Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

timetowaste85 wrote:

Blackskullandy wrote:

dogma wrote:"No." means "Yes." is a thing. And what do we do with the cloying no?

My ma always told us 'Anything but an emphatic "Yes" should be treated as a "No"'

My step-sister believes that a guy should ask every 5 minutes if the girl already said yes. True story time: she met a guy in college, they spent some time together, one thing led to another and she said yes. A while later, she changed her mind, BUT DIDN"T SAY "NO" or ask him to stop in any way. She now believes she was raped. My sister and I both told her no, she wasn't because she consented and never verbally told the guy to stop. I asked her if she actually felt a guy should ask every couple of minutes if he could continue and she said yes. I can see the human race surviving if everyone was as intelligent as her...

Ask every couple of minutes?

So I should ask to go again after I am already done?

d-usa wrote:

timetowaste85 wrote:

Blackskullandy wrote:

dogma wrote:"No." means "Yes." is a thing. And what do we do with the cloying no?

My ma always told us 'Anything but an emphatic "Yes" should be treated as a "No"'

My step-sister believes that a guy should ask every 5 minutes if the girl already said yes. True story time: she met a guy in college, they spent some time together, one thing led to another and she said yes. A while later, she changed her mind, BUT DIDN"T SAY "NO" or ask him to stop in any way. She now believes she was raped. My sister and I both told her no, she wasn't because she consented and never verbally told the guy to stop. I asked her if she actually felt a guy should ask every couple of minutes if he could continue and she said yes. I can see the human race surviving if everyone was as intelligent as her...

Ask every couple of minutes?

So I should ask to go again after I am already done?

Exalted

Personally, I would have killed the guy regardless of whose daughter he was.

And even if I was sentnenced to death, I would not feel bad about it. Someone that defective has no further purpose in this world and needs to be removed before they do any more harm.

(And I'll point out, those who rape in general have a very high chance to offend again. In child molesters the chance is even higher. Prison does not fix their problem. Even therapy has a general high failure rate. So... what's the point? Save the cost, execute them, and give the victims a sense that justice really has been done.)

Ironically you have the exact same view as my wife, one of the most "can't we all just get along" people you ever met, until she worked for victim services specializing in children.
She's a kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out kind of gal now.

Frazzled wrote:

Moral of the story: don't trust anyone.

Fixed your quote.

We need to stop agreeing with each other.

Blackskullandy wrote:
My ma always told us 'Anything but an emphatic "Yes" should be treated as a "No"'

You can give an emphatic "Yes." and still not consent, its why rape statistics are so messy. And why date rape is tough to prove.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Moral of the story: don't trust anyone.

Fixed your quote.

We need to stop agreeing with each other.

Why? I mean, he does have a point. Don't trust anyone.








Especially girls in college.

timetowaste85 wrote:
Why? I mean, he does have a point. Don't trust anyone.

Because Frazzled and I are old foes.

timetowaste85 wrote:
Especially girls in college.

Statistically its the girls that should stop trusting the boys. We not only lie, we have muscle mass.

Vulcan wrote:Even therapy has a general high failure rate.

SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOURCE?

So, do you have a source for this?

LoneLictor wrote:

Vulcan wrote:Even therapy has a general high failure rate.

SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOURCE?

So, do you have a source for this?

Doesn't really matter. Therapy will still have higher rate of success than sticking them in prison for 20 years then just letting them out with no therapy or killing them.

Also, therapy allows doctors to build up an idea of some of the causes of paedophilia. Do a lot of their patients suffer from bad childhoods etc.? This information will help identify warning signals earlier and allow pre-emptive treatment, before a child has had to suffer.

So therapy will be the better option no matter what it's current success rate may be.

timetowaste85 wrote:
My step-sister believes that a guy should ask every 5 minutes if the girl already said yes. True story time: she met a guy in college, they spent some time together, one thing led to another and she said yes. A while later, she changed her mind, BUT DIDN"T SAY "NO" or ask him to stop in any way. She now believes she was raped.

I know actual rape victims that would make an attempt on her life.

Vulcan wrote:Personally, I would have killed the guy regardless of whose daughter he was.

And even if I was sentnenced to death, I would not feel bad about it. Someone that defective has no further purpose in this world and needs to be removed before they do any more harm.

There's a quote about eyes and blindness that might be relevant.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

LoneLictor wrote:

Vulcan wrote:Even therapy has a general high failure rate.

SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOURCE?

So, do you have a source for this?

