fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3443 ]

[ SECRET POST #3443 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3443 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

(Thunderbirds Are Go! 2004 Movie)

__________________________________________________

03.

[Top Gear]

__________________________________________________

04.

[Chris Hardwick]

__________________________________________________

05.

[Dylan O’Brien]

__________________________________________________

06.

[A Little Princess by Frances Hodgson Burnett]

__________________________________________________

07.

[Orphan Black]

__________________________________________________

08.

[Captain America Civil War]

__________________________________________________

09.

[Drakengard 3]

__________________________________________________

10.

[Kiznaiver]

__________________________________________________

11.

[Doogie Howser, MD]

Notes:

Early because it's going to be a late day. :c

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 43 secrets from Secret Submission Post #492.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

You might like this link more

https://www.facebook.com/NYDailyNews/posts/10153516860622541

It's not video so less risk of upsetting ppl. Also it is comparing a similar case where the rapist was suitably punished.

Fifteen years for rape is just excessive. And that's the minimum? I think the long prison terms in the USA are the real problem.

The problem is not that upper-class white kids aren't sentenced to decades in prison; it's that blacks and poor people are sentenced to decades in prison.

If you think that you need 15-25 years to be rehabilitated, let me ask you: How much prison time do you think it would take for you to want never to go back?

And six months is a slap on his wrist, and a punch in the victim's face. I mean, clearly this guy doesn't even really think he did anything actually wrong, and neither does his dad. So how long do you think it will take him before he realizes that he seriously fucked up and actually hurt someone very badly?

Fifteen years for rape is just excessive.

are you fucking kidding me

do you think rape is like having your pocket picked or

They probably also think life is too harsh for multiple murderers.

I could have put that a better way. He was sentenced to 15-25 years because of a mandatory minimum. That's what bothered me.

A fifteen year mandatory minimum sounds excessive to me. I suppose he could be out in eight years on parole, which makes it not sound so bad. Still, I don't think rehabilitation of violent felons should be assumed to take a minimum of seven years.

As I said above, it's not that I don't appreciate how bad rape is. It's that I don't think you all appreciate how bad confinement is.

In the case of the Stanford shitbag, the prosecutor was going for 6 years. Does that still seem excessive, given that he doesn't seem to think he did anything wrong except get drunk and do something stupid that fucked up his future prospects, and that he still sees the whole thing in terms of his life being ruined, rather than the harm he did to the woman he raped?

I don't think six years is unreasonable. The judge deciding to knock it down to six months is offensive in that context.

And if what you're objecting to is that Stanford people protect their own in this way, yeah, fair enough.

I've been having to rethink some stuff after this argument.

I was less bothered by you saying you thought 15 was too much and WAY more bothered by you saying you thought 6 months was enough.

I think 6 years (originally suggested sentence) would have been appropriate since it was a first offense.

ETA: ok, I got your two comments mixed up. My bad.

In general, I do disagree with the assessment that 15 years for rape is excessive because in some cases it is totally appropriate, especially if it's premeditated, particularly violent, a repeat offense, etc.

I don't know if I'd call 15 years "excessive" in this case but I would call it unnecessary.

Edited 2016-06-08 17:58 (UTC)

Well, I said some silly things in this thread.

I do think that multiple rapists should serve consecutive sentences, and that could stack up to many years in prison.

Let's just say I'm just glad he's being sentenced at all. And, thinking in terms of deterrence, I thought, "Maybe six months is a deterrent to him doing it again. Why don't we use that option more often?"

...

But if we're defining punishment by standards of vengeance, coming up with a standard of what a man should go through in revenge for being raped is hard. Some large minority of rapes result in pregnancy absent medical intervention. You can scare a man with a lot of things, but pregnancy isn't one of them.

I wasn't weighting that well: Living in a society with access to emergency contraception and early-term abortion may be skewing my sense of things. If I were his victim, I'd be angry, and I'd want to kill the man—but I know I most likely don't really have to carry a pregnancy to term.

Contrast that to someone without access to good medical care, though: Being raped would have a small chance of being a death sentence, and a large chance of leaving them with the rapist's child. That's the default risk, and I should treat it as such..

Anyway, I said a lot of stupid stuff. Sorry.

Edited 2016-06-08 19:55 (UTC)

I definitely do not see it in terms of vengeance, but I do see it relative to the way we punish other crimes, including EXTREMELY petty things like growing weed that are seen as a Big Deal by the government and put people away for many times as long as this guy. I also see it as being a very serious crime that should be treated as one of the most serious crimes on the books. I just think six months is too light. And it's three months in practical application.

The judge's decision was partly based on twisting of the situation ("she didn't say no, so she consented!") and his family and friends downplaying the issue and writing him letters which he read and took seriously. The case was skewed in his favor from the start. The overall problem here is we don't take rape seriously in a judicial sense and that needs to change.

OK.

I have a whole pet peeve about incarceration, and I knew nothing about this case before I basically stuck my foot in mouth and kept going in this thread.

I read more on it, and the judge's sentence and explanation of same seems incredibly messed up.

Sorry for sounding like a giant turd.

thanks, and it's good. Glad you did some more research.

Definitely there are many times when the justice system overreaches. I just think this is not one of those times, but rather an underreach, so to speak, in this particular situation.

I'm not sure you quite understand what a serious offence rape is and the effect it has on the victims.

Excessive?

for RAPE?

What the actual fuck?!

No, rape ruins peoples lives, there is no rehabilitation for rapists, prison is about keeping them away from women for as long as possible.

Do you live in a society where a woman's chastity is vital to her continued existence?

