Do ugly people get punished more for crime?

ITA, snood. A teacher is given an almost sacred trust to look after the education and welfare of their students.

It's their job to provide students with the best education possible (but not that kind of education). If your subject is history, science, mathematics, etc., then you have a responsibility to teach that particular subject to the best of your ability. Having sex with them, just because you feel like it, is not part of the job description.

You also have a responsibility to honor the great trust that your students parents have placed in you: to treat their children with the same respect and concern for their welfare that you would want to own children to receive.

This teacher has violated that trust completely. I also agree with you, Snood, that there seems to be an "atta boy" attitude happening here, suggesting that it's somehow ok for a female teacher to take advantage of a young male student.

But I think you are right that having sex with an adult is in no way ok -- or in any way a positive experience -- for a 15 year old kid (whether they are male or female). And yes, I think it could seriously "mess with their minds."

I frankly can't imagine what goes on in the mind of a grown woman -- or man -- who wants to have sex with a 15 year old. I sure as hell wouldn't want to entrust my child to their care.

In fact, if that were my son, the teacher in this story would have hell to pay from me. Trust me, I'd be her worst nightmare.

0 Replies

Thanks, cat. Some of the stuff that passes for mature thinking just baffles the hell out of me. It seems like a lot of garbledy-gook gets said to excuse something that just ain't right, no matter how it gets spun.

0 Replies

Agreed, Snood.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

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.

Grudgingly, same goes for the men. The social consequences of being statutorily raped by Brad Pitt are not the same as say Michael Moore.

That is one of the most ridiculous things Ive heard in ages.

First off, punishment by law shouldnt and doesnt refer to the "social consequences" of being victimized. If it were, should the man who dragged a woman inside to rape her in the privacy of his own home be punished less than the man who raped a woman outside on the street because, you know, the latter's "social consequences" are bigger? Or yeah, like Snood said - the "social consequences" of being raped by a black were long harsher than if you were victimised by a white man, so should the black man then have been sentenced more harshly?

Second, say you are raped, is the psychological damage really going to be any less when you're raped by someone beautiful? Where does that even enter the equation? One could in fact even argue the opposite, that being raped by someone who seemed the perfect man does the greater damage to one's trust in people, for example. It's just not up to us to even go there.

Same with having been preyed on by a "hot" female teacher - it might actually make your plight more difficult, because people you'd turn to to confide in - schoolmates or even perhaps family - might turn out to react with the jerky logic you bring here, and instead of showing understanding wont even want to hear about you being a victim - hey, you should be glad, cor blimey they'd take your place anytime! You'd have to deal with all that. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Occom Bill:

Quote:
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.

It's very relevant, because your bias keeps making you allude to the esoterica of the case in question, whereas I'm just trying to point out that laws have to be applied equally or they lose meaning. I don't care about your, my, or anyone's opinion about how male and female's psyches differ, or anything like that - I'm just interested in any rational argument you can mount to the effect that the law could be written to consider those things. How would it be worded to make the distinction? "Any female committing carnal acts with a minor, except those resembling playboy bunnies, shall receive so-and-so for a first offense,..."? How would you incorporate your views about the differences in quality and quantity of impact according to gender and attractiveness if you had to enforce a law about it?

We've talked past each other long enough. I didn't bring up the points outside of a court of law, because of some inability to focus. Prior to your response to my post; no such restriction existed and the topic has interesting social impacts as well as legal ones. To that extent; my bias towards women remains irrelevant to my points. I can understand how your finer tuned focus on the discussion, might leave you thinking I was just straying, but I haven't been sharing your focus in the first place... or that wouldn't have happened. See what I mean? A thread could be filled with the impacts of this case excluding legal opinion altogether.

snood wrote:

Quote:
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.

Man, talk about apples and bowling balls...

That's quite a reach, eh? I was attempting to demonstrate that arguing I have a bias in lieu of an argument against the numerous points I raised is Ad Hominem, without trotting out that tired phrase, yet again today. Standing in your shoes, I don't see it either. Stand in mine and you'll see it crystal clear.

snood wrote:

Quote:
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?

