Sexual Harassment

[Vanimal46]

The New York Times published a detailed article about comedian Louis C.K.'s sexual misconduct over the years. 5 women, some of them comedians themselves, told stories of their horrifying incidents with Louis C.K. in the past. 

 

He came off as a normal guy in his stand-up routine... But now that this story is out, he used that outlet as a way to practically admit what he was doing to women behind the scenes. I guess I have to move on to another comedian to like. 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/09/arts/television/louis-ck-sexual-misconduct.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

[Squirrel]

Yeah, well, in every bit of humor is some truth. Keep that in mind. It might still be funny (not in this case, now that the details of behind the scenes are public), but it came from somewhere. Comedians are trained to use their own life experiences. So ...

 

None of this is surprising to me.

[ashbury]

He came off as a normal guy in his stand-up routine

I heard an audio clip the other day (maybe via a post on TD, I forget), with him and some other male - I think it was mainly about the other guy and Louis was yukking it up with him - and the subject matter was just not very respectful toward women. On a Donald Trump level, I mean. Not quite as blunt as heard on the Trump bus-tape, but on that spectrum. I didn't recall Louis CK being quite like that, before. So this public allegation would have been more surprising to me a week ago than now.

[Doomtints]

I read a LOOONG time ago that he was like this ... like late 90s or early 00s. I purposely paid no attention to him over the years and was mildly surprised he became so popular. But then, it seems all history of whatever I read back then was deleted a long time ago.....

[Brock Beauchamp]

There have been rumors swirling about this for several years. I hoped they weren’t true.

 

Sigh.

 

At least he has enough decency not to back away and/or make excuses for it.

 

He apologized and showed what appears to be actual contrition. When is forgiveness appropriate? Not making a suggestion, legitimately asking.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/11/10/entertainment/louis-ck-apology/index.html

[Squirrel]

There have been rumors swirling about this for several years. I hoped they weren’t true.

Sigh.

At least he has enough decency not to back away and/or make excuses for it.

He apologized and showed what appears to be actual contrition. When is forgiveness appropriate? Not making a suggestion, legitimately asking. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/11/10/entertainment/louis-ck-apology/index.html

When he faces real charges and faces real time served for his crimes and makes real restitution to each and every one of his victims. This isn’t just apologizing for bad behavior, and shouldn’t be considered as such. In fact I think that legitimizes the behavior rather than acknowledging it as criminal. The apology might be the first step in the rest toward acknowledging and serving for the criminal activity. Forgiveness is individual and I can’t tell you when to do that but for me I really have to wonder if if he’s yet deserving of it. I mean, he didn’t just come forward of his own volition, his hand was forced.

[PseudoSABR]

 

When he faces real charges and faces real time served for his crimes and makes real restitution to each and every one of his victims.

Not to diminish that there is criminality here, but I think a sense of scale is important.  The crimes that Louis CK would be guilty of are likely misdemeanors that would result in probation.   While punishment is important, I'm not sure 'real time served' gets CK or his victims any where.   Over the past weeks, there are many who deserve jail time, I'm not sure CK is one of them.   He does deserve lots of shame, the loss of his career, and perhaps a civil suit or three.  

 

I think we can speak out against those who abuse their positions of power without invoking retribution in all cases. 

[Mr. Brooks]

Not to diminish that there is criminality here, but I think a sense of scale is important. The crimes that Louis CK would be guilty of are likely misdemeanors that would result in probation. While punishment is important, I'm not sure 'real time served' gets CK or his victims any where. Over the past weeks, there are many who deserve jail time, I'm not sure CK is one of them. He does deserve lots of shame, the loss of his career, and perhaps a civil suit or three.

 

I think we can speak out against those who abuse their positions of power without invoking retribution in all cases.

Wow, I couldn't disagree more. Crimes like Louis committed are exactly the people that need to be locked up, not drug users like our current justice system locks up.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Wow, I couldn't disagree more. Crimes like Louis committed are exactly the people that need to be locked up, not drug users like our current justice system locks up.

What crime is he guilty of? Indecent exposure?  He didn't rape or molest anyone.  Like I said, having a sense of scale is important.  Clearly, Louis CK is a sexual abuser, but jail time isn't going to solve the problem, much less make the victims lives betters.   

 

Clearly, there's some ra-ra retribution people who get to feel better.

 

(And for the record, drug users shouldn't be locked up either.  What you presented was a shallow false choice.  Lock up Weinstein, Spacey, the ones that actually transgressed into physical tresspass.)

