Once a rapist or pedophile, always a rapist or pedophile.
These people do not change, ever. And they know it too.
Dangerous individuals don't think they ever did anything wrong.
Stay clear of these predators.
Many or the majority of rapists get away with their crimes.
And we would be very surprised at not only the large amount of them but who they pretend to be in their daily lives. They do not have a guilty conscience.
4
This is decided irrational, I confess, but I would be happy with nothing less than complete surgical removal of my attacker's genitalia. Then he gets to think about it every day for the rest of his life, too.
2
Death sentence? Castration including the testicles would be remedy enough for me.
2
Horrifying and fascinating journey you took us on, Ms. Carlson. Thank you for your courage. Your words stirred me to the core as the survivor of attempted murder, back before I ever heard the words "domestic violence," when what a man did to a child in the privacy of his own home was not something the police were called in for, unless that child was actually murdered.
More than fifty years later I don't expect to fully recover. My favorite punishment is this recurring fantasy. He is tied to a stake in a public place. For days on end long lines of people walk past him and spit in his face and call him names I don't believe that I can write here: "You are a ____ ____." I give myself great comfort imagining this scene.
1
First, Ms. Carlson, while I would not at all wish to dictate how you process what was done to you, this monster does not belong to you. He is not "my rapist", he is a vicious criminal and you are his victim. You do not owe him any spot or hold in your life.
Second, while I completely understand and respect your feelings toward this scumbag, the criminal justice system is structured to represent society as a more or less objective adjudicant of criminal situations. Your utterly understandable feelings do not direct the proceedings any more than his repulsive lust for power, control and brutality. You are not burdened with the responsibility for what is done to him, and you are not required to evaluate his motivations or extenuating factors.
There is raw justice - did he do these things - and there is punishment, which is more of a risk/reward balance. Were the circumstances such that he is very unlikely to do this to someone else? Is his brutality likely to inflict more damage on the body politic? Were his actions sufficiently heinous that no mitigation should be considered? This last can backfire badly, as attackers can and do kill if they think that they run no risk of additional punishment and are safer if they get rid of the person who can identify them.
The statute of limitations should not dictate when you are strong enough to demand justice from this abuser. But what is done to him is a weight you should not carry.
3
I wonder what prevents a person from naming the rapist.
I think it must be fear of retribution. But in this case it seems
that exposure may prick a little hole in that perfect little bubble
he seems to have created for himself, his mother, his wife and
his daughter. It is so wrong that he has gotten away with this
horrible crime. I am so sorry for your pain.
4
Solving the problem of crime and punishment in society in a rational manner?
The only solution I can see which simultaneously deters crime, brings equal justice to victim and perpetrator, and which cuts into, in many cases, the production of the criminal in the first place, is to design by engineering, neuroscience a technological system whereby humans are linked up much more emotionally than they are now, where our nervous systems and brains register each other's pain and pleasure more sensitively, thus preventing us from causing pain in the first place and working toward pleasure in the human.
In other words, imagine if by such a system a person were to attempt a rape: The system would cause the would be rapist to feel exactly what the victim feels at time of rape, thus dispensing justice immediately; the more the pain of victim, the harsher the justice dispensed directly into brain of perpetrator. Such a system could dispense entirely with rigmarole of court and sentencing and prison, not to mention arguments along Solomonic lines as to what is justice in the first place.
For centuries eminent people have argued that the human race is quite intelligent, we just don't have the empathy, the emotional connection to each other that we should have. Well, why not design a system, an Elon Musk project of direct brain communication especially emotionally? It would probably cut crime to point that we stop hurting so many who turn to crime in first place because hurt in past...
1
Many here seem to think that Ms. Carlson is calling for retributive justice. I don’t think she is. I think she is expressing the desire for retribution, which, in my opinion, is perfectly rational from her perspective. She doesn’t expect it, but how can she help but want it?
Some others here seem to feel the need to reference victims who mistakenly accused someone, whose conviction was later overturned by DNA evidence or similar technological advances. They clearly did not pay attention to Ms. Carlson’s accounting of being raped for YEARS. Her knowledge of her attacker’s guilt is not in doubt. Give her the courtesy of considering her situation accurately, please.
I am in awe of Ms. Carlson’s ability to be so frank, and insightful, and logical, and so genuine all at the same time. She is a truly impressive person, and I appreciate very much this piece, as we all search for the balance of what justice means, how it can be fairly administered, and how we can find the balance between what a victim is owed by society, and what is necessary for the convicted. It seems terribly inadequate that our laws spend so much time guaranteeing the rights of the accused, necessary as those guarantees are, but a victim is guaranteed nothing.
Statutes of limitations for rape or child abuse seem to me to be absolutely insane, and unacceptable. I wonder if there is a legal way to challenge such limits.
5
1800 Words to explain her desire for revenge. No explanation needed.
9
I've spent a career in the criminal courts (I'm someone who already has a doctorate, and use it in daily practice; I'm not a "candidate" like the author). I'm made queasy by the casuistry expressed here in the service of outrage and emotion.
There's an important branch of philosophy called jurisprudence. I don't think the author specializes therein. If so, she and the many vindictive commenters, might express something other than a lust for vengeance.
Here's a thought experiment: we live in four dimensions. Just as in The Shawshank Redemption when the older Morgan Freeman gives his speech to the parole board about *actually* being a different person than the stupid kid who committed the crime, we must acknowledge a possibility of redemption over time. The "Red" character is, quite literally, not the same person as he was, despite sharing fingerprints. From Stephen King's lips to your ear. Or Shakespeare's, for that matter.
And it's not just the author; once only I got a speeding ticket, and attended 'traffic school' with my fellow citizens. One exercise that day was a case study of a drunk driver who, under terms of the thought experiment, was a "wet brain" addict without free will, and he committed vehicular homicide while drunk. Every other citizen in that class voted for death for the drunk driver as an appropriate punishment.
4
There is a dark shadow as we read this:
Betsy DeVos is now Secretary of Education, and wants to offer more protections to those who might be accused of the rape of College students.
I think the author's therapist led her down the wrong alley.
"Would a high, or even ultimate sentence for your rapist give you back your love of life?" would have been a much better question than "what do you think he deserves?" That is potentially a very destructive question, because if things go wrong, it binds the victim closer to the perpetrator, instead of freeing her. Maybe the therapist expected her to give a rueful smile, and say "I guess it doesn't matter", but that was too much to expect. Instead, she is now caught in useless fantasies of retribution.
4
The victims thoughts on sentencing are irrelevant. All that should be taken into consideration is the cost and benefit to society. Society is not your barbarous personal tools of vengeance.
3
I would be interested to know Ms. Carlson's rationale for stating that her rapist is living the life many people would want with a beautiful wife and healthy daughter? What woman in her right mind, if she knew, would want to be the wife or daughter of a rapist? He got away with his crime and, sadly, that means the man who victimized Ms. Carlson has probably done the same to others over the years. Does the leopard change its spots? For all we know, the rapist could well be raping his own "healthy" daughter. There is NO rational punishment for an irrational crime. The only scenario of a "rational" punishment for rape that I came up with is to have the ability to transform the rapist into the "perfect" victim and then toss the transformed rapist into a den of rapists and let them have at it. My irrational punishment is to cut off the rapist's man parts and stuff them down his throat, savoring every second it takes for him to die. Very Old Testament - the equivalent, in my book, of "An eye for an eye... ."
1
Castration. No brainer.
Once it's wielded as a weapon to inflict extreme violence, it should be treated like any other weapon. It should be taken away.
3
I think that the most compelling argument for the death penalty is to take the punishment out of the hands of the victim, or more likely the victim's friends and family. If somebody had raped my wife or my daughter I would definitely kill him if I could do so and get away with it.... maybe even if I couldn't get away with it.
When the state takes over the job, it short-circuits the cycle of vengeance.
2
Ms. Carlson makes a powrful argumemt. Criminals must be held responsible for their crimes regardless of their (unknown) prospects for rehabilitation. It is for judges and juries to decide guilt and innocence and sentences. The problem is the death sentence, which assumes certainty of total, unrehabilitatedable guilt.
The violence and torture the rapist inflicted on you requires the death penalty. It is only because society no longer believes in eternal life after death that we put such a high value on life, even the lives of the worst.
Many criminals age out of crime after 60 or 70, But that is irrelevant to my argument. The perpetrator gave you a natural life sentence. In return he deserves a natural life sentence if not the death penalty.
2
More than anything, I want victims to stop referring to the perpetrator as "MY abuser," "MY rapist." They are not yours and you are not theirs. Unless you find some kind of comfort or control from using their adjectives, they are THE person who raped or abused you. You owe them nothing and certainly not ownership or familial relationship.
2
Name him. Guarantee he did not rape only one woman in his life, and with publicity, perhaps others for whom the statute of limitations has not run out will come forward. Beyond that, his wife and his daughter deserve to know the truth. If it were my husband, I would want to know. And who is to say he is not abusing them? Odds are that his is. A man who could rape someone repeatedly over a three year period is seriously sadistic and irretrievably criminal. He didn't suddenly turn into a good person. Women are not safe around him.
5
I can't understand why you are wasting your time like this. Prosecution may not be possible but you can make the story public. Have you done so? Or do you need more therapy to reach that point?
5
RAPE is not rational. Lock them up for a very long time. Not just for well deserved punishment, but to greatly decrease a repeat performance. Second Rape, life sentence. No exceptions, no excuses. It's either that, the shameful status quo OR mandatory castrations. CHOOSE.
2
I recommend castration as the punishment for rape: You use it as a weapon, you loose it. It is a singularly appropriate punishment and the serious threat of loosing those favorite items would reduce the incidence of sexual assault overnight. This is not meant as a joke or sarcasm so bring on the shocked reactions.
2
If an adult does not get that it is wrong to rape or inflict violence on another, he is unfit to live in society & should be locked away or rendered harmless or incapable of harming another. Since sex crimes have lifelong traumatic effects on the victim, all income earned by the criminal should be paid to the victim --- this would provide some measure of justice.
This discussion is largely nugatory, as in reality a rapist has less than a 2% chance of being arrested, convicted & sentenced to any prison time. Basically rapists face no consequences. Most rapes go unreported, as women know that they will not be believed, that they will be shamed & blamed. Society cares so little for women that hundreds of thousands of rape kits remain untested, while rapists remain free.
Look at the women around you. Most have been raped, assaulted or harassed. Many suffer PTSD. The one men call a “crazy chick” was raped as a child by her stepfather. The one men call frigid had the natural joy in her body stolen from her by a rapist. The depressed one quit or did not pursue an occupation she loved because of what men did to her. The overweight girl with a blue hair & facial piercings is a rape victim, visibly wearing her pain, trying to make herself deliberately unattractive in hopes men will leave her alone. Victims are traumatized for life, while rapists are free to commit more crimes.
Adults do not change. There is no justice for women. Our best bet is to teach the children.
1
When 19 members of al-Qaeda attacked the U.S. military and financial institutions on September 11th, the country united to kill Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda in retribution. But when a woman is raped, and her life ruined, we speak compassionately of the murderer and the possibility of his rehabilitation. Rapists deserve capital punishment, full stop. That is what justice demands. That said, I don't believe that the state can be trusted with the power of capital punishment. It's a real dilemma.
2
Perhaps our ancestors understood human behavior better than we do....how about Public Flogging administered by those harmed. I am sure that would be considered "rational" by many. And me. Could be worth a try............
2
If it should happen that the person who raped you might be treated by a skillful therapist and after many years come to understand what had been inflicted upon you he might be expected to suffer endlessly from feelings of guilt, remorse and shame. His life would become just as miserable as yours has been but with little reason to ever expect relief or atonement.
My earlier comment did not pass inspection, so I will try again. If the author does not care to name her rapist, I have to question all of her wondering about whether she would like to see him dead. She doesn't even seem to care enough to "punish" him by just naming him. Can someone explain? I can't understand.
3
If you are willing to inflict the death penalty on your rapist because you are sure of his guilt, why would you deprive the families of murder victims the same release? Your argument about "flaws in the justice system" won't wash. For at least 99 out of 100 convicted murderers on death row, there is not the slightest doubt as to their guilt. Randy Kraft, the most egregious serial killer in California history, was found with a dead victim in his car. He was convicted at trial of 16 murders, and during sentencing the prosecution produced evidence of 50 other murders committed by Kraft out of state. He was sentenced to death in 1989, but lives on in prison, and will surely die a natural death of old age in prison. Is that justice?
Personally, I would likely live the rest of my life wanting retribution. But it is just self-punishing to focus too much on things we can never have. I am very skeptical of the likelihood of transforming rapists, whose lack of human empathy is too profound and ingrained for real transformation. I am skeptical that the family life of your rapist is or will remain as happy as you imagine it. The important thing is for you to build your own happiness without reference to this creep.
2
Most of our concepts of "justice" are remnants of systems fraught with moral and religious overtones.
Rather than "punishment", crimes should be followed by simple "consequences". Imagine the person who walks to close to the top edge of a 100-story building and falls. The "consequence" of his action is death. And what was he "guilty" of? Foolish and reckless behavior? Poor balance?
Regardless, he was "intentionally" there. Rapists don't rape unintentionally. And if they commit the act, they should suffer a simple and severe "consequence" for the act, a consequence that is not muddled in abstract moral discussions of "fair punishment."
And don't forget that people who "intentionally" step off 100-story buildings are usually labeled suicides. Suicide could handily work as a label for rapists.
And you know that the rapist/sexual abuser has gone on to other victims; just as likely his own daughters, too. He knows how to manipulate his victims to not report his crimes. This monster rarely stops unless imprisoned or dead. They often hide behind an identity of success and trust to have ready access to more victims. Should the victim of rape/sexual abuse protect the future list of victims-to-be?
3
Those who are calling for this unfortunate victim to NAME her rapist exhibit a naive understanding of how the law works. That being said, the question is what practically, would be a just closure to this abomination. Unfortunately, at this point there is none, other than the hope that Amber fulfills her dreams to their fullest extent. P.S. If I were Amber's father I would want to kill the creep. But, would that help ?
1
If one truly calls for 'an eye for an eye', then I would suggest that the rapist be imprisoned for 3 years with someone who will continually rape, humiliate and violate them as he did to this woman when she was young. Simple.
3
Thank you so much for writing this. Something's wrong in a world where we have to have complex philosophical conversations about whether a rapist should be put away. If he's in jail, he's not free to rape women or children with impunity. He doesn't deserve another chance to rape, and the rest of us do deserve not to be raped by him. Your first and simplest instincts about what should happen to him guided you well. Thank you for this piece and for the work you do.
How about these consequences.
Ten years of weekly domestic violence classes with weekly reporting to probation and marking their drivers license with an indication that they were a rapist.
