An eye for an eye

grahamg said:
Rape is a tricky one in my view, horrendous crime though it undoubtedly is, but our focus here should be on the abuse of children, or risk of abuse, or them succumbing to violence of one kind or another, in some sphere of their lives, rather than whether women choose to report rape, and whether their allegations of rape are taken seriously, (accounting for 90% of those cases covered in the statistics you quoted).
I think, as I've said, it is the far wider range of dangers, due to the internet, social media offering the opportuninity for grooming etc, these are new risks, then there is the prevalence of family breakdowns, failures of marriages, new blended families being formed more often, all these situations bring the possibility of increased risks to children.
Click to expand...
I believe the report was about children and trends of adjudication are a big clue, regardless of the specific crime.
 

asp3 said:
Rape is a horrible act and as a society we should work towards eliminating it. However I don't think it's a major factor when discussing the safety of children especially when talking about letting them walk to school and go out to play by themselves.

The link you provided to the ICRW was very useful. I found two sections especially interesting. One was about the perpetrators.

Taken from the ICRW report @JonDouglas shared:
Perpetrators of CSA are often patient, manipulative and willing to put a lot of energy into molding a relationship with a victim, which makes it difficult for the victim to easily detach. The National Center for Victims of Crime website, like many others, captures the general process of cultivation (often called grooming) that allows a perpetrator to gradually introduce sexual acts into a relationship with a child.

The other was about locations:

Perpetrators most often sexually abuse their victims in a home. A report from the Child Advocacy Center of Houston shows that 84 percent of sexual victimization of children under 12 years old took place in a residence — either the victim’s or the perpetrator’s — which was also true for 71 percent of victims ages 12-17.

Another study I found from The Rape Crisis Center lists 12 to 17 year old victims of rape represent 15% of all rape victims. Interestingly enough it seems as if rape victims under 12 are less than 1% based on the numbers they reported, but that may be a reporting problem.

https://rapecrisis.com/statistics/

Additionally from the first report it appears children from rural areas (which many people would consider safer for the to walk to and from school and to go out and play) have higher rate of child sexual abuse than urban areas.

Again from the report @JonDouglas provided the link to:
The National Sexual Violence Resource Center produced the report Unspoken Crimes: Sexual Assault in Rural America, which shows the unique challenges of dealing with CSA in rural settings. For example, there are fewer services in general for all forms of sexual violence, including for children. The communities themselves are notable because the small populations, though spread across more land, tend to be closely knit. Potential interveners outside of the home — teachers, nurses, child care providers, etc. — may be less inclined to identify signs and symptoms as CSA because they likely have longstanding friendships with potential perpetrators. Another, similar report from the National Coalition against Domestic Violence underscores that although the number of CSA victims is higher in urban areas, the rate of CSA is higher in rural areas.

What is missing from these reports is whether or not the incidence of rape and sexual abuse is higher, lower or the same between the time when many of us were free to walk to school and play outside unsupervised. I still contend that it is safer for children now but I don't have any statistics to back that up when talking about sexual abuse and rape.
Click to expand...
I recall that Channel 7 San Diego did a 7 part series on the rise child sex trafficking and exploitation in the county and beyond. Yet another clue. Also, there was the following statement by the UN: "Rising human trafficking takes on horrific dimensions; almost a third of victims are children." Next, if you wish, add in the drug problem and number of children whose lives are affected by that. Next, look into the rise of youth gangs and related violence in both suburban areas and inner cities. As for statistics, it is quite easy to use probability and statistics to reach a false conclusion (e.g., null hypothesis, confusing statistical significance with practical significance, etc). Smart people should always be suspicious of statistics.

Finally, if you really think children are safer today, believe the statistics, take yours into the south side of Chicago (e.g., around 138th street south) and turn them loose to run around like I was able to do in my youth when visiting relatives there.
 
Last edited:
Warrigal said:
Going back to the source - there is a context for this phrase

Exodus 21:22-25 22"If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

It has been explained to me that this is a sanction against excessive punishment. I can't help thinking that it is not about the pregnant woman though but the damage to the husband's property. Something like hanging cattle rustlers because they ate the steer..
Click to expand...
Well, if we want to live under Old Testament instructions, let's also review a few things from Leviticus. In Leviticus 11 we are told we can't eat shrimp or lobster, etc. In Leviticus 18 we are told we can stone gay men to death. In Leviticus 19 we are told that tattoos are a sin. These are just a few examples.