No? Then, no, rape does not "ruin people's lives." That's a holdover from a culture that considers the raped person sullied and untouchable. Rape was a terrible crime when it meant that the raped woman would be unable to marry, or the raped man emasculated & put to death.

Rape is a form of assault. And as a form of assault it's actually less heinous than maiming someone. It is not "the worst thing that can happen," not to a woman, not to a man, unless society makes it that way by being stupid about it.

But all that is beside my main point, which is that multi-decade prison terms are not necessary to deter violent felonies.

You can be for rehabilitation, like the Norwegians; and prison terms don't have to be 25 years to rehabilitate someone. You can be for a swift death penalty, like the Old Testament; and then you don't have to keep someone in a cage for 25 years.

The present corrections system in the USA is mostly neither of those things--because it was historically designed specifically to use prisoners as slave labour. And when that is the real purpose of the system, then there is an incentive to make terms in prison, and thus in servitude, longer.

Other countries that don't have a slavery-based economy don't have the same kind of long mandatory minimum sentences.

OK no disrespect but I'm pretty sure you can argue against the notion that rape always ruins lives without minimizing rape and arguing that we only treat it as problematic because of the patriarchy. Rape is not the worst thing in human existence. It is a very serious form of assault and violation of bodily autonomy.

And, again, this is not a case where we are deciding between 6 months or 25 years. This is not a case that has anything to do with mandatory minimums. The main point of this discussion is not whether mandatory minimums are necessary to deter felonies. The question is whether or not a sentence of 6 months imprisonment is an appropriate one for rape, and why the sentence handed down in this case differs from the vast majority of cases in the United States. Talking about the broader problems with the criminal justice system is a red herring.

I am at a loss for words for how my view on you has just changed :/

I'm sorry. My response above was neither clever nor well-balanced. I posted rashly.

Rape can ruin someone's life. Statistically, a large minority of women get pregnant from rape. Rape can transmit various chronic diseases.

And yet there are cases at the other extreme: traumatic, infuriating, and yet passing.

I was objecting to the idea that it necessarily ruins lives, which was my misreading what was posted. I'm embarrassed by reacting that way. I shouldn't treat the best case as the norm, and denounce those who talk about the worst case. The worst case is after all generally a serious risk.

In any case, I don't believe that young men who rape are beyond rehabilitation. I also think rape is far more common than people want to accept, and so we have to try to rehabilitate, not just diabolise.

I'm actually mainly upset about "tough on crime" laws, and high levels of incarceration.

Edited 2016-06-08 11:36 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, 15 years is excessive. Where I live we have 25 years as the maximum for anything, though violent criminals are also evaluated based on if they will still pose a threat and may be "locked away" in some form. I believe there are (a few) cases in which this makes sense, but certainly not for every criminal convicted under the very broad term of "rape". This stereotyping of criminals is really something else...

The actual sentence the prosecution was seeking in this case was 6 years, for the record, not 15 or 25 or life.

Sorry, in the Turner case, I mean, it was 6 years they were seeking and they didn't get anything close to it.

Do you live in a society where a woman's chastity is vital to her continued existence?

ok. WHAT.

I wasn't going to reply to any more of your comments but you DO realize this sounds an awful lot like "it was just his penis in you, that's not a big deal, get over it", right?

No, it's not the worst thing that could happen. I'd rather not be killed or brutally tortured. But I don't think there's a lot more on that list tbh. Maiming is also bad, yeah. But that's a pretty low bar.

And if this is just a fight about the legal system and how bad prison is (which I agree with, actually) you picked a really, really bad hill to die on. Rape is still under-prosecuted and under-sentenced as opposed to many more minor crimes we lock people up for, and there's a racial and wealth bias in the justice system which Turner is benefiting from. Honestly, trying to stand up for him here goes against solving justice system problems.

ETA: something else about the chastity comment. It may not be really important for all women (or men) and it certainly shouldn't be something imposed on women by society, but actually to some women chastity is a big deal - including myself. I don't think I can put into words how horrifying the idea of someone forcibly taking that away from me is. It's my choice.

Yes, I'd recover. I'd move on. But I think it would hurt me very deeply. It's an extremely personal violation. My body is my own.

None of that is meant to imply that women who have been sexually active are less affected by rape - only that it's one very personal dimension of the issue to me specifically that I don't want to downplay. Anyway, sexual activity in whatever context is about a person choosing to share their body, in the most intimate way possible, with someone else. Taking away that choice is a deep violation no matter what someone's personally history is.

Edited 2016-06-08 18:09 (UTC)

Thank you. You said this much better than I could.

Actual rape survivor here. Please for the love of all fucks stop perpetuating this "rape ruins lives no matter what" thing. It's that exact sentiment that's hammered into us and forced on survivors that is so fucking damaging.

Rape is bad, yes, but understand that having people act like you're broken because you're not dead enough inside over it happening is a million times more traumatic.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #3443 ]

Re: TW Rape

Re: TW Rape

Re: TW Rape

Re: TW Rape

Re: TW Rape

sorry...

Re: sorry...

Re: sorry...

Re: sorry...

Well, I said a lot of stupid stuff today. I apologise.

Re: Well, I said a lot of stupid stuff today. I apologise.

Re: Well, I said a lot of stupid stuff today. I apologise.

Re: Well, I said a lot of stupid stuff today. I apologise.

Re: TW Rape

Re: TW Rape

Re: TW Rape

Re: TW Rape

Re: TW Rape

Re: TW Rape

Re: TW Rape

Re: TW Rape

Re: TW Rape

Re: TW Rape

Re: TW Rape

Re: TW Rape