I'm not saying there should be universal forgiveness. Some people repeatedly do horrid things to others. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a price to pay for a single error, sometimes we have to make amends.
I just wanted to quote that part again. Not having a shot at you, just being a bit clearer here. I was molested for a period of around 6 months by a family friend when I was a child. So I'm the person that until I read Mindhunter was in favour of mandatory castration in all proven cases of rape. What I learned after reading that book was that rape is usually about anger, not sex, and if you cut a guy's balls off you have a very angry man. And a guy doesn't need a penis to rape.
Going back to my quote - I don't think Johns has made amends or paid a price for his error. Lock the fucker up.
One of the things that sickens me about the Matthew Johns case is that right from the word go, the media referred to it as 'group sex.' Group sex to me is a consensual act, something agreed upon in advance. The media was already letting this guy off the hook.
The girl agreed to have sex with Johns, she didn't agree to have sex with all his mates. They just turned up, and so she's in a situation where she's feeling pressured by big burly footballers to do stuff. Does anyone really think she felt like she could safely say no? I have no problem believing that she went along out of fear of what might happen if she didn't.
And channel 7 have rewarded him! What message does that send, to both men and women?
As to the WA case, I hadn't seen the 'she's not innocent' posts. Ewww! Seriously. I have no idea what they're referring to, but at the time it happened she said no. He went ahead anyway.
I think the guy has problems, and that deserves some compassion, and treating him badly will not solve anything or make the world a better place.
However, his victim is deserving of a lot more compassion and consideration. All she did was happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time - the time and place where he chose to do the wrong thing in a moment of selfish weakness.
You and I have had many discussions over the years, and you know my take on crime tends to break down to - Did the person understand what they were doing was wrong? If the answer is yes, and there's no huge extenuating circumstances (i.e. stealing food because they're starving, murder that's a clear-cut case of self-defence, and so on), then throw the book at them.
She said no, so he knew what he was doing was wrong.
As far as I'm concerned, he's welcome back at Swancon when the victim has forgiven him, and not before. He already got off lightly because the police weren't involved.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-03-04 05:14 am (UTC)I just wanted to quote that part again. Not having a shot at you, just being a bit clearer here. I was molested for a period of around 6 months by a family friend when I was a child. So I'm the person that until I read Mindhunter was in favour of mandatory castration in all proven cases of rape. What I learned after reading that book was that rape is usually about anger, not sex, and if you cut a guy's balls off you have a very angry man. And a guy doesn't need a penis to rape.
Going back to my quote - I don't think Johns has made amends or paid a price for his error. Lock the fucker up.
One of the things that sickens me about the Matthew Johns case is that right from the word go, the media referred to it as 'group sex.' Group sex to me is a consensual act, something agreed upon in advance. The media was already letting this guy off the hook.
The girl agreed to have sex with Johns, she didn't agree to have sex with all his mates. They just turned up, and so she's in a situation where she's feeling pressured by big burly footballers to do stuff. Does anyone really think she felt like she could safely say no? I have no problem believing that she went along out of fear of what might happen if she didn't.
And channel 7 have rewarded him! What message does that send, to both men and women?
As to the WA case, I hadn't seen the 'she's not innocent' posts. Ewww! Seriously. I have no idea what they're referring to, but at the time it happened she said no. He went ahead anyway.
I think the guy has problems, and that deserves some compassion, and treating him badly will not solve anything or make the world a better place.
However, his victim is deserving of a lot more compassion and consideration. All she did was happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time - the time and place where he chose to do the wrong thing in a moment of selfish weakness.
You and I have had many discussions over the years, and you know my take on crime tends to break down to - Did the person understand what they were doing was wrong? If the answer is yes, and there's no huge extenuating circumstances (i.e. stealing food because they're starving, murder that's a clear-cut case of self-defence, and so on), then throw the book at them.
She said no, so he knew what he was doing was wrong.
As far as I'm concerned, he's welcome back at Swancon when the victim has forgiven him, and not before. He already got off lightly because the police weren't involved.