Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site bunkerb.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!bunkerb!mary From: mary@bunkerb.UUCP (Mary Shurtleff) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Questions about the confrontation technique for rape cases Message-ID: <412@bunkerb.UUCP> Date: Fri, 21-Dec-84 13:51:58 EST Article-I.D.: bunkerb.412 Posted: Fri Dec 21 13:51:58 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 23-Dec-84 08:32:41 EST References: <273@sftri.UUCP> Organization: Bunker Ramo, Trumbull Ct Lines: 57 In part of your generally well-reasoned article on confrontation of rapists, you mention: > > 1) I'm biased as hell about this > 2) If you violate another's rights, you are no better than they are > violating yours > 3) We have always been a country that prides itself on individual > rights, freedoms, and privileges. Protection of the individual > from such things as false accusations has always been important, but > we also hold the well-being and rights of others, including victims, > to be important, too. Which takes precedence? > > No fair slipping out of it by saying that rape is a special stigma, > etc. that isn't really given due recognition. That is changing; > convictions are becoming easier to get, sentences are becoming > longer, and even the fact that the idea of confrontation is being > used indicates that change is beginning. I guess my question really > is asking how much should that change be as far as the use of > confontations is concerned. > > Also spare me any frenzied, sarcastic, or even well-reasoned > accusations that I am in favor of "protecting rapists" or that I am > a woman-hater for daring to intimate that the rapist is a human > being, and thus is entitled to rights we accord all other human > beings, and may only have those rights and privileges taken away > from him in a particular manner [convictions, courts, > sentencing...,etc.] > > Mark Modig > ihnp4!attunix!mom I would like to elaborate on that last paragraph...It is certainly very important to avoid false accusations, and see that justice is accorded properly, but as far as I'm concerned, the CONVICTED rapist (or for that manner, anyone who has been convicted of a violent crime against another person) is no longer a human being, but some sort of beast--I don't want to use the term animal for fear of insulting the animals :-). It seems to me that in our zeal to see that justice is administered fairly, the scales have swung too far in the direction of the convicted criminal, and that just doesn't seem right to me. I'm not advocating INHUMANE treatment of these people, but I do think that they should be punished for what they've done, and that usually involves revoking many rights and privileges that most humans take for granted. Admittedly, you do make mention of the conditions under which a person's rights may be taken away, but again, a being who has been convicted of a violent crime has, in my opinion, just forfeited any rights he/she may once have claimed as a human being. Perhaps people would thing twice about committing violence against their neighbors if the punishment were swift, sure, and just. No doubt the fostering of the proper attitudes toward our fellow humans, male and female, would be the ideal solution, but I don't see that becoming widespread anytime soon. The point is, people must learn that antisocial behavior has nasty consequences. MJR Shurtleff ...!decvax!bunkerb!mary