In today's world, age old sayings about justice are not relevant. Almost all civilized countries have moved past Old Testament judgments.

And I'm not giving up my tats! :cool:
 

Just because there can be a very hard punishment, that does not mean it was used.......according to my readings, it was either very rare or nonexistent.
 
OneEyedDiva said:
When Islamic Sharia law enacts the "eye for an eye" type of justice Americans think it's barbaric. But some of it is definitely a deterrent. As for the OP...maybe sometimes and other times there's probably a better option. If somebody puts his/her hands on me or my family.....look out!
Click to expand...
I agree.

There isn't enough of a deterrent today, hence repeat offenders and more and more heinous crimes.
 
Buckeye said:
Sorry, but there is zero evidence that the death penalty serves as a deterrent.
Click to expand...
Evidence or not, I believe the death penalty does have an effect on crime, as miniscule as it may be.

One thing is for certain, today's namby-pamby justice system sure doesn't aim to deter crime, in fact, it welcomes it.
 
JonDouglas said:
I recall that Channel 7 San Diego did a 7 part series on the rise child sex trafficking and exploitation in the county and beyond. Yet another clue. Also, there was the following statement by the UN: "Rising human trafficking takes on horrific dimensions; almost a third of victims are children." Next, if you wish, add in the drug problem and number of children whose lives are affected by that. Next, look into the rise of youth gangs and related violence in both suburban areas and inner cities. As for statistics, it is quite easy to use probability and statistics to reach a false conclusion (e.g., null hypothesis, confusing statistical significance with practical significance, etc). Smart people should always be suspicious of statistics.

Finally, if you really think children are safer today, believe the statistics, take yours into the south side of Chicago (e.g., around 138th street south) and turn them loose to run around like I was able to do in my youth when visiting relatives there.
Click to expand...
I'm not up to date on human trafficking statistics so I'm not sure if they're up or not. Also I'm not sure what the UN said is true for the US as opposed to the world in general.

As per your southside Chicago feedback. When one says that children are safer these days it means as an overall general condition that doesn't always hold in some areas. I'm sure you're well aware of that.

I think that we're at an impasse here. I believe based on the information I've seen that it's safe enough for some parents to let their children walk to and from school and play outside unsupervised and you disagree. I also think that the increased awareness of child related crimes has increased fear about them as opposed to the number of crimes increasing overall.

I would agree that it is impossible to keep a child 100% safe from crimes if you do give them that freedom. However I think the benefits outweigh the risks for many but not all children and certainly not in all areas.
 
Aunt Marg, can you show us any statistics demonstrating that the countries with the strictest, cruelest, most archaic punishment systems on earth have the lowest crime rate? What is the relation between the death penalty and crime in those countries?

Or that the converse is true, that the countries with the most decent, supportive prisons, which try to rehabilitate prisoners have the highest crime rate?

Where are your statistics? Making a statement that begins, "Evidence or not..." doesn't exactly do much to prove your point. It just means you are determined to cling to antiquated values. It's all about evidence!

(If you were on a jury, would you make your decision about guilty vs. innocent, by starting out with "Evidence or not?")
 
Sunny said:
Aunt Marg, can you show us any statistics demonstrating that the countries with the strictest, cruelest, most archaic punishment systems on earth have the lowest crime rate? What is the relation between the death penalty and crime in those countries?

Or that the converse is true, that the countries with the most decent, supportive prisons, which try to rehabilitate prisoners have the highest crime rate?

Where are your statistics? Making a statement that begins, "Evidence or not..." doesn't exactly do much to prove your point. It just means you are determined to cling to antiquated values. It's all about evidence!

(If you were on a jury, would you make your decision about guilty vs. innocent, by starting out with "Evidence or not?")
Click to expand...
No stats to present to you, Sunny, but judging by the mickey-mouse justice system in place today, it's apparent to me something more needs to be done to reverse and help curb the crime rate we're seeing.

My stance on this topic is purely driven by my very own experience in seeing petty criminals given a slap on the wrist for breaking and entering, and a few months later they're back at it and in the news again.

As for sitting on a jury and deciding guilty vs innocent, I would be as open minded as any other honest person, but when it comes to heinous crimes and murder, I would have no remorse, no guilt, and no qualms over seeing death sentences applied to such individuals, and none of this namby-pamby death row stuff that's become all too common where criminals sit on death row for years and even decades.
 