No Bill, no one would have to bow out of the conversation - you don't have to claim any expertise in the finer points of human psychology to discuss what I'm focusing on - I certainly don't have any such expertise. All that's necessary is that you can argue either pro or con, for or against the notion that laws should be applied euqally, regardless of gender or physical attractiveness. It's a discussion taking place a lot these days, affected significantly by the actions of the kewpie-doll looking schoolteacher in question.

See, that's where you lost me. Go back and read what you wrote objectively. It was easy for me to mistake it as a challenge to my qualifications; as opposed to the vague demand that all discussion not under your limited focus cease on account of it's irrelevance, that it was. My comparisons are quite relevant, just not in your focus... which I was largely unaware of since you hadn't yet addressed me on this thread at that time.

Skipping ahead to where we weren't talking past each other...

snood wrote:

Quote:
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.

...and I think you are ignorant either willfully or innocently of a humongous slippery slope that would open the door to.

I'm not in the habit of being willfully ignorant, or I'd be forced to suggest you are struggling with a false dilemma. As it is; I'll opt for innocently ignorant of a humongous slippery slope (anybody hungry? Got some extra crow here...). In my partial defense; I was answering as honestly as possible from the perspective of a judge, not a legislator. I would have readily agreed from the legislator's shoes in a heartbeat. The following paragraph finished convincing me my "judge's perspective" was faulty as well.

snood wrote:

In my view of this justice system and this America, I don't want to be telling judges they should take into consideration how the defendant looks; there is enough trouble trying to get them not to do that already. Would we next be saying we should punish certain races more harshly, because of the comparativepsychological damage done?

If I followed that in that line of ignorance; yes. I would have. Embarrassed

Thanks for setting me straight on that.

snood wrote:

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

Again, my concern is not the social consequences of being raped by Rosanne, or Penelope or Brad Pitt or Michael Moore. It is whether or not our laws shoud take such things into consideration. And on that we simply disagree.

I now recognize and agree this must remain irrelevant, legally... But are you saying you disagree with that from a social standpoint as well?

snood wrote:

Quote:
I know that sounds terribly unfair; but I think it is the truth.

Oh it doesn't just sound unfair - it is patently and grotesqely unfair.

Condeded, legally. But is it not the truth, socially?

snood wrote:

Quote:
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?

There are routinely admonitions given to juries about what they can, and cannot consider. Stuff this subjective cannot be allowed to be a part of a sane and reasonable justice system - or one that aspires ever to be that.

You've convinced me beyond a reasonable doubt insofar as pretty/ugly is concerned. Well done.

I am not yet ready to abandon the Male/Female differences however, because they are far more easily quantifiable, loosely as I listed them previously. There are too big, too common and too many differences to ignore out of a misguided sense of fair play.

This is reminiscent of arguments I've found little agreement with in the past. I'll exemplify it as simply as I can with two seemingly identical crimes:
Man slaps woman across the face.
Woman slaps man across the face.
These are generally not the same crimes. Ridiculous? Maybe. But I don't think so. Only in the event the female batterer overmatched the victim through superior training, size or strength does her crime rise to the level of the Male batterer.

Since I'm obviously not a woman; I can only glean from stories told the deafening fear and feelings of impotency that accompany Male on Female violence. Not so Vice versa. Years ago; a girlfriend of mine actually punched me in the face (exactly as I taught her to make a fist and throw a punch), and confirmed the emotions I always expected I'd feel in such a situation. Fear was not among them. I turned the other cheek, so to speak and let her do it a couple more times. To answer her question "why don't you hit me back", I put my fist in the living room, through the drywall of my kitchen. Emotions: First I was shocked, then I was angry and shortly thereafter I became sad... wondering where she would have learned such a primitive reaction to controversy. For her part, she felt horrible (once she cooled off), apologized like crazy and in the ensuing 4 years it never happened again (and I doubt it ever has since). Now, while she may have been guilty of a misdemeanor battery for her "first offence" domestic violence, little punishment was called for as there was relatively no harm done (if you don't count a bloody nose and 2 cuts on my partially fat lip... taught her well, I did :wink:).

