indefinite imprisonment under the guise of treatment programs).
It covers a range of behavior from teens being dumb to serial rapists, but the connotation of the label is the latter. This is primarily a legal punishment issue I think (constant tough on crime/think of the children one-upping), but also serves as an example of how social consequences clearly go too far. Someone hears "registered sex offender" and their brain shuts off.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
I think it means that after a suitable amount of time, perhaps twice the sentence*, court records are automatically removed and put in a sealed or cold storage. I'd also like the box to have a specific time limit in all situations, applying for jobs in California is awesome, because the applications all say ".. in the last 5(7)-years", make that a federal mandate.
I think just making the information less available, and putting a time limit on how far back you can ask, will do a lot to mediate how society treats people.
Finally, probation shouldn't just be an extra (heavy) tax on the probationer. They should offer job placement services, addiction care services. Finally? If we're making a wish-list, an education grant for felons wanting to go to college after they've completed their sentence. This is a population generally in poverty, helping drag those people up into a higher class for them and their families will only lower recidivism and better the societal whole.
*If on probation for 10 years, after 20 total years the records are removed.
If that's the problem, then the obvious fix is a longer sentence for Brock Turner.
On a fundamental level he should have if the crimes he committed merited that sanction. We can absolutely talk about sex offenses not being tried to the fullest extent of the law, however that is different from societal justice.
But do I think 3 months is an adequate sentence, no.
That's a different discussion entirely. That's a failure of the justice system.
What do you do with a person that has reached the point of can not be forgiven? Are you suggesting the should be in jail forever? Because the sentencing for rape/harassment/etc is not usually a life sentence, and I think most people would agree it shouldn't be.
So you now have a person, who has to exist in society, but you've made it ok for them to never be able to get a job or have any kind of a social life. Regardless of what we think that person deserves, that doesn't seem like it will have a good outcome for the innocent people who live around that person.
While I agree with where you are coming from, often times the point of social punishment is to fill the gaps of a failed judicial system. So it could make sense to take people who have clearly gotten off to easy and add some kind of social cost.
Which is to say that under no circumstance, ever, should a rapist be allowed into a university classroom where he has raped someone at that university. You aren't entitled to a college education, and more important than the right to make good after you serve your criminal time is the sanctity of a university as a safe place for those who are seeking knowledge. Also: professors are just as likely to be raped by a student as the other way around. There are plenty of cases each year of female professors being stalked, attacked, and raped by their students and that is unacceptable.
That rapist can find another university, in another state, or just go online and get a degree from a for profit institution that way. By taking violent action against another student he loses that privilege to be considered part of the university community. Some crimes you never are fully atoned for, because you can't undo the past. Rape is one. Murder is another. While I totally support criminal reform, as a university administrator I am appalled by the decision of that school and frankly, their accreditation should be put under review for doing so in the way they did.
Crimes that are inherently selfish and victimizing, like murder and sexual assault, really require rehabilitation. Lots of therapy and assistance to change the person's way of thinking, since it is obviously flawed.
The U.S. federal government has proven incapable of providing such a service, at least one that isn't just a horror story given life, and society seems intent on making those people a source of revenue instead of something broken needing fixing.
It would require a sea change, and probably a miracle, for a county like the U.S. to help those people. I'm not trying to be nihilistic, I just don't see a bright spot in it. I vaguely remember reading about some county like... Denmark or Norway that was having success with rehabilitation with sex criminals, but their prison populations are low enough to experiment like that (not to mention their culture wildly different at large).
That's fair, yeah.
I still think it's problematic in the sense that we have a racially biased justice system so any continuing bias against people who commit crimes is going to be largely racially and very heavily socioeconomically weighed. That's why this is a bigger subject that just sexual assault.
Like, we don't jail people because we are angry at them.
Problem is not that we are too strict to rapists (outside some rather unfortunate circumstances), like the whole metoo thread has had a constant "but what about the abusers" thing going on.
I think everyone should be entitled the things like housing, food, clothes, some reasonable amount of money for things beyond basic necessities.
People are not entitled for people to not look at them at disgust for their actions.
I'd be much more open to this concern over abusers if practice was not that they get away without consequence and their victims get blamed even more.
Except that the social response to Turner (which included making him the literal textbook example of a rapist) and the judge who handed down the sentence (including his recent dismissal from a job as a middle school tennis coach) stem from that failure (which, because of our laws prohibiting double jeopardy, cannot be corrected by extending his sentence.)
In the US, all felonies are life sentences. Because you now have to check that box at every job application, or apartment rental, or loan application.