[Mr. Brooks]

What crime is he guilty of? Indecent exposure? He didn't rape or molest anyone. Like I said, having a sense of scale is important. Clearly, Louis CK is a sexual abuser, but jail time isn't going to solve the problem, much less make the victims lives betters.

 

Clearly, there's some ra-ra retribution people who get to feel better.

 

(And for the record, drug users shouldn't be locked up either. What you presented was a shallow false choice. Lock up Weinstein, Spacey, the ones that actually transgressed into physical tresspass.)

I'm not saying there is not a scale, there is. I think forcible rape should be mandatory life without parole. Something like this, I think a year in jail would be fair. This is not a victimless crime, and would be terrifying for the victim.

 

Yes, for crimes with a victim, there should be retribution. I won't apologize for believing that.

 

Sure, for a celebrity like Louis, the shame and career ramifications are going to be severe. But a random Joe might think its worth the risk to pull this kind of garbage if he knows there will be no real criminal ramifications.

[Champuckett]

If these and other recent Hollywood revelations are in any way shocking or sad, then what's in store for us is going to be emotionally difficult to say the least.

[Doomtints]

I read his apology and I think it is sincere. He knows he hurt people.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Something like this, I think a year in jail would be fair. 

Really glad you're not in charge of our criminal system.  Plenty of crimes with victims do not end up with any jail time much less a year.  And with good reason.  Jail time is vindictive.  It does not rehabilitate the criminal (in fact they are more likely to recidivate).   It's certainly not good for society as a whole (in terms of cost and efficacy).  After a year, do you think jail-time will make CK more or less a sexual deviant? 

 

Look, I hope CK and others get punished, but more than that get the help they need.  To me this is a systemic mental health issue (like most violent/victim crime).  

[Squirrel]

Really glad you're not in charge of our criminal system. Plenty of crimes with victims do not end up with any jail time much less a year. And with good reason. Jail time is vindictive. It does not rehabilitate the criminal (in fact they are more likely to recidivate). It's certainly not good for society as a whole (in terms of cost and efficacy). After a year, do you think jail-time will make CK more or less a sexual deviant?

 

Look, I hope CK and others get punished, but more than that get the help they need. To me this is a systemic mental health issue (like most violent/victim crime).

First off ... by time I wasn’t referring to lock him up ... but some form of punishment, such as community service, an appropriate numbers of it. And yes, he obviously needs help. But until he gets it and can prove that he will no longer be a menace to society he should be on a sexual offender list. And yes, he should be subject to every civil suit out there. What he did IS a crime, and I don’t think it should be treated less just because it’s 'only a misdemeanor’ and/or he needs help. he should be subject to punitive consequences AS WELL AS get help. He KNEW what he did was wrong and could have gotten help for it long ago. Instead he used his clout to intimidate silence.

 

But let’s not get into the mental health discussion here and confuse it. It’s too easy for people to lump crime and mental health together when I don’t think that’s most often the case, especially violent crime. Yeah, we all think that there has to be something wrong with individuals who do things like this, but that is not the definition of mental illness. As to violent crime, those committing violent crimes are those who have likely been victims themselves. It stems more from past abuse and issues of anger more than mental illness. Yes, a mental health component could certainly help, no doubt, and that availability and accessibility is certainly a plus. But we have become too quick to blame mental health for crime, and I think that’s a bit of excuse making and tends to label those with mental health issues into the wrong category. I think you are trying to conflate crime and mental health.

[Squirrel]

I read his apology and I think it is sincere. He knows he hurt people.

I still wonder, though, whether he would have issued it if his hand wasn’t forced because he was publicly ‘outed.’ So as genuine as it may sound, I still question the ultimate sincerity.

[USAFChief]

I still wonder, though, whether he would have issued it if his hand wasn’t forced because he was publicly ‘outed.’ So as genuine as it may sound, I still question the ultimate sincerity.

Concur.

 

An apology is great, when i see it as genuine, but always goes farther with me if it comes before it’s in response to some external stimuli.

[Twins33]

I still wonder, though, whether he would have issued it if his hand wasn’t forced because he was publicly ‘outed.’ So as genuine as it may sound, I still question the ultimate sincerity.

it makes sense to not trust it, as just a few months ago he called them rumors that he would not acknowledge because that would make the rumors real. He said they weren't true.

