• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Man jailed for beating up his childhood rapist

ReverendHellh0und said:
If you accept ffguy's non-victim mentality and i do. There is nothing out of the normal offensive about this.
Click to expand...

I appreciate what you're saying, but to claim that I am the same as a NAMBLA member - that's a little over the line and I'm not an easily offended person. The things I would be posting in his private message box would make a drill sergeant blush if it weren't against the rules and my moral values. The best I can hope for is that Heavy Duty finds a way to actually understand people who have actually suffered at the hands of others instead of pretending that revenge fantasies work in real life.

Revenge plots and getting people back decades later make for entertaining movie plots. In real life, the justice is sadly never that poetic (thus the victim getting jailed for beating up his perp).

And look, I know now I should have said something when I was a kid. But the problem is 8 and 9-year-olds don't really have the perspective that young adults and full-grown adults do. I spent years running away from it. It took more than a decade to face up to it and then get past it and have the great life I have. There's nothing I can do about what happened almost 30 years ago, so why bother? Again, I hope to God that no other child has been harmed. Since my perp was younger, the odds of therapy working are actually stronger and as far as I know he's not been arrested for any later abuses nor has he shown up on any notification lists (believe me, I checked once when I went back to my hometown after he returned there).
 
FilmFestGuy said:
Says the man to someone who was a vicitm.

But you're right. You would know what's better than someone who's been through it.

And you think calling a victim the SAME as a perpetrator is somehow a good way to make a point.

There is ample research that the harm on victims is continued by those who surround them. When parents of victims constantly talk of shame, horror, disgust, etc., the child frequently can't differentiate that the shame, horror, and disgust is directed at the act and not them. Thus, they respond be feeling ashamed, horrified, and disgusted with themselves.

Your disgust with sexual abuse of children is justified. It should be punished heavily in a court of law and I wish to hell that there was no statute of limitations on the crime.

But your belief in how the victim to respond is actually just a continuation of emotional harm.

To be honest, this thread has raised more anger in me than I've had in years and it's because people like you - who have no idea what the suffering is actually like pretend that you know what's right for the victim and pretend that you care about the children who suffer.

You only care about your moral outrage instead of what actually helps victims heal. Violence didn't heal this guy. It made his life worse. Unless, you consider $25,000 bond and threat of jail time and court costs worth the brief bit of release he may have gained by beating up the perp.

I'm sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about here. I do. I've lived it. You haven't. It's obvious that you haven't because you'd never compare a victim to a member of NAMBLA if you had. No one who has experienced it would be so ****ing disgusting as to say something that vulgar, hateful, spiteful, and liablous.
Click to expand...

BOO HOO.......cry me a river. I was abused as a child. Physically. My stepfather put me in the hospital at age 7 and again at 13 because I stood up to him. See I was never a coward that hid in fear of my tormentor. I stood up to him and fought back knowing that I was going to get my ass kicked either way. I have no pity for someone that will sit there and take abuse from anyone without the guts to fight back. My step father was 6'4 250 and I was at 7 maybe 4'2 and 60 pounds and I had the balls to not sit there and take a beating even at 7. At 13 I told my step that if he wanted to beat me and my mother up then he was in for a hell of a fight. At 18 I beat the living **** out of him, dragged his sorry ass out of the house, threw him on the ground and dared him to stand up before the cops got there. For the first time they finally locked his sorry ass up. When he got out he tried to beg my mother to take him back again. When she didnt, he hit her again. It took four cops to keep me from beating him to death when I got to the house after he hit her. The last of saw of that SOB is when I stood over his grave and pissed on it.

So dont sit there and tell me how pathetic you are because you were abused as a child. Youre not the only person with a sad story and hiding in fear of it until this very day tells us alot about what type of man you are.
 
Heavy Duty said:
BOO HOO.......cry me a river. I was abused as a child. Physically. My stepfather put me in the hospital at age 7 and again at 13 because I stood up to him. See I was never a coward that hid in fear of my tormentor. I stood up to him and fought back knowing that I was going to get my ass kicked either way. I have no pity for someone that will sit there and take abuse from anyone without the guts to fight back. My step father was 6'4 250 and I was at 7 maybe 4'2 and 60 pounds and I had the balls to not sit there and take a beating even at 7. At 13 I told my step that if he wanted to beat me and my mother up then he was in for a hell of a fight. At 18 I beat the living **** out of him, dragged his sorry ass out of the house, threw him on the ground and dared him to stand up before the cops got there. For the first time they finally locked his sorry ass up. When he got out he tried to beg my mother to take him back again. When she didnt, he hit her again. It took four cops to keep me from beating him to death when I got to the house after he hit her. The last of saw of that SOB is when I stood over his grave and pissed on it.