1
Do you think you can gain healing by seeking vengeance? I say that not for lack of sympathy for you. But I believe that imaging retribution for your tormentor will not bring you peace. Which is what I wish for you.
2
How about him choosing castration or half his income for his life as well as a public apology and on a sex offenders list for life.
I episode could be excused , but multiple offenses are beyond forgiveness.
1
I agree with the other posters, who suggest you publicly name who this man is who repeatedly raped you. I simply can't think of a compelling reason why you wouldn't? It will bring a small measure of justice to the world and serve as a warning to other women of what this man has done in the past and may well do again.
1
People who are convicted of violent felonies like shooting somebody with a gun are (supposedly) prohibited from having a gun ever again. This does lead my mind to the obvious punishment for a rapist - remove his means of violence. We all know it’s not about sex.
1
Hmmm - I haven't read all of the responses, so perhaps someone else has thought of the obvious. However normal this man's behavior appears now, there is a good chance he is emotionally abusive to his family and may even be inflicting the same kind of sexual attacks on his daughter. Perhaps you should consider blowing the whistle on this creep.
1
Me too, Ms. Carlson.
Publish his name. He is a threat to other children, perhaps even his own healthy daughter. Name him.
3
Rape in its own way is worse than murder. All in all, I think castration is the reasonable and humane penalty.
3
What about contacting his employer and letting the employer know what the rapist did to you?
2
Life sentences are to protect the public from future horrendous crimes. Prison is not about rehabilitation; its punishment and Protection of the public.
I worked with sex offenders in prison and I am afraid most of the public has no clue about human behavior. Evil exists and people do not change anymore than a pit bull trained to kill.
I have had offenders weep because they didn't kill their victim because if they had they would have never been caught.You must remember than criminals are usually tried for just one offense ,its never the only crime.
I was the therapist to these men and most are addicted to hurting people, their true thoughts and crimes are rarely ever exposed so all this academic ideology is nonsense.
Luckily I was never a victim but a co-worker (sex crime division) was found raped and stuffed under a cot.
One possibility for punishment would be chemical castration. It is obviously a severe penalty and reduces recidivism from 45 to 5 percent. One drawback from such a severe penalty is that it makes obtaining a conviction more difficult. Contrary to what some feminists say, our society, like societies in general, hold rape to be a serious crime, so serious that we are reluctant to convict someone without very good evidence. This reluctance might reduce the deterrence value of such a severe punishment as chemical castration.
On the other hand, chemical castration might help restore a kind of societal or cosmic balance. That desire for restoration is the reason we feel a need for revenge. We might dismiss it as primitive and atavistic, but it’s real. The greatest of modern philosophers, Hegel, held this restoration to be so important, even for the criminal, that he proclaimed that it is a criminal’s right to be punished.
Chemical castration as punishment for rape is deserving of careful consideration.
3
You are, of course, serving a life sentence. As you note, nothing will ever change that; you have been denied the possibility of transforming into the person you might have been without the trauma.
I wouldn't call a natural-life sentence retribution; I'd call it justice.
5
Transformation does not matter. The crime has already permanently changed the victim's' life. All the "I'm sorrys" also do not change anything. I am sick and disgusted when I read about a criminal who "found Jesus" while in prison thinks it should be a "get out of jail free card." Rapists usually do not commit the crime once, they are serial rapists. It is naive of you to think that you are the only victim. He has a little girl who is a potential victim. Even though he evaded the law because of ridiculous statutes of limitation laws, which protect the criminal, he should not evade punishment. You should write a letter to his wife carefully detailing all the years of abuse. He will, of course, deny the truth, but the wife will be vigilante about his being with his daughter. He will have to worry that somehow the rape which he stored in the hidden recesses of his mind will suddenly come back to haunt him. Who knows, his happy marriage may be over. I am all in favor of the punishment fitting the crime even if the courts abdicate their responsibility.
11
I am hurting for you, Ms. Carlson.
Back in the day--well, back in the middle ages--rapists were dealt with pretty summarily. I am wondering whether THIS penalty ever crossed your mind.
The little piece of male apparatus involved was. . . . .
. . excised.
Anesthesia was not administered. They had none. They wouldn't have used it anyway.
It grieves me when I read of "post-traumatic stress syndrome" and related afflictions. There is the horrendous, to me unimaginable pain of the survivors. I would ask--in all sincerity and good conscience--is there any way these victims can get beyond the dreadful hurt, the unspeakable memories? By therapy? By healing friendships? By prayer?
Because you speak of revenge. Retribution. Would not THAT be--strange to say!--a kind of revenge or retribution? Oh, not the real thing! I know. I know. But so often (personally) my feeling is. . . . .
. . .why should the monsters win? Even when their immediate power is ended--even when they have themselves (perhaps) have paid the ultimate penalty. . . . .
. . .when their victims suffer, they have (in a manner of speaking) WON.
I don't want them to. Why should they?
My heart goes out to you Ms. Carlson. Truly! I wish you the best. God bless--strengthen--comfort you. Now and always.
3
20 years in prison, and therapy, plus medication, throughout the term. NO statute of limitations for rape! They should never get away with it because they weren't caught soon enough. The woman will serve a life sentence.
2
A deluded individual who seriously damages another individual's life (rape, torture. etc.) has given up his or her ticket for living in normal society and a painless death is the best present answer we have for dealing with this kind of wanton tragedy. May be in the future we may get a better grip on modifying behavior but for now painless capital punishment is the best way out for all concerned,
2
Thank you Ms Carlson for sharing such a terrible experience. You have made your point very well and I have much to think about regarding your horrifying experience.
I know that you must have considered publicizing the name of the man who raped you. While such an approach might result in a legal nightmare for you, I wonder if it would be helpful to you and to society to do so.
I pray that you may continue your recovery. I admire your courage and your thoughtfulness.
1
I am wholly unwilling to agree to the killing of another human being because you would personally find the experience to be pleasurable. Society is not the instrument of barbarism.
3
As we have been reminded of many times on these pages, the human brain does not fully mature until sometime in our 20's. The author does not mention her rapist's age, but I would argue for differential treatment for rapists in their teens or early 20's compared to older rapists (who are also more likely to be serial rapists.)
If we can have compassion on youthful offenders who attack or even kill their victims, we can have compassion on youthful rapists, particularly those without any previous offenses. An impetuous act by someone who's brain is not fully matured should not result in a lifetime designation as a sexual predator. I was particularly upset by the treatment of the Steubenville (OH) high school students who were convicted of raping a 16-year old girl.
The way to address these individuals is through counseling and education, not punishment, and particularly not jail time - which only serves to turn youthful offenders into hardened criminals.
2
I am a 50 year old white man, the responsibility for change rests on my/our shoulders. I will never look the other way again.
As someone who went through something similar to Ms Carlson, I must point out that this kind of trauma doesn't go away. You can learn to cope, even create a good life for yourself, but you never get to have the life you might have led if someone had not done their best to obliterate your sense of self and grasp on reality. Natural life sentence or even death penalty for the rapist? Why is that considered worse than the sentence imposed on the victim?
13
If this criminal has transformed himself into the finest human being imaginable I am truly glad. But it doesn't translate into a get-out-of-jail card. He did the crime then he must do the time. Let him spend the rest of his justly incarcerated life being loving and kind to his fellow inmates and staff, including the guards.
2
Instead of an eye for an eye it would seem to me that contributing to the future health of victims would be most rational - not just understanding their own culpability. If that is ten years of therapy, public speaking, a lifetime of service, providing for the training or purchase of therapy dogs - fine.
Punishment is primarily revenge-based, and I don't see its value to a civil society.
4
The value that the concept of punishment adds to civil society is that it keeps civil society focussed on the importance of the victim's loss, which is basically what tort law is about. If the victim's loss is removed from the equation, then why even bring the person to "justice" (however you define that term)? The ridiculous trendy idea that a person should be incarcerated only so that s/he won't do it again or so that we can "rehabilitate" and then release him/her, confident that we are all safe from future bad actions, has nothing to do with civil society. The logical argument against it is that, if we simply leave the victim out of the equation in the judgment of the first crime, how important can it really be then if the criminal commits the same crime again?
The "hate the action, not the actor" school of thought has one glaring fault : it ignores the object of the action, who is just pushed into the shadows and ignored.
7
I see it's value to the Victim. Wait until it's YOU.
1
You totally misunderstood my post. Serving a sentence as is currently done allows the perpetrator to walk away at the end. I am suggesting that the perpetrator should be required to financially support their victim's continued needs related to the crime committed for as long as those needs exist.
I have had some minor experience in the courts (landlord/tenant, business related civil cases) and, unlike Trump in his business life, I consider going to court a sign of failure, but, of course, many times there is no choice, especially in criminal matters. Listening to other cases, I have often wondered what people expect to get from the whole thing.
People go to court expecting "justice", that a judge or jury will see things their way and make amends. Problem is, the courts cannot offer this. Justice is elusive, it fades away as you approach it, like a mirage in the desert. People who experience a loss because of someone else's actions go through the additional loss of time and money seeking to gain back that which was taken.
I came up with a way to understand what happens in the court system. It is to give people something else to do while they come to terms with the fact that they will never get justice. It is a diversion, a civilized way of handling denial, rage and the desire for revenge.
There is no fully adequate way to deal with the horrid events in this writer's life described in the op-ed. The "eye for an eye" standard would see him face three years of sexualized abuse, but he isn't a child and wouldn't suffer the same level of trauma.
I understand there can be no forgiveness. Yet, we all have been harmed by others in some way and the best course, if it can be found, is to recapture one's life and take it away permanently from the evil that was imposed on it.
6
Amber Rose:
One word of thanks for your articulate article: Brava! JD
This Opinion, and many of the comments, illustrate why we don't allow the victims of crime to determine sentences.
The author, and many readers, would apparently, as part of a "thought experiment," take this nation of laws back to the Middle Ages.
I've seen both castration and the death penalty touted.
Civilization demands better of us than pure vengeance.
7
While the attitude of Amber Rose Carlson on what would be a just sentence for the person who raped her is very understandable, it is hard to agree that it is fully "rational." Any death sentence, in the first place, is already altogether irrational, since it is assumed that an act of deadly violence can be the sole adequate solution to a problem, and that is plainly not the case. And it is also irrational to consider as valueless the possibility that a moral transformation may occur in someone who is imprisoned.
To be sure, current American attitudes and policies in the matter of criminal penalization and imprisonment are themselves quite irrational. Imprisonment ought to include as a principal function the moral education of the convict; moral transformation should always be the intended purpose of an imprisonment.
And by the same token, if a society's failure to put to death once and for all a rapist or other perpetrator of great violence is viewed as "compounding a trauma survivor's victimization," then there too, we need to seek moral transformation, this time of the victim, and of those among the victim's friends, who cry out for punishment and vengeance, and will be satisfied with nothing less.
5
Your words are hollow. Rape victims don't need "moral transformation" - they need to be taken seriously, and their perpetrators need to be punished instead of supported by their families, friends, police and the courts. Most rape victims are at least twice betrayed - by the rapist, and then by a "justice" system that provides them no justice at all, only more humiliation and trauma.
1
Having been in a similar position, all I wanted was to be safe. I didn't care about society, since society was also at fault. Thankfully, I got past that. I never hoped anyone would die. To have reached that point would've meant my moral compass had been beaten out of me, thus making me doubly brutalised. Thankfully I never got there. The death penalty is an abhorrent throwback to a time when we killed for revenge. I'm sorry, but to even contemplate it is a savage self-indulgence.
6
I disagree with the author when she says:
“But criminal justice reform should not be so myopic that it compounds trauma survivors’ victimization. Those who manage to survive traumatic crimes have enough to battle without arguments that undermine their rational considerations. Advocates for criminal justice reform can, and should, do better.”
The argument by Jennifer Lackey, while I disagree with it, was presented in good faith. Suggesting that she should not make the argument is inappropriate. Refuting it in whole or in part is.
3
Any system of criminal judgment that fails to take into consideration punishment - yes punishment - for the life-long harm that is caused by this sort of treatment of a person in young adolescence is, well, criminal. Those commenters who claim that this type of thinking is just a desire for "retribution" are welcome to take that elevated point of view to any one of our less pleasant state prisons where rape and abuse are rife, and use it as a barrier to try to protect themselves against the type of person who would commit such a crime. Good luck.
2
I agree with the author regarding the misalignment of the interests of victims and the state in the determination of sentencing for crimes, including rape. But is rationality really the appropriate measure for them? The author appears to be grappling with the incongruity of wanting a punishment for her attacker she feels satisfied with despite the availability of a rational argument for something else. Ms. Carlson, you are entitled to feel justified in wanting a permanent punishment. Emotional decisions are just as valid as rational ones and clearly have a place in out lives and society. That our legal system endeavors to keep them out of decision-making in criminal sentencing is understandable; it is in the interest of society. As evidenced by the poor track record our of system in capital punishment, emotional decisions still creep into the jury room since people are still people.
I, too, have thought about appropriate punishments for the person who sexually assaulted me. I can appreciate the interests of society to transform someone who is a hazard or burden into someone who is a valued and productive member. In my thoughts about about appropriate punishment, it was not difficult to identify temporary punishments which are worse than death.
If the thought process brings you solace, keep at it. Life is inherently unfair. At least we were born in a part of the world which gives us the chance at salvaging what we can.
I know this is a philosophy article, intended to have serious minds think about serious things, and both the article and comments do that.
But can I say, as a human, as a mother whose daughter was raped, that you gave me an intellectual framework to express the very non-tolerant thoughts I had and still have toward the rapist? You helped me understand my emotional wishes, completely at odds with my general social values.
I am so sorry for your pain. I am so sorry for my daughters, for my entire families. I want to destroy, to harm, to cause pain and that is so not me. Your helping me understand where that is coming from, in a logical, intellectual sense, helps.
I don't know if a criminal justice system can be framed that can balance social damage with individual harm with enough rigor to prevent the loopholes lawyers live to exploit. I do know it is not possible in our political/social environment....if you can't distill it to a tweet, it isn't real.
I am in awe of your strength, your courage, your relentless belief that you matter, that has led you to therapy (which hurts!) and breathtaking honesty.
I wish you all the best, and please know that you helped me.
4
Excellent essay. I wish you well in your recovery. Are you sure that filing a police report is not an option? The statute of limitations may mean that he can no longer be charged, but naming him in a police report may help them catch and prosecute his future crimes. I will be forever grateful to the sympathetic police officers who took my report although 14 years later, it was also beyond the statute of limitations. When a subsequent victim came forward, she found me as I had left my name and story with the local NOW, councilors, etc. Together, we were able to force the University to fire him, a tenured Professor. She also won her lawsuit against the University. We weren't able to get him locked up for life (my preference), but we made it harder for him to find victims and shamed some of his enablers.
