14 year old rapist

Wilde · Jul 14th 2005

For the third time, more than the couple of quoted sentences has told. DonÂ´t be a cynic about anotherÂ´s compassion. If youÂ´re speculating about the control complex, facts are overwhelmingly against you. And if your experience is of this control complex, donÂ´t project that over others who perhaps have more profound impulses than base, animalistic domination. Pity is feeeling sorry for someone. So no, compassion is not pity. Compassion, true compassion, is love. A desire to help. While you are right, this results in a changing of actions and thoughts, the intention is key. And the intention is not to propagate once again the Master and Slave complex, but to help another human being. If you canÂ´t understand that, donÂ´t cover it up in a mask of cynicism. Edited by - Wilde on 7/14/2005 6:51:36 PM

Aliens! Aaaah, aliens! · Jul 14th 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>the Master and Slave complex <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE> And I´m the one projecting? Riiiiight. I never once said anything about masters or slaves or anything even remotely approaching that. You assumed a whole lot. Control in and of itself isn´t bad. And it´s not the intentions behind it that are important either. No, intentions are just something to hide behind if things don´t go as planned. What´s truly important is the outcome. If people are made happy, then the control is fine. If people suffer then, well, things aren´t so rosy and you just have to accept responsibility, "Yes, I did exert some control over this person, and yes, the results were bad. I apologize and will pay the price." That sort of thing. Oh, and I´d appreciate it if you´d lay off the assumptions about me, my experiences, impulses and the like. Not for my sake, mind you. You just look like a real idiot doing so. "No, don´t judge the rapist! You don´t know anything about him!" yet "You´re projecting! And cynical and animal and presumptuous!" One thing that´s plainly evident is that you´re a hypocrite of the highest order.

Wilde · Jul 14th 2005

Another thing to note is the use of the word "if", also representing a possibility. Meaning it could be the case. That would be the second time that you´ve ignored the use of possibility implying words, misinterpreting completely the sentences and making an ass out of yourself. I wasn´t calling you base and animalistic. Frankly, every post on the nature of morality that you´ve made carried a distinct air of cynicism. Please excuse me if you didn´t mean for that to come across, but it did. Oh, and pardon me. You were only going on about control like there´s no tomorrow. Of course I was wrong to take that and connect it to the actual psychological control drive. Edited by - Wilde on 7/14/2005 8:23:55 PM

Balthazar Furious · Jul 14th 2005

Wilde, while you have the right idea about not judging him based on the article, the idea is not so functional when tested. The article is objective in nature, not subjective. They are simply relaying the facts given to them. As for punishing him with death however, that is going too far. What gives you the right to decide to end someone elseÂ´s life? Obviously this child has psychological problems, it is very unlikely he had malicious intentions, most likely he was acting on impulse, couldnÂ´t control his urges. The blame rests less on the child and more on the parents as someone alluded to earlier. I believe that if children commit criminal offences of such a serious nature at such an early age, the parents should be held partly accountable and face criminal charges of their own. There was a case here in New Zealand of a Maori boy who ordered some pizza over the phone with his friends. When the Chinese delivery man came, he had to go down a dark driveway and half-way along, the boy assaulted the man with a baseball bat, and proceeded to keep hitting him until he died of his injuries. That boyÂ´s age was 12. Now in America they have a very good name for this kind of criminal offence. Negligent homicide. The parents should be charged with negligent homocide for raising a child so poorly and neglecting to make sure he was home at night. The same goes for the parents of this one, criminal activity at that age is almost always the fault of the parents and they should be accountable for their incompetance or indifference. ------------------------------- The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We donÂ´t just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary. - James D. Nicoll Ich liebe dich Luke, mein teurer Schatz. - Kieran Love blinds us to faults, but hatred blinds us to virtues. - Iba Ezra Edited by - Balthazar Furious on 7/15/2005 7:19:54 AM

