Diogenes, I am a rape survivor. My rapist was my boyfriend at the time, and I don’t believe for a second that he should be imprisoned for the rest of his life.
I think I started some of this 
I was the person who relayed to jar my experiences in representing people charged with sex crimes in New Hampshire (so consider that I do have a defense-oriented bias). My experience with the NH program is that in NH, as someone alluded to above, the offender must own up to all prior offenses, and no immunity is granted for those prior offenses. This can be a huge problem because many of these folks are in denial about their behaviors, and can’t own up emotionally. Further, if a person doesn’t own up to other offenses (and in some cases owns up, but the staff doesn’t believe them) parole in NH will almost certainly be denied.
http://criminalpractice.pf.com/subscribers/html/showarticle.asp?article=1140
The other issue is that the therapists in the NH prison system, in my experience, the “therapy” was designed to shame the offender into not reoffending. Obviously, this is the ideal goal. What I saw from my clients who had successfully completed the program is that they were “damaged” by the therapy- it wound up being an emotional castration for these folks. Of course, we don’t want any new offenses, but there was never any addressing of “what next?” for these people- no discussion of how to repair the damage that they’d endured which led them to offend.
I don’t know whether or not it is possible to rehabilitate a certain type of sex offender.
Lissa and I are generally in agreement- especially her post about potty-training.
However, my experience is a little different regarding the issue of changing a person’s cognitive state- the practice of this turned out to be extremely cruel.
Remember, though- I do have a pretty strong bias as a former defense attorney.
blanx
thanks for posting blanx!
hey, it’s not like they actually expect me to work… 
This is purely anecdotal, obviously, and doesn’t prove anything conclusively. Still, it’s a chilling story that illustrates a point.
There was a lengthy piece on this subject in the local “alternative” (i.e. left-wing, hippie) weekly a few years ago. The most memorable story came from a psychotherapist who was treating imprisoned sex offenders. That is, prison guards would regularly bring offenders from the state pen to the psychiatrist’s office, where they’d go through standard therapy.
The therapist related the story of one particular offender, one who SEEMED to be a success story. He didn’t show any signs of psychosis, he didn’t demonstrate violent tendencies, he seemed to show genuine regret for what he’d done, and there was every reason to think he’d be released soon, and move on to a normal life.
During sessions, the convict and the therapist were alone together in the therapist’s office. Two prison guards waited in the hallway outside the office door. At the end of each session, the convict would leave the office, walk through a reception area, and out into the hallway, where the guards would re-cuff him, and take him back to jail.
With me so far? Well, here’s where it gets bizarre and chilling. After one session, the convict left the therapy room, and saw a female patient waiting in the reception room. He immediately set up her, began tearing off her dress, and trying to force himself on her. Naturally, she screamed, and within seconds, the therapist and the two guards were on the spot, and broke this up. The prisoner was clubbed a few times, re-cuffed, and was about to go back to prison.
The therapist had to ask, as the rapist was being hauled away, “Why? You were doing well! You were on the verge of being released. Why would you try this, with two guards right outside the door? What’s wrong with you?”
The guy answered nonchalantly, “She wanted it.”
The stunned therapist repeated, incredulously, “She WANTED it?”
“Yeah,” the guy said, “I could tell by the way she was crossing her legs.”
Again, anecdotal. This guy may not have been tyical of rapists. But he’s definitely an illustration of a twisted, evil mindset that at least some rapists possess. Some may have the smarts to figure out the right psychiatric buzzwords to say in therapy. Some may know what they’re expected to say, in order to get paroled. But some of these men are so perverted or so lacking in conscience, they’ll do it again and again. They won’t ever feel sorry for what they do, and won’t stop doing it, even when getting caught is a virtual certainty.
Sex offenders are generally not the most well-adjusted people to begin with. The “emotional castration” that some report may be their reaction to a totally new experience: the feeling of guilt. I’ll agree fully that they won’t necessarily come out of the program with complete emotional and mental health and a sense of well-being, but most likely, they never had them to begin with.
