Re: virus: justice

Date: Fri Jul 26 2002 - 03:17:53 MDT

On 26 Jul 2002 at 2:46, Walpurgis wrote:

> On 25 Jul 2002 at 11:56, wrote:

> > > I would agree such an act is wrong. I would disagree that the
> > > offender needs incarceration. Rather, I would argue the criminal
> > > needs a different kind of justice - a kind that would facilitate a
> > > wider and the deep sense of empathy and respect in the criminal,
> > > which would result in the end of such behaviours.
> > >
> > In prison, the perpetrator would most likely become a serial/multiple
> > rape victim (inmates love to rape child molestors), and would then be
> > able to more clearly empathize with such a position in both a wider
> > and deeper context.
> How fantastically twisted. Considering how thoughtful you usually seem
to be, I'm amazed you can make such an argument. I suppose you
"cruel and unusual punishment" is fine then?
I rather view it as appropriately reciprocal; on fact, kinda tit-for-tat.
> Male rape in prisons is not going to help anyone empathise.
Do you speak from experience? Are you a convicted rapist subjected to
such raw justice?
> "Victims of rape often suffer extreme psychological stress, a condition
identified as "rape trauma syndrome." Many inmate victims with whom
Human Rights Watch has been in contact have reported nightmares,
depression, shame, loss of self-esteem, self-hatred, and considering or
attempting suicide.
And out-of-prison rape victims do not?
> Another devastating consequence of prisoner-on-prisoner rape discussed
in the report is the transmission of the HIV virus. Several prisoners with
whom Human Rights Watch is in contact believe that they have
HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, through forced sexual intercourse in
prison." > Perhaps you should read
0419.htm before pressing on with this foul argument.
And out-of-prison rape victims do NOT have to deal with such fears?
> Helping rapists (or any other criminal) empathise with their victim is more
complex than the bizarre and repulsive picture you paint.
Sometimes the simplest is best (cf. Occam's Razor), especially when
we are dealing with individuals ruled by their reptilian brain stems.
> > > Personally, I do not support either strand of
> > > the relativism vs absolutism debate -
> > In which case you agree
> > that not only every thing, but also everything, cannot be (equally)
> > relative; absolute relativism simply lacks identifiable referents.
> I do agree, yes.
> But nevertheless, moral systems do not exist - only when we apply them
to real circumstances do they exist. Without the human experiences
dilemma, there would be no moral system.
As I stated in another post.
> Walpurgis
> ----
> This message was posted by Walpurgis to the Virus 2002 board on Church of Virus BBS.
> <;action=display;threadid=25785>

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:16 MDT