Aliens! Aaaah, aliens! · Jul 15th 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>So donÂ´t presume. <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>DonÂ´t be a cynic ... itÂ´s presumptuous. <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>I take it then you have no understanding of the meaning of the word "compassion". Interesting. <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE> If? Consistency is your friend. Tossing in one or two prepositions here and there is meaningless. And it renders anything else you try to modify irrelevant since obviously when you say "if", you mean "because". <BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>Of course I was wrong to take that and connect it to the actual psychological control drive. <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes. Yes you were. I give you Exhibit A: "Have you studied any Ayer or Stevenson?" It would seem that you havenÂ´t. However, you could easily have looked them up. If you had, you would have seen that they werenÂ´t psychologists. Nevermind the fact that my mention of logical positivism and emotivism should have clued you in on the fact that I wasnÂ´t interested in psychology, given that emotivism in particular is non-cognitivist. Balthazar - IÂ´ve always been a bit leery of blaming the parents. Ulimately, while they may be responsible for raising the teen poorly, they did not commit the crime. You want to punish them? Then mete it out for something they actually did. Otherwise, whatÂ´s the point? It wonÂ´t stop the kid from reoffending, and it wonÂ´t stop stupid parents from raising tragic children. I do agree that the parents should be punished, but really their punishment should be over and above the consequences given to the teen. As far as the specifics of the punishment go, you ask, "What gives you the right to decide to end someone elseÂ´s life?" Well, one could argue that, in violating not one, but four young girlsÂ´ rights to bodily privacy, the boy has given up his own right to life. Of course this does assume he was cognizant of his own actions, something which you and Wilde - perhaps rightly - shy away from assuming. However, after doing a bit of research IÂ´ve come across an article which seems to show that the boy is at least aware enough to be tried in court. <BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>Teenager in court on rape charges Press Association Thursday July 14, 2005 A 14-year-old boy appeared before Salford magistrates today on charges of rape against four schoolgirls. The four girls were allegedly attacked after playing on swings in a park in Salford, Greater Manchester, on Sunday. The teenager, who cannot be named for legal reasons, is accused of raping the two eight-year-olds, a seven-year-old and a 10-year-old in a secluded area of Mandley Park. Dressed in a green T-shirt and with cropped ginger hair, the youth spoke to confirm his name and personal details. Article continues His grandmother and aunt attended the 15-minute hearing at Salford magistrates court. His aunt sobbed as the charges were read out while the youth remained emotionless. The attacks allegedly took place between 5pm and 6.40pm at the park, which is close to Leicester Road in Salford. The boy was arrested at around 3.25am on Monday and charged with the offences yesterday afternoon. No plea was entered and reporting restrictions were not lifted. He was remanded in custody to appear at ManchesterÂ´s Minshull Street crown court on July 21. <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE> The lack of emotion may indicate that heÂ´s some sort of sociopath, but thatÂ´s not really surprising since most teenage boys are, to a certain degree. In none of the articles IÂ´ve managed to find is there any mention of mental illness. Not even a hint. Now, there could be something undisclosed or undiagnosed at this point, but one would think that by now information of that relevance would have at least been hinted at. Parenting is still a possible issue, but you already know how I feel about that.

The Evil Thing · Jul 15th 2005

Aliens, IÂ´m trying to find corroborating stories but I need more info. You cannot base a balanced view on a single source. I donÂ´t know what to look for, IÂ´ve tried BBC, Channel 5 and Google but have got nothing. Can you give me your source so I can do my own research? Wilde (said a while back) <BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>What has changed is that society is more conscientious of basic human and civil rights--well, relatively. When compared to the Victorian ages. <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE> And just what are "Civil Rights"? Why are we to be granted these freedoms? Why are we entitled to them by default? Restraint on the part of the government which is always determined (at least in most democratic nations) to appear more liberal and more willing to grant freedoms so as to persuade the electorate that they are the best choice. Notice that the same governments who do not exercise as much restraint as others are the autocratic ones. In other words, we are spoiled by our governments and demand more and more, so when a government introduces a concept that seems to impede of these so-called "civil liberties" there is uproar and that government can expect to lose the next election if the outcry is strong enough. Sorry, for the late response but the server was down last night so I couldnÂ´t post then. ItÂ´s no longer relevant but I want to sound deeply philosophical <img src=smilies/icon_smile_tongue.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> Balthazar Would it be wise to charge parents of negligent (not negligible <img src=smilies/icon_smile_wink.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle>) homicide as a matter of course? Seeing as it is likely that psychosis, sociopathy and/or extreme violent inclinations are in fact genetic, should the parents be to blame for having a child with incorrect combinations of genes? Aliens is right to an extent, they are responsible for the childÂ´s correct upbringing but it is hardly fair to expect them to watch the childÂ´s every move as though he were the suspect of a violent serial murder case.

