The blogosphere is once again in an uproar over comments made by a male blogger, this time Steve Gillard. He comments on the Natalee Holloway situation and basically asks the question how did this even happen in the first place and why hasn't the media reported on that part of the story.
Really he has a point, how many times are children injured or killed when it could have been prevented? Look at the Michael Jackson case, how many responsible parents would let their child sleep in the same bed as him? The case of the five year old girl here in Toledo that was raped, don't know about you but I would tend to say "No thanks" to letting one of my children stay at the house of a man who not only did crack but had a prior jail record.
If I had the financial means to allow my kids to go off to Aruba to celebrate graduating would I? HELL NO!!! not if there were only one chaperone for 30 students, not if I knew they were going to be allowed to drink and party, the legal age for drinking may be different in Aruba but here? Letting kids who probably had no real experience with drinking given here in the States it is illegal alone is not a smart move. As a mother with four daughters and having had personal experience with rape, it's something you should worry about and warn your children about, the same way as you tell them "look both ways before you cross the street". Sure just because they may cross that street 100 times doesn't mean the one time they don't look there won't be a car there.
While Steve is being taken to task for having a "blame the victim" mentality, that's not the way I took what he wrote. I don't agree with some of his comments on the whole "American sexual schizophrenia", but I am commenting here just alone on what to me is the main basis of his blog. He never said she deserved what happened to her, he stated:
Sure, she made bad decisions, but they shouldn't have the death penalty attached to them.
Should she have left that bar with three men? Of course not, had there been proper supervision or to be even more logical kids that age not been out drinking and partying that late to begin with, none of this would have happened. Not all men are monsters, but the reality is better to be safe than sorry, or in this case end up missing or dead. So according to her friends she thought she knew this guy, someone still should have been aware she was leaving. That doesn't mean that excuses the three men involved behavior in any way shape or form, they bear the ultimate responsibility in this situation if it turns out they are guilty.
But that doesnt make me from continuing to ask? Do we have to help things like this happen? Shouldn't we as parents exhibit more common sense in making sure our children are protected?
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The Details...
Financial resources & Fun!
Financial Resources:
Corporate Recovery
With a shaky stock market, now's a great time to invest in diamonds.
Fun!
Yard Signs Cheap
Yard Signs Cheap
Corporate Recovery
With a shaky stock market, now's a great time to invest in diamonds.
Fun!
Yard Signs Cheap
Yard Signs Cheap
Regular Reads
History Mike's Musings
Toledo Tales
Hooda Thunkit
Aaron's Blog
Along the Tracks
The Glitch
Roland's Ramblings
Judy's Jewels
I think about by Valbee
Toledo Speaks Out
Maggie Thurber's Thoughts
Color Orange Art
The Yippie Show
Progressive Toledo
Thoughts on TPS
Shanahan Select
Make A Difference
Toledo Perspectives
Toledo Tales
Hooda Thunkit
Aaron's Blog
Along the Tracks
The Glitch
Roland's Ramblings
Judy's Jewels
I think about by Valbee
Toledo Speaks Out
Maggie Thurber's Thoughts
Color Orange Art
The Yippie Show
Progressive Toledo
Thoughts on TPS
Shanahan Select
Make A Difference
Toledo Perspectives
Blog Archive
...
...
Thank you!
Thanks for visiting Liberal Common Sense...
5 comments:
I Agree with 100%, Lisa. Unfornately thier are parents that just don't think when it comes to having their children go out, or in this case, leave the country. My ten year old has been out for sleepovers and girl scout outings. She was in Vermont for a week with her friends family. But we knew that their were adults who we trusted with our child. I know that the adults that she was with we have to be killed before anything bad happened to her. The children of the 60s and 70s are still too trusting and the bad things are happening to their children
As for dottie's comment. My wife is in total agreement with you. Unfornately theirs that amendment about cruel and unusual punishment in the Constitution that you would have to get around. Maybe if the Supreme Court would define cruel and unusual, then maybe we can start castrating rapists. I still think a 25 cent bullet would be better, but what do I know?
Rape is about power not about sex so castrating some of these men would not stop them from abusing women or children. Do I believe that someone who has HIV or AIDS and rapes a child should get either life with no parole or the death penalty? Yep...unti they day they have a cure for AIDS anyone who purposely does that to another human being should be treated the same way as if they killed that person, because in reality they have.
I agree with you lisa, that what you're talking about here is entirely a power relationship, and not sexual in the normal functioning way. I have very close friends and family members who've been vistims. But that being said, I'm really uncomfortable with the way our justice system currently treats sex offenders.
First of all, we're putting most offenders into a situation that won't improve their behavior - prison isn't going to reform these individuals. If there's any surefire way to turn someone into a repeat offender, it's to put them in prison for a while/
Then, when they're released, we're coming up with some pretty bizarre, and also pretty ineffective methods for controlling them after release. It's those methods - registries, Megan's law, castritions etc that I'm uncomfortable with. I'm uncomfortable with them because they seem frighteningly unconstitutional - and if these individuals are so dangerous in the first place, why are we releasing them at all?
Finally, we're often treating this sort of behavior only as a serious criminal offense - which it no doubt is - rather than as both a criminal offense and a serious psychological illness. Right now, we're usually only looking for vengeance. Understandable, but perhaps not societally productive.
I think we need to re-consider the pre-1980's style "institutionalization" options. Permanent psychiatric confinement for these individuals. They're clearly sick. They're clearly not going to be accepted back into the general population (often for good reason) - the only real option is long term treatment.
I'd have to agree brew with the numbers of those that are repeat offenders or by the time they are finally caught have had more than one victim it's pretty obvious the current system isn't working. While I'm not sure how successful treatment is, releasing them after a sentence that is served knowing they are not "cured" should be changed.
I understand the desire for vengence and that is a first reaction of many of us in situations like this, however it has to go beyond that else we just keep allowing this to happen.
I do however strongly believe that if in the course of a sexual assualt HIV is transmitted to the victim it should be treated as at a minimum attempted murder in addition to any other charges.
Post a Comment