Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Criptfeind]

Retribution? How about prevention?

And that said, Retribution is a important part of social control. No matter how wrong it might seem to you, there are a lot of things that a lot of people don't do because of Retribution.

[Darvi]

Retribution? How about prevention?

And that said, Retribution is a important part of social control. No matter how wrong it might seem to you, there are a lot of things that a lot of people don't do because of Retribution.

That being said, it's quite ironic that the fear of retribution is the most commonly applied prevention against almost anything.

[kaijyuu]

Retribution? How about prevention?

Prevention is much better. I'll accept Bad Thing A happening if it prevents Worse Thing B, but ideally neither should happen.

And that said, Retribution is a important part of social control. No matter how wrong it might seem to you, there are a lot of things that a lot of people don't do because of Retribution.

I understand the concept of deterrents. If you want to argue for punishments, that's fine, but it's unlikely you'll convince me of them having any value outside of prevention. Giving people vindication for their being wronged is not something I'm sympathetic to.

[scriver]

I'm not sure either... But only because I don't know if it will cause permanent damage or not. I don't believe in mutilation as punishment, no matter the crime. If it just causes healable wounds, I'm more okay with it.

If the "Rapex" becomes commonplace, however, I foresee a large increase in anal rapes. Because unless the causes are dealt with as well, these products won't change anything. But then again, that isn't the direct intention, anyway.

[Frumple]

I'm pretty ambivalent about punishment as a deterrent, but I would kinda' throw out that pretty much every bit of research we've done on the subject has shown that it, well, doesn't make (much of) a difference. Close enough to none to might as well be nonexistent. S'kinda' in the same realm as catharsis (temporary improvement of mood at best, sorry! Generally doesn't even do that, from what we've actually found.). Lots of anecdotal or historical support, falls apart under rigorous scrutiny.

I don't quite remember the specifics, but iirc (big if!), the rough of it is that A) most crimes (/actions society in general wants to be deterred) are crimes of passion, and most people caught in the heat of the moment simply aren't going to consider the consequences of their action -- potential punishment doesn't occur to them until after the act, if at all -- and B) those that aren't either don't care about the possibility of punishment (for whatever reason), making it no deterrent whatsoever, or they don't believe they'll be caught -- again, the possibility of retribution doesn't effect their actions in any particular way, insofar as prevention goes.

For all that we, as humans, in general tend to support retributive punishment, basically everything that involves hard study has shown that its usefulness is marginal, at best, and likely counterproductive in many cases. Even for the victims it tends to be little salve for the damage done. There's a reason so much literature involves the moral that vengeance is empty, perhaps.

Now, on a personal level, all I really know from experience is that dominance play (which involves a degree of punitive action, albeit much more specifically utilized than punishment tends to be in the human realm) can be pretty effective for dealing with several types of animals (dogs and cats in particular) in a positive manner. That doesn't necessarily extend to humans, especially once they're cognitively developed beyond a certain point. Most importantly to me is that retributive punishment just... doesn't seem to do anything. It doesn't seem to actually deter, it tends not to decrease recidivism, it doesn't improve the lives of those transgressed against -- for all that society seems to have this long standing message that punishment does something useful, it seems to, well, not. I'm for action that has positive effect, net gain, etc., so forth, so on. Punishment as a deterrent simply seems to not be that sort of action, which leaves me massively iffy about it.

More than that, I can't really say, I think. As for the object itself, well, maybe a bit of hypocrisy on my part. Rape's a bit of a berserk button and I'd be perfectly fine on an emotional level (if not a cognitive or ethical one) if the damned thing induced a deadly poison or something (though I'd note that removal isn't quite the same as punishment, natch. Different goals.). If it manages to do what the article claims (latch on and not let go, without causing actual damage or being able to be removed without professional intervention), it sounds like it'd be pretty good as an identifier, if not a deterrent. Especially if, I'unno, something like a tracking chip was implanted in the things. Cost'd go up a bit, but it might be useful. Maybe we'll have something even better than that thing at identifying at some point in the future.

[kaijyuu]

Pretty much entirely agree with ya there Frumple, but I'd put a bit more stock in punishments as a deterrent, due to my personal experiences (not a rigorous thing but hey). I will note though that on the level of crime and punishments, any sort of rehabilitative effort for criminals (as opposed to ones intended to punish) will almost certainly serve as a sufficient deterrent, so traditional punishments are still unnecessary.

[JoshuaFH]

I'm extremely hesitant to chime in, but I will anyway.

In my personal opinion, I like the device. It transforms karmic punishment from wishful thinking, to something more tangible. A more cruel side of me would like it to have a more malicious design to ensure that intense harm is accomplished whenever it's purpose ever becomes necessary.

That, or attempt to popularize metal chastity belts, perhaps with car alarm-style bells and whistles that go off if damaged. In the same way locked doors keep honest people honest... though I don't think that applies in this scenario, it might de-escalate the situation if the would-be rapist finds the situation is impossible, or atleast highly difficult to succeed in.

