Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 40

Thread: How long do we hold people responsible for sins of the past?

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    3,410
    Quote Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore View Post
    I absolutely think people should be forgiven at a certain point and the past let go. Ha, sometimes this is after serving a sentence but no noone should be held responsible forever. It's cruel and unusual.

    It's like the Morgan Freeman character in the shawshank redemption, where he says something like: I don't even remember the young man who did that. It really is like this in real life sometimes where one's personality has so changed that they aren't the same person who did that once (although one first has to admit to the simple facts of having done what they did if they did it, even if the reasons are long forgotten. If they were too drug addled to even remember I don't know what to say). Even murderers should be forgiven at a certain point? Well yes, at a certain point IF it is likely they are no longer a danger to society (and I realize this gets into major gray areas of how to determine this). But that's the ultimate crime, everything else is less extreme.
    So the guy I know, (we both competed for the same girl and he got her) who was just released after his 25 years for murder, should have his 2nd amendment rights reinstituted?

    Also, I know of a church that declares forgiveness, while preaching about original sin. So this is a complex and often hypocritical issue.

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    5,315
    Cosby didn't even pretend to be sorry so he got 3-10 years in a maximum security prison. He is labeled a violent sexual predator. Lots of restrictions even if he lives to get out.

  3. #23
    Senior Member JaneV2.0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    9,374
    Andrew Luster got 105 years for a very similar crime in California. And, as I recall, he was remorseful.
    His sentence was later reduced to 50 years. Either Cosby was very lucky, or Luster was not.

  4. #24
    Senior Member dmc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    974
    Quote Originally Posted by ToomuchStuff View Post
    So the guy I know, (we both competed for the same girl and he got her) who was just released after his 25 years for murder, should have his 2nd amendment rights reinstituted?

    Also, I know of a church that declares forgiveness, while preaching about original sin. So this is a complex and often hypocritical issue.
    If he did the full term and is not on parole, why should he be denied a constitutional right? Who gets to chose what rights he has after he has done his time?

    What if a 17 year old went for a joyride and was convicted. Can he never own a shotgun and go hunting again?

    what about voting?

    Curently you cant own a gun if you ever committed a felony. It doesnt matter what the felony was. Im not sure if you can vote in some states if your a felon either.

  5. #25
    Senior Member Ultralight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    8,693
    I am curious about how people are held responsible not just in the past, but in this era.

    A coworker of mine told me about a sort-of-friend of hers. Apparently her sort of friend posted a statement on facebook and her other social media accusing an ex boyfriend of raping her (the sort of friend), being sexually manipulative, and of sexually abusing her.

    She said something like: "Joe Schmoe is a rapist. He raped me several years ago. He is also sexually manipulative and he is my abuser. I confronted him last year and he admitted to raping me and being sexually manipulative. Joe claims to be a feminist and marched to support Black Lives Matter. But he is really a rapist. And I am announcing this to prevent him from ever holding a position of power of any kind. I also want to prevent him from raping other women."

    No arrest. No police investigation. No trial. No jury. No conviction.

    Just social media.

    I don't know if the guy responded.
    I came from a real tough neighborhood. I put my hand in some cement and felt another hand." -- Rodney Dangerfield

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    367
    Quote Originally Posted by Ultralight View Post
    I am curious about how people are held responsible not just in the past, but in this era.

    A coworker of mine told me about a sort-of-friend of hers. Apparently her sort of friend posted a statement on facebook and her other social media accusing an ex boyfriend of raping her (the sort of friend), being sexually manipulative, and of sexually abusing her.

    She said something like: "Joe Schmoe is a rapist. He raped me several years ago. He is also sexually manipulative and he is my abuser. I confronted him last year and he admitted to raping me and being sexually manipulative. Joe claims to be a feminist and marched to support Black Lives Matter. But he is really a rapist. And I am announcing this to prevent him from ever holding a position of power of any kind. I also want to prevent him from raping other women."

    No arrest. No police investigation. No trial. No jury. No conviction.

    Just social media.

    I don't know if the guy responded.
    Assuming the guy didn't actually do any of that stuff, that's why we have libel laws. If he's not a public figure and took her to civil court, I think the burden of proof would be on her to show she wasn't just being malicious.

    The problem of false accusations of sex crimes is a real one, however. Such accusations may be rare, but they do happen, which is why maintaining due process is so important. Real sexual assault is a serious crime that needs to be investigated by police and prosecuted in a court of law. Trouble is, people need to be reminded that clumsy flirting isn't harassment, and bad sex isn't rape.

