Only superficially, and provided you ignore the salient point driving my argument entirely. But other than that, sure.
So are lots of other “-ess” words that have fallen or are falling out of general usage.
So you don’t understand what the word means?
Oh, good grief. Of course I know what the word means. I don’t use it; I use a gender neutral word instead. I’ll assume that was also LHoD’s point.
What’s your point?
I know what words like ‘forsooth’ and ‘widdershins’ mean also, but I don’t usually drop them into conversation.
Hey now ! Widdershins is perfectly cromulent.
You use a gender neutral word to describe someone’s gender? Neat trick.
As a male I cannot relate to the emotional investment that women have in the crime of rape.
If not a hijack I’d be interested in a discussion…if it’s been had, then a link will do.
Yes, such an archaic word. :rolleyes:
It’s the feminine form of the noun. (ess) Count, Countess, etc. It’s not a bad thing, honest.
There is no evidence that this murderess/er was raped.
Men also get raped.
Just what is your point?
I routinely refer to females on this message board as “posteresses”. Don’t you?
Ooh, google dump. Burn.
The only way the “chilling message” assertion makes any sense to me is if we interpret it as “It sends the chilling message that a rape victim has to be very careful whom she tells about her rape, because if they then ‘do something about it,’ she could end up in serious trouble.”
Lynching somebody is wrong even if they are guilty of a crime like rape. We have a legal system to handle this. Esparza should have gone to the police with her accusation not to her ex-boyfriend and his two friends.
I’ll admit I have a heard time believing Esparza was completely unaware of what would happen to Ramirez. She should have been tipped off by the fact her friends were bringing meat cleavers that this wasn’t going to be just a verbal confrontation.
I think you have a good point. But, sometimes what those victims’ advocates are saying is, not that rape victims “deserve to be believed,” but that they “deserve to be taken seriously,” to not have their accusations dismissed out of hand.
This sort of thing has been discussed in the recent Pit thread The double standards around rape and sexual assault.
It’s also worth pointing out that it’s possible that this woman was in fact raped, came back a week later, honestly thought she was pointing out the same guy who raped her, and it turns out it was a completely different person.
The issue is not what the victims, or victims’ families, want. The issue is what society needs to maintain itself in a healthy manner.
France may have decided on a different standard; that is their choice. I think that it is a mistake to put a statue of limitations on murder, because (in my view) murder is one act that cannot be “made good” by restitution or penance. The dead person remains dead no matter what you do. The grief of the victim’s family is not the primary measure of loss. What if the victim had no family? Is the murder of a random and friendless homeless person any less bad that the murder of your best friend from a huge family? The loss is the permanent loss of someone’s life. I personally don’t want to be in a society where someone who committed murder 20 years ago can now feel free and easy about it because the law has permanently given up.
Wait, what are the facts of the case that support calling her a murderer? Surely it’s not illegal to point to someone and say “that guy raped me”: If it were, it would be impossible for rape victims to seek justice. Yes, maybe the accusation was false, and maybe there’s some charge associated with that, but has it been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accusation was false? Alternately, has it been proven that she knew what the boyfriend would do, or did do, before or after the fact?
Vigilanteism is ugly, and vigilantes should be punished for their actions. You want to throw the book at the guys who actually did the deed, go right ahead. But what’s the evidence that Esparza was involved in anything illegal?
Well, I’m happy to agree to disagree there, but for the sake of debate, I’d opine that rape is another such crime.
I’ve spoken with many rape survivors, in fact at times it seems that the majority of women I know have been raped in some way at some point (yes, yes, I’m the common denominator, I know 
). And that’s another crime that can never be made “right” in many if not most instances. You can put the guy behind bars forever, it doesn’t change the profound psychic damage that has been done in many cases. Some people can never have a healthy sex life again, or trust the rapists’ gender ; some develop paranoia or freaky triggers, etc… Regardless of anything the State may or may not inflict in retaliation. IOW, a raped person remains raped.
And yet, in spite of that, rape in the US *does *have a statute of limitation in many States - 10 years or less in some, 15 in others, 20 in Ohio. And you know what ? That’s… fine. I believe it’s possible to help salvage the psyche of a rape victim within the first few years. I believe punishing their abuser can help tremendously there. But 20 years later ? After 20 years of being scared of walking alone after dark, of being scared the rapist might track you down, or of having your body just shut down during sex because of a traumatic memory ? What’s going to change ? What social benefit is served (assuming the rapist never raped another person since, etc… obviously) ?
There are plenty of other such permanent crimes that do get a statute of limitations. Assault for example - the guy who blinded me in both eyes with a beer bottle 10 or 20 years ago would get away with it. The guy who bankrupted my bank and left me and my family with nothing, forever, might get away with it. The drunk guy who killed my kid in a hit and run could too. Etc… The line is arbitrary, as is every line. There’s little about murder (much less accessory to murder) that makes it special in that regard.
The bottomline is that IMO justice delayed is justice denied indeed - but it’s also brand new injustice.