I fear for his daughter and her friends. And their neighbors. And society. His behavior is not your fault or your responsibility, but you may have more allies than you know.
8
It is hard to disagree with this article. The crime is so unimaginable that is impossible to say that the victim's feelings are not right on the mark. But I could never agree with a death sentence no matter what the circumstances.
There are many reasons for this. They should be obvious, and in the end don't really matter here. What does matter is that I doubt very much that the victim would feel any better or different with the criminal executed. The crime is so horrible that there is in fact no appropriate punishment. In a way the author is saying the same.
2
This is a potent and important perspective. Thanks NYT for publishing Carlson's piece.
2
A patient of my son told him this story:
Before he emigrated from Chechnya to the United States, the patient, an engineer, lived in Grozny with his wife and two daughters. One day, when the children were 14 and 16, respectively, he discovered that a teacher at the girls' school had been raping them regularly.
The patient & his brother, a tool & die maker, tracked down the teacher, took him to to a quarry, forced him to lie on his face, and clubbed him on his back with hammers until they got tired.
The teacher was left a quadriplegic. He still has his freedom, but there is no risk of his raping anyone ever again.
16
Sounds delicious. Feels right
Funny. Members of the (horrible, untrained and unsympathetic) San Francisco Police Department suggested I find someone among my male friends to beat up my rapist, since the police weren't going to investigate him and the SFDA wasn't going to prosecute him. But had I done that, the police and DA would have found and prosecuted ME. There is no justice for women.
1
Repeated rape of a minor should be a capital crime with no statute of limitations. I could care less whether there is the possibility of transformation of the perpetrator. Sometimes people make snap decisions under pressure that have negative, life-changing implications for themselves and others, and nothing makes running the tape backwards possible. Why someone who rapes another repeatedly, clearly a series of acts with premeditation, should have a lesser burden to carry is beyond me. And I don't think free room and board for life is a burden the society should bear. Death seems quite condign.
13
The dearth penalty is an atrocity. There is no question that a society without the death penalty is better than one with it. And that is all that matters.
4
There there is no rational punishment for such destruction. And women should not be made to continually feel,that their emotions are too much or are irrational. That tendency in society's blame the victim, is a sublet form of perpetuation of abuse and denigration of women which itslef empowers toxic masculinity and sexual abuse.
7
Plato argued, somewhere, that if you really hate a criminal, don't punish him. For without punishment, his soul cannot, and will not, be redeemed; he is forever psychically wounded and cannot heal. Consequently, he cannot ever be happy -- everyone's goal -- because his virtue is twisted out of shape and permanently damaged.
So, according to this logic, a just society would punish the perpetrator, a just society being one that does not hate, but acts rationally.
What punishment fits the crime?
Only a god would know the perfect punishment, of course. And he or she is largely unavailable, at best.
Society should properly be worried about future victims. Granted, the criminal may be one-and-done. Or maybe not. Is a society willing to bet on what the criminal will do in the future? Sometimes, even often, it does. But is that wise? Gambling that your gut instincts will pan out?
An alcoholic is always an alcoholic. A gamble is always a gambler. And a rapist is always a rapist. These seem to be the rules or, at least, real possibilities; exceptions may occur, of which no human can always discover and determine without risking serious error.
Since error-free decisions are not on the menu, I recommend that we risk erring on the safe side: Protect possible future victims. By his actions, the rapist has forever lost the hope for personal freedom. Revenge? No. Justice? Yes. It's doing the right thing, we believe, at the right time to the right person to the right degree (Aristotle).
6
The ongoing Harvey Weinstein scandal and the tragic banality of rape in modern society have only one viable solution : the development of a permanent form of anti-Viagra to obliterate the male sex drive in those who are convicted of sex crimes. I would even go so far as to call for a similar form of efficient saltpeter for all men incapable of dealing with their sexual frustration which can arise with age, isolation, poverty... and simply being too unappealing for potential female sexual partners.
I urge everyone to read Michel Houellebecq's brilliant novel 'Whatever' (1994) in which the French writer evokes the natural inequality affecting human beings on the sexual marketplace. Some men are doomed to celibacy and potential frustration -- better to encourage them to curb their instincts pharmaceutically instead of risking various pathologies and crimes which could affect innocent bystanders.
2
Rape is not about sex. Rape is about violence and power.
Once again, a fundamental misunderstanding of basic civics has led to spilt ink (or pixels).
The criminal justice system is for the state; individuals have no right to incarcerate anybody.
The civil justice system is for the victims; individual victims have a right to punish abusers of their rights through this system.
Ms. Carlson HAS agency. She can decide to sue her rapist and she can seek whatever damages she feels are appropriate. I suggest that, instead of playing what-if games that pretend she IS the state, that she give serious consideration of what is within her power.
If she could sue him, what would she be satisfied with?
11
As if any amount of money damages could compensate her for the pain and violation of her person.
2
Your comment is naive. Since most people, including lawyers and members of juries, do not believe women who report being raped, the chances of finding a lawyer who would take such a case are slim to nonexistent, and the chances of getting a jury verdict in the victim's favor are equally poor. Victims do not wish to subject themselves to a court process that treats them with contempt. So civil suits do not give agency to rape victims. It is cruel of you to suggest they do.
The juxtaposition between this essay and the recently published 'reporting' on moms who defend their rapist sons at the expense of their sons' victims is worth noting.
It is hard for me too to understand how the 'restorative' justice movement sufficiently addresses the harm to victims, particularly and specifically of female victims of physical, including sexual, assault and mental/psychological abuse.
Has Lackey considered that, at the end of the day, she is just one more pawn in the process of diminishing and demeaning women to the status of less than fully human while erasing physical/sexual assault as 'crime'.
These are very sad and dangerous times for women.
3
Lackey is wrong. If the crime is bad, no amount of rehabilitation is enough. Let's imagine that someone murders several people with premeditation. No amount of repentance will bring the victims back. Hence life without parole is entirely appropriate. That punishment also is better than death because it precludes the possibility of judicial error, which cannot be fixed if the wrong person is executed.
As for Amber Rose Carlson, it would be good if she named publicly the rapist. She cannot get thim convicted because she has no material proof or likely no witnesses willing to testify. But she can ruin his life, which she should. This is not a back-alley rape where the identity of the rapist can be mistaken. She knows who the guy is. No amount of therapy will heal her without justice. Moreover, if she doesn't name him, she enables the guy to continue raping.
Additionally, she should have an unwavering and detailed story - otherwise she won't be believed. Given that some women falsely accuse men of rape (Duke lacrosse, University of Virginia), in the absence of material proof or witnesses, it is a detailed and unchanging story that provides credibility.
3
Another naive suggestion. If a victim names her rapist, he will bully her and at least threaten to sue her for defamation. There is no justice for women.
There's nothing wrong with retribution as policy. Let's say someone raped and murdered a child, and then we had some (hypothetical) way of knowing that he would never, ever do anything violent again. Would it be right for the criminal to be released since he posed no threat at all to society? I'd say no, because we're trying to create a just society, and in a just society if you do something truly evil you need to reap powerful consequences. It's not only a matter of practicality (recidivism, deterrence), but also of someone being held accountable for his actions.
6
In a completely just society there would be no prisons and no death penalty.
1
Is it rational to affirm a contradiction? Maybe. If you don’t believe your assailant can transform his life, how can you believe that you can transform your life?
2
The writer of this column has endured much pain and suffering that is clear. While I hear her cry of pain, I can't help but feel like society has let her down. But not in the criminal justice sense that she describes, but culturally.
It seems as though our culture and this supposedly "therapeutic" excercise has encouraged this young woman to pursue, desire, and contemplate retributive justice as a contingency for healing. The assumption here is IF her rapist is punished (event just in theory), THEN she will find peace and healing.
But by making her peace contingent upon her rapists punishment she perpetrates his power over her. Her peace and healing is still wrapped up in HIM, albeit in a profoundly negative way. Our culture must learn to detach healing from revenge. Dare I use the word forgiveness? And by forgiveness I don't mean letting rapists off the hook, not legal forgiveness. Our justice system must prosecute violence to the full extent of the law. But personal forgiveness, the kind that says to perpetrators of violence that they have no more power over you or your happiness. The kind that allows victims to rise out of the traumatic depths of their victimhood, and to have hope in a future where criminals who do injustice no longer have any power, whether behind bars or not.
5
Ms. Carlson's letter perfectly illustrates several aspects of the societal dilemma regarding the treatment of criminals. True justice would erase the trauma and restore her childhood. This is true of many many victims of crime, from rape and murder to robbery and burglary and DWI. But such is impossible to achieve.
Beats me why she allows him to continue to get away with it. What's his name?
4
Death penalty. If one sees a reason to be merciful (for whatever crazy reason), then life in solitary confinement. And PUBLICIZE the misery that such convicted felons face as they wait on death row or in solitary, so the world will see what happens, and most deservedly, to people who commit such crimes.
3
Is it known if rapists/ violent offenders can be transformed so that they're no longer a danger to society? I'm not asking facetiously, there's just something terribly wrong with how such a mind could operate. And in Ms. Carlson's case the fact that the brutal rapist now has a good job, beautiful wife and daughter - I just can't help but think he's a master manipulator, with no soul and no empathy. I think of Ted Bundy who charmed his way with victims. I truly do wonder - is such a transformation possible since behavior & memories make us who we are and not just emotionally but physically - our neurons.
4
Some criminals have forfeited their right to freedom. Not to life, but to freedom, ever. I hesitate to give the victims much influence over sentencing because then one gets stuck in the morass of the attractive or compelling victim whose assailants get a harsher or longer sentences, but I do think that some crimes so damage the survivors that the perpetrator cannot be trusted to enter society ever again. Rape is one of the crimes. Premeditated murder is another. So in my opinion Ms. Carlson is right insofar as she comprehends the nature of the crime committed against her, her body and her life, and she is right that she will never have the life she envisioned for herself before it was stolen from her by the rapist. And the sentence for a rapist should indeed be natural life in prison because s/he has committed soul-murder, a true crime against humanity, which society should not allow even the possibility of happening again.
5
"I am more healed today than I ever thought possible." Unquestionably what was done to Ms. Carlsonwas heinous. But she was not murdered. She was not intentionally impregnated. She was not apparently disfigured or maimed. She was not kidnapped and made to live for years in a box. Are all these crimes simply interchangeable? Do they deserve equal punishment? "His mother, for example, simply told us to quiet down whenever she heard my screams ...." What punishment does his mother deserve? The Bible (not that I am religious) says an eye for an eye .... I have been a victim of violent crime myself with severe physical consequences. But I wouldn't (necessarily) want to see the death penalty imposed on my attacker. When Ms. Carlson demands the death penalty or life imprisonment, I think she is probably expressing the understandably overwhelming rage she still feels (and may always feel) for the great wrong that was done to her. But it might be better (for her) in the long run to find and heal this rage in herself, rather than to wield it against her victimizer. Perhaps this man will do terrible things again, and by executing him others would be spared. But perhaps he will not repeat his horrible acts. In which case the revenge sought would also be inflicted on his wife. And on his daughter. I think Ms. Carlson's feelings in this matter are totally understandable. But even in such an extreme case as this, feelings are not always the best foundation for action.
2
As I read the author’s story I wanted to kill the rapist or at least to publicly shame him. The real cruelty of the kind of injury inflicted on the author is that it is so deeply private and that she lives it over and over. So writing this story must be therapeutic. The desire for retribution, too is natural. And it sounds as though she is doing the hard, hard work of confronting the trauma. The perpetrator isn’t really important anymore. The violations done to her are like a war or a famine - incredibly cruel, intolerably traumatic. They all permanently change life. Perhaps there will come a point when she can contemplate letting go of the desire for retribution, something we could all learn to do.
2
I am a trial lawyer. I have no problem with "retribution" being grounds (among others) for how long someone spends in prison. If a victim, or a member of the victim's family, feels the perpetrator will not be sufficiently punished if convicted then there is reduced incentive for the victim and the victim's family to accept the result meted out by the justice system, and a correspondingly enhanced incentive for the victim or a member of the victim's family to punish the perpetrator extra-judicially.
Similarly, other members of society will hold the judicial system in disrepute if they see a perpetrator get off too lightly. Then where will be as a society.
Many people follow the rules not because they have a strong moral compass but rather because they fear punishment which robs them of their physical freedom and exposes them to harsh conditions, and/or they fear injury to their standing and reputation.
Obviously, such punishment is not going to deter everyone. Then just having them off the street where they can't hurt the rest of us is sufficient.
5
I don't understand why the author does not consider the deterrence value of punishment. The kind of abuse she suffered can radically alter a person's life and so a very strong deterrent against such crimes is warranted. My father raped me numerous times when I was a young boy around the age of 5, threatening to murder or mutilate me if I did not comply. I have suffered from severe PTSD for most of my life as a result.
Also, because crimes like these that happen in private are often hard to prove, the punishment needs to be severe to be effective.
I don't have much faith in prison-based rehabilitation. How does one prove in prison that one will not rape a woman or child again? It is just not possible to observe.
3
Sorry. Civilized justice hasn't been about the victim since we ended blood feuds. I think I understand your feelings, but I cannot see how you can gain anything but the satisfaction of vengeance from seeing another person killed or put away for life. I don't want to live in that world.
7
I hope you find as much peace as you can, and continue to transform your pain for your benefit and the benefit of others to the extent you can.
Here are three stories for your consideration.
(1) Within the last decade Texas considered imposing permanent punishment for the crimes you endured. Victims advocates opposed the bill on the grounds some victims would not want to, or would be pressured by close relatives not to, report the crime if permanent punishment were the only option.
(2) About 130 years ago a Texas legal scholar is supposed to have travelled east for a conference. Responding to teasing about the fact Texas law sometimes punished horse stealing more harshly than manslaughter he is supposed to have said, "In Texas we have very few horses that need stealing."
(3) Decades ago someone in the extended family committed suicide. The whispered story was that years before he repeatedly raped someone about the age you were, and someone in my generation who knew about it forcefully confronted him when a new generation reached that age. Supposedly the women in his generation knew but kept it from the men, who were indeed protective and capable of outrage and violence. For about 25 years now I've had some pain and primal anger about what happened to my cousin around 55 years ago.
2
Can people even imagine, for a moment, what it might be like to utilize other forms of justice besides retributive? What if there were ways to give voice and volition to the harmed, while transforming the doer of harm? What if the focus was on reparations and community accountability instead of revenge and individual punishment? There are means of restorative and transformative justice that have been used in other cultures and settings which are worth exploring. No prison, no court will ever be able to judge and hold all the wrong-doers forever. We have got to find other ways.
2
Here is another situation that happens all too often in this society: A drunk driver crosses the centerline and strikes another vehicle head-on. The drunk somehow escapes unscathed, while the other driver dies, or ends up permanently and totally disabled, sometimes from a traumatic brain injury, sometimes from a terrible spinal cord injury.