So dont sit there and tell me how pathetic you are because you were abused as a child. Youre not the only person with a sad story and hiding in fear of it until this very day tells us alot about what type of man you are.
Click to expand...

i admire both of you, even tho you dealt with being assaulted in totally different ways

let's take this back to being a thread about the ****ing priest who got his ass beat years later for the assault he perpetrated on his young victim
 
justabubba said:
i admire both of you, even tho you dealt with being assaulted in totally different ways

let's take this back to being a thread about the ****ing priest who got his ass beat years later for the assault he perpetrated on his young victim
Click to expand...
Fine by me. I wasnt the one that started calling names and hurling insults because I stood up for someone that was abused as a child by this sick asshole.
 
justabubba said:
i admire both of you, even tho you dealt with being assaulted in totally different ways

let's take this back to being a thread about the ****ing priest who got his ass beat years later for the assault he perpetrated on his young victim
Click to expand...

I would like to note that I was accused of "insulting" someone because I said that therapy would've benefited them. And the insult hurled back at me was that I was the same thing as a pedophile.

I think those are two very different "insults".
 
What the priest did, assuming that he did it, was deplorable. The many who assaulted him, his anger was absolutely justified. Without question. His behavior was illegal. Without question. I don't think that either of the things that I just said are disputable in any way.

Though I understand the man's reason for the assault, if on the jury, I would vote guilty. The reason does not justify the act.
 
Tucker Case said:
On the opposite side of the coin, the beating can represent closure for the victim allowing him to heal emotionally. If that healing occurs, he may be able to get out of jail in a couple of years and rebuild a better life.
Click to expand...

The are FAR more effective ways to deal with this situation, psychologically.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
The are FAR more effective ways to deal with this situation, psychologically.
Click to expand...

Actually, I'm going to partly disagree about saying there was definitely a far more effective way of dealing with this situation psychologically. I'm not sure of all of the reasearch on the subject, but it's possible that administering a beating could be the most effective way of dealing with it from a psychological standpoint for a certain individual (of course, we don't know if it would be for this specific individual, but it's reasonable to assume that for at least some individuals, revenge is the most effective from of closure). I'm defining "effective" as providing the "maximum healing benefits" in this context.

That being said, I would agree that there are far better ways to deal with this situation, psychologically, when one considers maximum healing benefit AND a lack of negative consequences as the determination of "better".

However, if one defines "effective" as providing "maximum healing benefit with minimal detriment to the individual", then I would agree with you.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
What the priest did, assuming that he did it, was deplorable. The many who assaulted him, his anger was absolutely justified. Without question. His behavior was illegal. Without question. I don't think that either of the things that I just said are disputable in any way.

Though I understand the man's reason for the assault, if on the jury, I would vote guilty. The reason does not justify the act.
Click to expand...

Then, you would have stood in the way of the justice that the priest had coming and denied this man the justice that he waited so long for.

Justice isn't always about the person that is on trial.
 
I've always found a deserved good beatdown quite cathardic actually. :shrug:
 
apdst said:
Then, you would have stood in the way of the justice that the priest had coming and denied this man the justice that he waited so long for.

Justice isn't always about the person that is on trial.
Click to expand...
no, he would have voted to find the fellow guilty, but fortunately, he would have been in front of a jury of peers. i doubt that most people on the street, those who would be serving on the jury, would convict this fellow for assualting the priest who criminally assaulted him while a kid
 
justabubba said:
no, he would have voted to find the fellow guilty, but fortunately, he would have been in front of a jury of peers. i doubt that most people on the street, those who would be serving on the jury, would convict this fellow for assualting the priest who criminally assaulted him while a kid
Click to expand...

There is also the fact that the man is actually guilty of assualt.

What becomes an issue at that point is what the purpose of the judicial system is.

I would probably go with a verdict of Guilty as well, because I don't feel that emotional reasoning should be used in the determination of guilt. Teh question posed to teh jury is "Did this person violate the law with their actions".

In this case, it's pretty clear that this man did violate the law. He is guilty of the crime (assuming that the description of the case as presented is indeed accurate).

The fact that we can empathize with his actions doesn't negate the fact that his actions were unlawful.

Then the issue ends up being about sentencing. What is the purpose of a sentence? Are they preventative (as in attemting to modify and/or prevent a behavior's reoccurance) or punative (as in punishing someone for doing "wrong")?

If the former, we can weigh the odds of this behavior occuring again, and what, if any, sentence is likley to prevent recidivism. We would also need to look at the social impact. Would a lack of sentenceing lead to more occurances of this type form other people in similar situations?

If the point of sentencign is to punish a person for their wrongdoing, then one needs to consider how "wrong" they feel the behavior was. In this case, many peopel agree whtta it wasn't all that wrong, and thus one could assume the sentence would be light.

But as to guilt, I don't think that the circumstances can be classified as mitigating circumstances. He made a conscious effort to seek out the man and beat him. Teh fact that we understand why he did so doesn't change that.
 
