Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Head Shop >

Crime and Stigma

Page: (1)2 3 4

13:15 / 25.02.02

(Inspired by the McDonald's thread, and the debate over a UK media personality that I've never heard of.)

At what point should a crime be "forgiven"? Does the succesful serving of a court ordered rehabilitation process (up to and including incarceration) mean that someone has paid his or her debt to society, and should be treated like anyone else?

What about things like sex offender registries/Meghan's law, where people who've been convicted of a sex crime have to register with the police where they live, place signs in front of their house saying that they are a sex offender, and visit everyone in the neighborhood and identify themselves as such (and some municipal PDs have web pages with sex offender's pictures on them). Is this fair punishment? Does the protection afforded to parents in the neighborhood outweigh the stigma of being branded a sex offender for life?

What about questions on a job application about criminal past? With such a large percentage of the US african-american male population serving some prison time, does this automatically disqualify them from becoming law-abiding citizens?

What about voting rights for felons? Should felons be disenfranchised forever? Or just while they're in jail?

16:37 / 25.02.02

as far as sex offenders: I personally feel that once youve violated someone in that manner, youve very likely ruined their lives. they will forever be sentenced to the damage youve bestowed on them in order to get your rocks off, whatever act that consists of. you make that awful choice, condemning someone to that life, then you also condemn yourself to the label of sex offender.

feel sorry for them? fuck them. making the public aware of their presence might protect someone else from a potential lifetime of nightmares, fear, distrust, and a ton of other baggage.

Im sorry that some people have actually reformed and will never hurt another person, and still have to pay the consequences of their actions, forever. its life, man - goddamn unfair, innit?

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

16:52 / 25.02.02

The risk of reoffending, and the damage reoffending would do, is simply too great. Sex offenders should either be incarcerated for life, or summarily executed.

If they are released, local communities should be made aware of their identities, location, and the threat they pose, and the police must allow the community to sort it out their own way - there is no profit in interfering with people's entirely natural desire to protect their children and make clear their disapproval.

If somebody is suspected of being a sex offender, then I must advocate with regret the position that the risks to the community are too great for that person to be allowed to move around freely. Either preemptive incarceration, or at the very least a police or community-based observation presence is probably required. It is a shame that this may on occasion infringe the rights of innocent people, but the ends, I say with sadness that I should have to say it, do justify the means.

[ 25-02-2002: Message edited by: The Haus Red ]

18:51 / 25.02.02

ah christ. do you actually have anything to say, or does cleverly-worded hyperbole continually suffice for you?

tell that shit to the parents of the four year old who was routinely molested, and that fucking predator only got one year, then came out and moved right the fuck back into the neighborhood.

do you know what the fear they go through is like?
do you know the regret they will live with for trusting that man with their child?
do you know what scars that little boy will deal with for the rest of his fucking life?

oh no, it doesnt matter. ideally we should all be forgiven for our sins. ideally you can fucking trust the world with a defenseless child, haus.

have you ever had anyone fuck you when you didnt want them to, haus? has anyone ever held you down and hurt you, just because they wanted to, and could? I suppose that just goes away, right? the pain and fear of the victim just disappear one day, and all the things behind someones motivations to perform such a violent and hateful act on another person

Matthew Fluxington

19:04 / 25.02.02

Bitchiekittie, I really do think that you've horribly misread what Haus has written.

[ 25-02-2002: Message edited by: Flux = Everything Extraordinaire ]

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

19:25 / 25.02.02

(Edited because autobiography is for the weak)

I agree. Hyperbole is a terrible thing. Let's stick to something nice and cool and rational, like vivid descriptions of child molestation and rape.

Issues, anyone?

[ 25-02-2002: Message edited by: The Haus Red ]

10:41 / 26.02.02

I've not done any research so I might be speaking more from the heart than the head here. Nevertheless, we need to stop classifying people who commit criminal acts as another species. We need to accept human weakness and work to understand and prevent.
The dishing out of justice has to start and stop with the legal system. We have to stop believing in bogeymen and start addressing why people commit certain crimes.
Relating to the original thread, I simply cannot accept that someone should be dismissed as a "wife beating cunt" or "scumbag". I can understand why someone might have those feelings, but if you do speak like that then you are part of the problem.