The victim suffers for life. Typically the drunk is charged with Vehicular Assault or Driving While Intoxicated, and most often does very little time, often doing no jail time at all. What sort of justice system is it that lets the criminal go free to live a full life while the victim has lost all chance of a normal life?
9
Michael Phelps has twice been caught drunk driving. He was lucky he didn't hit anyone. If he did, would you give him life? Does it matter that he's given millions to charity?
1
Ah, yes, retribution, an eye for an eye.
1
I don't this your stance is "a crude form of retributive justice." It's the best argument for retributive justice that there can possibly be. If we believe (as I do) in the reality of persons, retributive justice makes sense. There are arguments against it, but this is a very strong argument for it.
2
I think some folks are missing the point of this intelligent, nuanced, and powerful op-ed. As the author states many times, she's not making a specific policy argument. However, the rational conclusions that victims of violent crime come to about what justice means to them are not only powerful statements to bear witness to in their own right but must be included in any serious societal conversations about how our justice system operates. I don't think the author's point is that permanent, irrevocable sentences should be on the table more often; but that the legitimacy and profundity of her conclusions (and other survivors') ought to weigh heavily on the minds of those making and implementing policy and on the way that policy discussions are framed. As all here acknowledge, the current system is deeply and often obviously flawed. But if it were better, it would also not be obvious how to perfect it; the trade-offs and compromises are excruciatingly challenging to grapple with. Yet, we have to keep trying. While I'm not sure the author would agree this is a good example, the relatively recent addition of the right of victims of violent crime to delver an impact statement at the sentencing hearing is one example of policy that also puts survivors at the center.
5
Ok, I'm going to go ahead and be the bad guy here, the insensitive one, the guy with no social skills who can't keep his mouth shut. The author of this article, and with obviously NYTimes agreement, gives the bare outline of her case (she was 13-16, raped we are told, that the mother of the rapist was no help) and now we are to judge whether, of all things, the rapist should be punished even to point of death.
Really are we supposed to be reflecting at all on her case here or is this article in existence just to make us go "oh, shucks, what a terrible thing to have happened, yeah I guess go ahead and give the guy who did this the ultimate punishment"? I don't know whether conservatives or progressives make a worse hash of law in the U.S. The conservatives with all their religious junk and eagerness to kill people are repellent, and the progressives seem bent on redefining what constitutes a crime this way and that to point that a person might be tried, at least in court of society, for "micro aggressions".
With this article here in the Stone section we are not even given courtesy of basic facts in the case then asked to determine whether to be rational or not about it and what punishment to dish out and I suppose how much sympathy the victim is supposed to get. Run this article by a law firm. Ask them what they think. Would they not ask, "Well, what are the facts in the case, what happened, can you tell me a little bit more please before we come to a decision?"
8
Actually, Daniel, the facts are that her therapist used a therapeutic tool: Asked her to " imagine" that her rapist had been found guilty in a court.
Then the therapist posed the question: in such an imagined scenario, what would she like the punishment to be?
It tells the therapist, and her, something when she safely can imagine this, and give a candid answer.
4
This is a passionate contribution to a question which it's the duty of philosophy to think through. Forget whether how this particular rapist should be punished. Carlson is asking us to stipulate that he's as bad as she thinks he is. Well, if he is, what then?
Thanks. At least one reasoned response.
With all due sensitivity, I think the author’s philosophical arguments should be addressed from a logical perspective. Before I do, I thank you for a thoughtful and engaging piece on a difficult topic.
The author concludes that desiring a harsh punishment is rational because the rapist's future cannot restore her own:
"Desiring death or a natural life sentence for those who inflict traumatic violence is a rational response because whether or not my particular rapist transforms is irrelevant to whether or not I will ever have the chance to be the sort of person I might have been."
A punishment need not counteract a crime, such that it has no effect on the victim's future, for the punishment to be rational. In the author's own case, clearly no punishment would ever undo what was done to her. But that is no reason that the harshest punishments are rational. A punishment is only rational if it follows from reason or logic. In this case, no reason or logic takes us from the victim's perpetual injury to a need for a permanent punishment.
We can also see the flaw in the conclusion by rewriting it from the opposite perspective:
Desiring death or a natural life sentence for those who inflict traumatic violence is an irrational response because whether or not I will ever have the chance to be the sort of person I might have been is irrelevant to whether or not my particular rapist transforms.
Thank you again for a thought-provoking piece. I wish you the best in your recovery.
2
I find it curious that no one has considered what might be a suitable punishment for the mother who knew this was going on, but did nothing for years.
6
IF the old bag is still alive, naming, shaming and shunning her AND especially her Son. Obviously, she enabled his actions and remained silent to avoid public knowledge and stigma. I guarantee he did NOT stop his behavior, he learned to be more cautious. I greatly fear for his Daughter, and any other children in his circle. That's the main reason I wish he would be named. Danger, danger, danger.
6
So, your assumption is that the mother was in a position to do something about it. Simply being present is not always a position of power.
1
"But calling the desire for permanent punishment crude does not render it irrational however unpopular it might be."
Yes, barbarous punishment is hugely unpopular! That's really the world we live in!
4
I agree with the author, and I wish her well in her recovery and her Ph.D. journey. My father worked for the Federal Bureau of Prisons for over 20 years. He finally pretty much gave up on the concept of "rehabilitation" as a rare (recidivism rates are very high) and incomplete notion for (in part) this reason. He actually suggested, only half in jest?, that the best alternative to incarceration might be having those found guilty suffer the identical crime (i.e., if you rape somebody, you get raped; if you steal, you have your assets seized until the same proportionate level of financial victimization is achieved; if you shoot somebody in a dark alley in the neck, you get shot in a dark alley in the neck, etc.). The notion was two-fold: (1) the real victim gets some semblance of justice by knowing that the criminal suffers the same fate as he or she does; and (2) deterrence - if you know you will get raped if caught, or shot, or stripped of assets, instead of receiving a few years of confined room and board followed by parole, you might think harder about committing the crime. Yep, lots of issues here, but from the victim's perspective, there could be nothing more rational.
6
Congrats on the success you had in your life after such a traumatic event. I don't have to tell you it will effect you every day in the future.
I too suffered similar abuse (non sexual) around your general age.
There was and still is rage against the abuser but has been tempered by therapy..
I too am against the death penalty but bottom line, two wrongs don't make a right. I often say if I believed in the death penalty after a heinous crime I would be the first one to pull the switch.
Talking about the trauma, teaching anybody who will listen about it really helps.
4
given that this horrendous experience has corrupted the writers life, diverting the energies into a channel they wouldn't have had to take in the absence of this experience; what "experience" could be visited upon the perpetrator to divert his life into a channel that would by necessity enable his coming to grips with his crime- would a virtual reality based experience of the same happening to himself begin to answer this or would it amount to torture?
Does the victim's loss demand an equal loss from the perpetrator or could there be a garnishment of the perpetrator that would accrue to the victim in such a way as to address the emotional and physical deficits incurred through the violent encounter and not be lifted until the victim's quality of life was satisfactory to her. Not unfair when the nature of the original unfairness is taken into account.
2
Maybe he should be given the Weinstein treatment - lose his cushy job, lose his wife and daughter, lose his future.
A thought experiment to solve the problem of crime and punishment in society?
It seems the human interpretation of crime and punishment is bound up with the concept of pain and pleasure: You cause me a harm, I cause you a harm in return. An eye for an eye. Pain is caused in some way to one person, law, court, prison, etc. exists to get the punishment proportional to the crime.
Now it seems to me in the future by science it might be possible to get at the pain threshold of each individual in society, which means it might be possible to have some sort of system of technology by which when people come into contact with each other they are alerted of their various pain thresholds and when violations occur the system can immediately cause pain to the violator, thus the system as a whole should be able to dispense with law, court, prison, etc.
Say I try to rob your home, the system gauges pain threshold of occupants and immediately causes agony in me as I am trying to rob the house. Say I attempt to kill you; immediately I receive commensurate punishment. If I kill someone, I am immediately struck dead. The only problem I can see is the system dealing with masochists, people who experience pleasure from pain. Or is this a problem? Would society just turn antisocial tendency where in fact it causes pleasure, in direction of masochists?
The main point however is that science should be able to make inroads in pain/pleasure system of the human to proportion punishment to crime.
This is why we live in a society governed by the Rule of Law - it is not up to "victims" to choose valid punishment, that's why we have laws - otherwise, we have anarchy, vendetta and revenge justice.
10
Naming him publicly would be a most effective punishment.
9
I had the same thought. Not that it would be THE most effective, or that it should be the ONLY punishment, but that it would certainly be extremely satisfying to see the good job, beautiful wife, and lovely life dissolve into catastrophe. Not really sufficient, but certainly a good start.
4
I think your last paragraph is unfair to Lackey. As you yourself indicate, one could point out that she is critiquing existing sentencing policies, and not commenting on what the feelings or desires of victims should be. I find Lackey's arguments interesting and persuasive, but in any case they should be taken and evaluated as what they evidently are, critiques of social policies. Even though it would have been helpful for Lackey to have pointed out that she was not commenting on the rationality of victims' feelings, it does not seem reasonable to hold her accountable for all of the possible ways in which readers of her work might respond emotionally. This, of course, is not to diminish the significance of the great psychological trauma you were subjected to, which seems particularly harmful given your age at the time and how long it lasted.
Note also that there is a difference between the rationality of a social policy and the rationality of an individual's response to a crime against them. One could argue for the irrationality of a sentencing policy while acknowledging that the way a particular individual feels about being the victim of a crime may not itself be irrational.
3
"What seems appropriate": I do not know by what standard or philosophical point of view our society deems a specific punishment for a specific crime as "appropriate" or "right" or "just". The U.S. is probably the most vindictive society on the planet when it comes to criminal sentencing. When someone says a life sentence is barely enough-- is barely "appropriate" for a crime-- I have to ask myself, "how do you know that"? Is it just your feelings about what you would like to happen? Why life? Why not 10 years? Why not 5 years? Why not 50? How do you know that 5 years is not enough? How do you measure that? With all due respect, I continue to believe that the hallmark of progressive and enlightened civilizations and cultures-- the ones who ban child labor, and protect the environment, and protect a free press, and encourage intellectual ferment, and sustain the arts-- is a rational approach to justice, including the recognition that some people can change and be rehabilitated.
7
I'm with Ms. Dickman: "NAME HIM." The fact that this man has been able to move forward anonymous and unscathed is criminal.
And with Mr. Erickson: "Let the perpetrator enjoy being a kind and generous person in prison, becoming a useful contributor to the prison society ... "I'm really sorry and I've been good, can I go now?" Won't do. Ever." Just because the criminal can compartmentalize his crime doesn't mean society should.
If Ms. Carlson has to live with this CRIME for the rest of her life, why shouldn't the criminal have to live with the PUNISHMENT for the rest of his?
5
Provided we engage with the fundamental premise of the "thought experiment," in which we are not discussing erroneous convictions or disparate sentencing practices, I am not entirely convinced that life sentences OR the death penalty are irrational. In fact, the only scenario in which they would be irrational is one in which rehabilitation is the only legitimate purpose of prisons.
There are rehab centers and there are prisons. A rehab center may be holding people against their will, but society generally accepts that the facility primarily exists for the good of the patients held within. Similarities to any prison are coincidental and (where possible) minimized. By contrast, rehabilitation is not the primary purpose of prison facilities. Yes, there are OPPORTUNITIES for rehabilitation within prisons, but they are quite obviously there for penal purposes. BTW, I'm not arguing for or against this fact, just stating it.
Is that surprising, really? Let us imagine that moments after committing a rape, the rapist was somehow DEMONSTRABLY rehabilitated by some brilliant and unquestionably successful therapy; NEVER to reoffend again. Do we let it go at that? Of course not. There is still the matter of justice. A rapist is incapable of making their victim whole, so anything short of taking their life is an act of mercy on society's part. By definition, one cannot rationally demand mercy. Generally, rapists have failed to convince society they are deserving.
1
I think this article raises an important point about justice and legitimacy. The basis for having the state (or, "society") take over the desire of the victim and his/her allies for revenge--which leads to a potentially neverending cycle of vendetta--is that the state will provide "justice", a rationally tempered measure of punishment for the injury. The "rational" policy prescription quoted in the article is wholly focused on the future actions of the perpetrator, and ignores the provision of something that will seem like justice to the victims. In effect, it is suggesting, in effect, that the solution to a terrible crime should be the provision of state-financed therapy to the perpretrator so that (here) he will be able to lead a better life. In general, most of the opposition to capital punishment (both here and in Europe) share this attitude. But in the long term such a one-sided view of justice, which ignores the victim's needs, will not be perceived to have legitimacy. Perhaps this is "democratic", in that the vast majority of people, who are not victims, are mainly interested in their future safety. But this is self-interest, not justice.
Granted, there is no way that our current legal system is capable of providing anything like justice to anyone, but we are talking here about ideal cases.
Joe K, this is an excellent summation of how the system currently works. Sometimes I wonder if we should take the name "justice" out of it so that it's more clear.
I have a close family member who, as little boy, suffered something similar to what Ms. Carson suffered. He was much younger; the abuse, at the hands of a female caretaker, only lasted a year.
I understand her feelings. If we could go back to the moment she escaped her abuser, apprehend him and convict him to death, letting Ms. Carson throw the death switch would feel cathartic.
Giving her that power might be enough to begin a process of healing; she might not then need to throw the switch. That would be better. The actions of her abuser likely came from somewhere, some abuse he suffered; we as a society are likely in some ways responsible; our goal should not be mere retribution, but his incapacitation from abusing others; deterrence of others who may be deterred by his punishment; and his rehabilitation to the point where he not only will never again repeat his crimes, but, more, feels the tremendous remorse and regret, to the point of anguish, that he should feel. Perhaps he might then take his own life. That would be between him and his conscience.
If it were certain that killing him would help heal Ms. Carson’s trauma, perhaps we should. I doubt that is the case; my relative spent years fantasizing, in secret, about turning the tables on his abuser, only to come to understand how little comfort that would provide. The terrible damage had been done; there was no undoing it, only trying to make a new life, different and worse than the one he might have had.
2
In our society, rape is an offense against the state, not the victim. Similarly, murder is a crime against the state, not the victim or the victim's family. Centuries ago, governments defined crime this way in order to limit cycles of blood feuds. Victims and victims families benefit from a de-escalation of a blood feud,but this policy primarily protects society.
Victims are hurt when the state takes over the definition of crime and its prosecution. Victims rightly consider the crime to be against them. Victims understandably and, yes, rationally, want retribution, and they can reasonably call that justice. It is justice that society refuses to provide, for good reason, but one that is painful for victims. Victims are just that--victims. To protect society, the state, in effect, victimizes them again when it says that the crime isn't even about them.