Now put the shoe on the other foot: What if in a semi-drunken, jealous rage I had punched her in the face repeatedly? Shocked

(I could never) Would that be the same crime? Would she go from shock to anger to sadness? Or would my superior strength and size also instill fear, perhaps even terror, and all manner of horrible thoughts of what may come next? Would she be able to write it off as an isolated foolishness that should (and did) only need to be addressed once? Or would she forever there after wonder if that fear would revisit her when we argued? Isn't it possible, if not likely, that such an episode would forever change her outlook and ability to trust in an angry man... and provide a very rational fear that may haunt her during trying times for the rest of her life? Does this added mental anguish not add an additional facet to the crime? None of these additional fears and horrors have visited me from soaking up some punches from a woman. No. Hers is not the same crime.

snood wrote:

Quote:

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

From what I've seen of you Bill, I think if you are honest with yourself about what is simply right and wrong your opinions aren't through changing.

Good guess. Got one on me anyway.:wink:

0 Replies

Sorry Nimh, Snood beat you too slapping me around for the more overt of my foolishness. :wink:
As for the Male/Female angle, I still think you're ignoring the bigger picture in favor of the smaller one. How long's it been since you were 14? I can't imagine how you'd think the impact on this boy could be worse than a male on female statutory rape. Bad? Yes. Worse... or even equal? In the vast majority of cases, I still have to assume NO. No way.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

I have been waiting for years for an explosion of sexual abuse by women disclosures to occur.....since I always kind of assumed it was under-reported, and I thought we MUST be going to have a disclosure fest similar, if less numerically overwhelming, than the one for male sexual abuse a couple of decades ago, as it became less taboo to discuss.

I am still waiting.

How many decades did it take before that 'disclosure fest' re male sexual abuse erupted a couple of decades ago?

I'm not at all surprised that no such thing has come out re women yet. You only need to cast a passing glance at reactions like O'Bill's to realise that the time for victims to come out in similar fashion is just not ready yet - people are not ready yet. Given current gender roles, the barriers for a man to come out as a victim - of a woman - are still just far greater. Or perhaps, considering that recent mini-spate of cases that finally came out this last two years or so, it's only tentatively/gradually becoming time now.

(I mean, I can easily imagine that there will also simply turn out to be a disbalance between male and female offenders, in the end ... but I'm still pretty sure that it's the latter that's still much more starkly underreported - its obviously the bigger taboo. Hence all the coverage it gets - and yet also the lack fof sympathy for the victim OB is displaying - when a case does come out now.)

OCCOM BILL wrote:

The girl gets to live with the reputation of being a slut, and we all know how mean 14 year old girls can be.

The boy gets to live with the reputation of being a "stud", and we all know how Beavis and Butthead 14 year old boys can be.

Jesus, where are you living, 1982?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

My instinctual reaction is fire the female teacher, put her on probation and the sexual predators list and call it a day. My instinctual reaction to the male teacher, is closer to sending him to the chair.

The sad thing is that I dont doubt that there's plenty of judges affected by the same kind of intuitive reaction you describe (by the way, re the original topic of RR, I did read about research - no link - that showed there was a direct relation between a person's perceived beauty and the punishment or reward he was given, in a test situation, by those told that the person in question had done something bad/good). And since I dont doubt that there's plenty of judges (or juries..) who have some degree of the same reaction as yours, we can only guess in how many slanted sentences that has resulted...

0 Replies

What a load of crap. Did you need all those words for that?! C'mon.

0 Replies

Thanks, bill, nimh, dlowan, stray cat - and anyone I forgot, for some stimulating discussion....

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

How long's it been since you were 14? I can't imagine how you'd think the impact on this boy could be worse than a male on female statutory rape. Bad? Yes. Worse... or even equal? .

Of course its ******* equal. How do you think it feels? Do you really think the boy would just feel, you know, "like kings, man!"? Yeah, thats all nice and well in the realm of fantasy and braggadocio, but in reality, being preyed on like that as a kid by someone twice your age is no more of a ******* joke if its by a woman than if its by a man. I do remember how vulnerable I was when I was 14, do you??