Doesn't really matter. Therapy will still have higher rate of success than sticking them in prison for 20 years then just letting them out with no therapy or killing them.

Also, therapy allows doctors to build up an idea of some of the causes of paedophilia. Do a lot of their patients suffer from bad childhoods etc.? This information will help identify warning signals earlier and allow pre-emptive treatment, before a child has had to suffer.

So therapy will be the better option no matter what it's current success rate may be.

Yeah, I agree wit dis.

But I'm still waiting for that guy's source.

dogma wrote:I know actual rape victims that would make an attempt on her life.

Indeed... also, doesn't it mean taht she has to ask the guy if he still wants it, too?

Melissia wrote:Indeed... also, doesn't it mean taht she has to ask the guy if he still wants it, too?

Yep.

Melissia wrote:

dogma wrote:I know actual rape victims that would make an attempt on her life.

Indeed... also, doesn't it mean taht she has to ask the guy if he still wants it, too?

Presumption of consent.

Melissia wrote:

dogma wrote:I know actual rape victims that would make an attempt on her life.

Indeed... also, doesn't it mean taht she has to ask the guy if he still wants it, too?

Obviously she's been going around raping poor, defenceless men.

Won't someone please think of the men?!

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Won't someone please think of the men?!

Not hard to rape a man, we have holes too.

When I said "rape victims" I didn't mean "female rape victims."

dogma wrote:

timetowaste85 wrote:
Why? I mean, he does have a point. Don't trust anyone.

Because Frazzled and I are old foes.

timetowaste85 wrote:
Especially girls in college.

Statistically its the girls that should stop trusting the boys. We not only lie, we have muscle mass.

Its the platypus avatar. There's some issue as to how he got a color pic of me (back when I was more nice).

deathholydeath wrote:Sure. I'll preface this by saying that this is my opinion, I am admittedly biased, and I'm very tired. So, just keep that in mind.
Rape is the only crime for which I can imagine no mitigating circumstances. Murder has room for justification and extenuating circumstances (self-defense, throes of passion, etc). Theft likewise.

Judge Roy Bean was once asked why he only banished the man who'd gunned someone down, but ordered a horse thief to be hung, and he famously replied "Meet a lot of men who needed killing. Never met a horse who needed stealing".

I'm not sure I entirely agree with your argument, but I just really like that story.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Try not to use it as an excuse at trial. Its a defense that no longer works in most states.

And it shouldn't, its lame excuse. Really lame.

Agreed, and so do most courts, either because of stare decisis or actual legislation that made them stop that crap.

Defendant: "She said no but her eyes said yes."
Warden: "Thats just what your cellmate said about you when I told him you were coming."

It's really weird that rape is treated with absolute seriousness on this site, with a lot of people declaring they'll kill a man who raped their daughter, and yet the jokes about prison rape are a constant thing.

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:

timetowaste85 wrote:
Why? I mean, he does have a point. Don't trust anyone.

Because Frazzled and I are old foes.

timetowaste85 wrote:
Especially girls in college.

Statistically its the girls that should stop trusting the boys. We not only lie, we have muscle mass.

Its the platypus avatar. There's some issue as to how he got a color pic of me (back when I was more nice).

Wait, I thought you were a weiner dog in the form of a man?

Vulcan wrote:(And I'll point out, those who rape in general have a very high chance to offend again.

Well, there's your problem. That statement is a popular myth with little basis in reality. The rate of re-offence is about 25%, and several factors give a strong indicator over whether a person is likely to re-offend.

Studies into this issue have shown that some groups, particularly first time, non-violent offenders who show genuine repentence, and have the support of a family network (either their parents or their partner), have very low rates of re-offence.

Even therapy has a general high failure rate.

Therapy has been shown to reduce re-offence rates by somewhere between a half and a third (with higher reduction rates for sexual crimes generally).

Save the cost, execute them, and give the victims a sense that justice really has been done.)

And there's the next problem. Very, very few families report any kind of feeling of justice after the death penalty has been inflicted.


That said, I'm not arguing for a lighter hand for sex offenders. There are groups with extremely high rates of re-offence (Those who continue to deny or justify their crimes. Those with no social groups to support them. Those who refuse or do not properly engage in therapy.). I believe we need judicial reform to better account for those likely to re-offend, and for it to be based on what's actually happening in the real world, not on popular myths thrown about in the media and on Law & Order.

dogma wrote:

timetowaste85 wrote:
My step-sister believes that a guy should ask every 5 minutes if the girl already said yes. True story time: she met a guy in college, they spent some time together, one thing led to another and she said yes. A while later, she changed her mind, BUT DIDN"T SAY "NO" or ask him to stop in any way. She now believes she was raped.