Balthazar Furious · Jul 15th 2005

While you do get psychos sometimes who simply have mental problems, almost every quirk in someoneÂ´s personality can be traced back to the parents raising them. When you get sociopaths, they usually arenÂ´t born like that. It was how they were raised, certain things the parents did and didnÂ´t do at critical moments of the childÂ´s life. If you say there is no hint of a mental illness then that only strengthens my arguement. It proves that the parents are even more responsible and that it wasnÂ´t the result of something they couldnÂ´t control. It is possible to see an emerging sociopath and sometimes serial killer in 2-3 year olds that is the result of the childÂ´s behaviour and the parentsÂ´ failures to control it or change it. The violation of the bodies of others warrents taking the life of the offender? ThatÂ´s even harsher than an eye for an eye. The punishment wouldnÂ´t fit the crime, it would exceed it. The parents of the offender would have had plenty of parental support and organisations to give them advice on proper parenting, there is no excuse to fail in raising a child with no mental disorders properly. Most likely the parents didnÂ´t even care. Stupid parents need a wake up call, a lesson to all the other stupid parents. When they raise their children poorly, people get killed later on as a result, people suffer as a result. They are helping to raise the next generation of criminals. The people robbing, maiming, killing and much more without any remorse. Edit: Oh and thatÂ´s (negligible homocide) what they said on CSI: New York, so blame them. Edited by - Balthazar Furious on 7/15/2005 7:19:24 AM

Wilde · Jul 15th 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>Frankly, every post on the nature of morality that youÂ´ve made carried a distinct air of cynicism. Please excuse me if you didnÂ´t mean for that to come across, but it did. <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh, did you miss that? Did I say "if" applied to everything I said? And where it didnÂ´t, did I just stand there hoping you wouldnÂ´t notice? Or reply with this : <BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>Another thing to note is the use of the word "if", also representing a possibility. Meaning it could be the case. That would be the second time that youÂ´ve ignored the use of possibility implying words, misinterpreting completely the sentences and making an ass out of yourself. I wasnÂ´t calling you base and animalistic. Frankly, every post on the nature of morality that youÂ´ve made carried a distinct air of cynicism . Please excuse me if you didnÂ´t mean for that to come across, but it did. Oh, and pardon me. You were only going on about control like thereÂ´s no tomorrow. Of course I was wrong to take that and connect it to the actual psychological control drive. <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE> Note the parts in bold, where I defend what I said where there was no if. And arenÂ´t you being presumptuous by saying that when I say "if" I mean "because"? And furthermore...I didnÂ´t take you up on your reference, so whatÂ´s your point. I repeat again, you were going on about control like thereÂ´s no tomorrow. So excuse the Hegelian reference. Also, wouldnÂ´t it be worse if he turned out to be a psychopath, thereby completely incapable of feeling any basic sympathy, empathy, or pity, rather than just a hormone-ridden and immoral teenager (which is one of many possibilities, IÂ´m not saying that it is the case, or defending him, or lessening his crime in any way, et cetera)?