But hey, it's personally hard for me to imagine a place like Africa where barbarity and brutality is so commonplace, and justice so very rare. It's too far removed for armchair intellectuals in the first world to grasp realistically, IMO.

[lorb]

I don't see how it's different than any other form of self defense. Is it suddenly wrong to harm someone who's attacking you if you're harming their penis? The internet as a whole seems to think so.

Most forms of self defense aim at reversing the imbalance of power. A rapist can rape you because he can physically overpower you. If you go to a self-defense course at the police they teach how to use clever tricks and a little martial arts know-how to negate this and stay on top. I don't see the rapex doing this. I am all for prevention of rape and if not possible in another way I won't complain if it hurts the attacker .. but i just don't see this device succeeding in that because of all the problems it has that already have been mentioned.

[Criptfeind]

Prevention is much better. I'll accept Bad Thing A happening if it prevents Worse Thing B, but ideally neither should happen.

First off, this statement assumes that rape is not as bad as a manged penis. Which is a conversation that I'm going to try to avoid by saying that you are flat out wrong. Secondly, do you really believe that it is not worth inflicted a worse thing on the aggressor then what they are trying to inflict? A rapist chooses (at least at some level) to rape. A rapist is a attacker. The victim is a innocent, they never chose this. How can you say that any level of pain is not worth it if it stops the attack?

If this truly stops more harm to victims then it causes, I don't care how much harm it does to aggressors. It could be filled with fucking lethal toxins that slay the rapist painfully... and honestly I would still say it could be worth it. Innocents are worth far far more then aggressors are.

I understand the concept of deterrents. If you want to argue for punishments, that's fine, but it's unlikely you'll convince me of them having any value outside of prevention. Giving people vindication for their being wronged is not something I'm sympathetic to.

Of course punishments don't have a value outside of prevention. But they are hugely valuable for prevention. Which is what this is.

[Frumple]

Fairly sure you got that backwards, Cript. Bad thing A is the mangled penis. Worse Thing B is rape. I'm relatively sure no one particularly sane would say that a rapist getting their genitalia ravaged is worse than the act of rape. Just still a bad thing, or at least a thing that would be-better-if-it-didn't-happen-in-an-ideal-situation (preferably due to a better way of prevention.).

E: Ah, missed the E. Sorry if I jumped the gun.

[Criptfeind]

No, it's fine. But the fact is he seems to be arguing against this on a grounds other then 'it might not work' (Which is something I feel is of course valid, we have no idea if this works and what the effect it will have is.)

[lorb]

Prevention is much better. I'll accept Bad Thing A happening if it prevents Worse Thing B, but ideally neither should happen.

First off, this statement assumes that rape is not as bad as a manged penis. Which is a conversation that I'm going to try to avoid by saying that you are flat out wrong. Secondly, do you really believe that it is not worth inflicted a worse thing on the aggressor then what they are trying to inflict? A rapist chooses (at least at some level) to rape. A rapist is a attacker. The victim is a innocent, they never chose this. How can you say that any level of pain is not worth it if it stops the attack?

If this truly stops more harm to victims then it causes, I don't care how much harm it does to aggressors. It could be filled with fucking lethal toxins that slay the rapist painfully... and honestly I would still say it could be worth it. Innocents are worth far far more then aggressors are.

If it were not for that last sentence that I underscored I could have somehow accepted your argument and line of thought, but this is just wrong. No human being is worth more or less than any other. That last statement of yours violates human dignity and is as such unacceptable to me. Please take a minute of your time to have a look at this and what it stands for/means to humanity.

[Frumple]

No, it's fine. But the fact is he seems to be arguing against this on a grounds other then 'it might not work' (Which is something I feel is of course valid, we have no idea if this works and what the effect it will have is.)

Well, yes, to a degree. Even if it does work, if there's another method that's as effective, but doesn't involve harming rapists (preventing them from forming in the first place, ferex), then preferring or utilizing the harmful method is, well, less good? Not as moral, etc. The ideal situation is the situation of greatest effectiveness and least harm, and inflicting harm without reason or to excess of the necessary is reason to argue against something. "A bad thing is still bad if it prevents a worse thing" is the concept in question. Even if the lesser bad is preferable to the worse thing, it's still not good. Just less bad. Largely irrelevant to the item in question, if the article's accurate. It's stated to not break the skin, just be basically impossible to manually remove.

Though again, most of what we've seen from actual research into psych, sociology, etc., have been pointing strongly to punishment not being "hugely valuable" for prevention. S'why we're seeing a growing movement, such as it is, that's intensely skeptical of punishment as a method of prevention. It doesn't seem to actually work, despite such a heavy prevalence in the general cultural situation. The item being discussed would most likely be more effective at identification than prevention, if it works as described.

[GlyphGryph]

No human being is worth more or less than any other.

I could not disagree more. Sure, every human is still human, with all that entails, but I don't see how that means that every human is of the same value. And I'd be willing to bet you'd get no more than a vanishingly small part of the population to agree with that sort of crazy statement.

[Criptfeind]

Equal rights? Sure. Equal worth? Never.