|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday May 25, @08:42PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Somebody correct me on this if I'm wrong or dig it out at the Department of Justice (DOJ).
I seem to recall most of child sexual abuse is committed by men, but I believe that the vast majority of that is homosexual (man on boy). This is very critical as it points out that men's sexual proclivity is never mentioned in these stories so heterosexual men tend to get a bum rap in the media sensationalization that always accompanies these stories. Couple that with the fact that women commit the majority of child abuse (such as putting a two year old in a washer just today in Pomona, CA) and you've got a scandal pertaining to media integrity and fairness in reporting.
I dug the homosexual child abuse thing up, when all the priest pedophilia was in the news a while back. Yes, you may not have heard the vast majority of that was homosexual man on boy (a very high percentage was that). I'm not trying to bash gays here, but I just thought it was relevant to point that out, since it's always seems to be open season on bashing the simple heterosexual male.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've read -- and I think Patricia Pearson makes the point in her book "When She Was Bad - Violent Women and the Myth of Innocence" -- that females perpetrate about 25 percent of child sexual abuse. Even if it were less than that I don't think that ignoring abusive women is wise policy. And I'm certainly opposed to legislation that acknowledges only female victims and male perps, whether it's in connection to child abuse, domestic violence, or any violent crime for that matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday May 25, @08:48PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
http://globalguest.com/gb2/I-833/guestbook.html
This is their "guestbook" which I just signed. The message I left was lifted directly off their site, reversing the genders and the specifics to hopefully show how ridiculous they are.
I also sent an e-mail.
I personally am happy to see us making a small diference here and there. There is strength in numbers, guys (and gals), let's all kick off a mail or 2 here.
Mark
p.s. the site is quite busy and full of stuff but it is easily to pick up the "men all force their daughters to give them h*ad" message.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, yeah, so damn un-Gonzo-like that people will wonder who am I and what did I do with Gonzo.
To those who wonder whether I actually do anything besides throw bombs and castigate the criminally stupid - BLEAGH! :-P
-------------------
With all due respect, the problem that exists is not, as I see it, a need for a new law, but the failure of the current system to enforce the laws that we have.
As a nation, we have a tendency to succumb to hysteria, to manipulation of the media, and to demand that "something be done" even if such a something is flawed beyond any legislative or judicial redemption. We have rape shield laws that, while noble in intent, have resulted in a disturbing number of men convicted on the mere word of a woman who has malicious motives, and yet those motives are not allowed to be raised, let alone questioned. The "seriousness of the allegations" is often raised as a defense of the egregious stripping away of due process within a system; likewise is the statement "for the sake of the children" used to justify immediate action, and then shrugged off when the accusations made are groundless, even impossible. What is worse is that there is no redress for the victim of these allegations.
Last fall a man came to me for help; his wife had started an affair, been caught, and wished to file for divorce and have him removed from the home. She was told by the sheriff that if she wanted to leave she was free to do so, but without the children of the marriage. Allegations of domestic abuse against her and the children followed within a week. An emergency order was issued, he was removed from the home, jailed, given a restraining order; six weeks later at the hearing the restraining order was lifted, but since he was already out of the house, and she already had custody by default, and the end result was a collective shrug. So sorry, but be consoled by the fact that the system isn't perfect. Sorry about your home, your job, your lost children. There was no charges of perjury, false informing, or anything raised against his soon to be ex - in short, for lying, for depriving him of his home, his good name and reputation, access to his children, the consequences were zero. The prosecutor had no mandate to prosecute, and had mumbled something about it having a "chilling effect" on real victims if they did prosecute her.
Excuse me?
This is my, and our, chief fear of such laws, is that they are often enacted in a reckless fashion which operate from the presumption of guilt, and tug at emotions rather than reason, both elements being anathema to the foundation of our legal system and which tend to corrupt the process. One of the most hallowed of these traditions is "innocent until proven guilty." While this is troubling to some, it is a legal fiction that everyone who is awaiting trial is still innocent of the crime of which they are accused; until a conviction is obtained to treat them otherwise is contrary to our principles of jurisprudence.
I'm in full agreement that a child molester is probably beyond reform, and perpetually a danger to children and society; I also tend to agree that even if convicted "only once" it is not a great leap of intuitive thought to declare that they only got caught once, are that the specified offense is the tip of the iceberg. Justice, however, is not based up inductive reasoning, but on deductive reasoning. My opposition to things such as the death penalty or real (not chemical) castration is based on the fact that for such permanent consequences, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is so insufficient as to be immoral, if one cannot undo the effects of a sentence, that sentence must only be applied when the evidence places it beyond the shadow of a doubt, i.e., to execute someone for the crime of murder, without irrefutable proof, is state sanctioned murder. While this may raise the bar for the state to a nearly impossible level to seek this redress, it is necessary. To justify this on the basis of a "small minority" is no defense, one only has to imagine oneself or a loved one to be a part of this small minority to see that even one is far too many. Have a care. That ox being gored is far too easily made your own.