10:54 / 26.02.02

and at which point are we victimizing people for the benefit of the rights of the perpetrator? at which point do you stop making allowances for people who cannot or will not control themselves and are inherently a danger to everyone?

we all make choices, and once some lines are crossed you simply cannot erase the damage done

and no, Im not cool and rational haus. should I be? we arent talking about someone stealing your cd player or robbing a bank, we are talking about someone who has willfully, cruelly taken a bit of another persons life for their own perverse pleasures. we are talking about the violence and intimidation and the scars it leaves, for the rest of the victims life. it affects everything, every moment

and we should just "forgive" that? allow them to simply move on peacefully with their lives, when the victim doesnt ever -EVER- get that chance?

fuck that

10:59 / 26.02.02

I think, Buk, what irked people in the other thread (and at the risk of rotting this one) was the sense that, while not directly profiting from his assaultative crime exactly, Gascoigne has apparently shrugged off any lasting damage to his 'loveable buffoon' image such that a family-friendly mega-corporation is happy to use him in its promotion - with, no doubt, a sizeable fee. He just hasn't earned it yet, baby...

That example taps into a more general feeling that violence within the home - whether directed towards men, women or children - is more readily tolerated or ignored. "It's just a domestic". Also, celebrities - particularly sporting ones - seem to emerge from such situations less 'damaged' than most.

[ 26-02-2002: Message edited by: Ganesh v4.2 ]

11:08 / 26.02.02

Okay, when do you "earn it"? Can, um, Michael Jackson ever "earn it" back from his (admittedly non-juridicial) alledged kiddy fiddling?

To address Buk - Is the penal system about "justice"? Is it about rehabilitation? Is it about punishment? And, in that penal system should each crime and "criminal" be treated with the same standards? I don't think it is necessarily hypocritical for some perpetrators of certain types of crimes to be in the penal system for "punishment" and others for "rehabilitation."

11:10 / 26.02.02

Bitchiekittie: while I have a certain amount of sympathy for your point of view, it's one area in which one cannot easily generalise; attaching emotive assumptions about the perpetrator's motives ("wilfully, cruelly", "perverse pleasures", etc.) and assuming that every victim of abuse is irreparably scarred emotionally for every minute of the rest of their lives doesn't help matters. It is a grey area, and drawing such distinctions serves to encourage demonisation - which, in the long run, is counterproductive.

Additionally, the rules governing what is and isn't a "sex offence" are rather elastic, and this should be borne in mind. Not so long ago, adult men having consenting sex in public places (however technically 'public') were placed on an equivalent footing with repeat child sex-offenders...

All I'm saying is, every instance of child abuse is not the same; it's not always a straightforward case of Monsters & Victims. Abuse situations mustn't be prejudged or stereotyped in such black-and-white terms.

[ 26-02-2002: Message edited by: Ganesh v4.2 ]

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

11:10 / 26.02.02

quote:Originally posted by bitchiekittie:
and no, Im not cool and rational haus. should I be?

If you want to accuse other people of hyperbole, then yes. Or perhaps you could aim for "litotic"..."you know, child murderers are rarely desirable dinner guests"?

Your choice.

But try something beyond "Look! They do *bad* things!" as an excuse for whatever opinion you want to hold. After all, murderers take away more than a bit fo the lives of the people they kill - they take away the whole shooting match. Is that better or worse than a sex offence? Should killers be forced to wear clothing with "killer" in bright orange letters at all times?

Now that we all know that you think rape and child abuse are bad, you could either go for the double with "why puppies and happy families are nice", or you could try to explain what exactly your problem is with the firm but fair measures described here:

The risk of reoffending, and the damage reoffending would do, is simply too great. Sex offenders should either be incarcerated for life, or summarily executed.
If they are released, local communities should be made aware of their identities, location, and the threat they pose, and the police must allow the community to sort it out their own way - there is no profit in interfering with people's entirely natural desire to protect their children and make clear their disapproval.