A good deal of sex offenders have been emotionally damaged since childhood. Either their upbringing was abusive, or neglectful. Parents who never properly socialize their children by teaching them how to live in society and which acts society terms as wrong are all too common. Some of their children grow up to be labeled as “sociopaths” or labled with a “character disorder” because they genuinely cannot see why they should not gratify their desires, having never been taught any self-control.
Too often, neglected children are in a sense “raised” by their peer groups which may espouse violent or anti-social behaviors. Since parents and peers are a child’s primary socializers, often a child can remain unexposed, or uninfluenced by what we would consider “normal” values. If the peer group sees nothing wrong with taking what is wanted by force, be it property or sex, and the parents aren’t interested enough in their child to correct behavioral problems, the kid, unfortunately, doesn’t have very good odds of becoming a productive member of society, and will most likely end up behind bars.
Without intensive counselling, these types of people learn nothing from the prison experience. Instead of being rehabilitated by punishment, they instead resent the system, and anger can cause them to further reject the society that they see as “mean” and oppressive. If they sincerely cannot see that their acts were wrong, punishment has no benefit, other than keeping them off of the streets for a period of time.
Once released, they will most likely return to their former lifestyle, because, firstly, they may have a lack of interest in a job because they can earn twice as much by committing crime. Secondly, a criminal record limits their career options, and thirdly, they may not have the social skills and training needed to hold down a well-paying job.
The problem is that the money is not there to provide the type of therapy and social/job training that these people need in order to turn their lives around. To be fully successful, conselling and treatment programs would be enormously expensive. Simply put, a sucessful program must help the inmate to “un-learn” twenty or thirty years of negative social programming, and rebuild them with positive socialization. The progam needs to fix decades of damage. Time and budget constraints make this nearly impossible. All that current programs can do is try to make the offender see that what he did was wrong, help him to change his way of thinking, and hope for the best.
Politicians may tout that they’re “tough on crime,” but will turn around and cut prison budgets in the first financial crisis. People tend to see prisons as garbage dumps where we store our undesirables. They want prisons out of sight, and like the idea of them being harsh and hard places for the inmates. “Arrest 'em and forget about 'em.” Uneducated civilians who complain about prisoners living in “luxury” fully support cuts to prison budgets, not realizing the ramifications of releasing angry, untreated, hostile inmates who are unfit for the work force.
Such a scenario should normally result in an automatic acquittal. Remember that the test for conviction is being beyond reasonable doubt.
It is all too easy for a woman to cry rape, and the legal system, at least here in the UK, is very anti-male. For instance, accusers benefit from anonymity whereas the accused don’t. A more specific example: the wife of a friend wanted a divorce and claimed that he’d assaulted her, and the police simply took her word for it and my friend spent some time in police custody. My friend was vindicated but she still got the kids and a large settlement.
Duly noted, though I’m not sure why I should find your womanhood “enjoyable.”
However, I did tell you that I wasn’t going to present cites early on, so you could have skipped it if you were so inclined.
The situation is analogous to saying, “I know it’s wrong to unfavorably compare my debate opponents to Nazis, but …” You’ve expressed a wish not to be called on it, but still, you’ll get called on it.
I don’t know the truth of this question. I wasn’t trying to refute jarbabyj in any way…I was just stating my opinion.
Your opinion may well be valid, but lacking any knowledge of what you have read and where you read it, it’s really hard to say. For the record, most of what I’ve read about sex offenders indicates that they are very likely recidivists, but much of what I’ve read in this thread has lead me to reformulate my opinion on that score.
[sub]In which case I would be militant about trying to do so. For instance, if YOU were a rapist, I would do my utmost to try to either CHANGE your opinion, or to notify the authorities. Actually, I would certainly do both. You AREN’T, of course, but we e just supposing here.[/sub]
If I were a rapist, I should be jailed. But I’m not. I have the advantage of you in this respect – I am not just supposing I am not a rapist, I know it for a fact. But thanks for calling me one, anyway. But then you said you were just supposing. Well, that makes it all better.