 

http://splitsider.com/2017/09/louis-c-k-responds-to-tig-notaros-recent-comments-theyre-rumors-thats-all-that-is/

[Mr. Brooks]

Really glad you're not in charge of our criminal system. Plenty of crimes with victims do not end up with any jail time much less a year. And with good reason. Jail time is vindictive. It does not rehabilitate the criminal (in fact they are more likely to recidivate). It's certainly not good for society as a whole (in terms of cost and efficacy). After a year, do you think jail-time will make CK more or less a sexual deviant?

 

Look, I hope CK and others get punished, but more than that get the help they need. To me this is a systemic mental health issue (like most violent/victim crime).

Yeah, I do think the threat of jail time would cause him and others to think twice about doing this. Losing your freedom is awful. It is a deterrent. Beyond that, what is so bad about punitive punishment? For crimes with a legitimate victim, that's a good thing, not a bad thing. Actions have consequences.

If someone beats their wife to death, should they not get prison time? What if they rape a 5 year old? Explain to me where the line is that punitive punishment is okay, and where it's not?

 

And how do you know this is a mental health issue? Are you sure he didn't just enjoy the power?

[PseudoSABR]

 

Yeah, I do think the threat of jail time would cause him and others to think twice about doing this. Losing your freedom is awful. It is a deterrent. Beyond that, what is so bad about punitive punishment? For crimes with a legitimate victim, that's a good thing, not a bad thing. Actions have consequences.
If someone beats their wife to death, should they not get prison time? What if they rape a 5 year old? Explain to me where the line is that punitive punishment is okay, and where it's not?

And how do you know this is a mental health issue? Are you sure he didn't just enjoy the power?

Look, I'm not going to get into an argument about criminal deterrence with you.  It doesn't work how you wish/believe it would.  The threat of jail-time already existed, yet these people were compelled to act criminally anyway.  Read up on it.  There's much written and many studies done to undercut the base premise of your notions.  And I reject your extreme examples to prove some specific point about what needs to be done to Louis CK.

 

How do you know it's not a mental health issue? The good ole: Put 'em jail, and worry about it later.  We've tried it your way, we've been trying it your way.

[PseudoSABR]

 

First off ... by time I wasn’t referring to lock him up ... but some form of punishment,

First off, you quoted my post responding to someone else.  Second off, your initial post, which I quoted above, specifically mentioned jail-time.  "When he faces...real time served..." 

 

I have no intentions of diminishing his bad acts, but to pretend there isn't a mental health aspect to sexual abuse seeks to side-step solving the underlying problems in favor of vindictive punishment.  We're doing a lot of guessing about what he did or didn't know, what is his precise motivations were, etc.  While we don't have to withhold judgment (nor should we), we should at least be open to the premise that best way to deal with sexual deviance might be to treat it as sickness rather than a crime (again not interested in forgiving/diminishing, I'm interested in results).   I don't think there's lots of developed social and health services for people who have sexual abuse issues (whether or not they reach the level of criminality.  

[Mr. Brooks]

Look, I'm not going to get into an argument about criminal deterrence with you. It doesn't work how you wish/believe it would. The threat of jail-time already existed, yet these people were compelled to act criminally anyway. Read up on it. There's much written and many studies done to undercut the base premise of your notions. And I reject your extreme examples to prove some specific point about what needs to be done to Louis CK.

 

How do you know it's not a mental health issue? The good ole: Put 'em jail, and worry about it later. We've tried it your way, we've been trying it your way.

You say that the threat of jail time existed and yet these people committed the acts anyway. Perhaps for every person that committed them anyway, another person or two considered committing them, but didn't out of fear of jail time?

 

Your point seemed to me to be that jail time isn't appropriate. I'm asking where, and more importantly why, do you draw the line on what criminal act deserves jail time? It's a completely legitimate question.

 

Not all sexual abuse is mental health. There is often a power/control motivation to it. Even if it were, mental health is not an excuse for actions. Actions still have to have consequences. I'm all for treatment of the thoughts that may precede the action, when it is in fact mental health related, but that is seperate from the act that was committed. There still has to be consequences for that.

 

No, it's never been tried my way. I don't even know what you are referring to there. The criminal justice system is nowhere near "my way". The current system gives a slap on the wrist for these type of crimes (you said so yourself in your initial response, that he wouldn't face time, misdemeanor, etc.), while giving severe penalties to drug offenses.

 

You respond to Chi that assumptions are being made about his motivation, but the only assumption I see is you assuming it's mental health related. Again, how do you know that?

[PseudoSABR]

 

You respond to Chi that assumptions are being made about his motivation, but the only assumption I see is you assuming it's mental health related. Again, how do you know that?