If somebody is suspected of being a sex offender, then I must advocate with regret the position that the risks to the community are too great for that person to be allowed to move around freely. Either preemptive incarceration, or at the very least a police or community-based observation presence is probably required. It is a shame that this may on occasion infringe the rights of innocent people, but the ends, I say with sadness that I should have to say it, do justify the means.

pointless and uncalled for

11:13 / 26.02.02

quote:Originally posted by Ganesh v4.2:
Not so long ago, adult men having consenting sex in public places (however technically 'public') were placed on an equivalent footing with repeat child sex-offenders...

And now that the former is more acceptable, does that mean that the latter should also be so.

Be wary of judging the moralities and actions of the past, as a learning race we may be judged in the future.

11:15 / 26.02.02

quote:Originally posted by Jesus digs me:
And now that the former is more acceptable, does that mean that the latter should also be so.

No, that wasn't my point at all.

pointless and uncalled for

11:16 / 26.02.02

Mine either as can be determined by reading the second part of my post.

11:20 / 26.02.02

Oh, okay, it was rhetorical. Fine.

Your point about 'judging' moralities of the past is a good general one; I just don't think my example of the previous (and, in some situations, present) criminalisation of consenting homosexuality is a particularly good point on which to hang it.

pointless and uncalled for

11:22 / 26.02.02

And I was just saying that someone, very much like you, will say exactly the same thing about something that you consider commonplace and good today.

11:26 / 26.02.02

quote:Originally posted by Jesus digs me:
And I was just saying that someone, very much like you, will say exactly the same thing about something that you consider commonplace and good today.

Which is all well and good (in an unanswerable kind of way) but doesn't really progress the discussion much.

If you're saying one day we'll look back on the criminalisation of adult-child sex as we currently do with same-gender sex, then that might be an interesting assertion. Are you saying that, or are you being more general?

pointless and uncalled for

11:33 / 26.02.02

I was being general and would go so far as to say that this excludes adult-child sex.

If called upon to predict the future I would be happy to assert that the protection of children will increase.

The main thrust of my point was that your reference to historic values wasn't exactly progressing the discussion. You can take that with a pinch if IMHO if the flavour is not to your liking.

11:48 / 26.02.02

quote:Originally posted by Jesus digs me:
The main thrust of my point was that your reference to historic values wasn't exactly progressing the discussion. You can take that with a pinch if IMHO if the flavour is not to your liking.

<sigh>

I employed that particular example to illustrate the potential diversity of situations encountered under the label "sex offence" - and to point up the possible dangers of generalising from similar stock terms. This did progress the discussion IMHO, because I believe Bitchiekittie's overgeneralising about "abusers" and losing focus as a result. My point countered/challenged her approach.

I take your point about judging historically but am uncertain how applicable it might be within the ongoing discussion. It was only in the last year or so (in the UK) that consenting same-sex "sex offenders" were removed from the official Register, and it's still illegal - so even that isn't a particularly distant "historical" example.

All of which takes us some way from the thread's starting point.

Todd, I'm not sure when someone's 'earned forgiveness'; it ought to be at the end of their societally-predetermined period of punishment. There's also the dimension of 'rehabilitation' to consider, though, as well as the chance/likelihood of the individual re-offending; in practice, this gets jumbled up with the 'punishment' aspect.

There's also the question of how much the crime 'shocks' society in general. Paul Gascoigne's assault on his wife, for example, falls within a more 'acceptable' cultural framework, hence the fact that he's already 'forgiven' to the extent that McDonalds are employing him. Women and children who harm (and particularly kill), on the other hand, are much more likely to be seen as 'unnatural monsters' who can never be forgiven. Ideally, the 'sensational' aspect shouldn't be a consideration in the degree of 'punishment' but in some particularly emotive cases ('named & shamed' paedophiles, Myra Hindley) it's difficult to avoid.

Has Michael Jackson 'paid the price'? I don't really know enough about the background there to say. I know that's a cop-out but it's true.