I also don’t expect anyone ELSE to change their opinon based on my opionion. I was just telling you what I thought.
You have every right to do so, and even if I thought otherwise, I have no way to prevent you. But then, I have every right to point out that there are some insufficiencies in your argument. Sorry if you took it as a personal attack. It wasn’t.
I don’t want to be cranky, but really…get the NAME right when you think you are defending someone who doesn’t need to be defended from someone who isn’t attacking them, okay?
Duly noted. I beg jarbabyj’s indulgence for getting her name wrong. In my defence, I get a LOT of people’s names wrong. OK, that’s not a great defence. It’s just what I have.
You are quite right. It is a bitter irony when an innocent man must confess to a crime he didn’t commit in order to receive a lesser sentance.
We don’t have much to argue about if you are going to be this reasonable. I really don’t have much sympathy for the guilty rapists who are being forced to undergo emotionally traumatic theerapy. Seems to me they were very willing to subject others to intense emotional and physical trauma, without any therapeutic effects, either.
But I’m not a part of the “lock 'em up and throw away the key” crowd, either. While I think retribution has its place in criminal justice – if we just let criminals commit crimes without giving them any hell in return, we’re saying the victims just don’t matter, and they do matter. But I think it’s more important to safeguard others from being raped than to just get a little retribtution. And the only method of that short of lifetime imprisonment or sentences that amount to it, is rehabilitation. And I’m against the lifetime or virtual lifetime sentences because some innoncent guys do get convicted, and the bitter irony of having to plead guilty to a crime you did not commit is as NOTHING compared to the bitter irony of spending your life behind bars for something you didn’t do.
In any event, the arguments of the “Lock 'em up and throw away the key” crowd don’t hold much water. It srikes me as a sort of cheap morality – “I don’t wanna think about this rationally, just kill the bastards or something” seems to be the feeling. In my opinion, saying, “What approach will minimize the chances of this guy doing it again?” is a much tougher-minded approach. Finding a really effective technique of rehabilitation may be difficult, but if it actually results in fewer incidences of rape someday, it strikes me as worthwhile. And I would think tough-minded people would want to go for what’s worthwhile rather than what’s just easy. I mean, it’s not as if we haven’t known how to lock em up and throw away the key for centuries.
My apologies, Evil Captor. I really ought to stay out of GD, since most of what I know I have learned through A) Living, B)Reading vast amounts of stuff that I have no way of knowing where it came from at this point and C) Discussion with people I feel have a great deal of intelligence and the “cites” to back up their opinion…I just never asked for them, because I trust them.
Actually, you are right. I shouldn’t open my mouth in here unless I am prepared to present cites to prove it. Since I am not very good at “googling,” I think I’ll stop. Opening my mouth here, that is.
But I really do want you to re-read my last post…I DID NOT CALL YOU A RAPIST. I want that made VERY clear. Please read my post again…I would NEVER call someone a rapist unless I had very clear and irrefutable evidence that they WERE in fact, a rapist. In fact, I said VERY CLEARLY, that you were NOT a rapist.
I may have been cranky last night, and in fact I WAS cranky last night, but I haven’t lost my mind completely.
Okay?
Wait a second. Plenty of crimes come down to the equivalent of he said- she said, whether over the issue of consent or identity. I say he stole my car, he says I lent it to him. I say he was the guy who robbed me, he says it some other guy did it. Those cases don’t result in an automatic acquittal - why should a rape case be different?
In a rape case, if the woman has no bruises or abrasions, the man can claim that she consented, and then later lied and said she was raped. Many women do not immediately report the crime, and thus, there may be no physical evidence to support the charge. If witnesses saw her willingly leave with the man, it further weakens her case. If the woman was drunk, the case becomes even more difficult. Good defense attornies can punch holes in such circumstances, so prosecutors are more willing to accept pleas in order to get at least some prison time out of the accused.