Tucker Case said:
There is also the fact that the man is actually guilty of assualt.

What becomes an issue at that point is what the purpose of the judicial system is.

I would probably go with a verdict of Guilty as well, because I don't feel that emotional reasoning should be used in the determination of guilt. Teh question posed to teh jury is "Did this person violate the law with their actions".

In this case, it's pretty clear that this man did violate the law. He is guilty of the crime (assuming that the description of the case as presented is indeed accurate).

The fact that we can empathize with his actions doesn't negate the fact that his actions were unlawful.

Then the issue ends up being about sentencing. What is the purpose of a sentence? Are they preventative (as in attemting to modify and/or prevent a behavior's reoccurance) or punative (as in punishing someone for doing "wrong")?

If the former, we can weigh the odds of this behavior occuring again, and what, if any, sentence is likley to prevent recidivism. We would also need to look at the social impact. Would a lack of sentenceing lead to more occurances of this type form other people in similar situations?

If the point of sentencign is to punish a person for their wrongdoing, then one needs to consider how "wrong" they feel the behavior was. In this case, many peopel agree whtta it wasn't all that wrong, and thus one could assume the sentence would be light.

But as to guilt, I don't think that the circumstances can be classified as mitigating circumstances. He made a conscious effort to seek out the man and beat him. Teh fact that we understand why he did so doesn't change that.
Click to expand...

The purpose of the justice system, is to serve justice. Had this guy been found guilty, then justice wouldn't have been served.
 
Tucker Case said:
Define "Serving justice".
Click to expand...

doing what's right as decided by that segment of the general population called upon to make such a determination
 
Tucker Case said:
Define "Serving justice".
Click to expand...

The priest was punished for raping this guy. Did this guy have the right to kick the priest's ass? I think so. Should there have been a trial to see all the facts and the motivation? Of course. If these kinds of actions weren't looked upon with single demensional views so often and people were allowed to exact a little payback for being wronged, there would be alot fewer assholes in the world.

Had this dude not kicked the priest's ass, the priest would have gone the rest of his life without seeing an ounce of punishment for his crime. That's not justice.
 
justabubba said:
doing what's right as decided by that segment of the general population called upon to make such a determination
Click to expand...

Using this definition, if a person is found guilty by a jury, justice is always served. So if the man is found guilty, it would be serving justice.
 
apdst said:
The priest was punished for raping this guy. Did this guy have the right to kick the priest's ass? I think so. Should there have been a trial to see all the facts and the motivation? Of course. If these kinds of actions weren't looked upon with single demensional views so often and people were allowed to exact a little payback for being wronged, there would be alot fewer assholes in the world.

Had this dude not kicked the priest's ass, the priest would have gone the rest of his life without seeing an ounce of punishment for his crime. That's not justice.
Click to expand...

This doesn't define "serving justice".

Can you please define "serving Justice".
 
apdst said:
The priest was punished for raping this guy. Did this guy have the right to kick the priest's ass? I think so. Should there have been a trial to see all the facts and the motivation? Of course. If these kinds of actions weren't looked upon with single demensional views so often and people were allowed to exact a little payback for being wronged, there would be alot fewer assholes in the world.

Had this dude not kicked the priest's ass, the priest would have gone the rest of his life without seeing an ounce of punishment for his crime. That's not justice.
Click to expand...

For this man to have waited 20-something years to beat the crap out of this priest simply tells me that the priest won. Vigilante justice served cold is abhorant.
 
MaggieD said:
For this man to have waited 20-something years to beat the crap out of this priest simply tells me that the priest won. Vigilante justice served cold is abhorant.
Click to expand...

yes. why didn't that seven year old kid beat up the pedophile instead


rhetorical question. but i bet you know the answer
 
apdst said:
That's how I define serving justice.
Click to expand...

So you define "serving justice" as beating up rapist priests... :confused:

Since deifnitions can be used to replace terms without altering the meaning of a statement, your belief would in essence be "The purpose of the justice system, is to beat up rapist priests."

Seems like an odd definition to me.

What does the justice system do in cases of car theft? Is it still supposed to beat up rapist priests? Franlkly, that doesn't seem like a very efficient way of dealing with such an issue to me.
 
Tucker Case said:
So you define "serving justice" as beating up rapist priests... :confused:

Since deifnitions can be used to replace terms without altering the meaning of a statement, your belief would in essence be "The purpose of the justice system, is to beat up rapist priests."

Seems like an odd definition to me.

What does the justice system do in cases of car theft? Is it still supposed to beat up rapist priests? Franlkly, that doesn't seem like a very efficient way of dealing with such an issue to me.
Click to expand...

the single theme 'reduce taxes' seems to be the entire playbook for the neocon end of the political spectrum, so this would not be without precedent

back to the thread topic
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom