Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

CincyStout t1_iuf401i wrote

The guy is 72. He likely has either been a scumbag for his entire life, or is dealing with some dementia that's causing him to act this way. I say this with absolutely no medical background or knowledge of the situation beyond the details in this article.

220

prone2scone t1_iuglgd5 wrote

My Google machine tells me he’s a registered sex offender with a “forcible rape” conviction from 1988, so your “scumbag his entire life” intuition is a fair bet.

191

Kilvayne t1_iugvlwa wrote

Never knew there was such thing as "non-forcible rape"

34

MoonageDayscream t1_iugx3vd wrote

An unconscious or drugged person cannot consent by default, so there no force would be necessary.

66

Kilvayne t1_iugxaui wrote

That makes sense. My brain just equated "forcible" to "non-consensual"

25

PhlabloPicasso t1_iuhtwod wrote

I think it’s more a delineation for attacks on minors, where some can “consent” (I use that word as loosely as possible) due to being groomed and abused for their entire lives.

9

JubeltheBear t1_iuhtfe9 wrote

Is that how the law states it?

2

MoonageDayscream t1_iui52iu wrote

What do you mean?

3

JubeltheBear t1_iui5yid wrote

Just curious if that’s the actual legal definition. Granted different places have different laws.

2

MoonageDayscream t1_iuj9ph1 wrote

Legal definition? I don't know if they actually do what you are looking for here. There's a statute for forcible rape and one or more for non forcible. They are left vague so they they cover many situations, and the prosecution has the opportunity to decide which fit best.

Some people don't believe that certain situations are "real rape". I have heard arguments that if the victim was unconscious then it wasn't "rape rape" because she didn't know it was happening. Same for those in a medical facility raped by a caregiver while they were sedated. It's horrifying to hear this argument. Some people think that consent can't be revoked, that going outside agreed parameters (like wearing a condom) isn't a violation of consent, etc.

3

Derrick_Mur t1_iufbm6e wrote

It may be a little of both. For example, he may have always been a pedophile scumbag but developed some mental condition that prevents him from hiding it anymore

92

tronaldmcdump t1_iufukft wrote

Here is where a very smart person comes in and presents a third level of depth and nuance to the discussion. Unfortunately, I am not that person.

42

Romano16 t1_iufcwka wrote

Sorry I don’t believe the old “I have dementia” excuse every time something deplorable or racist is done.

43

BeautifulType t1_iugd6zr wrote

Typical Reddit making up excuses for a piece of shit instead of just accepting the facts that the dude is a piece of shit

17

imnota4 t1_iugen65 wrote

True but I do genuinely believe that our thoughts and actions are not the same normally. Most people have thoughts they won't act on. If a mental illness prevents you from properly filtering your thoughts, you may act on things you normally wouldn't.

To add to this, I also genuinely believe that anyone older than like 30 has had their cognitive functions detrimentally impacted by poisons like lead gasoline, lead pipes, asbestos, etc... that have become less common since the end of the 80's. And I think the scale of this detrimental damage increases the farther back you go.

10

Sp3ctre_6 t1_iugiapj wrote

As per usual, ignorant, untrained people chime in and dismiss mental health.

7

Crom_3 t1_iuh7ghd wrote

Sadly, there comes a point where a person is a danger to others and I don't care about their mental health anymore. Too often someone is brought in on a 72 hr hold where you force them to take their meds and stabilize them, then turn them lose to stop taking their meds and become a danger to others. Or a child molester is kept in prison where he cannot molest kids, then released into society with the same desires that got him arrested in the first place.

Either lock them up where they can get treatment and supervision, and there are plenty of programs and mental health outreach for that, or put them down as humanely as possible.

Instead we keep releasing them in an attempt to be compassionate and give them a second chance and they reoffend, and that's not fair to the victims they hurt. I feel the same way about career violent criminals and vicious dogs who attack people. Sorry, but my sadness over your wasted life of violence, your fault or not, is outweighed by my concern for your victims.

5

Blenderx06 t1_iuhaeb5 wrote

No one is suggesting we let them go free.

5

Crom_3 t1_iujq33p wrote

Nice strawman argument. I'm not saying anyone is advocating for them to go free, but too often that's the end result and they reoffend and hurt a new victim. You cannot deny that.

−1

Blenderx06 t1_iujybgc wrote

You clearly don't know what that word means. And you sound like miserable person.

1

moon_then_mars t1_iujd13l wrote

Here's the thing about mental illness causing people to harm others... I don't care that it's not "You in there" doing that shit or not fair or your fault that it's happening to you. Doesn't matter. All that matters is whether you are a threat or are not a threat. If you are a threat, then society can treat you as a threat and doesn't ethically need to consider why you are a threat until you stop yourself or someone stops you. Once you are no longer a threat, society can reflect on it and feel however they want then.

1