• 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

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


rhetorical question. but i bet you know the answer

Actually, 20-something was wrong. It was actually 35 years. Did you not get the point of my post? This guy has apparently been living in torment for 35 freakin' years. The priest won. On both counts. The victim let this sordid episode ruin his life for 35 years, and then will have the extra punishment of being tried for beating up an old man. He should have used part of the $325,000 settlement he got to get himself some help.

Posts on this thread show that we are all too willing to label someone a victim and excuse their behavior. Yes, it happened to him. Yes, it was a terrible thing. But the fact that he let it destroy his life is all on him.
 
Actually, 20-something was wrong. It was actually 35 years. Did you not get the point of my post? This guy has apparently been living in torment for 35 freakin' years. The priest won. On both counts. The victim let this sordid episode ruin his life for 35 years, and then will have the extra punishment of being tried for beating up an old man. He should have used part of the $325,000 settlement he got to get himself some help.

Posts on this thread show that we are all too willing to label someone a victim and excuse their behavior. Yes, it happened to him. Yes, it was a terrible thing. But the fact that he let it destroy his life is all on him.

another episode of 'blame the victim' for being victimized
 
another episode of 'blame the victim' for being victimized

Not at all. And here's why.

Post-victimhood, you have choices to make (at least once adulthood is reached). You can choose to let the torment fester for more than three decades - or you can seek approaches that allow you to end the mental torture.

What is happening on this thread is supporting a very unhealthy behavior for the people who suffered through some form of childhood sexual abuse.

The "child" didn't have a choice. He was assaulted by the priest. There is obviously no fault to be placed on him. Most likely, what the victim was suffering from was blaming himself for what happened. Guilt is a massive issue - especially in male victims. They look back at the childhood version of themselves and ask why that child "let it happen". Of course, the answer is the child didn't "let it happen". He was either physically coerced or tricked into it happening.

I've been through this already so I don't need to go into more detail. But the point is this: if one has suffered a trauma and is still suffering from the lasting mental effects, one should seek treatment for it.

Let's say you know the person who gave you the flu. Let's pretend they did so on purpose (how they would do that, I don't know, but follow me for a minute). Let's say you never seek treatment for the flu and it turns into something worse like pneumonia. If you don't seek treatment, you're going to suffer some pretty severe consequences. Does beating up the person who intentionally gave you the flu make you better? The answer should be obvious.

In allowing himself to suffer for that many years, he allowed the priest to continue making him a victim.

I'm just sick to death that people think that the only option for those of us who have been victimized in this way is to suffer forever. That seems to be the train of thought around here. And it's dangerous. It says to kids who suffer today that their lives are forever ruined, when they're not. There are effective ways of getting past it.
 
What is happening on this thread is supporting a very unhealthy behavior for the people who suffered through some form of childhood sexual abuse. -- snip -- And it's dangerous. It says to kids who suffer today that their lives are forever ruined, when they're not. There are effective ways of getting past it.

Exactly!!!
 
I believe in law and order so I can't possibly support his action.
 
Not at all. And here's why.

Post-victimhood, you have choices to make (at least once adulthood is reached). You can choose to let the torment fester for more than three decades - or you can seek approaches that allow you to end the mental torture.

What is happening on this thread is supporting a very unhealthy behavior for the people who suffered through some form of childhood sexual abuse.

The "child" didn't have a choice. He was assaulted by the priest. There is obviously no fault to be placed on him. Most likely, what the victim was suffering from was blaming himself for what happened. Guilt is a massive issue - especially in male victims. They look back at the childhood version of themselves and ask why that child "let it happen". Of course, the answer is the child didn't "let it happen". He was either physically coerced or tricked into it happening.

I've been through this already so I don't need to go into more detail. But the point is this: if one has suffered a trauma and is still suffering from the lasting mental effects, one should seek treatment for it.

Let's say you know the person who gave you the flu. Let's pretend they did so on purpose (how they would do that, I don't know, but follow me for a minute). Let's say you never seek treatment for the flu and it turns into something worse like pneumonia. If you don't seek treatment, you're going to suffer some pretty severe consequences. Does beating up the person who intentionally gave you the flu make you better? The answer should be obvious.

In allowing himself to suffer for that many years, he allowed the priest to continue making him a victim.

I'm just sick to death that people think that the only option for those of us who have been victimized in this way is to suffer forever. That seems to be the train of thought around here. And it's dangerous. It says to kids who suffer today that their lives are forever ruined, when they're not. There are effective ways of getting past it.
maybe i have missed it, but i do not recall seeing any forum members advocating abused children suffering forever
one effective way of getting past it is to stand up and confront the person who abused you
maybe not the most civilized approach but it can be seen as an opportunity to release the accumulated rage that has been building within the victim against the pedophile

i applaud your ability to be able to shirk your own victimization off
i could not do it, but i admire your ability to either forget and/or forgive and move on
but there are some of us who were raised to stand up for what we believe is right and against that which is wrong. and there are instances when that translates to physical behavior ... as has been demonstrated in this case
 
maybe i have missed it, but i do not recall seeing any forum members advocating abused children suffering forever
one effective way of getting past it is to stand up and confront the person who abused you
maybe not the most civilized approach but it can be seen as an opportunity to release the accumulated rage that has been building within the victim against the pedophile

i applaud your ability to be able to shirk your own victimization off
i could not do it, but i admire your ability to either forget and/or forgive and move on
but there are some of us who were raised to stand up for what we believe is right and against that which is wrong. and there are instances when that translates to physical behavior ... as has been demonstrated in this case

I get what you're saying - but when you say "there are some of us who were raised to stand up for what we believe is right and against that which is wrong. and there are instances when that translates to physical behavior ... as has been demonstrated in this case," you imply that I wasn't brought up to stand up for what we believe is right and against that which is wrong.