Aunt Marg said:
No stats to present to you, Sunny, but judging by the mickey-mouse justice system in place today, it's apparent to me something more needs to be done to reverse and help curb the crime rate we're seeing.

My stance on this topic is purely driven by my very own experience in seeing petty criminals given a slap on the wrist for breaking and entering, and a few months later they're back at it and in the news again.

As for sitting on a jury and deciding guilty vs innocent, I would be as open minded as any other honest person, but when it comes to heinous crimes and murder, I would have no remorse, no guilt, and no qualms over seeing death sentences applied to such individuals, and none of this namby-pamby death row stuff that's become all too common where criminals sit on death row for years and even decades.
Click to expand...

Aunt Marg, there are plenty of articles out there showing that the overall violent crime rate is significantly down from the 70's or 90's (depending on the crime) until now. Many people incorrectly believe that the crime rate has been increasing when just the opposite is true.

In addition a report from the Justice Department from September 2020 shows that the violent crime has declined over the last three years as well. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/fbi-...ine-violent-crime-rate-third-consecutive-year .
 
asp3 said:
Aunt Marg, there are plenty of articles out there showing that the overall violent crime rate is significantly down from the 70's or 90's (depending on the crime) until now. Many people incorrectly believe that the crime rate has been increasing when just the opposite is true.

In addition a report from the Justice Department from September 2020 shows that the violent crime has declined over the last three years as well. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/fbi-...ine-violent-crime-rate-third-consecutive-year .
Click to expand...
Thank you for the article, Asp.

I do still believe, even taking into consideration the fact that crime has come down in the past three to four decades, that violent, murderous, heinous crimes should carry with it a death sentence.

I personally cannot justify allowing an acid-throwing individual to see daylight again. There is no place on earth for such scum.
 
Aunt Marg said:
Thank you for the article, Asp.

I do still believe, even taking into consideration the fact that crime has come down in the past three to four decades, that violent, murderous, heinous crimes should carry with it a death sentence.

I personally cannot justify allowing an acid-throwing individual to see daylight again. There is no place on earth for such scum.
Click to expand...
You can achieve the not seeing the light of day through life without possibility of parole.

The point I was trying to make and that others seem to be making is that you believe that the death penalty is a deterrent but statistics seem to contradict that.
 
asp3 said:
You can achieve the not seeing the light of day through life without possibility of parole.

The point I was trying to make and that others seem to be making is that you believe that the death penalty is a deterrent but statistics seem to contradict that.
Click to expand...
I do understand your point, Asp, but I am against warehousing violent criminals.

Being locked up for life with no possibility of parole isn't the answer. Getting rid of such criminals is. Get them off the face of the earth, plant them, remove them from everyone's eyes forever.

Regardless of capital punishment being a deterrent, taking the life of another human should carry with it an ultimate cost. Take a life of someone, your life is taken from you.
 
asp3 said:
You can achieve the not seeing the light of day through life without possibility of parole.

The point I was trying to make and that others seem to be making is that you believe that the death penalty is a deterrent but statistics seem to contradict that.
Click to expand...
Personally, I'm not in favor of the death penalty because it may be a deterrent. I'm in favor of it because no one who has been executed has ever victimized another person. The same cannot be said for paroled criminals.
 
When DNA started to be used to prove guilt or innocence in crimes, a huge part of the Texas death row population, especially those who were Black, turned out to be innocent, beyond a shadow of a doubt. They were released, of course. I thought it was shocking how often "mistakes" were made in murder cases.

So, Aunt Marg, how would you justify killing these people, "planting" them, getting them off the face of the earth? (My God, you sound angry!) That can't be undone after the fact, no matter what the evidence shows about their innocence. I suspect that many of them were on death row for committing the crime of having a not-too-good lawyer. That, and being Black, of course.

Some day, this country will evolve to where it sees how pointless, cruel, and primitive this kind of punishment is. Right now, I don't know if we are moving in that direction, but looking at the larger historic picture, that is what will happen. And people reading about it in history books will shake their heads in disbelief, especially about this "vengeance is mine" philosophy finding its way into the law. It may take a few centuries.
 
Sunny said:
When DNA started to be used to prove guilt or innocence in crimes, a huge part of the Texas death row population, especially those who were Black, turned out to be innocent, beyond a shadow of a doubt. They were released, of course. I thought it was shocking how often "mistakes" were made in murder cases.