How do you know it's not a mental health issue?  That's an assumption too.  A far more dangerous and cruel one.   

 

I don't know that his behavior is mental health related.  But I'd prefer a rehabilitation route (even at the risk of being wrong), than the incarceration route--which will exacerbate the behavior, and will do nothing to improve the lives of the victims or society at large.

 

The retribution way of criminal justice has been tried with every kind of behavior, including sexual deviance.  Your method has been applied to all human behavior; it doesn't work for domestic abuse, murder, drug use, rape, but it will somehow stop guys from showing their junk?  Give me a break.  What's worse, is I doubt you've done a lick of research on the issue.  Because you'd already know this.   

 

Retribution--especially in the form of incarceration--is a cowardly, lazy way to deal the most difficult problems in society. (Whether it be drugs, or yes, even violence; incarceration should be the place of last resort, not the go-to).   I'm looking for real, long-term solutions, not for making the problem out-of-sight out-of-mind, and potentially much worse.  Their dad taking them to the woodshed, won't solve this problem.   You can't beat it out of them, or  threaten a society into good behavior.  We tried that, that's medieval time. 

[Squirrel]

First off, you quoted my post responding to someone else. Second off, your initial post, which I quoted above, specifically mentioned jail-time. "When he faces...real time served..."

 

I have no intentions of diminishing his bad acts, but to pretend there isn't a mental health aspect to sexual abuse seeks to side-step solving the underlying problems in favor of vindictive punishment. We're doing a lot of guessing about what he did or didn't know, what is his precise motivations were, etc. While we don't have to withhold judgment (nor should we), we should at least be open to the premise that best way to deal with sexual deviance might be to treat it as sickness rather than a crime (again not interested in forgiving/diminishing, I'm interested in results). I don't think there's lots of developed social and health services for people who have sexual abuse issues (whether or not they reach the level of criminality.

 

Where in what I said did I say he didn’t need help? And where did I say in my post that there wasn’t a component there, and that availability and accessibility to mental health help wouldn’t be a benefit? But citing mental health has been a go to excuse for too many things to explain crimes. I’m suggesting not to conflate the issues as it doesn’t benefit trying to bring awareness to mental health and mental illness. And if this is a mental health issue, he needs to be registered and he needs to get help. But he also needs to face the consequences of actions he absolutely knew and admitted to being wrong. While I’m backing off on the ‘being jailed’ aspect, it’s not for me to decide and I realize that my own anger drives some of my response and judgement ... frankly, I’m tired of this **** and I’m tired of people claiming some sort of defect to get away with it. But there absolutely needs to be a punitive response to these actions, especially since he didn’t come forward of his own volition.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Where in what I said did I say he didn’t need help? And where did I say in my post that there wasn’t a component there, and that availability and accessibility to mental health help wouldn’t be a benefit? But citing mental health has been a go to excuse for too many things to explain crimes. I’m suggesting not to conflate the issues as it doesn’t benefit trying to bring awareness to mental health and mental illness. And if this is a mental health issue, he needs to be registered and he needs to get help. But he also needs to face the consequences of actions he absolutely knew and admitted to being wrong. While I’m backing off on the ‘being jailed’ aspect, it’s not for me to decide and I realize that my own anger drives some of my response and judgement ... frankly, I’m tired of this **** and I’m tired of people claiming some sort of defect to get away with it. But there absolutely needs to be a punitive response to these actions, especially since he didn’t come forward of his own volition.

Look, I agree.   I tried to qualify my comments about criminality, abuse and the possibility of mental health.  I clearly did not mention it to excuse anyone's behavior, but to provide an avenue to a real solution.  That was my comment.   You don't need to lump me in with these people making excuses for CK and the other criminal perverts.  I did nothing like that.  I realized I might get some push back, but I think I took steps to qualify my comments thoughtfully.  I get that your angry, but I feel it's a bit misdirected (namely at me).

 

There absolutely should be consequences, but the consequences can be designed in a way that holds out the possibility of rehabilitation (even if hopeless), rather than pure retribution, as in incarceration. 

 

(And not to push back again too much, but we probably need a mechanism for these people to come forward on their own volition, if we really think that's a possibility.) (Personally, I think the nature of the offense is so shameful, that no one will come forward on their own volition. That's not an excuse, that's a reality.)

[Mr. Brooks]

How do you know it's not a mental health issue? That's an assumption too. A far more dangerous and cruel one.

 

I don't know that his behavior is mental health related. But I'd prefer a rehabilitation route (even at the risk of being wrong), than the incarceration route--which will exacerbate the behavior, and will do nothing to improve the lives of the victims or society at large.