And that's terribly insulting.

You imply that 35-years worth of rage, a good beat down of the perp, followed by massive legal fees and possible jail time is "right"; and seeking support and therapy and moving on with my life, landing my dream career and being married all before the age of 40 is "wrong".

That doesn't fit into my moral system. If I had a time machine, I'd travel back and if I could only get back to the moment my torment ended, the first thing I would've done was informed so the ahole would've gone to jail (likely juvie in his case - so honestly, don't know what really would've been done). Can't do that.

I feel bad for the guy - obviously. But 35 years of rage, depression, suicide attempts, and feeling like his life was ruined? HOW was there no one around him to get him help? Especially in light of him receiving payments of over $600,000 in reparations. It's irresponsible that if he was this tormented for this long that his loved ones didn't seek out help for him or have him committed if he refused (with two suicide attempts, it wouldn't be hard to do).

But his case is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. You're applauding the guy for doing these things instead of what would have been much better for himself. If you applaud the revenge beating, then you're essentially applauding the rage, depression, alcoholism, and suicide attempts. Because without those things, the beating doesn't happen. You can say, "Well, I'm glad he beat the guy down, but I don't with those other things on him..." - but someone who has moved on with their life wouldn't do it.

To applaud the vigilantism is to applaud all of the mental problems this man suffered up to its point.

If he'd tried to introduce a bill that lifts the statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse or started a center to help kids who have been abused with the hundreds of thousands of dollars he received, then I'd applaud him.

Wouldn't that have been much better revenge?
 
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.

Yes. In our justice system, justice is ALWAYS about the person that is on trial. Justice is about legality, NOT morality.
 
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.

Your last sentence is how I would define "effective".
 
It would be awfully sad if he beat up the wrong priest.
I never been raped or messed with as a child but i dont think if you were rapped by someone you knew... chances are you wouldnt forget the face...

I would like to congratulate our victim turned victor! Now count up how many times this priest abused you by twenty and go and beat him again until the numbers are equal. :)
 
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.

Exactly why didnt this kid beat the crap out of this priest right after he was raped! The kid must of liked it 20 years ago huh?

Heres your sign....... theres a reason the priest raped a defenseless kid!


i really hate shades of grey... it screwed the world over big time....
 
Yes. In our justice system, justice is ALWAYS about the person that is on trial. Justice is about legality, NOT morality.

can't agree with this as it would allow an immoral result to be an acceptable one
the guy on the street understands this, at least intuitively
which is why a jury of peers is so beneficial to the realization of justice
 
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.

I wonder how many people commit suicide from this trauma... I think this dude should get a medal for all those that found the thought of death more comforting then the thought of life....(you have no right to take the life God gave you. Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.)
 
....someone who is clearly no longer a threat is wrong.

Long Live El Sexuale Revolutione!

Different value system, that's all. After all, 'what is normal'?!
 
can't agree with this as it would allow an immoral result to be an acceptable one
the guy on the street understands this, at least intuitively
which is why a jury of peers is so beneficial to the realization of justice

There might have been more sympathy for the priest had he turned himself in, sought counseling, confessed for his sins to his victims, and so forth.

But, as things stand, he deserved a few shots. I hope his victim found some relief.
 
I understand why the guy did what he did, but taking the law into his own hands and victimizing his abuser - and thus perpetuating the cycle of abuse - is not the way to go. True justice does not involve revenge. If he had a genuine case against the priest he should have gone about it another way. Kudos to him though for confronting his abuser to his face... that takes guts. I just don't condone the violent action as it doesn't accomplish anything.

I disagree.

Child rape is a crime that keeps on giving. Some people never really get over this. I am close to a person who was abused for years when she was a child. Her life was profoundly affected. 30 years later, the stain is still there.

The kid she was couldn't do anything about the abuse. The adult can, and I wouldn't begrudge anybody the small bit of the hair of the dog they would get from crushing the abuser's face in with an appropriate tool.
 
Last edited:
I disagree.

Child rape is a crime that keeps on giving. Some people never really get over this. I am close to a person who was abused for years when she was a child. Her life was profoundly affected. 30 years later, the stain is still there.

The kid she was couldn't do anything about the abuse. The adult can, and I wouldn't begrudge anybody the small bit of the hair of the dog they would get from crushing the abuser's face in with an appropriate tool.

It's funny how we throw out that whole due process, constitution, and law stuff when it's a crime we REALLY don't like.
 
It's funny how we throw out that whole due process, constitution, and law stuff when it's a crime we REALLY don't like.

I think the guy is gonna get what he's due legally for the assault, a trial anyway. But like somebody else here said, surely he won't be convicted of anything.

As far as his lawbreaking act, I really don't give too much of a shiit that the Priest got nailed. It wasn't legal, but I think sometimes a person is violated so deeply that he is compelled to use his ability (although not his right) to extract a little more than the law allows. I'm personally okay with that in this case.
 
can't agree with this as it would allow an immoral result to be an acceptable one
the guy on the street understands this, at least intuitively
which is why a jury of peers is so beneficial to the realization of justice

The act of justice is based on legality. Legalities are based on morality. It's a sequence.
 
The act of justice is based on legality. Legalities are based on morality. It's a sequence.

then are we to understand that you recant this assertion, holding morality apart from the law and justice:
Yes. In our justice system, justice is ALWAYS about the person that is on trial. Justice is about legality, NOT morality.
 
It's funny how we throw out that whole due process, constitution, and law stuff when it's a crime we REALLY don't like.

The Priest didn't die, the victim had some satisfaction and will stand trial for his assault, as might the Priest. Due process is not being ignored, nor is the Constitution or the 'law stuff'.
 
Back
Top Bottom