So, Aunt Marg, how would you justify killing these people, "planting" them, getting them off the face of the earth? (My God, you sound angry!) That can't be undone after the fact, no matter what the evidence shows about their innocence. I suspect that many of them were on death row for committing the crime of having a not-too-good lawyer. That, and being Black, of course.

Some day, this country will evolve to where it sees how pointless, cruel, and primitive this kind of punishment is. Right now, I don't know if we are moving in that direction, but looking at the larger historic picture, that is what will happen. And people reading about it in history books will shake their heads in disbelief, especially about this "vengeance is mine" philosophy finding its way into the law. It may take a few centuries.
Click to expand...
And that's a shame, those who were wrongfully condemned to death.

No anger, just disgust with today's nanny-like justice system, it's coddling, poor little Johnny, slap on the wrist methodology.

Johnny, has been a good little boy, so we're going to let Johnny out early, because Johnny, he's learned his lesson, and a few days later, a few weeks later, a few months later, or a few years later, Johnny, repeats.

Once a criminal, always a criminal in my eyes.
 
Aunt Marg said:
I do understand your point, Asp, but I am against warehousing violent criminals.

Being locked up for life with no possibility of parole isn't the answer. Getting rid of such criminals is. Get them off the face of the earth, plant them, remove them from everyone's eyes forever.

Regardless of capital punishment being a deterrent, taking the life of another human should carry with it an ultimate cost. Take a life of someone, your life is taken from you.
Click to expand...
Does that include drunk drivers who cause death?
 
My, my, my - what a can of snakes I've opened. :devilish:

Logically, what deters people from committing crimes?

I believe it's the culture of self-importance that breeds the corruption.
 
Sunny said:
When DNA started to be used to prove guilt or innocence in crimes, a huge part of the Texas death row population, especially those who were Black, turned out to be innocent, beyond a shadow of a doubt. They were released, of course. I thought it was shocking how often "mistakes" were made in murder cases.

So, Aunt Marg, how would you justify killing these people, "planting" them, getting them off the face of the earth? (My God, you sound angry!) That can't be undone after the fact, no matter what the evidence shows about their innocence. I suspect that many of them were on death row for committing the crime of having a not-too-good lawyer. That, and being Black, of course.

Some day, this country will evolve to where it sees how pointless, cruel, and primitive this kind of punishment is. Right now, I don't know if we are moving in that direction, but looking at the larger historic picture, that is what will happen. And people reading about it in history books will shake their heads in disbelief, especially about this "vengeance is mine" philosophy finding its way into the law. It may take a few centuries.
Click to expand...
Think about the criminal histories of inmates on death row. They are not decent, honest working people. They became suspects because they have lengthy criminal histories & have committed other violent crimes they weren't convicted of or charged with for various reasons. They're not innocent people investigated at random.
As far as I'm concerned, any armed robber, kidnapper, rapist, or anyone who commits a violent crime should be executed; whether or not they were wrongly convicted of the murder they are incarcerated for.
 
Warrigal said:
Does that include drunk drivers who cause death?
Click to expand...
I don't believe any drunk driver intentionally sets out to kill anyone, as stupid as the act is, but for those who purposely set out to maim, kill, rape, or torture, I would like to see the death penalty imposed.

Reflecting on statistics that show overall violent crime has come down in the past three to four decades, my bet is violent crime would come down a shade more if a guillotine awaited with a freshly honed blade and an executioner holding the rope.

No, Aunt Marg doesn't have anger issues, she's just put off by today's pathetic justice system that all too often sees hardened criminals released from jail for violent crimes, while the poor family members at the brunt of the losses are left to pick up the pieces and be slowly eaten alive by sorrow, grief, and loss, for their remaining days as a result of some pathetic waste-case.

Justice? I think not.
 
Last edited:
Aunt Marg said:
I don't believe any drunk driver intentionally sets out to kill anyone, as stupid as the act is, but for those who purposely set out to maim, kill, rape, or torture, I would like to see the death penalty imposed.
Click to expand...
Yes, and the other problem with holding drunk drivers to account is that people with deep pockets can get lenient treatment for themselves and for their kids. Lady Justice is supposed to be blind but I fear her ears often respond to the chink of coin. When justice is truly impartial then I might think differently.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top