The NationStates Feminist Thread II

[Ostroeuropa]

For the record, given the state of the prison system, I actually think this sentence is a better one than most convicted rapists get. Pointlessly dicking around with people is not in the interests of the state, even if it does satisfy the urge for vengeance.

Look at it this way.
The governments highly unlikely to reform him no matter the sentence, and this one is cheaper.

So let me get this straight, we should give him a light sentence because he is more likely to go back and do it again anyway? What the fuck?

My skepticism of the prison systems efficacy applies to all criminals, not just this one. I don't support pointlessly making people suffer.
If prison isn't going to reform him and isn't really going to try, and is just going to let him out later anyway, i'd rather we just not bother.

Ideally, fix the prison system and give it far more of a focus on rehabilitation.

You just said that this guy is unlikely to respond to rehabilitation.

I said the prison system is unlikely to rehabilitate him, which is different.

[Des-Bal]

Bullshit. If you can do something as heinous as this and get away from it with a sentence that is shorter than he would if he was caught dealing pot, there's every chance he'll do it again.

Strict sentences don't stop people from reoffending, in fact the entire idea of institutionalization is that if you put someone in jail for fifteen years they're going to be a problem when they come out.

[Kelinfort]

So let me get this straight, we should give him a light sentence because he is more likely to go back and do it again anyway? What the fuck?

My skepticism of the prison systems efficacy applies to all criminals, not just this one. I don't support pointlessly making people suffer.
If prison isn't going to reform him and isn't really going to try, and is just going to let him out later anyway, i'd rather we just not bother.

Yes, a little suffering for a terrible crime is "pointless"

[Natapoc]

Bullshit. If you can do something as heinous as this and get away from it with a sentence that is shorter than he would if he was caught dealing pot, there's every chance he'll do it again.

Strict sentences don't stop people from reoffending, in fact the entire idea of institutionalization is that if you put someone in jail for fifteen years they're going to be a problem when they come out.

I don't disagree, but what will stop him from reoffending? He still seems to think he's the victim here.

[Romakivila]

Six months is light, I would've given him 2 or 3 years.

That's still far too lenient. Rape convictions should be a minimum of fifteen years behind bars. It's even worse now he basically knows he can get away with it now.

What good would 15 years do though?

Why did race have to be pulled into this? However true it may or may not be it seems rather off topic to do so.

Because his sense of entitlement to women's bodies did not happen in a vacuum. Factors ranging from white privilege to male privilege to class privilege and rape culture all merged together to permit this obscene narrative of perpetrator as innocent victim.

What? I mean it's clear the guy was just a sociopath, it had nothing to do with privilege! You're assuming a hell of a lot about the man. There was no real reason to bring that up. You can't just look at cases from your ideological standpoint and say "Oh that man was a rich white male with privilege and that's why he wasn't punished as harshly."

[Des-Bal]

We all look repentant when our day of reckoning arrives.

And I'm sure they judge and probation officials have experience in dealing with people whose repentance may not be genuine.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Strict sentences don't stop people from reoffending, in fact the entire idea of institutionalization is that if you put someone in jail for fifteen years they're going to be a problem when they come out.

I don't disagree, but what will stop him from reoffending? He still seems to think he's the victim here.

His dad would, but the man is as much of a dipshit as the son is, so not much hope there.

[Ostroeuropa]

My skepticism of the prison systems efficacy applies to all criminals, not just this one. I don't support pointlessly making people suffer.
If prison isn't going to reform him and isn't really going to try, and is just going to let him out later anyway, i'd rather we just not bother.

Yes, a little suffering for a terrible crime is "pointless"

Inflicting suffering can be an acceptable consequence of actions, but shouldn't ever be the point of an action, in my opinion.

That he'd be denied his liberty to reform him is acceptable because reforming him is in everyones interests and ultimately serves both him and society.
Just denying him is liberty isn't justified in my opinion, and the protection of the public argument doesn't fly unless you're going to keep him there til he drops dead, which would also be acceptable to me in some (more serious) cases, and cases where reformation isn't possible.

But otherwise, I just don't see the point.

[Costa Fierro]

Strict sentences don't stop people from reoffending, in fact the entire idea of institutionalization is that if you put someone in jail for fifteen years they're going to be a problem when they come out.