0 Replies

Breathe, nimh, breathe........

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

dlowan wrote:
I have been waiting for years for an explosion of sexual abuse by women disclosures to occur.....since I always kind of assumed it was under-reported, and I thought we MUST be going to have a disclosure fest similar, if less numerically overwhelming, than the one for male sexual abuse a couple of decades ago, as it became less taboo to discuss.

I am still waiting.

How many decades did it take before that 'disclosure fest' re male sexual abuse erupted a couple of decades ago?

I'm not at all surprised that no such thing has come out re women yet. You only need to cast a passing glance at reactions like O'Bill's to realise that the time for victims to come out in similar fashion is just not ready yet - people are not ready yet. Given current gender roles, the barriers for a man to come out as a victim - of a woman - are still just far greater. Or perhaps, considering that recent mini-spate of cases that finally came out this last two years or so, it's only tentatively/gradually becoming time now.

(I mean, I can easily imagine that there will also simply turn out to be a disbalance between male and female offenders, in the end ... but I'm still pretty sure that it's the latter that's still much more starkly underreported - its obviously the bigger taboo. Hence all the coverage it gets - and yet also the lack fof sympathy for the victim OB is displaying - when a case does come out now.)

OCCOM BILL wrote:
The girl gets to live with the reputation of being a slut, and we all know how mean 14 year old girls can be.

The boy gets to live with the reputation of being a "stud", and we all know how Beavis and Butthead 14 year old boys can be.

Jesus, where are you living, 1982?

OCCOM BILL wrote:
My instinctual reaction is fire the female teacher, put her on probation and the sexual predators list and call it a day. My instinctual reaction to the male teacher, is closer to sending him to the chair.

The sad thing is that I dont doubt that there's plenty of judges affected by the same kind of intuitive reaction you describe (by the way, re the original topic of RR, I did read about research - no link - that showed there was a direct relation between a person's perceived beauty and the punishment or reward he was given, in a test situation, by those told that the person in question had done something bad/good). And since I dont doubt that there's plenty of judges (or juries..) who have some degree of the same reaction as yours, we can only guess in how many slanted sentences that has resulted...

Hmmmm...I know what you mean about the disclosure fest....and I am by no means certain I won't be proved wrong, but I have worked so deeply and widely with trauma now for over twenty years, and I look for abuse by women as well as men, and I am just not seeing it in remotely the same numbers. Neither, to my knowledge, is anyone else. I have decided to stop waiting for the other shoe to drop.

I guess that means it will concuss me if it does drop.

You see, I HAVE had men coming out with sexual abuse by females, so I know I am not suppressing it in male clients...and lots of fellas are coming out with csa by males....and, lemme tell you, the mainstream trauma therapy world is not trammelled by views such as Bill's.

Anyhoo, it is all speculation, since I cannot prove a negative!

What I CAN confirm is that csa (child sexual abuse) is csa...and courts are right to give women teachers etc as tough a sentence as males.

Interestingly, we just discussed this downstairs, and everyone agreed that women who are caught get a much rawer deal than men. I would like to see any evidence of women getting lighter sentences such as you speculate about.

0 Replies

BTW....an area where I think sexual violence by women MAY be being underestimated is when it is part of domestic violence.

It used to be a rough common guess that 90% of DV was perpetrated by men.

A fairly assertive survey (by which I mean that men presenting to the ER with injuries were questioned as closely as women routinely are) in a northern (read deeply socially disadvantaged, high crime, high violence etc) suburbs hospital was done a couple of years ago.

Around 30% of males coming in with assault injuries turned out to be the result of DV, mainly by female partners.

This included some sexual violence....like knives used to demand sex etc!

0 Replies

Quote:

I do remember how vulnerable I was when I was 14, do you??

That's right, nimh. I think the problem is when people think back to what they were like when they were 15, they think of themselves the same way they saw themselves back then -- through 15 year old eyes.

There are also movies (particularly porn) that portray "15 year olds" (actually played by twenty year olds) as being much more mature than they really are.