11:55 / 26.02.02

quote:Originally posted by Ganesh v4.2:
Women and children who harm (and particularly kill), on the other hand, are much more likely to be seen as 'unnatural monsters' who can never be forgiven.
.[/QB]

I haven't thought about this at all. There's a perfect example of this happening in the States right now: The Andrea Yates trial, of a mother accused of drowning her five young children. When I first heard about this, I was happy she did it in Texas so they can kill her (and I am in general entirely anti-death penalty). Interestingly, the only one not making her out to be some inhuman monster is her Husband, who has stood by her throughout the mess. She's pleading insanity. If she goes to a treatment center as is released in, say 10 years, would she have "earned" it? Should the U.S. government give her a new identity like the Bulger killers?(incidentally, has anyone published a picture of them yet?)

The Natural Way

12:02 / 26.02.02

Uh....

My Father has a bit of a history of Wife beating and I (and all 3 of his wives and the rest of his 5 children) would be very uncomfortable w/ his being characterized as nothing but a woman basher. He's a very troubled and, in some ways, very unhappy man (tho' he's chilled out a shitload now, what w/ being 62 and all). You know, w/out wanting to get all *competitive* about it, I suspect he may be much more miserable and buggered in the head than any of his "victims". I appreciate that child rape, etc. is a different thing, but I just want to illustrate, albeit in a loose, anecdotal fashion, some of the grey areas Nesh was talking about.

[ 26-02-2002: Message edited by: You and Runce ]

12:03 / 26.02.02

Todd: Morally, she should be treated in the same way as a male (in his right mind ie. not considered 'insane') who'd committed the same crime. Realistically, she'll receive a harsher sentence (or she would anywhere but Texas where the death sentence is pretty much the death sentence). As a society, we're particularly shocked by women who kill their children...

[ 26-02-2002: Message edited by: Ganesh v4.2 ]

autopilot disengaged

12:26 / 26.02.02

haus: back to yr suggestion re:the punishment of child molesters.

i think a big part of the stigma attached to child abusers is due to the fusing of the criminal motive with a sexual urge. it's one of a select number of crimes thatis seen as having an almost inevitable recidivist tendency. and again - this because of the way in which the behaviour is tied-in with pre-civilized, animalistic drives - that by definition, can't be reasoned with.

it's perceived as a self-perpetuating narrative stemming from a particular individual - whereas most crimes, even murder, are 'explained' via the 'story' that surrounds the incident.

i think before we can realistically proscribe definitive punishments or treatments for abusers, we need to understand them more - as 'nesh has already said, mystifying them as a monstrous 'other' won't realistically get us any closer to solving the problem.

ok, err on the side of caution for now (though summary execution is never, ever an option as far as i'm concerned).

and bitchie: i think - if you take a look - yr response is very much aligned with that of haus. it's probably more me and 'nesh that are advocating a different position.

12:50 / 26.02.02

quote:mystifying them as a monstrous 'other' won't realistically get us any closer to solving the problem.

This is the kind of reaction seen on Barbelith towards the "wife-beating cunt", the "scumbag" Paul Gascoigne. Understandable but still very wrong and part of the problem. This kind of reaction isn't the sole property of tabloids and pub philosophers.

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

12:51 / 26.02.02

it's probably more me and 'nesh that are advocating a different position.

Yeah, Y'nonce-loving bleeding-heart liberals.

[ 26-02-2002: Message edited by: The Haus Red ]

13:45 / 26.02.02

haus, I read your post as excessive exaggeration of my own, an exercise to illustrate the negative tilt of my points. I really cant continue to comment unless you either verify my initial response was correct, or that everyone else got it right and I am wrong. if its the latter, I will apologize

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

13:53 / 26.02.02

No, sweets, you're quite right. Although I would take issue with your contention that it was an exaggeration. More of an hommage. I don't see that it is much more extreme of a position...

14:15 / 26.02.02

quote:Originally posted by Buk:
This is the kind of reaction seen on Barbelith towards the "wife-beating cunt", the "scumbag" Paul Gascoigne. Understandable but still very wrong and part of the problem. This kind of reaction isn't the sole property of tabloids and pub philosophers.