 

The retribution way of criminal justice has been tried with every kind of behavior, including sexual deviance. Your method has been applied to all human behavior; it doesn't work for domestic abuse, murder, drug use, rape, but it will somehow stop guys from showing their junk? Give me a break. What's worse, is I doubt you've done a lick of research on the issue. Because you'd already know this.

 

Retribution--especially in the form of incarceration--is a cowardly, lazy way to deal the most difficult problems in society. (Whether it be drugs, or yes, even violence; incarceration should be the place of last resort, not the go-to). I'm looking for real, long-term solutions, not for making the problem out-of-sight out-of-mind, and potentially much worse. Their dad taking them to the woodshed, won't solve this problem. You can't beat it out of them, or threaten a society into good behavior. We tried that, that's medieval time.

Ok, well I'm not going to continue a discussion with someone who talks down to me like I'm an idiot because I don't agree with their opinion.

 

It couldn't be that I've read the research and haven't been convinced, no, I'm clearly much too simple minded and back woodsy for that. If you have a link to a peer reviewed study that states definitively that jail time is never a deterrent in any circumstance, I'd love to read it.

 

I already stated that punishment and rehabilitation don't have to be mutually exclusive, but you don't care to acknowledge that, it's easier for you to make baseless, insulting assumptions about me.

 

Therapy should be sought, and granted before the thoughts are acted upon, not only after you've been caught.

 

You still haven't answered my question. Either you agree that some crimes are terrible enough as to require punishment, and just disagree on where that line is - which makes you a hypocrite for talking down to me like this.

Or, you don't think jail time is ever appropriate.

If that is so, then I'm sorry, I'll never agree, nor do I think many would.

[Mr. Brooks]

Look, I agree. I tried to qualify my comments about criminality, abuse and the possibility of mental health. I clearly did not mention it to excuse anyone's behavior, but to provide an avenue to a real solution. That was my comment. You don't need to lump me in with these people making excuses for CK and the other criminal perverts. I did nothing like that. I realized I might get some push back, but I think I took steps to qualify my comments thoughtfully. I get that your angry, but I feel it's a bit misdirected (namely at me).

 

There absolutely should be consequences, but the consequences can be designed in a way that holds out the possibility of rehabilitation (even if hopeless), rather than pure retribution, as in incarceration.

 

(And not to push back again too much, but we probably need a mechanism for these people to come forward on their own volition, if we really think that's a possibility.) (Personally, I think the nature of the offense is so shameful, that no one will come forward on their own volition. That's not an excuse, that's a reality.)

Can you give me some examples of consequences, real consequences that have teeth, if jail time is not an option?

And I don't mean public shame and losing out future millions in earning power, I mean if some average no name committed the offense.

[Squirrel]

Look, I agree.   I tried to qualify my comments about criminality, abuse and the possibility of mental health.  I clearly did not mention it to excuse anyone's behavior, but to provide an avenue to a real solution.  That was my comment.   You don't need to lump me in with these people making excuses for CK and the other criminal perverts.  I did nothing like that.  I realized I might get some push back, but I think I took steps to qualify my comments thoughtfully.  I get that your angry, but I feel it's a bit misdirected (namely at me).

 

There absolutely should be consequences, but the consequences can be designed in a way that holds out the possibility of rehabilitation (even if hopeless), rather than pure retribution, as in incarceration. 

 

(And not to push back again too much, but we probably need a mechanism for these people to come forward on their own volition, if we really think that's a possibility.) (Personally, I think the nature of the offense is so shameful, that no one will come forward on their own volition. That's not an excuse, that's a reality.)

I just think that punishment and rehabilitation are separate and should be separate. I think there is room for both and I don’t think that one should influence the other unless a proven, diagnosed serious condition that determines the criminal not responsible (this is not the case). Yes, again I acknowledge that there could be a problem here and that CK needs help, but not to the point where consequences are replaced with rehab/treatment. With issues such as this ... at some point real consequences need to be a thing.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Ok, well I'm not going to continue a discussion with someone who talks down to me like I'm an idiot because I don't agree with their opinion.

It couldn't be that I've read the research and haven't been convinced, no, I'm clearly much too simple minded and back woodsy for that. If you have a link to a peer reviewed study that states definitively that jail time is never a deterrent in any circumstance, I'd love to read it.

I already stated that punishment and rehabilitation don't have to be mutually exclusive, but you don't care to acknowledge that, it's easier for you to make baseless, insulting assumptions about me.