Dealing with only one face of an issue, without examining the system as a whole does smack of operating in a vacuum. One of the chief flaws in our system is the dogged and bullheaded way in which it resists redress, often prosecutors will figuratively (and just as childishly) clap their hands over their ears and sing "La-la-la-LA-La!" even when presented with incontrovertible proof of a convict's innocence, even when that conviction has been overturned with prejudice by a higher court. In a snit, they close3 the books on the case with no regard for the fact that what it ultimately means is we have a real criminal still walking the streets. It is forgotten that our system serves two ends; while we focus on convicting (and justly) punishing the guilty, the prime directive of justice is to find the truth, which makes acquitting the innocent just as vital a role.
We often damn defense attorneys for fighting zealously for the rights of heinous criminals, but I submit to you that if such zealous defense is not undertaken what we might be left with is a police state where an accusation is as good as a convic6tion; sadly, we are heading merrily down that road as we speak. We cannot try, convict, and incarcerate people based on public outcry, outrage, and the demand that something be done, that someone needs to be locked up for this. What does a wrongful conviction do? It ruins the life of an innocent person, it gives the public a false sense of security, and moreover - it leaves the very predator we fear free to repeat their offenses.
I counsel men and boys primarily; I do this on a volunteer basis. You would not believe the amount of times I have had grown men break down and cry remembering molestation by a female babysitter or caretaker. While these flies in the face of all our illusions about the way the universe should be ordered, this is a real thing. The message we send though is for them to "suck it up;" we ask "What? Didn't you enjoy it? Are you queer or something?" Reverse that for a moment if you will. Imagine asking a twelve year old girl, seduced or sodomized by a male coach or teacher, "Well you had an orgasm, right? What's your problem, then? Do you prefer girls?" After all, it is current wisdom that girls emotionally mature two or three years earlier than boys, so it thus could be argued that the "age of consent" arrives at earlier time for them. Outrageous? Absolutely. And this is precisely how a boy is treated when he complains about a woman being inappropriate with him. This is what helps teach our boys that indiscriminate sexual promiscuity is expected of them in order to be "real men". Even more, this sends a message to our young women that it is okay to treat boys as objects, and to be objectified in return. Go to a junior high school if you don't believe me. Heck, go to a middle school and see the Brittany Spears look-alikes parading around in outfits that would have had them sent home even twenty years ago.
This brings to my chief issue with your proposed new law is that it has sexist overtones, I again will submit to you that while one argues about "statistically" males offending at a higher rate, that there are three types of lies; lies, damnable lies, and statistics. Adult female on children offenses are low artificially because they tend to be underreported or dismissed; we don't wish to see women as being equally as capable of such monstrous behavior and political correctness is less able to dismiss the lesbian overtones of adult female on girl sexual behavior. (Note carefully: Does Man on Boy sexual misconduct register as pedophiliac or homosexual behavior to you? Back in my father's time, such a pervert would have been branded a disgusting queer who was so repulsive he couldn't even get a fellow deviant to consent to sodomy with him. Political correctness has helped change this. The Gay Lobby demands that "He's not one of ours!" while NAMBLA continues to march in Gay Pride parades.) Are you aware of the cases where women have conceived with boys as young as 13, received suspended sentences, custody of the child, and won child support from their victims?
Further, but for the grace of God go I, at least under current "letter of the law" doctrine. At the time of my divorce from my previous wife, I met a rather attractive young lady in a blues club. I bought her a drink; we talked, and nearly left together, until one of her companions was identified with a fake ID. While certainly young (And flattering to a 32 year old man), she appeared mature, was well spoken, and was but a few weeks from her sixteenth birthday when the wash all came out. While one could reasonably presume that a woman in a tavern where ID was checked at the door was 21, it would have been no defense for me.
This is the problem with harsh and mandatory sentences; they allow no room for reason, for examining a case in a whole context rather than by a strict reckoning by the letter of the law. What would better be done to address the issue, then, is not to demand mandatory sentences, but mandatory prosecution. Restrict the ability to plea bargain to lesser offenses. Revoke lifetime appointments to judicial benches where a sitting judge has carte blanche to do as they please. Mandate that misconduct by public officials; police, attorneys, judges be subject to a felony conviction, removal from office, a bar to further office, and seizure of personal assets for forfeiture to those whom they have wronged. Regard perjury and False Informing as the heinous offenses they are; I would be willing to wager that if someone was potentially facing years in prison, loss of custody, and forfeiture of parental and/or property rights that such false accusations would drop to levels as close to zero as society has the power to make them.
While I appreciate the concern that inspires the desire for such a law, even "Three strikes" laws have made it possible for someone who refused to pay for a piece of pizza subject to life imprisonment (California), further its evil twin, "Zero-Tolerance" has made it possible for a 7 year old with a plastic butter knife in her lunch-box to be expelled from school. Removing from our public officials the ability to apply reason and thus shielding them from the consequences of this is not the answer; requiring them to serve the public and to exercise reason is. The problem lies in the answerability for public officials, as long as they are shielded from such responsibility whether granted discretion or not, it will further compound the problem, and dumb down the system, ultimately eroding our rights and liberties. I will close with a quote from Benjamin Franklin that is on point, namely, that those who would sacrifice their liberties for a little temporary security often find themselves in possession of neither.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
