What if the woman didn’t do it? Shouldn’t you wait until you are sure before you condemn her?
Regards.
Shodan
In this case, the mother flipped out, but the daughter seems to have moved on, which is kind of my point with regard to the questions I posed to Skald. I don’t consider rape to be the “end all” crime. Most victims get through it and get on with their lives with little or no long-term effects. Violent assault is usually far more traumatic. This was not “justice” in any sense of the word.
I don’t know that the rest of her life was necessarily ruined. The girl, who is now a woman, was quoted in the article as saying she has no recollection of the attack. Suppression and all that.
Sure it was.
For the most part, in advanced, industrialized countries, the legal systems do a decent job of punishing the scum that breaks the social compact in a brutal manner. This is indeed one of the hallmarks of a civilized nation. As such, the mother should also be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for this murderous assault. Vigilantism is not an acceptable societal value nowadays.
That said, I think it’s a good thing that some piece of shit contemplating the commission of a vicious assault might draw a moment’s hesitation when he realizes that the ponderous grindings of the legal system may not be the worst thing he has to fear.
Justice would be if the woman carried out a sentence that society failed to carry out. That is not what happened here. The system, at it’s best, would not have executed this guy for what he did.
uh? You don’t consider rape violent assault?
It is not an end-all crime, but I seriously doubt most victims will have little or no long-term effects. And especially when the victim is a child.
For some reason, that just cracked me up. Thanks for the laugh. 
Nothing to add, but this thread is making me reconsider some previously held opinions regarding the difference between the death penalty and killing an offender.
That’s bad phrasing due to alcohol, BTW. I’ll probably start a GD thread tomorrow.
Rape, in many cases, is much less violent than assault that doesn’t have the rape component. People can comply with the rapist and come out of it physically unharmed. Obviously not all rapes are non-violent, but not all rapists beat their victims.
This child seems to have moved on relatively unscathed. Of course it’s worse when it happens to a child, but I think a violent beating would have been exponentially more traumatic for her (or for anyone). There is an assumption that sexual assault is the most devastating thing that can happen to a person, but that’s not always the case. People often go on to lead well-adjusted, productive lives.
I disagree. Justice is a very personal notion. What society agrees upon is a compromise, and a very necessary one for whose existence I am quite grateful. And I agree that a civilized society would probably not have immolated this man. But I put myself in the mother’s shoes, and I cannot say that her murder of him was not morally justifiable.
This story reveals three important facts about the world.
- The Punisher is real.
- The Punisher is, in actuality, an elderly woman.
- Don’t fuck with The Punisher.
By the same token, the guy’s mother (as a hypothetical) could set fire to this woman, right? I mean, she did kill her son.
And the circle of life continues…
I agree that moral justice is an individual call. However, I think her actions are far worse than anything the perp did. She’s obviously off the beam.
A good question, and I must speak theoretically as I have no kids, but I’d like to think that if I raised a child who became a human savage, that I wouldn’t deem him specially exempt from the reach of extra-judicial action by the aggrieved.
Agree. Disagree. Agree.
I think the perp’s actions (presumably raping a 13-year girl with threat of force, if not actual use) are worse than what the mother did, but not by much.
I see murder on behalf of a severely wounded close relative or friend as being justifiable in some cases. The perp had no moral justification at all for what he did.
So if a victim complies with the rape, doesn’t fight back, and thus doesn’t get beaten – then the crime is less severe than if the victim fights back and gets beaten, but not raped? I’m not trying to ask a loaded question; just trying to understand your point.
In this case, the girl was threatened at knife point. I would assume that itself is a crime independent of the subsequent rape. I would also consider these both violent assault crimes.
I don’t have children either (yet), but I don’t think I could ever accept the possibility of someone killing a child of mine; regardless of what they did.
To me, saying that this guy had it coming is akin to saying a woman who dresses whorish is just asking to be raped.
What?
Raping a 13-year-old is a heinous crime. Do you consider dressing like a whore to be a heinous crime?
Women who wear slutty clothes = men who rape 13-year-olds?
Am I hearing this correctly?
ETA: RNATB has got my back.