In some ways this - as well as Runce's post about his father - demonstrates some of the problems with labelling. In both examples, men beat their wives but, we're told, are not 'wife-beaters'. In the same way, I often hear the argument that, even though someone has abused his/her child, "they're not an abuser".

To some extent, it's a distinction I can accept. To call someone a 'wife-beater', for example, suggests that he habitually assaults his wife. Moreover, it conjures up a pungently evocative stereotype - an exaggerated monster - in the popular consciousness. Calling someone an 'abuser' or a 'killer' or even a 'thief' evokes other mental images.

So... it's problematic to characterise someone on the basis of their actions.

The Natural Way

14:39 / 26.02.02

Yeah, I mean, there's no denying Dad's been an utter wanker. And I am VERY angry about all sorts of things, but, inspite of all the horrible stuff there are all sorts of wonderful things about him. And his problems really do need looking at, not brushing under the carpet with mutterings of "evil, wife beating scum..."

15:10 / 26.02.02

ok, haus, fair enough. to be honest, I can see your point, loud and clear.

ideally, people would be allowed to carry on with their lives after having made a mistake. ideally, people would learn from their mistakes, and would be utterly reformed after spending time in prison or in therapy and would never re-offend.

in an ideal world, you could allow your kid to play in the backyard, or send them to the corner store. ideally I should be able to leave my doors unlocked just driving down the road and should be able to walk around the city without a blade in my pocket. its just wrong that we cant, but hey, thats the world we live in. perhaps Im jaded - I dont know where you live, but my city is statistically one of the most violent in the country. I cannot trust my neighbors, the people going by in the street, and thats goddamn sad.

but there comes a point where you have to make a choice – you have to draw the line.

Im not dictating the punishments, surely they should all be different in order to fit the crime and the situation, nor am I saying that the legal system in place is equipped to deal with situations appropriately. I am not, do not, and will not say that the justice system is a regularly just structure. its clearly not, and theres a lot that needs to be done to fix that

I, however, feel I have the right to know if theres a sexual predator in my neighborhood. I think that term should apply strictly to those who commit violent sexual acts on others. by violent I would also include someone who engaged in sexual conduct with someone who was unable or unequipped to accept, like small children or seriously mentally/physically disabled people

15:14 / 26.02.02

yes, runce, at least one man I know who would often beat his girlfriend who has managed to be an excellent father. so theres certainly something to be said about giving someone the benefit of the doubt

but still, I think there are lines you simply cannot return from crossing - so where are they?

15:14 / 26.02.02

I'm really split on the 'making public the addresses of sex offenders' thing, Bitchiekittie. I can utterly understand people's (perfectly valid) reasons for wanting to know but I couldn't, in all conscience, agree with something like Megan's (sp?) Law. The deciding factor, for me, is that it just doesn't work.

[ 26-02-2002: Message edited by: Ganesh v4.2 ]

15:19 / 26.02.02

quote:Originally posted by bitchiekittie:
but still, I think there are lines you simply cannot return from crossing - so where are they?

Are there acts that cannot be atoned for, or people who cannot be 'rehabilitated'? Surely if we're making the decision to release so-and-so after X years then we, as a society, are tacitly agreeing they've 'done their time'? I know that assumes a somewhat idealised justice system (and human nature) - but shouldn't that be what we're aiming for?

[ 26-02-2002: Message edited by: Ganesh v4.2 ]

15:26 / 26.02.02

aiming for, sure. it would be great if that would be enough, if therapy and/or jail time worked. but how often does it? Im not really aware of the statistics, but Ive heard enough to scare me.

theres nothing, nothing in the world that could stop me from protecting my child. no amount of idealism on this earth that would keep me from stopping someone dead from harming her. how unreasonable is that? isnt that what we are supposed to do, protect each other? there are limits to what I can accept and forgive, and those boundaries are even tighter when it comes to keeping safe those who rely on us.

Page: (1)2 3 4