I'm not saying that it stops people from reoffending. I'm saying that the length of the sentence served should reflect the severity of the crime. In addition, those who have been convicted should receive therapy and if that doesn't work, indefinite incarceration is the only option left.

[Kelinfort]

We all look repentant when our day of reckoning arrives.

And I'm sure they judge and probation officials have experience in dealing with people whose repentance may not be genuine.

Genuine or not, it shouldn't affect sentencing.

What should matter are the circumstances, severity, and the personal health of the perpetrator/victim. Saying, "I'm sorry," really sincerely shouldn't really be a factor.

[Wallenburg]

So let me get this straight, we should give him a light sentence because he is more likely to go back and do it again anyway? What the fuck?

My skepticism of the prison systems efficacy applies to all criminals, not just this one. I don't support pointlessly making people suffer.

It isn't pointless suffering. Imprisonment of criminals protects the public. That is why we have prisons.

If prison isn't going to reform him and isn't really going to try, and is just going to let him out later anyway, i'd rather we just not bother.

In that case, why not let any serial rapist, mass murderer, or rampant arsonist who won't respond to rehab just walk free immediately? Prison isn't going to reform them, and they aren't really going to try, and they are just going to let them out later anyway. I'd rather we just not bother.

[Ostroeuropa]

My skepticism of the prison systems efficacy applies to all criminals, not just this one. I don't support pointlessly making people suffer.

It isn't pointless suffering. Imprisonment of criminals protects the public. That is why we have prisons.

If prison isn't going to reform him and isn't really going to try, and is just going to let him out later anyway, i'd rather we just not bother.

In that case, why not let any serial rapist, mass murderer, or rampant arsonist who won't respond to rehab just walk free immediately? Prison isn't going to reform them, and they aren't really going to try, and they are just going to let them out later anyway. I'd rather we just not bother.

I wouldn't let them out, is the thing. It doesn't protect the public if you just let him out later anyway. The protect the public argument only makes sense if you keep him there forever, or until reformed. It's merely an excuse people use to make dehumanized people suffer for no discernible reason, in my opinion. Not consciously, but yeh. Nothings changed about the persons threat to the public if you just let them out 10 years later, and in some cases, they pose more of a threat than when they went in.

[Natapoc]

It isn't pointless suffering. Imprisonment of criminals protects the public. That is why we have prisons.

In that case, why not let any serial rapist, mass murderer, or rampant arsonist who won't respond to rehab just walk free immediately? Prison isn't going to reform them, and they aren't really going to try, and they are just going to let them out later anyway. I'd rather we just not bother.

I wouldn't let them out, is the thing.

So you advocate (actual) life in prison for this rapist?

[Des-Bal]

I don't disagree, but what will stop him from reoffending? He still seems to think he's the victim here.

Fear of the consequences? He is presenting himself as the victim because he is still contending that the victim verbally consented and passed out. If he believes that's true then he now knows that if he tries to hook up with a drunk girl he's going to court with prior conviction. If he's lying then he now knows that if he tries to rape a woman he's going to court with a prior conviction.

[Ostroeuropa]

I wouldn't let them out, is the thing.

So you advocate (actual) life in prison for this rapist?

It would make more sense than the 6 month sentence, but it isn't necessarily what i'd go for given the power to change the justice system. Lumbered with the current one, i'd probably give a suspended life sentence on condition of a bunch of crap like attending several classes on sexual consent and such. (I've probably said something not possible.)

If I could change the justice system, i'd find them guilty, and they'd go away until they are reformed to the satisfaction of their case workers.
If it takes an hour, that's fine. If never, that is also fine.

[Natapoc]

I don't disagree, but what will stop him from reoffending? He still seems to think he's the victim here.

Fear of the consequences? He is presenting himself as the victim because he is still contending that the victim verbally consented and passed out. If he believes that's true then he now knows that if he tries to hook up with a drunk girl he's going to court with prior conviction. If he's lying then he now knows that if he tries to rape a woman he's going to court with a prior conviction.

I doubt it. If anything, this is teaching him that as long as he's a good swimmer and has rich parents he can get away with almost anything.

[Costa Fierro]

So you advocate (actual) life in prison for this rapist?

Possibly, but I'd suggest that if someone cannot be rehabilitated, indefinite incarceration should be an option.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Fear of the consequences? He is presenting himself as the victim because he is still contending that the victim verbally consented and passed out. If he believes that's true then he now knows that if he tries to hook up with a drunk girl he's going to court with prior conviction. If he's lying then he now knows that if he tries to rape a woman he's going to court with a prior conviction.