Therapy should be sought, and granted before the thoughts are acted upon, not only after you've been caught.

You still haven't answered my question. Either you agree that some crimes are terrible enough as to require punishment, and just disagree on where that line is - which makes you a hypocrite for talking down to me like this.
Or, you don't think jail time is ever appropriate.
If that is so, then I'm sorry, I'll never agree, nor do I think many would.

It seems the reason Pseudo appears to be talking down to you is because you're firing bad, old ideas from the hip and covering your ass by labeling them as just "an opinion".

 

You don't need peer-reviewed studies. There are European countries practicing what we're talking about here with far greater success rates than the US.

 

Eh... "far greater success" is understating things. The results are so comically lop-sided that arguments such as yours should be dismissed out of hand.

 

We're doing things wrong because we're already imprisoning anyone and everyone; doubling down on that idea goes against pretty much every rational and researched study I've read over the past 20 years, never mind the actual on-the-ground results we see elsewhere in the world.

 

You literally said rape should result in a life sentence without the option of parole. Don't pretend you're taking some nuanced stance on the topic.

[Mr. Brooks]

It seems the reason Pseudo appears to be talking down to you is because you're firing bad, old ideas from the hip and covering your ass by labeling them as just "an opinion".

 

You don't need peer-reviewed studies. There are European countries practicing what we're talking about here with far greater success rates than the US.

 

Eh... "far greater success" is understating things. The results are so comically lop-sided that arguments such as yours should be dismissed out of hand.

 

We're doing things wrong because we're already imprisoning anyone and everyone; doubling down on that idea goes against pretty much every rational and researched study I've read over the past 20 years, never mind the actual on-the-ground results we see elsewhere in the world.

 

You literally said rape should result in a life sentence without the option of parole. Don't pretend you're taking some nuanced stance on the topic.

Which European countries don't allow jail time for any sex offenses?

 

Arguments such as mine should be dismissed out of hand? My argument is that crimes with a victim should result in consequences, since when is that controversial?

 

I'm not interested in imprisoning anyone and everyone, not even close. I think probably half of our prisoners don't belong in prison. I'm talking about the worst types of crimes.

 

And yes, I think forcible rape should result in life in prison. I'm not talking about less severe offenses, I'm talking about forcible rape. If you do that to someone, you don't deserve to live in society.

 

Look, I suggested a year in jail for less severe type offenses, hardly overly severe. But I didn't take issue with a different opinion on that.

I take issue on the stance of completely taking jail time off the table for all sex offenses. I don't think I'm stupid and backwards for disagreeing with that stance.

 

I'd really like you or Psudeo to answer my question. Which, and why, crimes are you ok giving jail time for? Any? If so, where and why are you drawing the line? And what gives you the moral authority to dismiss my argument out of hand, if you do think that some crimes should result in jail time?

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I take issue on the stance of completely taking jail time off the table for all sex offenses. I don't think I'm stupid and backwards for disagreeing with that stance.

No one has even come close to saying this. Pseudo, nor myself, are arguing that we replace jail with a group therapy session where everyone sits around a fire and sings kumbaya until everybody gets better and decides crime doesn't pay.

 

But more to my point, what needs to be redefined is "jail time". Scandinavian countries, I believe Norway in particular, have worked to change prison from "only punishment" to "punishment with a focus on rehabilitation". One of them even has prisons without locks on the cell doors. And, whaddya know, it works.

 

"Jail time" is fine with me. What's not fine is the American definition of what a prison system is and does, which results in extremely high rates of recidivism at an extremely high cost to the taxpaying public.

 

As for a life sentence for rape... if you don't see why that perpetuates a bad idea we've double- and triple-downed on already with little to no result, I don't really know what to say. The justice system *should* try to analyze the personal and societal impact of crime objectively, along with the potential for rehabilitation, and pass sentencing based on those criteria. Upping the sentence on a crime you severely dislike personally doesn't actually fix any problems, it just makes you feel good... in fact, it can actually damage any real progress to be made because you've "solved" the problem and moved on to other things, even though it's not actually solved at all.

 

Sexual assault does not exist on an island within the individual perpetuator. It's as much a mental health and societal issue as it is personal. Yet you only wish to address the personal aspect of the crime and expect the desired outcome to be achieved (and you wish the justice system to remain as currently constituted, it seems, as you haven't mentioned anything but changing of sentencing). Yet we have mountains of studies that show increased sentences don't actually reduce crime, but we have a fair amount of evidence that retooling the justice system actually does.