The state deprives victims the satisfaction of personal retribution. It would be a logical extension for the state should provide more extensive services to victims.
2
Every time I see my perpetrator suffer a bit more from his debilitating illness I feel a bit more healed. Justice is happening. The claim that 'punishment doesn't heal' or 'revenge doesn't solve anything' is truly wrong in my experience. But I wish it wasn't a disease, but rather society that meted out the punishment. I suffered a horrible injustice and having that injustice go unpunished and unrecognized, and then repeated in the future hurts me again every day. The greatest healing I can experience as a victim, is to know that society in general takes up my cause and wants to change things and prevent this crime from happening again. Knowing that I am heard, that society recognizes the injustice and wants things to change would allow me to not only heal but also extend mercy. Once all above has happened, if this guy is genuinely remorseful and can change then I can imagine wanting him to go free. But only then. This is not a medieval point of view. It is the only rational point of view from anyone's perspective. We have an internal 'justice' instinct that is spot on and makes the world a better place if we listen to it.
1
Why do so many states have a statute of limitations regarding these crimes? I just do not understand why this first travesty of justice is not corrected.
7
The emotional need to harm those who have harmed us can demand homicide or terrible mutilations, and people have done so many times before. But this kind of a system is anarchy and it can lead to endless vendettas that can decimate communities. So, we have laws and courts in order to assure that when wrongs are done that those who do wrong accept responsibility and to discourage others from doing wrong where they have the ability to do so. We learned many thousands of years ago that systems which are fair create more safety and security than those which allow people to find their own solutions. The outrage from being misused or mishandled make any of us so angry and vengeful that we could easily cause greater harm to those who harmed us than they actually did to us. In addition, what we do to a perpetrator can affect others who had nothing to do the harm done to us, setting off chains of events that cause harm to many others. So we try to moderate the punishments for crimes far more than the victims feelings would want.
2
Many women like myself do NOT name the men who raped them because that action makes them a target of the rapist once again.
That's one of the big problems with this crime. The original victim is not protected from further attack and so many women like myself decide they'd rather suffer in silence and cope with the wounds they already have than risk even more pain and abuse.
I admire women who decide to come forward but I have had enough problems helping myself heal from what happened, and just could not take on any further risks. It is over 40 years since I was first raped and I do not regret my decision. I still fantasize about confronting him and getting revenge but not as often as I used to. I still get triggered with traumatized responses once in awhile but only very rarely now. I have worked hard to focus on healing myself and am proud of my accomplishment.
He failed to completely ruin my life, but it took more than 20 years and lots of effort to be able to have any kind of safe relationship with a man, and I have never married and never had children and would have had a different life if I was not raped as a 16 year old virgin.
6
Paradoxically, punishing the rapist would inflict damage on the accomplished and beautiful wife and the healthy daughter if they did not know about his history. And with the publication of this article, they may find out about it, since it seems that the events occurred within a family context.
4
I think the first fact we need to face is that Ms. Carson's abuser's behavior, persistent torture of a close acquaintance, is endemic to all human cultures.
We don't have to agree on percentages or terminology, but we need to face the fact that this is an everyday occurrence, apparently a part of our nature, but that it can and must be mitigated, for the sake of the victims and the entire species. It may or may not have served some evolutionary purpose at some point, but if so that purpose is long obsolete.
The question of appropriate punishment is a hard one. But the question of enforcement is not: it is society's (and each individual's) responsibility to identify and pursue prosecution of as many perpetrators as possible. Eliminating the statute of limitations (while maintaining high standards of evidence and due process) would be a good next step.
5
Nope. Rape is not some evolutionary adaptation and men are not impelled by their biology to rape and abuse women. Rape and the abuse of women are learned behaviors in cultures where misogyny, the ideology of male supremacy, religions which imagine a male god and normalized sexual violence are present. Rape and the denigration of women are learned behaviors in patriarchal and misogynistic cultures.
The argument that biology and evolution made males rapists and predators is lame and has no real scientific basis.
And no, not all cultures have rape. There were cultures that before being invaded by patriarchal European militarists and missionaries that had no rape, that did not even have a word or concept for rape in their languages.
3
We have high standards of evidence and due process. Very few rapists are even prosecuted and even fewer are found guilty and serve time. Sexual assault is very hard to "prove." Most rapists get away with it.
It seems to me that there is a very big difference between the emotional "judgement", as it were, of what would "feel" satisfying, and, the considered perception of what would be fitting. Of course, a person who has been traumatized may not be able to arrive at the latter, nevertheless, would it be the right thing for that person to take justice into his or her own hands if the legal process arrived at a sentence that did not "feel" satisfying?
2
I am impressed by the honesty of this piece. I didn't see it as an exploration of the pros and cons of the death penalty, as some here seem to, but rather as a human response to a terrible annihilation of the sacred personhood and value of another being. The gedanken experiment of devising a punish is a good one. Another follow-up question might be, "What if the rapist were discovered to have brain damage that led to assaulting the writer?"
3
Punishment for a crime should achieve several purposes--some of which are at odds with each other. Consequently, rarely is there a perfect outcome. Society wants revenge for the crime--that should be meted out in proportion to the harm. We want Rehabilitation to allow the criminal to atone and improve their contribution to society. We want restitution to make the victim whole. And we want deterrence which is more effective the more severe it is. Balancing these factors perfectly is a Solomonic task which inevitably leaves some of the goals of punishment wanting.
4
An argument I’m not seeing is the message to other potential abusers. If an abuser can be transformed and absolved over an unknown duration what’s to establish the criteria or time? Why not absolve Harvey Weinstein, who has just left a week in therapy since the truth of his behavior has emerged?
I also prefer to believe in people’s ability to become better. But what does the potential of being absolved of rape mean to those considering it?
When a man rapes he can steal a literal lifetime of trust and confidence from the victim. A life that can be repaired but not returned to the same wholeness.
Apologies if this was in some other comments.
4
The author ends up proving exactly the opposite of her initial statement. She concedes that her desire for death penalty or natural life sentence forvher rapist is a crude form of retribution, yet still insists that it is somehow justified by the harm done to her. But this harm cannot be undone. Suppose we stone her rapist to death tomorrow; will it take away her memories? (And note that I take at face value her claim that she was raped, even though I honestly cannot understand how such a crime could go on for 3 years and nobody intervened. Are we talking about a close relative? If yes, shouldn’t she confront him?). In any case, the feelings of the victim cannot be the sole or even the most important factor in dispensing justice. Killing the murderer does not bring the victim back to life. Justice is dispensed in behalf of society. And it is in society’s interests to promote the idea that people can, and do, change and to temper justice with mercy, even at the expense of the victim’s desire for revenge.
8
You need to do a lot of research and reading and learning about sexual abuse and rape. Please get started. "Why didn't she confront him?" is a dead giveaway that you are uninformed.
I am afraid I stopped reading when you questioned her history of rape. Why would you even bother to come into the conversation about punishment if you don't intend to accept the idea of a crime having occurred - just because you don't think she was heroic enough as a victim? To dismiss the author because you don't want to hear her story is rather like not bothering to read an entire comment ... now, isn't it?
It is rational to forgive someone for a crime committed on a person and still demand that they spend time in prison.
9
I think that Lackey's arguments regarding possibility of change and inability to predict the future need not be confined to the perpetrator of a crime. I'd ask Ms Carlson: by insisting on irreversible sanctions, aren't you also foreclosing the possibility that you yourself may experience a radical transformation (I'm not encouraging you to do so, just to consider the possibility) - this has happened - there are some examples of victims of crime becoming the strongest advocates for clemency for the perpetrator.
3
It seems that after a terribly frightening crime committed upon the most private dignity of a woman, it is a further imposition upon her to ask that she wrestle with making the moral decision about the appropriate punishment for her rapist.
We should rely upon the tests for determining the correct or “rational” punishment for any crime.
The punishment should always be sufficiently severe to show respect for the victim by confirmation that we understand the seriousness of the injury inflicted.
The punishment must demonstrate that in a society built upon the rule of law, serious violations must be punished severely.
The punishment must not debase society or the victim or the criminal by its cruelty or by inflicting peculiar treatment.
The punishment, except in those rare cases where the horror of the crime and the lack of remorse by the criminal offer no choice, should contain some hope for rehabilitation before a return to society.
1
The author is very much showing that she indeed is a doctoral candidate in philosophy as she works her way through scenarios. It also strikes me as a distancing and emotional survival tool she is using.
No matter how badly abused and traumatized we may be in some years of life, it is important to find ways to feel less attached to the pain.
After all, holding onto the pain only keeps re-injuring the victim.
You have no obligation to be rational in how you acknowledge your anger, and how your fantasize punishments you know cannot be delivered.
Your obligation is to survive and become as whole as possible, and try to live life fully despite scars.
May you find peace.
10
The author has my deepest sympathy. Her argument is articulate and her point of view understandable, but ultimately it is not persuasive. The justice system must take into account not only the victim and society at large, but also the perpetrator. The word “custody” is not a misnomer.
Rape is a terrible crime because it violates the victim's most intimate sense of self. I agree with the author that the experience is life changing. But was that the rapist's intention? When assessing punishment, the criminal's motive must be taken into account. I concur that along with sexual indulgence, the rapist is also gratified by his sense of dominance over the victim. These motives bespeak a despicable character. But is the rapist's intention to cause his victim permanent harm? Only if the answer is yes should he be eligible for permanent confinement.
I’d be interested to know the age of the author's assailant, and their relationship. Young men who have not learned to control their appetites are capable of atrocities that, in later life, they would abhor. In this sense, I think rehabilitation is possible.
The problem with the author's argument is that retribution precludes rehabilitation. In such a case, justice would not be served by a life sentence. I would advocate a significant sentence that includes counseling. In time, the criminal’s sincere repentance could inspire a measure of forgiveness and a degree of closure. Both parties would be the better for it.
2
I am curious how the author would respond in an alternate scenario. What if the perpetrator came forward and said, "With the benefit of hindsight, I now realize that what I did was unforgivable. I robbed you of a vital piece of your humanity that will never, and can never, be restored. I sincerely regret my actions, and I will accept any punishment that you feel is just, including death or life imprisonment." Surely, some kind of punishment would still be appropriate, but would a sincere expression of regret and responsibility change her feelings?
5
It would be impossible to know if it were sincere. It seems highly unlikely.
Thanks to G-ray for raising this question - it was one I had after reading this thoughtful, painful story. Would such a statement by her rapist help the writer in any way - assuming she believed it. Maybe that part would be impossible...
What a fascinating piece of writing. I don't have a rational argument to make, except this. What is truly irrational is to have both a statute of limitations and the possibility of life sentence for the same crime.
15
Imagine three victims and three perpetrators with identical circumstances in each of the three crimes.
Victim 1 is the author who responds as she has written.
Victim 2 is another who is completely shattered and commits suicide.
Victim 3 is angry but less traumatized than victim 1.
The criminal is the same in all three cases. Two questions arise:
A. Is punishment determined by the response of the victim? Is the criminal justice the agent of the personal characteristics of the victim, or should the punishments for equivalent crimes be equivalent punishments?
B. If the crime had been less horrific than above, but the response of the victim was like Victim 2, does that then determine a more severe punishment than in the first instance with victim 3?
This is why the discovery of fact, the prosecution of crime, and the allocation of punishment are not in the hands of the victims. Over the last thousand years, we have learned some things, and one of them is that justice is an ideal and not a practice. That is a truth we and victims must unfortunately live with.
10
The plaintiff in a criminal process is the state, not the victim, so the state decides the proper remedy. The death penalty for rape is not warranted because, as the author states, the perpetrator may be rehabilitated. That she is having a difficult time overcoming the trauma to which she was cruelly subjected is not grounds for life imprisonment or death. No amount of convoluted argument will make it so.
It is unclear why the victim thought filing a police report was not viable nor evidently was the filing of a civil suit, however, the stature of limitations for a civil suit does not begin to run until the plaintiff becomes an adult as defined in her state. As she is in college, that statute of limitations may not have expired. Moreover, a disability, perhaps emotional in nature, may also toll the running of the statute of limitations for a civil suit. Consult a lawyer. Act fast.
I am in favor of the death penalty when appropriate. Appropriatenes is largely an economic analysis. It is appropriate when the crime is heinous, the felon is - for all intents and purposes - beyond redemption because then the expense of housing such a person in a state facility is not a good use of state money. The same money could be put to better use by doctoring, feeding and housing the deserving sick and homeless. Even medical research to eliminate disease is a worthier expenditure than keeping a malcreant alive in jail for life.
6
I think the principal purpose of punishment is deterrence. I don't look favorably on retribution. It is argued that deterrence is not very effective against rape. This is not because the punishments are too weak; it's that rapists don't expect to be punished. And this raises a possible paradoxical effect -- increasing the severity of the punishment can reduce the willingness of victims to report the crime. The victim herself may unwilling to do something so harsh; she knows that the victim's friends, perhaps the whole community, will be angry at her if the villain suffers badly. But reducing the reporting rate further reduces the rapists' expectation of punishment.
So, I advocate, particularly in such cases as when both the alleged rapist and victim were too intoxicated for consent, that reduced punishments be available. This way reporting sexual misconduct can be seen as a less life-changing event for both victim and aggressor, and reporting might then become common enough that rapists stop thinking that nothing will happen to them.
1
"I had never thought filing a police report was a viable option. I was now in my 30s; the statute of limitations had long since passed."
Reporting a crime and prosecuting it are two different steps. Statutes of limitations apply to prosecuting, not reporting. Victims can always report a crime to the police, even after the statute of limitations has expired. Because I wanted to know that I had done everything I could to hold the man who raped me accountable, I reported the rape I endured decades later even though the statute of limitations in my state had long since expired.
17
Good piece. Carlson raises very tricky issues. Most of the criminal code presupposes that crime is a singular act. ("A robbery gone wrong..." "an act of passion" and the like). The criminal code was not written to cover the violent depravity of someone engaged in a multiple-year practice of systematic rape of a child. "Crime" may not be the right parameter for addressing torture of this sort and "criminal justice" may be an inadequate venue for redress.
Ms. Carlson, I am sorry you went through this. Perhaps the best "retribution" is to dismiss him from your mind altogether. Writing and studying may be the best response -- creating a life he can never touch.
2
This is not a "rational" argument for retributive justice. Retributive justice is not rational: it is emotional. You can see that from the very language that the author uses. For example "I desire a death or natural life sentence for my rapist because it is what seems appropriate given the amount of damage he wrought in my life." That is a gut judgment: it seems appropriate. It is plainly not proportional: this is not eye for an eye. The author is not dead. The author is pursuing a PhD in Philosophy at a highly ranked university, so one assumes that she is not profoundly disabled from living life, analogous to permanent confinement in a small, concrete cell with limited human contact (as is typical of lifers).
