Every week for 18 years having to sit with the man who raped you because you don't trust him not to touch your child the same way? Yeah, it's a legal form of torture in my opinion.
27
deleted
· 11 years ago
on second thoughts, this law may not be so bad. Ok so imagine this- you're the rapist. You go to jail for it, but you were drunk, or sober- either way. And you regret it more than anything in your entire life, it was the biggest mistake you ever made. You apologise to this woman when you find her, sincerely, with so much regret, and resolve to not start a problem and then leave it, and decide that if you're a father, you should be a good one. I think people can change, and this law is actually good because if you're the sort of person who doesn't change for the good you won't act upon it anyway, if you have really changed for the better and want to be a good father, it gives you the opportunity to do so.(after you've gotten out of jail.)
No. No, no, no, no, no. And just to make sure we're clear on this? NO.
I'm all for giving people second chances, except for the part where it's detrimental to the recovery of the survivor. How much progress is she going to be making with that weekly reminder of what happened? The answer is "little to none". This can extend her recovery by *years*, and it's not exactly a short process anyway. Can we say "PTSD"?
Or if he sues for and *gets* full custody? Now she has to live with the idea that she can't even protect her kid and she may have to ask *her rapist* for permission just to see her own son or daughter.
No, you know what? If you can't respect someone's right to say no because you're tired of going it alone with porn or because "she was asking for it, dressed like that" then too bad, so sad, try again with someone else—and this time do it *all* right.
10Reply
·
Edited 11 years ago
deleted
· 11 years ago
Although on the bright side, if you're a bad enough person to rape another, you probably won't be the sort of person to want to go see their child.
Not necessarily. Especially in the cases of sociopaths, they often see their children as extensions of themselves and adore them (at least until they do something to piss them off). A lot of rapists, too, are under the delusion that the victim actually did want it, so this man could just think they're one big happy family.
Or, because rape is about power, not sex, now they have another way to exert control over their victim. "Don't want me to touch her? Then this time you do exactly what I say and we keep this between us."
NOW IT'S EVEN *EASIER* FOR THEM TO KEEP RAPING! WELL FUDGING DONE! Who wants a sticker?
And then you get the anti-abortionists tagging your house with "baby-killer". Yeah, there's not really a way to win this one for the mom, unfortunately.
1
deleted
· 11 years ago
well technically people who have abortions are baby-killers, but that's kinda irrelevant.
She means a lot of rapists don't end up in prison. Many of them don't even get convicted because we have a fucked up justice system that allows grown-ass adults to make excuses like "I couldn't help it" and "it's her fault for dressing that way and provoking me", because we are apparently NOT more sapient than the average animal.
(Please do not take my anger personally. This issue is what really pisses me off, not the people discussing it here.)
As a side note, there has been research done to prove that how a woman dresses does not influence a rapist's decision to violate her. Rapists target women who they think won't be noticed, can't stop them, and may not report it, regardless of what they're wearing. Most rapists have said that they don't even remember what the woman was wearing. They just want to have power over someone in that way and not get arrested for it.
So y'all are saying that even if a rapist gets caught, there's a chance he may not even go to jail? If he has a good excuse? I've always thought rape was inexcusable
Rape is inexcusable, but in a court of law many juries won't sentence a rapist, because they prefer to blame the woman (saying she wanted it or the guy couldn't help it).
If you are liable for child support you should have paternal rights. I know a guy who's girlfriend if two years alleged rape to justify an abortion at a clinic. They notified the authorities who arrested him. That was how he found that his girlfriend had been pregnant. She should do time.
Rape is a criminal charge, not a civil one. You can't "sue" someone for rape. You can sue for emotional damages, but that just means he brings you a check when he comes to see your kid.
15Reply
deleted
· 11 years ago
on second thoughts, this law may not be so bad. Ok so imagine this- you're the rapist. You go to jail for it, but you were drunk, or sober- either way. And you regret it more than anything in your entire life, it was the biggest mistake you ever made. You apologise to this woman when you find her, sincerely, with so much regret, and resolve to not start a problem and then leave it, and decide that if you're a father, you should be a good one. I think people can change, and this law is actually good because if you're the sort of person who doesn't change for the good you won't act upon it anyway, if you have really changed for the better and want to be a good father, it gives you the opportunity to do so.(after you've gotten out of jail.)
... but then that should still be up to the woman to be able to say "yeah, I forgive this guy, he can come visit my child". There are plenty of terrible fathers who don't just leave. They may be into kids, or just want someone to push around (the main reason for rape is power, not sex), or simply be under the delusion they are a great parent.
3Reply
deleted
· 11 years ago
no i mean once they get out of prison, if they were decent enough to plead guilty, do the time, regret what they did, and resolve to be a good father, they should be given that oppurtunity, provided that the child is safe and we know that.
But how would we know that? It's clear from many many abuse cases and many abused children whose abusers are never caught or prosecuted that we don't exactly have a great way to check, and it still should be up to the mother because do you really want someone who treated you that way coming back and making you worry about yourself and everyone you care about, regardless of whether they've really changed?
3
deleted
· 11 years ago
They should have a superviser while the child is in custody of the father.
Or they could just leave it up to the woman, like I said. Supervisors can't be there 24/7 and nothing will happen while one is there. Eventually they won't have one, and that's when problems will start. You don't beat your kid in front of someone who is there to make sure you don't, you do it once they're gone.
If have reached this, you have read every comment on this page. You have to be really, and I mean really bored to read all this. If this happens much, it might be time to rethink your life. (hopefully no one notices I read everything as well) :)
I'm all for giving people second chances, except for the part where it's detrimental to the recovery of the survivor. How much progress is she going to be making with that weekly reminder of what happened? The answer is "little to none". This can extend her recovery by *years*, and it's not exactly a short process anyway. Can we say "PTSD"?
Or if he sues for and *gets* full custody? Now she has to live with the idea that she can't even protect her kid and she may have to ask *her rapist* for permission just to see her own son or daughter.
No, you know what? If you can't respect someone's right to say no because you're tired of going it alone with porn or because "she was asking for it, dressed like that" then too bad, so sad, try again with someone else—and this time do it *all* right.
NOW IT'S EVEN *EASIER* FOR THEM TO KEEP RAPING! WELL FUDGING DONE! Who wants a sticker?
(Please do not take my anger personally. This issue is what really pisses me off, not the people discussing it here.)
Thanks for your answers though
That is a very important distinction.