When the victim is a child (and I know we’re not discussing pedophelia) it is even more of an uphill battle. The child may be intimidated, or confused, and testimony from a child is somewhat unreliable.
I wasn’t clear, Lissa. I was disagreeing with qts,who apparently believes that there should be an automatic acquittal in a case wiith no bruises where the defendant claims consent.
I didn’t say that at all, Doreen. Here’s what I said:
Notice that word normally and that phrase beyond reasonable doubt. I don’t know if the test is different in the US, but that’s the way it should be in the UK.
Are you saying that a court should automatically accept a woman’s testimony over a man’s testimony? Then here’s something that will shock you: some women do not tell the truth
Try these (picked at random from Google):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1501900.stm
http://www.colchsfc.ac.uk/maths/dna/discuss.htm
http://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/news/2000/07july/000731rape.shtml
http://innocent.org.uk/cases/royburnett/
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~justice/lewis.htm
http://www.bfms.org.uk/site_pages/previous_news_2001.htm
http://web.bham.ac.uk/forensic/news/01/rape.html
I could go on.
qts - with respect to your friend’s situation, and the fact that “cry wolf” does occur - every relevant person (police, etc) I’ve ever spoken to about the subject, as well as articles I’ve read, suggest that only a tiny, tiny proportion of reported rapes make it to trial.
There is also a point of view - I don’t know if jar would agree (or if she reported her rape) - to suggest that the vast majority of rapes aren’t even reported. Most of these would probably be date rapes - obviously a vicious attack by a stranger is less easy to hide, if you end up regaining consciousness in hospital, etc.
Crying wolf in rape is among the most wicked thing any man or woman can do. It slurs innocent men (and women, though female rape of males is far less common) and it fucks up the system for genuine rape victims. But the fact that it occurs a few times does not mean that the legal system is tipped in the favour of the victim. Frankly, from most accounts, it is quite the contrary.
qts
I don’t belive that women should automatically be believed. But I don’t think that simply because a case comes down to he says-she says, it should normally result in an automatic acquittal. I don’t think there can be a “normal” result, because each case has to considered individually. The he said-she said rape case is ultimately going to turn on whose testimony is found to be more credible, just like the he said-she said case of me accusing my brother of stealing my car, while he claims I lent it to him will depend on which of us is more credible. Should the he said-she said car theft case “normally result in an automatic acquittal”? If not, why is a rape case different ?
anyone who commits rape is sub-human in their very nature and undeserving of any compassion, mercy or attempt at rehabilitation.
I don’t necessarily agree. Rape is a horrible, despicable crime, and the perpetrators deserve punishment, but not all rapists are un-redemable.
Yes, there are people that we would term as “evil,” people who delight in hurting others and who won’t allow themselves to be rehabilitated.
There are also others who make horrible mistakes, such as a man who took advantage of a drunk girlfriend, or out of selfishness, pressed onward after she said no. He is wrong, and should be punished, but this man can be reached. He can be rehabilitated, and can still be a productive member of society.
What’s the alternative? Death? Life in prison? As I said before, the harsher the penalty, the more squeamish and hesitant a jury becomes. They might be tempted to acquit a defendent who is portrayed as an otherwise “nice kid who made a mistake,” rather than sentence him to death. Likewise with life imprisonment.
The civilization of a society is displayed in how they treat their most reprehensible members. We could stone him to death, torture him, or punish him in other brutal ways, but what would that say about us? Aren’t we, in some way, supposed to be better than that? If out of rage and the desire for revenge, we treat our convicts in a way that criminals themselves behave towards those that anger them, then we have no moral standing. Mercy and justice show us to be a civilized and decent people.
“How easy is it to rehabilitate a rapist?”
Have you watched A Clockwork Orange?