Do ugly people get punished more for crime?

snood wrote:

Lemme get what you're saying - Are you saying as long as the one having sex with a minor is a good looking babe, no harm, no foul? What about a Brad Pitt type male teacher seducing a fourteen year old girl - that a no-no?

Apples and bowling balls, my friend. The stigma is different, hence, so is the crime.

Dunno Nimh. There have recently been several woman teachers who have been prosecuted here just in the last little while [..]

I am unsure if this is really so, but the women certainly seem to have their cases far more widely covered in the press, presumably because they have more shock value.

I actually wonder if the boys are LESS adept at keeping it quiet, or their parents get MORE outraged, because it is seen as more aberrant behaviour in women.

What is beauty?




Do ugly people really have more brains?

Are ugly people held to a higher standard?

Does beauty and genius have an inherent flaw?

Well, Rex. I was thinking about The Picture of Dorian Grey today. Does anyone understand the import of Oscar Wilde's marvelous book?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

snood wrote:

Lemme get what you're saying - Are you saying as long as the one having sex with a minor is a good looking babe, no harm, no foul? What about a Brad Pitt type male teacher seducing a fourteen year old girl - that a no-no?

Apples and bowling balls, my friend. The stigma is different, hence, so is the crime.

Apples and bowling balls? It seems like a pretty straightforward comparison to me. Older teacher - handsome though (s)he may be - preys on 14-year old. Same thing.

The stigma, as Snood pointed out already, is not the issue when it comes to defining crime and punishment; the action itself is. If a 14-year old boy is preyed on like that it'll have negative consequences just the same as with a girl.

Actually, I'd say probably the damage to a boy might be even greater; because while a girl would immediately find understanding and solidarity when she'd tell someone what happened, a boy would just get the whole inane Beavis & Butthead stuff and be told that, hey, congrats, my man, atta boy, great! He'd find very little understanding at all, and I'm guessing that this probably ensures that when this happens to a boy it's a lot less likely to come out than such adult preying on girls.

dlowan wrote:

Dunno Nimh. There have recently been several woman teachers who have been prosecuted here just in the last little while [..]

I am unsure if this is really so, but the women certainly seem to have their cases far more widely covered in the press, presumably because they have more shock value.

I actually wonder if the boys are LESS adept at keeping it quiet, or their parents get MORE outraged, because it is seen as more aberrant behaviour in women.

Well, kindof a contradiction in that logic.

Yes, there's been a few cases the last year in the US, too, that got great media coverage as well. (Nothing comparable in Holland, that I know of.)

So you definitely seem right in your second point - that "the women certainly seem to have their cases far more widely covered in the press".

But why? Because of the novelty value, the unexpected-value. "More shock value", like you say yourself.

But why does it have more shock value? It's more unheard of, relatively new - something that you don't actually hear often, or dont expect to hear. Something that's still a bit of a spectacle.

Why is it such an exception, a story like that coming out? Does it just not happen very often? Or is it still more of a taboo, something a boy wouldnt come out about - or would try to brag about, instead (which is how one of these cases came out)?

If, like you say, boys would be less adept at keeping it quiet, then you'd actually hear about a lot more of those cases - and they wouldn't end up being run on nation-wide TV for a week like the couple of these cases are... they'd end up on page 16 of the local paper, just like the attacks on girls.

I mean, seriously ... up till a year or two, three ago, how often did you hear about a woman adult preying on a boy? Its getting so much press attention because its something most people didnt think, or werent willing to acknowledge, was happening..

snood, the connection is that when Dorian Grey finally did something decent, his picture became handsome again, and his real face took on the ugliness. So, you see, it is NOT the face that matters, but the decency behind it. That is eveyone's portrait.

Snood, my bias is deeper and broader than that. Violence and disrespect against women erks me to the core. I'd become ill were I to watch a female on female fist fight, because my instinct would be driving me to protect them both. Meanwhile, I can watch men knock each other out on the UFC as easily as a football game. Let there me no question; I am biased.

My personal biases may taint my opinions, yes, but that in itself is provides no indication of the veracity of my written arguments. Disprove them on their merits, if you can. Alluding to my bias is irrelevant until you've successfully done so.

Despite being in the restaurant business; I recognize the pro's and con's of the food, service and concepts in other restaurants absent my "personal bias" almost daily. If I tell you the Fillet Mignon sucks or is fantastic at so & so's restaurant; believe it.

To "get past all the anecdotal evidence and amateur psychologist speculation", I'd have to bow out of the conversation because I have no expert qualifications. Do you? Do the rest of the people opining here?

For the record; I'd say the woman is pretty, but not beautiful IMO. Factor in the knowledge of her personality that's been revealed thus far; and I'd say she isn't attractive at all.

To answer your question (I probably shouldn't, because this isn't going to go over well ); yes. I think a conscientious judge should consider every factor in both the extent of the crime and the degree of harm done and sentence accordingly.

The social consequences of being statutorily raped by Rosanne Barr would be much different than by Penelope Cruz.

I'm know that sounds terribly unfair; but I think it is the truth.

If you are going to have flexible sentencing laws; is not the purpose to gauge the degree of culpability, harm done, chances of recidivism, etc., and sentence accordingly? Why shouldn't the (admittedly subjective and tough to quantify) harm done not be considered a factor?

(I think this realization changes one of my opinions offered earlier in this thread, slightly)