This is not to say that the author is entirely wrong. Retribution has its place in our system of justice, and even the long onslaught of Jeremy Bentham's heirs has not dislodged it. But I doubt that the author has a real understanding of what execution, or even life without parole, means. The balancing act in retributive justice is emotional, and it's hard to say something is "eye for an eye" if one has never plucked out an eye. Should rape be punishable by death or life imprisonment without the possibility of parole? Look to the nations that have made that judgment and ask yourself how you judge them. The same ethos that animates that part of the law inevitably finds expression elsewhere.
5
I had an experience when I was a teenager in which there was a large age difference and power imbalance. It was a gray area in regards to criminality, but very ethically wrong. It caused psychological damage that I only began to understand after I was sexually assaulted in college.
In the process of dealing with the trauma of my experience in college, I had to confront the unresolved feelings about the man who took advantage of me when I was 16. He had since gotten married and started a career in the helping field. I had occasional fantasies of revenge, but I didn’t hate him as much as I wanted to understand why and how it happened. I also wanted to make sure his wife knew.
I gave him two options: take my good faith request for a restorative Skype conversation, or I could turn over our correspondences to the police; I really didn’t want to be ripped open in a courtroom.
He chose Skype. He listened as I read him a letter that was 3 years in the making, saying exactly how he affected me and showing him who I was as an adult in spite of him. He answered all of my questions. I now understand how it happened, how it looked from his side. I’m still damaged, but I forgive him.
I asked him to write apology letters to my family, my boyfriend at the time who was dealing with the fallout, and to me. He donated to Planned Parenthood on my behalf. Though imperfect, it’s the best closure I could’ve hoped for. I took my power back and he knows that I know where to find him.
70
It may be important to note that the "age of consent" in Mass is sixteen, so if the sexual contact was consensual, a crime wasn't committed. Threatening someone with legal action for refusing to comply with your demands of a "restorative Skype conversation" seems an awful lot like extortion, however, which is a crime.
I’m keenly aware of the age of consent in MA. We were acquainted before I turned 16. He was also keenly aware of the age of consent and physically “left no trace” until I met it. You seem to forget that there are also cyber laws regarding certain materials and the age of majority, which is not 16.
1
I certainly didn't intend to put you in a position where you feel like you have to defend yourself - if this man was significantly older than you at the time, that easily rises to the level of lecherous, immoral behavior. And if you believe that he did something illegal, I would encourage you to report it. We need to get to a point where these crimes are reported as routinely as purse snatchings - no more excuses. People taking it upon themselves to pursue vigilante methods of "justice" instead of reporting these crimes also contributes to a "chilling effect". The fewer of these crimes that go reported - the less comfortable others are reporting similar crimes - the more stigma surrounding the victims of these crimes grows - the more comfortable the perpetrators become - etc..
Also, perhaps people should do a better job of familiarizing themselves with our legal system. Not wanting to be "ripped open in a courtroom" is a poor reason to fail to report a sex crime, merely based on the fact that something like 95% of cases wind up ending in a plea bargain. The idea that you'd be dragged up in front of a teeming courtroom and made to recount every detail, face down your abuser, and be smeared by some sadistic defense lawyer is a harmful fantasy that we should also work to dispel.
Make no mistake though, threatening someone with the revelation of "secrets" to his family and/or threatening legal action if he doesn't submit to your requests for letters/contact is extortion.
Our justice system allows input from victims. But " justice"intentionally is determined by a third party.
Thus, the injured person is free to feel and wish anything, and not face the additional burden of that becoming the sentence for the perpetrator.
It is honest of the victim to say she doesn't care in the least whether the perpetrator "becomes transformed". Why in the world should she care about that? Her responsibility is to herself, and to healing as much as she can.
Let her fantasize whatever punishment she might, and know we support her healing.
14
The victim, or in the case of a child, the parent/parents should be allowed to chose the punishment. In child cases, they should be allowed to administer the punishment.
1
These thought experiments are interesting. As a rape survivor, I have also considered various punishments to wish upon the first man who raped me, when I was a 16 year old virgin.
The one I considered for a long time was telling his wife and family, but decided against it.
The punishment I really wanted to inflict upon him was rape itself. I wanted him to feel what I felt, to feel his flesh torn open, to feel invaded by a foreign object, to feel violated by another person, and to carry that mental and physical and emotional pain for the rest of his life, just as I have had to do. I wanted him to experience something as close to what I felt as possible, but of course it could never feel the same, because he was a grown man and I was a teenage girl and he didn't have to go through life trying to figure out how to have sexual and romantic relationships with other men...
Nevertheless, this was all a thought experiment. Nothing happened to him in reality. But imagining it was satisfying, to a certain degree....
25
I would celebrate a transformative experience for an incarcerated violent perpetrator. I also believe true transformation consists not merely of becoming a nice person who is no longer a danger to society, but in becoming one who learns a gut-wrenching and permanent empathy for the victim(s), and an acceptance of the punishment as some small act of contrition to aid in the healing of victims. Let the perpetrator enjoy being a kind and generous person in prison, becoming a useful contributor to the prison society. Without acceptance of punishment, can there be true empathy and remorse? That's what true transformation means. "I'm really sorry and I've been good, can I go now?" Won't do. Ever.
77
The problem here is that most people who are so abusive are chronically incapable of real empathy. The kind of very profound change necessary for such a person, in order to experience real empathy is often impossible because they are deeply wounded individuals. They most often are unable to really change. They might learn how to fake it but what is that worth
1
The writer is stating that because the trauma she suffered will be permanent then the punishment should also be permanent.
I want to know if she would have the same attitude towards people who have done things that could have traumatized people to the same extent but did not do anything illegal or even wrong.
Lets say as a child she saw a man kill her mother in self defense.
Even though this man was in the right she would still be traumatized.
I am not comparing the two situations and saying they are the same.
They are different situation but the trauma that it causes can be the same.
It is terrible what happened to her but the fact she was traumatized she said for life should not be the reason the punishment should be permanent.
I can hear it now from some people.
They will say I am defending a rapist so I will give a different scenario.
Lets say this person who raped her abused her mentally and no physical
harm was done.
Would capitol punishment still be justified.
What if she was raped but she was not traumatized for life.
Using her logic this person would receive a different punishment.
She is being irrational to believe punishment should be determined on the fact
she was traumatized for life which was caused by some action in the past which in this case was her being raped.
3
She is not being irrational. Period. Full stop.
John, obviously you have not been raped. Had you ever suffered such an ordeal, you would understand that it would be impossible to not be traumitized by a rape experience. My sister was held at knifepoint by a stranger who intended to rape her then murder her. His M.O. A couple driving by returned to the scene at the insistence of the female because something didn't look right. They saved my sisters life. She still suffers PTSD on occasion. The man in question was convicted due to my sisters testimony. His only living victim.
My point is, your examples are not well thought out. The only reason I wasn't molested and raped by my friends father, is because I looked him in the eye with contemptible disgust as I said his name with the tone of vouce his mother might have used with him. I was 13. He was 62. He is dead. Yay, ding dong. His daughter is ignorant of this fact about her father because I have protected her from this fact.
1
It is an interesting thought experiment - "Imaging your rapist had been found guilty and sentenced in court. What would you want his sentence to be?"
Unlike the author, my mind did not jump to the death penalty, or a natural life sentence, or any length of incarceration. Perhaps I am a much crueler person, because in my mind the best and most fitting punishment would be for my rapist to experience exactly what he put me through. Let him experience violent rape. That would be my idea of justice. I don't have to be rational or compassionate in my cry for retribution.
18
Your accused rapist and abuser “...has a secure job, an accomplished and beautiful wife, and a healthy daughter.” What’s missing here?
5
macbloom: Rape is a crime of power. It is not a crime of sexual gratification. Rapists want to dominate, terrify and hurt their victims. Raping a woman is more vicious than just killing here.
A suspicion that he might be abusing and/or raping his daughter. I would be afraid for her, given his past history of raping a young girl. That type of behavior usually repeats in the future, because a young man who is that violent at that age typically was abused by someone else. Or worse.... he has some kind of mental health condition where he actually enjoys causing pain to others. Either way, these are pervasive patterns. A young man doesn't rape a young girl for that long, then never do it again. He got her into that position because he enjoyed it. He enjoys it, he WILL do it again.
I want to skip right over the detailed arguments in this harrowing report on the horrid experiences which the writer was forced to endure. I am stunned into great hesitation on the issues she raises because commenting from a casual, or even thoughtful, perspective, without having lived those events, seems presumptive. I have contemplated these matters only in the general terms of considering that victims can never be fully satisfied with punishments because, ultimately, there are many crimes for which no punishment is adequate. This seems to be one of those cases. Accepting that fact could be one way to put the matter to rest.
Is there a statute of limitations on an adult, the mother, allowing this beastly man to abuse the writer? If she still lives, an attorney could answer whether this would be a possible course.
How about a civil suit against the perpetrator?
Our Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishments, but in the case of what this man did such punishments might be the only fair response.
3
Although we readers may not know the identity of the rapist and his facilitating mother, they certainly must know the author's name. If they read this, they will recognize that she is talking about them and that she holds some power to disrupt their lives. If that has them looking over their shoulders for the rest of their natural lives, without any legal basis to accuse her of libel because she hasn't ID'd them in writing, that is a form of permanent psychological punishment, and it sounds pretty sweet to me. Not what the author would find ideal, but a nice start.
16
I too do not care if my abuser has "transformed;" I want him punished forever. As the author pointed out, victims are transformed for their natural lives by sexual abuse. Years of therapy help but cannot give the victim back the life she may have had. Those who argue for "rational" or compassionate approach to the abuser need to remember this: as a victim, I have been transformed for my natural life.
17
When a crime inflicts permanent harm on another, the punishment should fit the crime, short of the death penalty. Forfeiture of the criminal's freedom even up until death can be wholly appropriate and rational. In the details cited by the writer of the piece, I fear for the safety of the perpetrator's daughter.
7
I also thank J Kubie for his list. I'll add a question: isn't Carlson's desire (which I agree is justified) for a "transformative" vengeance and retribution against the crimes against her, already on the list? Don't the theories of criminal Justice that undergird our broken system already take into account both Carlson's and Lackey's approaches? To rephrase the list: we punish individuals to
- remove danger/continued offense (=societal protection)
- deter similar actions (=reinforce societal value, related to a)
- punish, or exact "transformative" vengeance. How is a long-sentence felon not transformed for life, in the sense of being branded, shamed, and deprived of big chunks of freedom, education, and opportunity? This depends too much on the wealth, family, and circumstance of the felon, but a 20 year sentence is pretty transformative, and often ruinous, crippling, or fatal.
-"rehabilitate" or punish with an opportunity for the possibility of positive "transformation " - I.e. Remorse, behavior change, willingness to offer some retribution, financial or otherwise.
Nature is unjust and cruel - there are few more undeserved death sentences than accidents or cancer. But humanity calls us to be neither random, nor cruel, nor irrational, and we know our difficulties with being "just." When I think of good people dead from a cancer sentence, a bullet seems too kind for a serial rapist like Carlson's. Nonetheless, the answer must be in between.
1
I cannot imagine how you pulled the pieces of your self together after such a long history of abuse and oppression.
I encountered a similar situation once: the perpetrator -who had raped a young woman repeatedly from puberty to about 15, was given probation by Family court. There was no criminal prosecution because the DA decided that the fragile teenager wouldn't make a "good witness." It wasn't treated with as much concern as a drug possession charge, burglary, or a speeding ticket.
While it was happening, It was like a living death for the young woman. I don't know if she was able ever to recover herself after this. She had a lifetime sentence.
So I see a rapist in the situation described by Ms. Carlson, as having committed something as terrible as, or worse than, murder: he made her a hostage to his actions, violated her body and mind, stole her time, trust, and ability to enjoy life.
Those losses should be weighed in sentencing. Sometimes what the state has traditionally seen as protecting the interests of the community has excluded specific interests of children and women.
MS Carlson has given a perspective on this violence that is rare - especially in explaining the effect of prolonged trauma. Someone can desire retribution - a natural reaction - but that is beside the issue that justice requires acknowledging the burden of the injuries suffered in setting appropriate punishments.
11
Carlson is expressing anger at being considered irrational by arguments for the possibility of reform and rehabilitation for perpetrators. It's not the job of victims to be rational but it is the job of society. The alternative is unending tribal vengeance. My question for Carlson as she continues to ponder the appropriate punishment which would perhaps relieve a bit of her suffering is this: what if your rapist, while incarcerated, reflected on his crimes and received therapy. And expressed his deepest, heartfelt regrets. And did not ask for forgiveness but demonstrated efforts to educate and counsel other men?
32
She's already answered that question—any transformation that the rapist experienced would be irrelevant to her, because no amount of regret or effort to do good on his part would change the effect of the rape on her or the damage that it's done to her life.
2
It seems like his life would be achieving a worthy purpose educating and counseling his fellow prisoners while he remained in prison without the possibility of parole.
3
I think you have completely misunderstood at least 50% of what the author said.
When someone rapes us we are changed whether we want to be or not. It's an intimate physical violation of our bodies. And our bodies respond whether we want them to or not. Our adversarial system of justice lets defense lawyers use that response against victims of rape. The unequal way women and children are treated when it comes to sexual assault is worse than the crime itself. If you are a child who has been sexually assaulted by anyone older and bigger than you who you depend upon your helplessness is reinforced. If you are molested by an adult you are supposed to trust or whom you like and is your only friend odds are you are not going to say a word.
There is no rational punishment for raping or sexually assaulting a person. The crime is not really about sex. It's about power and humiliation. It has the power to destroy the victim's life and sanity. And that's why it's nearly impossible to forgive. A man who rapes remains a man. A woman or child who has been raped has their identity shaken to the core first by the rape and then by the justice system. As someone who was sexually assaulted by the family doctor and abused by her family I would say that the best way to deal with it is not to blame the victim. The rapist is responsible for his actions, not the victim. As for punishment, it seems that no matter what is done the victim is the one punished.
26
Answer: 5 to 10 years in prison.
I think that is a rational punishment. If there were certain circumstances (youth, true confusion about consent, under the influence, etc.) then perhaps the sentence could be reduced. But yeah, I think this is a fair punishment and deterrent.
3
Correction - I meant per incident. So presumably Ms. Carlson's rapist would have a sentence of 500+ years.
After liberation, these people must be deprived of their sex drive in order to guarantee that they do not become repeat offenders. They are damaged goods due to their past -- what sane woman would settle down with a convicted rapist?
Per year of rapes, right? 5-10 years for each year of horror this animal perpetrated upon that little girl. 30 years? Yeah, okay. I’m good with that.
I hope the author never forgets that her own experience overrides anything said by her therapist or found in a philosophical essay.
7
Ms. Carlson makes a careful, logical argument for the appropriateness of retribution. It seems, though, that there is a second logical reason for keeping someone like her attacker in prison for life without any possibility of parole.
In deciding whether or not to reduce a "transformed" person's prison sentence, two things must be weighed: (1) whether the transformation is sufficient and genuine and, (2) the risk to society if the person has not truly changed or reverts to their pre-transformation self. For many crimes, taking some risk and paroling or releasing offenders makes sense. However, repeatedly raping someone over a period of years is chillingly cruel. It is premeditated torture. If an incarcerated person has demonstrated this level of cruelty, the risks this person poses to society far outweigh even the strongest possible evidence of transformation. It is both ethical and, frankly, logical that someone like the author's attacker should remain in prison no matter what. Life without parole. This isn't about retribution. It's about protecting people from someone demonstrably capable of committing evil.
104
I was raped by my great-aunt's husband, starting when I was five through age eleven. Although I suspect he abused and raped other boys (and girls) including his own sons, he never faced charges. To my knowledge, his actions were never even revealed.
Had he been brought to justice I think a surgical castration and penectomy would have been appropriate. He was obviously a sick pedophile, incapable of controlling his sexual urges and attractions to children. Castration would have reduced his testosterone levels; physical loss of his penis and testicles would have been a daily reminder of his misdeeds. Weekly counseling sessions could be added to the sentence, I suppose, to keep track of the offender. But as a victim / survivor, I never got any help or counseling.
Rapists deform another person's sexuality, in many cases stealing the ability to enjoy one of life's most basic and primal pleasures. The damage done is enormous; the suffering lasts a lifetime. What the normal discovery of sexuality might have been is denied me. I've been robbed of so much that is irreplaceable, like every victim of rape, especially when it happens as a child.
A death penalty is really, upon reflection, a gift of release for the perpetrator, and a life sentence places a huge burden on society.
No ... take away their sex organs. And if there is a violent aspect to the rape, lock them up for ten or twenty years. Maybe their fellow inmates will extract something approaching just deserts.
59
Dave, I am so, so sorry for your pain, and loss. Loss of a normal life. Thank you so much for sharing your story, you are very brave and decent for that.
Best wishes, sincerely.
4
For me, not only would the death penalty be the only just punishment, I would feel vindicated if I could deliver the fatal blow.
8
What if you were wrong abut the identity of the rapist? After all, some horrible rapes happen on dark alleys. If you then administered the capital punishment to the wrong person, I argue the same should be administered to you.
1
The author suffered a horrible crime and I applaud her for coming forward.
Nonetheless, when I read "I’m not a proponent of the death penalty primarily because the flaws in our criminal justice system are egregious and increasingly well-documented {but} I know what my rapist did to me, so I know he is guilty", I was reminded of how many relatives of victims in capital punishment cases profess an identical sense of certainty and how often I have read the victims of convicted rapists exonerated by DNA, etc say the same.
There are also, of course, instances where the guilt of the person facing capital punishment and the competence of their defense counsel is overwhelmingly clear, but the author would deny those victims what she seeks for herself on the basis of other accused murderers not being so clearly guilty or ably represented.
Our system of justice has very serious flaws and for centuries the treatment of sex crimes victims was especially awful. The author's approach, while perfectly understandable in her horrendous circumstances, does not solve these issues, but it is good to see the victim's perspective being given a forum.
20
I am a survivor of long-term physical abuse. This left its mark. I have also been a profession therapist with both survivors of sexual and physical abuse, and with offenders. For the latter, a harm reduction approach is of use to society for those offenders who are able to get released or to take minimizing plea bargains. It this justice? Perhaps in some cases, but many are released and re-offend. There is rarely any justice for the survivor- they live with the memory, even when they are able to cope well, and they are silenced and even pressured by family, community, religious leaders, peers, and therapists to "forgive" the perpetrator and made to feel guilty or inadequate for not having "let go" of all their anger. Society forgives, however, and lionizes the abusers- trump, rothlisberger- as we do all the the other bullies and brigands who are "successful". Lots of people actually like these jerks and unless the rest of us stop shutting up but endlessly reference their crimes- even after decades have passed and every time they appear in public. It is far more important to protect potential victims than it is to soothe the souls of those willing to hurt others for their own amusement and profit.
2
"...the author would deny those victims what she seeks for herself on the basis of other accused murderers not being so clearly guilty or ably represented."
That isn't what she said.
1
Rape demonstrates that an individual is not capable of living freely in society. And what do we do with such menaces?? We "council" them and let them back out after a couple years! Insane.
7
Ms Carlson, in her article, still, has not opined what would be an appropriate sentence for this rapist.
1
The fact that she cannot "opine" what her rapist's punishment should be is the very point of the article.
When I read this, I find that perfectly understandable. She is trying to reclaim her life, while responsibly dealing with her anguish as an adult by getting therapy. She knows we live in a country which (very imperfectly) aspires to abide by the rule of law. She has not bought a pistol and put him down like a dog. She has written an article on the opinion pages of the New York Times. This is a plea for victims' voices to be heard and considered.
My plea is that someone do a welfare check on that man's daughter. A professional, ideally, would also check on other young women around him, because I am working on the assumption that what is written here is true. Justice delayed is not only justice denied; it puts other innocents in danger.
1
Lackey is a fool. Whatever rehabilitation the criminal exhibits does not retract the damage that was caused. there should be a price to pay for criminal behavior, whatever they figure out behind bars is after the fact. a person who does something like what was described deserves a slow lingering death sentence because of the suffering they have caused. And that's really too good for them.
7
I wouldn't be so sure that the rapist has "a healthy daughter". It's doubtful that a man who was permitted to continue raping one young, defenseless girl for years has lost his taste for sexual violence. I hope someone is looking out his daughter's welfare better than your rapist's mother protected you.
83
I write this to Amber, Ph.D. student rather than victim, as in my experience offering an academic-type response to someone in such pain can seem non-empathetic. Therefore, it’s not focused on her terrible experience, but more generally.
The article never defines the key terms “rationality” and its opposite, “irrationality.” Her argument does meet the low rationality bar in providing reasons for and against her position. But there is no underlying hierarchy or way of evaluating one form of reason over another—other than to give precedence to the view of the victim.
What she is really doing is using these terms in a common debating, trying-to-win-an-argument sense, taking advantage of their associative and pejorative properties. Rationality: good; irrationality: bad.
Complicating things, there is a lurking, unresolved issue brought to us by the now second Nobel Economics Prize winner for behavioral economics, Richard Thaler, which tells us that despite what we’d like to think, much of our behavior is irrational.
Much of the field seeks to describe our many cognitive biases so that we can get back on the proper rational track. However, Thaler’s response when asked what he will do with his Nobel award money was “Something irrational.” I wonder if he actually meant it and if there was an additional message of “So what, irrationality can be OK.” Regardless, there are unexplored implications to what this field is telling us, such as what if common sense isn’t such a good guide?
1
Michel Foucault once said that punishment is the most difficult thing. He had in mind the power of the judge, the state, over individuals. We know how terribly such powers can be abused. Even so, an ethical society has to judge, and has to punish.
Carlson and Lackey are both right, even disagreeing. I'm a family survivor of a terrible murder, and I totally agree with both of them. I would say that I am completely rational, despite the contradictions. The murder, like Carlson's rape, was so heinous that the perpetrator should never be allowed to return to society, which cannot take the risk of repetition. And yet I also believe that the kind of justice system I support would not include capital punishment, and would include chances for rehabilitation and parole.
We need a criminal justice system that does the best it can in truly impossible circumstances.
68
Stephen from New York said, " Carlson and Lackey are both right, even disagreeing....We need a criminal justice system that does the best it can in truly impossible circumstances."
Very well said. Thank you.
The system must try to do what is right for the society at large. Yet in doing so, it should not disparage the hurt and pain felt by victims.
There no easy answers. Maybe there are no really right answers.
I am not female and never have been raped. But there have been wrongs done to me, such that I could pull the switch, or a trigger, on some individuals with little hesitation. Still, our justice system should NOT be simply an instrument of revenge for victims.
OTOH, we certainly owe something to the victims as well, even if their needs do not match what seem to be "rational" solutions as a rational Spock might see them.
The rapist committed what most of us would call an act of pure evil. And on this planet there is frequently no true justice, this apparently being one of those times. He of course should be in jail to protect others.
Only the law of karma it seems can truly balance the scales in these cases, and somewhere in time he'll experience in some fashion the trauma and pain he caused others to experience.
For the author, we're all horrified at what she went through and no one can really convey how sorry they are that it happened.
But in my experience, for her and any of us so wounded, true healing and peace of mind will only come when she finds a way to forgive. Seems impossible I know, but it's the only way. I wish her the best as she continues to try and recover.
2
What (I think) I would want is for the rapist to understand what he did and live with the guilt and shame of his behavior. That is almost impossible so I would settle for a minimum of 20 years in prison all of which involved empathy training.
If after 20 years he demonstrated remorse and at least some understanding of what he did along with the capacity to function in society as a non-abuser he could be released.
25
In The Psychopath Test Jon Ronson reported on an experimental treatment back in the 1970s in the Canadian criminal mental system that found that men who went through empathy training prior to release actually had a higher rate of recidivism than men who just went through normal prison life. The conclusion? Empathy training teaches psychopaths how to better pose as empathic without actually learning empathy.
2
Empathy cannot be taught to adults and there is no quilt or shame for these men. I know because I know them well.
1
The person Raped gets the sentence: An UNnatural life sentence. Their life will never be the same, will never be what it could, and should, have been. In this particular case, sounds as if this was her stepbrother. It's not too late for some small measure of justice. Name him, and his enablers. Facebook and other platforms CAN be used for good, occasionally. Hopefully, it will go viral, and HE will be shamed and shunned.
Best wishes.
10
I'm so sorry for the trauma you suffered. You are courageous for asserting your rights as a victim. Your perspective should be front and center in this debate about punishment.
19
A number of states, fourteen by my count, have no statue of limitations on rape, and several more have no limitations on first offense rapes, whatever that constitutes exactly. The other states should follow them.
24
Those who are calling for her to name her rapist, are you sure the outcome will be satisfactory for her? I would like to think that she would be believed and he would be shamed - that his wife would leave him and his life would be disrupted. But experience says there is a better than decent chance the negative blowback on her would make it not worth it. Her motives would be publicly questioned, she would be publicly shamed for not “moving on after all these years”, she would be disbelieved, she would get strangers calling her house and threatening to rape her again, his wife probably wouldn’t believe her, etc. Just by writing this piece, she is opening herself up to negative blowback. We like to think we live in a better society than we do, especially when it comes to violence against women.
74
The author states that her assailant is now married, with a daughter, and implies that he is living a respectable life. But she cannot know whether the man's wife, daughter, or friends of the daughter aren't being abused. In the absence of any facts about how he morphed from a monster to a decent human being, it's possible that he continues his predation. This is frightening!!
43
I can’t really form an opinion on this article as there is so much we don’t know. It happened when she was 13 to 16, so it suggests someone familiar to, she mentioned his mother, so I assume the rapist is young. Could it a step-brother? I would certainly approach the sentencing of a 16 y/o rapist very differently than the sentencing of an adult. Moreover in this case, the mother appears to be some sort of an accomplice and if the rapist is indeed a minor, she is as guilty as he is, if not more.
10
How could the mother be more guilty than the rapist? Are you holding the mother to a standard that you are not holding the rapist to?
Her mother failed to protect her and remover her from a dangerous situation.
The rapist had a responsibility not to rape.
8
It would be interesting to know how old the perp was during those three years. Was he 16 to 19, or 13 to 16? Either way, he was very savvy at getting exactly what he wanted for three years, wasn't he? 16 to 19, adult court. 13 to 16, it would depend on what the shrinks said. Whatever the outcome, he's a very dangerous individual who should not be near children, much less father them, especially young girls.
Did you read the article? She mention HIS mother, not hers, his mother telling them to quiet down, suggesting that she knew what was happening? Since we don’t know anything about the person who raped her, we don’t know his age. He might have been a juvenile himself and maybe abused as well.
Almost no one in these comments argues for anything beyond retribution or vengeance. We don't seem to have advanced beyond mideaval concepts of justice.
50
Rape is a monstrous act. Self defense is entirely rational. End the monster’s freedom.
17
When, as a society, we come up with a method to protect the upcoming victims from those who choose to commit such acts, then perhaps we will move beyond medieval concepts of justice,j retribution and revenge.
Until we have a reliable method of prior control over those who would commit assault on another, we will continue to use confinement and/or punishment methods.
1
To HowardR: Perhaps we haven't "advanced beyond mideaval [sic] concepts of justice" because far too many men have not advanced beyond the medieval enjoyment of rape.
2
Until we develop a technology to cause pain and disruption and terror in the perpetrator's life that equal those he imposed on you -- there will be no sanction appropriate EXCEPT a life sentence or death.
Anything less makes a mockery of the way he murdered your trust in humanity, your sense of safety, your self-image and confidence, in acts which he most likely does not recall every single day . . . unlike you.
You say he has a child. What are the chances that child is his current victim? Or there may be others.
Please name him. For your sake, for others'.
15
Based on this experience and others, I feel we have to question the logic of statute of limitations on sexual crimes. I don't see how both victim and society is helped or harmed by having a rapist never being brought to justice and therapy based on a legal statute. Sexual assault causes such deep levels of shame that coming forward is incredibly difficult especially when it's committed by someone in a position of trust (think teacher, clergy, parent, kin).
The criminal justice system is also deeply lacking in qualified agents who are specifically trained in the psychology to distinguish between the untreated mentally ill who commit antisocial acts and those who are truly unremorseful of the harm they have caused. Think of how much better informed a judge would be in family court if they were specifically trained psychologists, for example.
I agree with Ms. Carlson that the aim should take into account the victim's position of having suffered permanent and irrevocable harm. Until we have the proven treatment of erasing traumatic memories, the victim will live with the trauma of sexual assault; in many cases, it cascades into drug abuse, clinical depression, and a total withdrawal from life, even suicide. Just because a rapist becomes remorseful and never rapes again doesn't erase the victim's trauma.
189
Lmca, thank you for your astute comment. Remorse doesn't undo the incident. It doesn't remove the memories. It doesn't change history. All it means is that the offender has grown a conscience about the crime he committed.
Perhaps our justice system needs to take into account what has been destroyed. Or maybe it's a societal question. It seems to this reader/commenter that after a crime of this magnitude has been committed society needs to step in and help the victim(s) regain control of their lives too. All too often the injuries suffered, especially the mental ones, are not adequately addressed. Treating the offender is one thing. But don't the victims deserve as much treatment as they need to rebuild their lives too?
2
I agree. There is no valid reason for a statue of limitations for any type of assault case especially rape that can devistate, and for many reasons cause a person not to report it until they come to terms with it, something that can take years of therapy.
1
All the current laws regarding rape and prison sentences were made predominately by men. Is there a bias there for lenient sentences?
1
Look upon yourself with kindness. You could not have known or prevented all that happened. Avoid backward looking "what ifs" because past times cannot be changed. All that can be changed is today and how you see you tomorrow.
7
You mention that he has a "healthy daughter" but I do wonder how he treats her.
One important goal is to be certain that every single girl know where she can turn for help when an adult ignores her screams.
As for your disgusting rapist, give organizations that fight abuse against women his name and address for fundraising and educational appeals so that his crime haunts his mailbox forever.
32
Well-reasoned and thoughtfully considered - to give so little consideration to the “transformative” process of crime victims is as unjust, if not more so, than giving none to that of the perpetrator.
Progressive reforms point to very real failures of society to provide justice for the accused, from the unequal sentencing of drug violations to the paucity of legal defense provided to those who cannot afford to buy their own.
Very few have looked at the ways that the justice system fails victims of domestic and sexual violence. Where is the empathy for the victims of crime?
43
If the author had killed her tormentor she would likely have gotten off or with tempered punishment so our society understands the desire for retribution. But, since it is founded on Judeo Christian values, it can't make retribution the focus of its approach to justice.
Instead of asking herself if she could imagine her attacker changing sufficiently to deserve freedom, perhaps she should ask herself this: Is there absolutely no scenario the she could think of that would allow her to forgive her attacker in the future (religious experience perhaps).
5
A victim can extend personal forgiveness at the same time that the state administers justice in the form of sentencing. The two are not mutually exclusive and both may be necessary for a victim’s healing.
12
I disagree. Had the victim killed her PERPETRATOR (tormentor denies the fact of conviction), she would likely have received a harsher punishment than is typically given to a perpetrator committing the crime cited! As a victim's advocate for 30 years, I can tell you that female victims who kill their perps rarely get lenience. The only reason you hear about the cases in which they do not, is because they are so unusual.
It is inappropriate to define or dictate to victims of violent crime what they should feel or how they should think. Their journey to recovery belongs to them. Not you or the Judeo Christian values of which you speak. The Bible also mentions an eye for an eye.
Non-violent crimes may be another matter. One still feels violated and powerless in such crimes. But, there is a great deal of difference between violent and non-violent crime.
Opinions such as this simply re-victimize victims!
36
I have some ideas for the rapist's punishment which are unprintable. Perhaps the least is to have some sort of implant put in his gut so that every moment of his life he suffers pain, a pain he cannot evade or escape from. Just as his victim suffers.
Another punishment is to simply name him in the New York Times and let the chips fall where they may.
142
And name that women who told her to quiet down. And her parents who didn't protect her. I remember the story related by Nicholas Kristoff of the 7 year old girl sent every morning to a group of men to be raped. Where is justice? And what is justice for children?
37
There is no justice. Not in her case, not in sexual assault. No punishment erases the pain, balances the hurt, returns the victim to herself. Justice is a farce, she will never be truly free.
4
I hope Ms Carlson has called her rapist out.
It is possible she is the only woman that he has raped and abused but I doubt it.
The perpetrators get away with their crimes when they are not held accountable.
The fact that her rapist has a wife, child, nice life only gives him hiding space.
122
I completely understand the author's rationale for desiring extreme punishment for her rapist. The same argument could be made for all forms of violence, not just sexual violence. When someone, regardless of their gender, is beaten, shot or otherwise seriously injured the results, both mental and physical, will probably stay with them for a lifetime. Yet the punishments, at least in most cases, are rather modest, certainly not natural life or death. All violence is about power, leaving the powerless traumatized. I think all forms should be strongly punished, although I doubt I would opt for natural life or death for any form of survived violence.
The argument about individual transformation in cases of violence, and particularly sexual violence, on the other hand, I believe to be spot on. A sexual predator that is still free is by definition someone who changed their behavior to some degree, or they would have been caught, and those that are imprisoned of course look changed. They're in prison, where they can't do exactly what they did before, and they've had a lot of time on their hands to modify they're outward behavior. That shouldn't change anything, because you have no idea of what they will do when they get out. Change statutes of limitations, or eliminate them for all violent crimes, not just murder, acknowledging the permanence of trauma produced by violence.
10
" A sexual predator that is still free is by definition someone who changed their behavior to some degree, or they would have been caught..."
I disagree. Look at all the priests, look at the Bill Cosbys and Harvey Weinsteins and Bill O'Reillys of this world who preyed on women for decades before they were caught, look at good old Uncle Bill, or that second husband or live-in boyfriend of so many women with daughters. The predators caught are very few; the ones brought to justice are fewer still.
63
The following statement is false: " A sexual predator that is still free is by definition someone who changed their behavior to some degree, or they would have been caught," Most sexual assaults are not even reported therefore, no arrest is made. A greater percentage (about 75%) of perpetrators of sexual assault do re-offend and are never convicted. Despite all the ways in which individual states try to assess potential recidivism or classify the "dangerousness" of convicted sexual predators, no method is perfect. One cannot say that because they are free they must have changed their behavior.
They just haven't been caught yet if they are reoffending. Given that anywhere from 67% - 95% of sexual assaults go unreported in the first place, the sample of convicted offenders is small. And arrest doesn't = conviction. A decision to not prosecute doesn't equal innocence. And particularly where sexual assault is the crime, even an acquittal doesn't necessarily = innocence!!!!
The Rape Myths are firmly entrenched in our society. Juries come to their work with pretty much the same incorrect notions held by the general public. One prominent rape myth is that women lie about sexual assault (and children do too- we can't trust what they say). But, statistics show that there are more false reports of stolen cars than there are of false sexual assault. So why the scrutiny of victims? Rape Myths, that's why.
12
Yes, but there are multiple things at play in your examples. I would contend that priests and their lot adopt a behavioral profile and a profession that makes it hard for their parishioners and others to believe the whispers. Perhaps adaptation would be a better phrasing than changing their behavior; I think pedophile priests were always pedophiles, and flocked to the priesthood precisely because they could disguise themselves and be protected, and because of a ready supply of children and faith-blinded parents. Do you think the fellow that was the writer's rapist actually changed, becoming a loving family man and never re-offending, or simply adapted his behavior? I doubt he changed. The second group, the Weinsteins and Cosbys of this world, rely on power and celebrity to silence their accusers. It looks like that may finally be ending to some degree, but the power of celebrity in this country never ceases to amaze me.
One facet left untouched in Lackey's argument (as described, at least) is to balance the perpetrator's thoughts--rational or irrational; with or without epistemic impoverishment--at the time of the commitment of the crime. Particularly given that the rape and psychological abuse went on for three years, I think most people would agree that the perp acted either irrationally for those entire three years (really?), or rationally evil (more likely): Think Hannibal Lector in Silence of the Lambs.
So why should the victim or the State be held to a different standard at the time of sentencing than the perp at (or during, in this case) the time of the commission of the crime? The sentence should be based on the best available evidence at that point in time. In this instance, that argues convincingly in favor of a natural life sentence, at least.
I, too, have undergone EMDR some years ago. Mine was to overcome the horror of witnessing a triple-fatality auto accident where I was first on the scene afterwards. EMDR saved my soul and conscience, if not my life. I wish you well in your ongoing recovery from such a horrible period in your life. Know that there any many, many people out there who share your pain and readily offer support and comfort--like me.
30
There are a variety of purposes to sentencing and incarcaration; you touch on only two. Among the reasons:
1. Punishment to change a criminals behavior. (Lackey’s argument)
2. Revenge or vengence at the personal level (you) or at the societal level.
3. Warning to others of the consequence.
4. Statement of societal values.
5. Removal of a dangerous person from society.
58
Thank you. You are the only commentator to point out that society is the main player in this situation. Whether or not the victim cares about the possibility that the punishment will be harsh enough to deter others from committing the same crimes or worse, society must consider the well being of all. Claims that deterrence is ineffective do not survive the fact that even one rape prevented is worth the burden placed on the convicted rapist.
42
BFS, if deterrence is ineffective then by that same logic and definition, deterrence cannot prevent even one rape.
If that is not what you mean then the question becomes how to quantify the statistical success of deterrence, and weigh it against wrongful convictions.
The burden placed on convicted individuals is a separate issue from their actual guilt. That is why a civilized society must weigh the risks of convicting innocents against letting the guilty go free and decide what values they hold most dear - and why American society aspires to "innocent until proven guilty".
1
I hope you find some consolation in knowing that those who have committed similar atrocities to yours are being identified, shamed, forced from their positions, made to pay, and not allowed to draw a curtain over their actions any longer. Now the next step is to get women and men to stop voting for and standing behind a man that brags about what he has done, lies about it, and criticizes his accusers. For the first step in his rehabilitation is to admit what he has done, admit it was wrong, and accept his punishment. His supporters aren't quite there yet. One step forward.....
36
Lackey puts her question about rationality directly: “How is it rational to screen off the relevance of this information?"
It's rational, I would say, because I have so little faith in the judgment of the people who would use that information. Especially in the case of rape, sentences are ridiculously lenient. Recall, for example, the case of Stanford University swimmer Brock Turner: three months in prison for raping an unconscious woman.
48
Brock has to register as a sex offender when he gets out of prison. But, probably a good lawyer can get this condition reduced. Sad.
NAME HIM. The world knowing, and him having to face the music, will possibly bring you some peace. Why should you suffer alone while he thrives without consequence? To say nothing of his possible future victims...
225
She just did.
4
Where did she name him? I read the article twice. In modern society, she would just have to publicize his name, picture and place of work and this would follow him for the rest of his life.
"Name him?" That IS an issue here -- is the alleged perp, a relative? Cousin? Uncle? Neighbor? In a court of law, that will make a difference.
It would really help, if the editors were editing more carefully, on details. Thanks.
1
These questions are sincerely asked - no malice or judgement intended: If you want to punish the man who raped you, why not publicly name him? If nothing else, is it possible that doing so would put you on more even footing with him, allow you to possibly regain some of the power/control he violently took from you? Because if you’re willing to have the death penalty or a life sentence applied to him (hypothetically but entirely justifiably, mind you), would making him publicly accountable for his crimes somehow be worse?
99
I think most women rightly fear the social repercussions if they go public with their story. Many victims are so violated that even the memory is debilitating, let alone the public reaction. This article is an important step for her healing. I wish the author well.
14
The therapists question was predicated on the perpetrator having been convicted. So, he was publicly shamed. A few victims might feel safe/secure enough to continue publicly naming their perpetrator. But, the vast majority just want the whole thing to be over and to move forward with healing. This is very hard to do when a criminal case takes years. Every time you have to meet with a prosecutor or receive a notice about the case in the mail, you relive the trauma. Why would anyone suggest a victim put themselves through that?
People who have never been through this experience of sexual assault and subsequent interaction with the criminal justice system should not make statements about what victims should or should not do, feel, etc., not even professionals who work with victims do that!
7
Do the advocates of "naming him" not grasp that this powerful man could sue Carlson for slander, putting her through even more years of hell?
2
Ms. Carlson has suffered an injury that so far has affected the rest of her life and in all likelihood, will continue to do so. So, her injury is permanent. Any incarceration less than life would be impermanent. Nothing can replace what has been taken from her, but permanent conditions on his life seem only fair, as he has imposed permanent conditions on hers.
So, if her rapist was convicted, perhaps a sentence of incarceration, followed by parole conditions which include retributions for the remainder of his natural life (e.g. he must pay for any and all mental health care she receives; in addition, 20% his salary is garnished and paid to her, with a minimum due or he does not meet parole conditions, and he must donate money and/or volunteer a set number of hours at a women's domestic violence shelter or other female support center such as a rape crisis center). Whatever the percentage of his salary that is garnished is the same percentage that must be paid to her from his final estate (if she is deceased, she can designate a charity recipient). These would yield both direct punishment but also permanent, ongoing injury to him as well. Her thought experiments (and those of other victims) on these sort of sentences would be interesting to hear. What is justice for a personal injury that is life-long?
56
Would one really feel better if one were reminded of her trauma every month, by a handful of money? I think not. Imagine being "kept" by the person who destroyed you!
5
Revenge and retribution are not rational ways for an enlightened society to conduct criminal justice. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
16
Not demanding justice and retribution for crimes makes the whole world blind to injustice and spiritually empty. We should let the Hitlers, Pot Pols, Idi Amins, Monsanto (the list goes on ad infinitum) have their way with the world? I think not.
9
If there is no retribution, that encourages the criminal to continue. You are enabling criminals.
Thank you for this well-written, rational argument for retributive justice, at least in feeling and imagination. Feelings are facts, psychologically, so you are right to say we need to consider this in how we frame and advocate for transformation. It has to include the victims' irrevocable pain and harm. No "cheap grace," as Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote.
I am so sorry this happened to you. (You could contact the wife and ruin his life.)
69
The wife will deny it, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. She is likely deep in denial already given that she is married to a sociopath. This denial will only further hurt the author - more proof that there is no justice in society and everybody turns a blind eye to horrors.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and experience with us. I found your argument considered and highly logical. In theory, I oppose the death penalty and some life sentences but if someone hurts my family, I think my opinion might change very quickly. Life is not cut and dried - unfortunately prison sentences have to be.
37
The modern socialist state idea in America (left wing, Democratic party) and its perception of crime and just sentence, for example definition of rape and corresponding punishment, and what we can expect socially and from the justice system if current progressive trends continue?
America appears caught in a law quagmire. On one hand we have the right wing, conservative party which appears to many unjust to begin with in its social conception (poor rights record with respect to women, minorities, gays) not to mention unjust because founded to a large extent on Biblical law and with often harsh prison sentence conception (death penalty), but on the other we have the left wing party which although being against the death penalty and constantly playing up the idea that a person can be rehabilitated, can change, seems obsessed with multiplying and intensifying what constitutes offense in society so that although people might not be sent to prison as much let alone subject to the death penalty, individuals, especially men, are under a barrage of criticism and expected to change in any number of ways in society, are under constant sentence without actually going to prison. The overall effect is apparently belief that humans are not fixed in nature, that they can change even if having committed crime, and that prison not to mention death sentence must be abolished, but ironically society itself must be a vast rehabilitation center as if after all, humans cannot change in nature.
Proper supervision of the young and vulnerable is the best solution. Barring that, early intervention is vital. Justice delayed beyond the statute of limitations really is justice denied.
The statute of limitations should be addressed for crimes against the young that are routinely not reported until years later. But, the best chance at justice for the victim is an early trial. Everything dissipates with time, including what’s considered a rational punishment.
22