When I was in college, and 20 years old, I did some assistant teaching at a local high school. When I walked into that classroom, I was amazed at how young -- really young -- the students looked (and I was only five years older than them!). They just looked like....kids!

Next time you get a chance, go to your local high school and check out what 15 year olds look like in real life. Trust me, it ain't sexy! They are scrawny, skinny, awkward kids who are fighting off blemishes every minute and who are still -- in many ways -- like children.

It bogles my mind that anybody in their thirties could look at one of them and think, "potential sex partner." There is something really wrong with that.

This woman needs to be barred from teaching. She's seriously whacked.

0 Replies

Fascinating thread - been lurking a while, figure I wanna say a couple things. First, I'm pretty close to snood's take on this; the reason Justice is depicted wearing a blindfold is not an esoteric, abstract concept. Whether a man strikes a woman or a woman strikes a man, it is assault, the root offense is the same regardless who hit who. Whether a male adult or a female adult engages in sex with a minor, irrespective of gender, and irrespective of whether either or both parties are physically attractive, the offense is statutory rape.

And here's a thought for The Wabbit - I think that in much, if not most, sexual abuse, the sex is all but incidental to the power - the strong (whether by main strength, perceived authority, weaponry or some combination thereof) taking untoward advantage of the comparatively helpless. Its often more an ego thing than a libido thing.

0 Replies

I haven't followed the entire thread, but I like Timber's post here.

0 Replies

I'm struggling with dlowan thinking women charged with sex crimes against men get harsher sentences than men charged with sex crimes against women.

I guess some research is called for here.

0 Replies

Would people really remember Quasimodo if there had not been a beauty involved?

Beauty steals innocence.

A crime punishable by passion.

Smile

0 Replies

Lifetime likelihood of going to State or Federal prison

If recent incarceration rates remain unchanged, an estimated 1 of every 15 persons (6.6%) will serve time in a prison during their lifetime.

Lifetime chances of a person going to prison are higher for
-- men (11.3%) than for women (1.8%)
-- blacks (18.6%) and Hispanics (10%) than for whites (3.4%)

Based on current rates of first incarceration, an estimated 32% of black males will enter State or Federal prison during their lifetime, compared to 17% of Hispanic males and 5.9% of white males.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
The girl gets to live with the reputation of being a slut, and we all know how mean 14 year old girls can be.

The boy gets to live with the reputation of being a "stud", and we all know how Beavis and Butthead 14 year old boys can be.

Jesus, where are you living, 1982?

Well, ya, sort of. Good guess. That's the last time I was 14, and I have no kids, so that's most certainly the experience I'm drawing from. What's changed?

nimh wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
My instinctual reaction is fire the female teacher, put her on probation and the sexual predators list and call it a day. My instinctual reaction to the male teacher, is closer to sending him to the chair.

The sad thing is that I dont doubt that there's plenty of judges affected by the same kind of intuitive reaction you describe (by the way, re the original topic of RR, I did read about research - no link - that showed there was a direct relation between a person's perceived beauty and the punishment or reward he was given, in a test situation, by those told that the person in question had done something bad/good). And since I dont doubt that there's plenty of judges (or juries..) who have some degree of the same reaction as yours, we can only guess in how many slanted sentences that has resulted...

No link necessary. That's easily swallowed and your supposition is probable. Had I not been been straightened out by Snood, and no facsimile thereof shared the Jury room with me, I might very well have followed that same line of beauty-BS. Frankly, even now, recognizing the truth of the situation, candor makes me question how far this revelation goes towards gutting my gut instinct.

I still can't fathom how you guys ignore the fact that the male/female offenders share identical authority, but the male tends to have more physical prowess (ability to intimidate) or that the fact that the male/female victims share the same trauma from victimization from authority, but the female gets the added element of fear and impotence... and most probably additional angles of mental anguish. Doesn't make sense to me: (1+1)>(1+0)... or (10+1)>(10+0) if that's easier.

(And thanks to you, too Snood)

0 Replies

Do ugly people get punished more for crime?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know