U.S. Supreme Court Gives the OK for the Worst Crime Ever

Wow, finally someone who feels the same way as I do. I tried explaining this exact thing to my boyfriend the other day in the car and I looked over at him and he was just horrified. I'm glad I'm not alone in this position. I'm sad and hurt when anyone dies, and would expect the same level of justice no matter the age...

 

WHAT THE HELL?

I just came across this - lawmaker James Fagan (D-Mass), had this to say about stiffer sentences for child rapists. He would tear the child witness apart - as a matter of course,

The guy makes his living as a defense attorney. I actually once had the displeasure of meeting Jeff Fieger, Kevorkian's lawyer. The same kind of asshole. Yes, defendants require an adequate defense.

And yes, there is something seriously fucked up with our society.

 

When I was twelve years old a man who had threatened my mother the night before, and to whose neck, because of this, I subsequently held a knife to, woke me up in the middle of the night in my bedroom with my penis in one hand, and the very same knife in the other.

"Shall I cut it off?" he asked me.

It was a bad night. Forty-one years ago, but, I guess I don't have to tell you, it was like yesterday.

The feeling of utter self-loathing, disgust and mortification cannot adequately be described, and should never be endured. I wonder if any of you really know what you are asking a young child victim to go through yet again, and, because we're talking death penalty here, again and again, and again and again.

Want them to say nothing about nothing? Tell them they'll have to relive the same terror for the next five years, even in a closed setting, where a child victim's identity is supposedly guarded. And in a small town?

For once of late I think the high-court got it right.

 

I know that look you got from your boyfriend. Emotional reactions are so much more powerful than intellectual ones. I don't know if you read my post about the incubator babies, but it's the same thing. Kids are an excellent way to emotionally coerce behavior from adults. We're hard wired to have exceptional sympathy and compassion for them.

 

And why do you think that is? is it because children are inherently more vulnerable than adults?

 

I don't know but following your reasoning, then there is a reason why some white people are intimidated by blacks.

Fear is a strange emotion. It doesn't have to be rational.

 

I don't understand how that follows.

Do you not agree that the extended compassion people have for children is because they are inherently more vulnerable, and would you also not agree that being inherently more vulnerable is a good reason for extended compassion?

 

You're saying that because fear exists, therefor fear is justified.

Maybe and not necessarily.

 

No i'm not. I'm saying the reason people have extended compassion for children is because they are inherently more vulnerable. it's quite a simple concept to grasp if you take the time to read the words....

 

Semantic games. I believe that people feel all sorts of things. I do not believe everything that everyone feels is rational.

You think small children are more vulnerable and thus subject to increased compassion. That might apply to you and 99% of the population, but it is not an absolute.

What I believe, compassion or not, is that all people are equal. Young and old, men and women etc etc. As much as possible, we have to look at everyone as an individual, not in classes or groups.

 

Equal in what sense? people certainly aren't equal when it comes to their ability to defend themselves against an attack. Children being one group who are particularly vulnerable in this field, Which is why people have extended compassion for them and feel a greater sense of injustice when this vulnerability is taken advantage of.

 

I believe that is nonsense. You're applying subjectivist and emotional arguments to make your case. With such rhetorical tools, you could make almost any case you want.

Instead of calling all violence and aggression evil, you choose to call some more or less evil based upon the ability of the victim to offer a defense. This creates double standards and inequality of law.

 

some people are more vulnerable than others, and when a crime takes advantage of this vulnerability the gravity of the injustice is increased.

Some crimes are worse than others. Stealing bread isn't as bad as killing someone, Punching a 26 year old boxer isn't as bad as punching a 95 year old blind woman in a wheelchair. these are things that normal people find obvious.

There is more that goes into judging the gravity of the injustice than just the crime it's self, otherwise we would have one fixed sentence for all things that are "illegal".

 

You're mixing analogies.

Is stealing bread from a male 14 year old worse than stealing bread from a female 70 year old?

It's just silliness and why we have such screwed up laws now.

Stealing bread, regardless of who owned it, is a crime period.

 

Of course stealing bread is a crime, But are all situations where the bread is stolen equal? For instance, Is it as much a crime to steal a loaf of bread from a bakery as it is to steal it from a homeless person in a wheelchair who hasn't eaten in a week? Difference sets of circumstances result in different levels of injustice.

Id like you to respond to a point i made in my last post; Do you believe that punching a 26 year old boxer in the face is as bad, and as much of an injustice, as punching a 95 year old blind woman in the face?

 

Yes, it is equal. Different levels of injustice is a canard that too many people are socialized to believe. The crime is the same regardless of the victim.

Yes, it is equal. I'm not going to get caught up in the game of pulling heartstrings to create legal and judicial inequality.

You can't argue for inequality, and then rant for equality. If you're going to discriminate on age for crime, then you should be able to discriminate on age for employment. If you want to be able to distinguish between male and female rape, then you should be able to distinguish between male and female access to education or anything else.

I mean, if the really old and really young are victim groups, shouldn't they be treated inequitably? If you distinguish between male and female victims, doesn't that by nature imply that one has a disadvantage versus the others?

I don't buy that. I reject that. See people as individuals, not as victim groups. And btw, I'm tired of arguing this on what is a really promising weekend, so please bring something new to the discussion, I think we have both staked out very clearly where we stand.

 

You are creating legal and judicial inequality. By arguing that vulnerable people aren't entitled to increased protection you are keeping them more vulnerable than you and more susceptible to crime. where is the equality if the very young and very old are easier targets?

By the way, You previously claimed that 1% of people will disagree with me. Did you know 1% of the population are schizophrenic? i wonder if it's the same 1%....

 

Doubletalk?

First of all, no one is entitled to anything. An entitlement is a positive obligation, and cannot exist in the wild.

Second, my failure to do something, doesn't cause crime. That's a strawman.

They are treated equally as everyone else. Don't try to double talk inequality as equality. That's why I said this conversation is going nowhere. It's become a semantic game.

I was making a wild guess. It's sad that your argument rests on inferring I am schizophrenic. Wouldn't you like to be right for what you know, not what you say?

 

making shit up? that's not like you....

 

Both are a crime, as far as I know stealing from any age group is considered the same penalty.

Where it differs is when it's physical damage to a person, such as rape, physical abuse, and some mental.

I do get what you're saying about equality, however where you are flawed is a 2 year old can not go and get a job, drive a car, join the military, drink a beer on their own and so much more. To have total equality you'd need to allow the 2 year old to drive, join the military, etc, etc.

Do you honestly suggest they should be allowed to?

I do not see it as creating separate classes one bit, adults are the financial, emotional and physical protectors 'among many other rolls' of minor children.