<DS9>Phoenix · Jul 15th 2005

Am i the only one who thinks people are getting just a little carried away here? and like a phoenix iÂ´ll return from the ashes....with the help of the re-spawn key<img src=smilies/icon_smile_tongue.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle>

The Evil Thing · Jul 15th 2005

Balthazar How did you discern all of this from the article? Perhpas the parents were simply too busy trying to put food on the table to give him their undivided attention? This is a sad fact of life but many working class families really do struggle and children are often left to their own devices while parents earn money. This sort of background is where most of the child criminals come from. Surely you donÂ´t intend to punish parents for being poor <img src=smilies/icon_smile_wink.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> As for negligible homicide... I knew TV was a bad influence! <img src=smilies/icon_smile_tongue.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> Edited by - The Evil Thing on 7/15/2005 7:36:54 AM

The Evil Thing · Jul 15th 2005

Yep, youÂ´re the only one <img src=smilies/icon_smile_tongue.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle>

Balthazar Furious · Jul 15th 2005

My mother managed to raise a family of four boys on her own while still working. No one helped her, no one supported her. Yet she managed to do a damn good job and none of my brothers rape or murder people or have no compassion or soul.

athena · Jul 15th 2005

Those poor girls. It will be hard work for their parents to reverse any trauma caused. They would need to live with it for the rest of their lives as a memory, no matter how hard they try to block it out. Death is too lenient a penalty. And jail is an unfair penalty to the taxpayers. <img src=smilies/icon_smile_sad.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle>

Wilde · Jul 15th 2005

Jail is probably worse than death, for the most part. Lock someone away in a bleak, hostile environment for years on end and forget about them.

<DS9>Phoenix · Jul 15th 2005

The Evil Thing ,cheers..iÂ´ll go back to my corner now <img src=smilies/icon_smile_tongue.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle>

Cold_Void · Jul 15th 2005

@ Balthazar, how can you say the subject has no soul?doesnÂ´t that deny us even the satisfaction of knowing that you-know-who will deal with him in His own way in the afterlife?

Wilde · Jul 15th 2005

Ahem. Going over the precipice into religion. Plus youÂ´re working with another definition of the word <img src=smilies/icon_smile_wink.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle>

Aliens! Aaaah, aliens! · Jul 15th 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>The violation of the bodies of others warrents taking the life of the offender? ThatÂ´s even harsher than an eye for an eye. The punishment wouldnÂ´t fit the crime, it would exceed it. <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE> How is it harsher? The girls will have to live the rest of their lives with the memories of being stripped of one of their two most fundamental of human rights (the other being the right to life; think about it, either one is pointless without the other). If the boy is killed, heÂ´ll be too damn dead to worry about anything. Death could be as much a release as it is a punishment in this case. Overall IÂ´m inclined to agree with athena. <BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>Jail is probably worse than death, for the most part. Lock someone away in a bleak, hostile environment for years on end and forget about them. <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE> DonÂ´t forget the prison rape. ThatÂ´s pretty damn awful, too. And, truthfully, I donÂ´t think I could wish it on anyone, even a convicted rapist. <BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>... you-know-who will deal with him ... <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE> Voldemort? <img src=smilies/icon_smile_tongue.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> <BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>I really love these quote box things. TheyÂ´re fun. <img src=smilies/icon_smile_big.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE>

bret bretonian · Jul 15th 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>Jail is probably worse than death <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE> Castration is the only punishment for rapists. A rapist is worse than a murderer, at least the person that is dead will not suffer a lifetime of hell. A rape victim does.

Finalday · Jul 15th 2005

In the states, an adult child molester/rapist, jail IS far worse. Inmates in jail have children and do not take kindly that they are harmed, even though they themselves are murderes. They some times take matters into thier own hand in jail. This case however, the boy needs to be evaluated, he is after all only 14. To destroy another life surves no purpose if it can be redeamed. There are cases where the rape victum has come to terms with what happened to them and forgave the rapists to the point of speaking for them at hearings cioncering parole. This would only apply to repentent criminals, as one who likes this type of thing, would only do it again if he gets out. Case in point, in Idaho, a convicted child molester out, wanted on another molestation charge, kidnaps 2 childrens, obuses them and kills one of them. Why was he out of jail? There needs to be a uniform way to deal with them, rehabilitate if possible, but protect the public from them. *Gets down off soap box* Edited by - Finalday on 7/15/2005 4:39:14 PM

Share