I know actual rape victims that would make an attempt on her life.
.

Want her phone number and address? We don't usually get along...and her attitude in this instance disgusted me enough that I'd say she deserves it. Also, she's a smelly hippie that wears massive amounts of lotion into the family hot tub so it's always full of nasty floating scum any time I go over to visit.

I apologize to any smelly hippies who take offense to me calling my step sister a smelly hippie. She is actually one of you.

sebster wrote:

Vulcan wrote:(And I'll point out, those who rape in general have a very high chance to offend again.

Well, there's your problem. That statement is a popular myth with little basis in reality. The rate of re-offence is about 25%, and several factors give a strong indicator over whether a person is likely to re-offend.

I'm not sure where you got that percentage from. The sources I've been looking at point to the rate of re-offence resulting in conviction being roughly 15-20%, however the actual rate of reoffending may be as high as 40% if you take into account arrests and victim statements. And we really can't dismiss the fact that repeat offenders are going to get better at avoiding arrest.

This is miles above other types of criminals with different offences reoffending, even going past violent offenders.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160252706001038
You might not be able to access it if this was one of the articles paid for by the uni.

Does texas law legalize either Vindicationism or Vigilantism against a criminal? i.e. a civilian can kill a criminal if a he spot a crime. ?

sebster wrote:
It's really weird that rape is treated with absolute seriousness on this site, with a lot of people declaring they'll kill a man who raped their daughter, and yet the jokes about prison rape are a constant thing.

Its one of the many mysteries of life.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lone Cat wrote:Does texas law legalize either Vindicationism or Vigilantism against a criminal? i.e. a civilian can kill a criminal if a he spot a crime. ?

There is Constitutional Charter #127 - famously known as the "He needed killin your honor" statute. It permits a wife to wack her husband for a variety of infractions. Once invoked the local sheriff is ordered to release her, with no further investigation.

At least thats what my wife told me.

Lone Cat wrote:Does texas law legalize either Vindicationism or Vigilantism against a criminal? i.e. a civilian can kill a criminal if a he spot a crime. ?

Certainly not.

I love reading the first page and the last page of a thread

Hazardous Harry wrote:

sebster wrote:

Vulcan wrote:(And I'll point out, those who rape in general have a very high chance to offend again.

Well, there's your problem. That statement is a popular myth with little basis in reality. The rate of re-offence is about 25%, and several factors give a strong indicator over whether a person is likely to re-offend.

I'm not sure where you got that percentage from. The sources I've been looking at point to the rate of re-offence resulting in conviction being roughly 15-20%, however the actual rate of reoffending may be as high as 40% if you take into account arrests and victim statements. And we really can't dismiss the fact that repeat offenders are going to get better at avoiding arrest.

This is miles above other types of criminals with different offences reoffending, even going past violent offenders.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160252706001038
You might not be able to access it if this was one of the articles paid for by the uni.

One might have thought that sex offenders, being on a register, would be more easily caught second time around.

Taking your 15-25% and averaging with your 40%, we get a reoffending rate of 25%.

Kilkrazy wrote:

One might have thought that sex offenders, being on a register, would be more easily caught second time around.

As far as I know most countries and US states do not have a public sex offender registry. Unless you mean just a sex registry in general?

Taking your 15-25% and averaging with your 40%, we get a reoffending rate of 25%.

It's more like 30%, which is still pretty high. On top of that Mercado also admits that these are pretty conservative estimates which only included second offences that resulted in an arrest or being charged. If they investigations into victim reports counted the rate, as would be expected, would definitely be higher.

Psycho dad! Sorry, that just popped into my head.

I fully support him.
Hell I'd probably do the same for less. If I saw someone actively trying to do something to one of my pets... he'd better have a good pair of legs.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

One might have thought that sex offenders, being on a register, would be more easily caught second time around.

As far as I know most countries and US states do not have a public sex offender registry. Unless you mean just a sex registry in general?

I know in Oklahoma our sex offender registry is public.

Here is the list of folks in my town:

http://docapp8.doc.state.ok.us/servlet/page?_pageid=230&_dad=portal30&_schema=PORTAL30&SearchMode=Basic&city=Oklahoma%20city&stateid=30658&county=oklahoma&SearchAll=ALL