I doubt it. If anything, this is teaching him that as long as he's a good swimmer and has rich parents he can get away with almost anything.

Well, he already lost his swimming team position and the scholarship, so he's not really "a good swimmer" anymore more than "that fucking rapist from Stanford".

The rich parents on the other hand might be a mitigating factor, but not really if you have a prior conviction.

[Des-Bal]

Genuine or not, it shouldn't affect sentencing.

What should matter are the circumstances, severity, and the personal health of the perpetrator/victim. Saying, "I'm sorry," really sincerely shouldn't really be a factor.

So you don't believe that specific deterrence has a role in sentencing? Repentance goes towards the likelihood of re offending and that's one of the major concerns in sentencing.

I'm not saying that it stops people from reoffending. I'm saying that the length of the sentence served should reflect the severity of the crime. In addition, those who have been convicted should receive therapy and if that doesn't work, indefinite incarceration is the only option left.

You're talking about retribution and rehabilitation which are often conflicting goals. While it's appealing to levy strict punishments it's not necessarily helpful, the helpfulness of the treatment is suspect when he's already deemed unlikely to reoffend.

[Natapoc]

So you advocate (actual) life in prison for this rapist?

Possibly, but I'd suggest that if someone cannot be rehabilitated, indefinite incarceration should be an option.

Here is the problem. All it takes is a high-priced lawyer to persuade an overworked judge that ones rich client can be rehabilitated...

And suddenly you have an interesting pattern: Rich people are perpetually rehabilitateable whereas the poor can never be rehabilitated.

[Des-Bal]

Here is the problem. All it takes is a high-priced lawyer to persuade an overworked judge that ones rich client can be rehabilitated...

And suddenly you have an interesting pattern: Rich people are perpetually rehabilitateable whereas the poor can never be rehabilitated.

What does a high priced lawyer do?

[G-Max]

Can we get back to talking about feminism?

[Costa Fierro]

You're talking about retribution and rehabilitation which are often conflicting goals. While it's appealing to levy strict punishments it's not necessarily helpful, the helpfulness of the treatment is suspect when he's already deemed unlikely to reoffend.

It's not retribution. It's having the sentence fit the crime. Retribution would be advocating for physical or chemical castration and throwing his sorry carcass into a cell for the rest of his life. And whilst that seems fitting, it's not humane.

Having a longer sentence serves two purposes. One, it keeps them out of society for longer and two, gives rehabilitation the ability to work better over a longer period.

Whether or not the person is likely to reoffend is irrelevant, because the circumstances once released from prison are more of a factor in reoffending than circumstances inside it.

[Des-Bal]

It's not retribution. It's having the sentence fit the crime. Retribution would be advocating for physical or chemical castration and throwing his sorry carcass into a cell for the rest of his life. And whilst that seems fitting, it's not humane.

Having a longer sentence serves two purposes. One, it keeps them out of society for longer and two, gives rehabilitation the ability to work better over a longer period.

Whether or not the person is likely to reoffend is irrelevant, because the circumstances once released from prison are more of a factor in reoffending than circumstances inside it.

As much as I like this topic it is getting further and further removed from the purpose of the thread.

[Ostroeuropa]

Possibly, but I'd suggest that if someone cannot be rehabilitated, indefinite incarceration should be an option.

Here is the problem. All it takes is a high-priced lawyer to persuade an overworked judge that ones rich client can be rehabilitated...

And suddenly you have an interesting pattern: Rich people are perpetually rehabilitateable whereas the poor can never be rehabilitated.

Which is why once the guilty verdict is delivered, i'd prefer it be handled by social workers, mental health teams, prison guards, etc.
A rich mans lawyer might be able to bamboozle a judge that somebody they don't really know is reformable, but they won't really be able to convince case workers in prolonged contact with the subject that someone is reformed on unreformable or whatever.

The sentencing aspect of the justice system in my opinion makes no sense.

In the case of this kid, for instance. He'd be forced to be in contact with a bunch of people who'd be actively evaluating his personality, moral compass, ability to integrate into society, etc.

If he's just an entitled rich asshole who runs roughshod over everyone, he's never getting out until that changes.