    None of which bears on the Kavanaugh case, as far as I'm concerned. It's not a trial; it's a job interview. An employer can reject a job applicant for pretty much any reason they like, except for certain protected classes, none of which Kavanaugh belongs to.

  7. #27
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    3,914
    Quote Originally Posted by dmc View Post
    If he did the full term and is not on parole, why should he be denied a constitutional right? Who gets to chose what rights he has after he has done his time?

    What if a 17 year old went for a joyride and was convicted. Can he never own a shotgun and go hunting again?

    what about voting?

    Curently you cant own a gun if you ever committed a felony. It doesn’t matter what the felony was. I’m not sure if you can vote in some states if your a felon either.
    While I agree that conviction of "any" felony should not bar one from owning a gun, or voting, if they have served their time I'm on the fence about restoring second amendment rights if that felony involved using a gun to harm someone. And I could probably be convinced that if the felony had to do with violating election laws that maybe restoration of voting rights should not be granted either although I don't have a solid opinion on that one way or the other at this point.

    I'm also on the fence about sexual offender registries. I like the idea but I think that as currently administered they tend to be waaaaay too broad. Someone who pees on the side of a building because they were drunk, walking down the street and needed to pee can be convicted of indecent exposure and placed on a registry even if the only person around is the police officer who happened to see them. Or someone who, as a teen, took a naked pic of themselves to send to their boyfriend/girlfriend can be convicted of possession of child porn and be put on a registry. In cases like this the punishment is way worse than the crime.

  8. #28
    Senior Member Ultralight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    8,693
    Quote Originally Posted by oldhat View Post
    Assuming the guy didn't actually do any of that stuff, that's why we have libel laws. If he's not a public figure and took her to civil court, I think the burden of proof would be on her to show she wasn't just being malicious.
    I don't know if the guy did any of that or not. I don't know if my colleague's sort-of-friend is telling the truth or lying. It seems to be a police investigation should be in order, and all sorts of legal stuff.

    Trial by social media is a messed up thing. The colleague of mine and her boss were talking about this and they are in full support of this woman and think other women should do the same.

    I asked them if they wanted a society where "trial by social media" was an acceptable way to handle accusations of horrible crimes, and they thought it was. They said: "Women have no other way to get justice."
    I came from a real tough neighborhood. I put my hand in some cement and felt another hand." -- Rodney Dangerfield

  9. #29
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Ultralight View Post

    I asked them if they wanted a society where "trial by social media" was an acceptable way to handle accusations of horrible crimes, and they thought it was. They said: "Women have no other way to get justice."

    That sentence nails the problem. Here in the US, we have a problem with trying cases of sexual assault. I'm old enough that I can remember when women who had been raped were advised not to press charges, because of what would happen to them during the trial. Every past sexual encounter would be dragged up and used to show that the victim of the rape had been "asking for it." We had to pass laws that prior sexual encounters could not be used in judging a rape case.

    Think about that. The victim was basically put on trial for being a woman who had sex.

    Things are slightly better today, but not by much. Look at the Brock Turner case. Friends of Brock Turner think that having to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life is too harsh a punishment. His father can't believe that 20 minutes in the life of a 20 year old should affect his entire future. On the other side of the argument, Turner's punishment is seen as a slap on the wrist, not nearly enough to compensate for what he did.

    Or do some research on the Taylor Swift case, where a DJ sued her, because she complained to his employer that he touched her inappropriately and the employer fired him. Look at some of the questions she was asked--even today, women are questioned as to how their choice of clothing might have led to the assault, instead of the default being men just being expected to keep their hands to themselves.

    A great many women do feel that courts are not treating the victims of sexual assault fairly. Until that changes, some of them will use what means they can. I'm not sure I condone this, but I sure as heck understand the motives behind it.

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    6,902
    well holding people accountable and how long assumes they actually did something (which is likely the case here) but thoroughly false accusations, they could very well be used as a bullying tactic.

    Bullying is at least as common and prevalent a dark side of human nature as sexual harassment (sexual assault is probably less common but I don't know). I guess look at the power dynamics at play, if people are ganging up on someone without power anyway (not the case here though politics may be the case), there is a decent chance it's bullying (but it could also be true - well yea that's the problem of determining the facts).
    If you want something to get done, ask a busy person. If you want them to have a nervous breakdown that is.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •