|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:02 PM September 24th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
If I remember right, the U.S. Immigration service has a special category for "gender refugees". Wouldn't suprise me if you could claim rape and get a fast track for immigration. And doesn't surprise me that misandristic media would attack Musharraf for making an obvious connection.
Perhaps Pakistan could provide some technical assistance to the U.S. on limiting media bias.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by SacredNaCl
(tbessR3m0Ve2SendNEIN[SPAM]@R3m0ve.2.sendAt.mail.ru)
on 08:34 PM September 24th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed the US does have a fast track for rape & domestic violence. All anyone needs to avoid a deportation in the US is to be over there and claim domestic violence or rape, and it allows your to stay in the country. This is being taught to 'brides to be' in the so called mail order bride business. It is also being taught by (gasp) the military to the potential brides of servicemen from overseas.
A claim of rape or domestic violence can also speed refugee claim status. Its difficult to disprove, and with the changes to the system in the 80's by Reagan, it made it damn near impossible to deny it to anyone.
Freedom Is Merely Privilege Extended Unless Enjoyed By One & All.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by SacredNaCl
(tbessR3m0Ve2SendNEIN[SPAM]@R3m0ve.2.sendAt.mail.ru)
on 08:35 PM September 24th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
The first sentence should read "be over here" (in the US). But it also works equally well for wifes of servicemen.
Freedom Is Merely Privilege Extended Unless Enjoyed By One & All.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by johnnyp on 04:36 PM September 24th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Outdated Rape Laws?
Yes – the following may be inflammatory, but it is intended to shake the view of our progressive social values. Current rape laws, and the associated penalties are based on “outdated” traditional values.
Outdated views:
1) The severity of rape penalties seem to be based on the outdate belief that a woman’s virtue is of very high value and society is honor-bound to protect this virtue. Furthermore each woman is obligated to protect her virtue.
2) Women are a protected class and thus society is again honor-bound to protect this class.
3) Women are to be cautious and not put them selves in dangerous or compromising situations.
Current views:
1) Today’s progressive society seems to have the opinion that a woman’s chastity has no value. A woman is free to use her body as she sees fit and to view certain parts of her body as a play-toy.
2) Women are fully capable members of society, and resent the condescending paternalism, which is part in parcel of being a member of a protected class.
3) Feminists try to define pretty much everything they do not like as rape.
4) Women should go wherever they wish, whenever they wish, and by definition if a woman is doing it, it must be okay.
In response to society’s enlightened understanding of gender, it is time to adjust our laws to reflect current norms. To place the penalty for rape second only to murder, is demeaning to women. There are a couple of comparisons we could use to help us determine what level of punishment is appropriate for the violation of rape.
1) Since modern women are free to use their anatomy freely, as if it were a play-toy, it may be appropriate to apply the penalties associated with property crime. Theft or trespassing may be the correct comparison. Since a person was present during the petty-theft, petty-robbery may be the correct comparison. If a weapon is used during the commission of a rape, then armed robbery is the comparator.
2) Recognizing that women resent being patronized by the stigma associated with membership in a protected class, maybe we should use battery as a comparator. A conviction for battery may be difficult to prove because of the definition listed in a legal dictionary:
“the actual intentional striking of someone, with intent to harm, or in a "rude and insolent manner" even if the injury is slight. Negligent or careless unintentional contact is not battery no matter how great the harm.”
Based of this definition, the accused could easily claim there was no intent to cause harm. The accused could claim, “I was just tossing around my play-toy and it accidentally bumped into your play-toy”, or “I thought you wanted to play” – in this case an apology should be sufficient. In the event of the play-toy sustaining damage, civil remedies may be appropriate.
To a traditional person, the above arguments are certainly outrageous. But in light of our contradictory social rules and standards, these arguments are slowly shifting from being ridiculous to being almost debatable.
If most activities are rape, then most people should be serving 20 years to life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by A.J. on 02:40 PM September 25th, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that the basis for severe rape penalties is highly questionable.
The level of violence involved cannot in any way justify the level of punishment; often there is no physical injury at all. Imagine trying to send someone to prison for 20 years because they punched you in the arm and didn’t even leave a mark. I see 2 ways that we rationalize the kind of penalties we hand out to convicted rapists.
1. One way is to see the world in the “outdated traditional values” mode as johnnyp describes and see the sexual violation of a woman’s body as so severely damaging to society because it can lead to a child entering the world without the “proper” family, etc. Considering the “alternatives” and “choices” that today's women exercise this one seems to come from the dark ages, but the attitudes it fostered continue.
2. The other way is to base the penalties on the non-physical damage done to the victim. It’s true that rape can severely damage the victim emotionally. But that’s a slippery slope. If we punish based on the emotional damage done, where else would we have to use that standard? (Ever been lied to about birth control? Paternity? Ever had your kids abducted? Etc?)
IMO the current attitude is a strange combination of the two. A woman’s sexuality is still treated as something special, in a class by itself when it comes to an altercation. And could anyone justify the level of punishment if we didn’t see it as causing severe emotional damage?
I think we (legally) walk a fine line. We support such punishment because of the moral/emotional aspect, but since that can’t stand on its own we have to address rape in terms of violence, although not on the “level” of violence, rather on the nature of the violence (see #1 above). And around we go.
In practice however, the meticulously constructed perception that rape is “pervasive” and represents the “patriarchal privilege” of male domination over women is all that really matters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Within the last week, (and sadly cannot now find), I read of a Hospital Casualty Department that made a special study of Spiked Drink claims, wherein it was found a full 4% were true, the rest were women who had drunk more than they believed and/or had taken other drugs.
False Allegations seem the widespread plague !
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Luek on 12:52 PM September 25th, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Of course women use false rape claims to get visas, money, attention or whatever. Even school kids have used false rape/molestation claims against complete strangers to get out of trouble for laying out of school or coming home late. It is really more common than most people know because these cases seldom make the national media and are only reported locally.
And since there is no real penalty for false rape claims they will be used more and more in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
johnnyp writes "From