I said in my comment that the justice system probably missed in this case, but I'm not really interested in adjudicating whether it was right or wrong in its result. I'm starting with the premise of the system maybe having done its job, because a lot of people use the fact of the case to beat around the bush and not say what they really mean - that former criminals such as rapists shouldn't see the light of day in society.
See to me, if one never ever commits a crime again after having previously commited a crime, regardless of the method used, it should be seen as a success. Focusing on the "did the time" is just advocating for punitive justice. You're saying it's not possible that he's changed because he wasn't punished enough, and should just be punished more regardless of the conclusion the system arrived at. But I wonder if more punishment would really change a person for the better.
The punitive justice system doesn't care whether criminals do the crime again. It doesn't matter if a rapist is unrepentant, they serve their 7-14 years or whatever and then they're free again. In this, I don't think it's a more positive outcome than someone serving less time in prison. The punishment amount ultimately doesn't necessarily serve a purpose other than inflicting harm on the guilty. You don't believe he's changed, but neither of us really knows, and we couldn't really prove that he would change if he spent another 20 years in a cage.
But one thing we do know, based on a lot of research into human psychology and sociology is that if you treat a person like a monster, they tend to become monsters. The more you ostracize someone the fewer options they have, the more they're pushed back towards being unable to live a normal, lawful life. The US has one of the most punitive justice systems and they have a recidivism rate of like 80% within 5 years of release. Over in incarceration systems like the Netherlands', it's about half of that.
There's really no evidence to support the claim that more prison time = more well behaved citizens after, in fact all evidence pretty much points to the contrary. So I gotta wonder why people would advocate for it. And surely, in this case and other extreme cases, it is because of the crime. Whether he changed or not, whether he ever commits a crime again or not, whether he does feel remorse or not, let's not kid ourselves that it would matter for most people.
Most of the people here wouldn't feel differently if he had come out with an apology or something. It's just a smokescreen for bloodsports, for wanting a bad man punished, not turned into a not-so-bad man. There is something innate in us screaming to have the ill elements of our society tortured, and it's just an inherently reactionary impulse that we as a society need to work out of our system to actually create a better world instead of just perpetuating a neverending cycle of suffering.
And by all means, hate the guy, for sure. The boos are deserved and all, I'm not saying he shouldn't catch any flack, but I don't think kicking him off a sports team or sending him to jail for another couple of years will untraumatize that poor kid he raped, nor will it make him a better person.
I'm starting with the premise of the system maybe having done its job, because a lot of people use the fact of the case to beat around the bush and not say what they really mean - that former criminals such as rapists shouldn't see the light of day in society.
I definitely don't agree with the last point there, I've known plenty of violent criminals who have paid their time and were actually remorseful. This man has done neither, so I'm not willing to entertain that the system did it's job. Especially when the system quartered the sentence of another nation for a violent crime against a minor.
You can call that punitive justice if you want, but arguing that If they never do another crime it's successful just sounds like another way to say 'boys will be boys, they just made a small mistake". Especially with this argument:
I don't think kicking him off a sports team or sending him to jail for another couple of years will untraumatize that poor kid he raped, nor will it make him a better person.
Sure, that's all true. But I can't imagine seeing her rapist allowed to play in the Olympics after getting a slap on the wrist isn't going to not be re-traumatizing. It's also not a good look for the Dutch, since it shows they care more about sports than they do their image or the suggestion that they're light on child rapists.
You can call that punitive justice if you want, but arguing that If they never do another crime it's successful just sounds like another way to say 'boys will be boys, they just made a small mistake".
It's not that I wanna call it that, it literally is punitive justice. You're not putting any arguments down for why your approach would make things better for anyone involved other than "the perpetrator should just have been punished more".
Like I get your point of view, that rapists generally get away with it too often, but that's kind of immaterial to the argument at hand - this person didn't just get away with it. They were caught, they were convicted, they served some time, the only issue is that it wasn't enough time in your opinion and that they returned to a public life. But would more time really have made a difference? It's arbitrary as hell, since if he had spent 10 years behind bars but never apologized and returned to play volleyball in the olympics, I don't think you'd view him a lot more favorably. How do you settle on a just time in prison for ruining someone's life? It's all either arbitrary or subjective. Some would want him jailed for life, others think 20 years would be fine, other think 7, others want him dead, etc.
I definitely don't agree with the last point there, I've known plenty of violent criminals who have paid their time and were actually remorseful
My point wasn't that there aren't former criminals that are remorseful, my point is that the punitive justice system doesn't care if they are. Reform is not the point and whether they come out a changed person is irrelevant. You serve your time, you get out. And frankly, a lot of the time, prison changes people for the worse. I don't think you have any data to back up the point of view that more prison time is gonna make someone less likely to commit another offense in the future. If anything, they're just more likely, since they have a hard time adjusting to life outside after a long time in jail.
Sure, that's all true. But I can't imagine seeing her rapist allowed to play in the Olympics after getting a slap on the wrist isn't going to not be re-traumatizing.
You can't change the past. If she saw him mopping streets she would probably feel traumatized again, simply because of being reminded of it, not because of anything pertaining to the guy's occupation.
This isn't some national hero being cheered by people as he goes. The public hasn't forgotten. People have been booing him during the game, his face is everywhere online with "rapist" plastered right next to it, negative articles are flowing, this isn't a victory for him. Idk why this whole thread is pretending like he's won at life or something just because he gets to be in a competition at the olympics. It's probably done more to harm his life than if he hadn't participated. And again, to be clear, I'm not shedding any tears for him over here, but I do feel the very strong tide of sentiment that he should just disappear somehow.
It's like when people disingenuously say they's fine with trans people existing but that they should exist elsewhere. You know that you wouldn't even be okay with this guy serving you burgers. This same crowd would like him fired from any job.
I said in my comment that the justice system probably missed in this case, but I'm not really interested in adjudicating whether it was right or wrong in its result. I'm starting with the premise of the system maybe having done its job, because a lot of people use the fact of the case to beat around the bush and not say what they really mean - that former criminals such as rapists shouldn't see the light of day in society.
See to me, if one never ever commits a crime again after having previously commited a crime, regardless of the method used, it should be seen as a success. Focusing on the "did the time" is just advocating for punitive justice. You're saying it's not possible that he's changed because he wasn't punished enough, and should just be punished more regardless of the conclusion the system arrived at. But I wonder if more punishment would really change a person for the better.
The punitive justice system doesn't care whether criminals do the crime again. It doesn't matter if a rapist is unrepentant, they serve their 7-14 years or whatever and then they're free again. In this, I don't think it's a more positive outcome than someone serving less time in prison. The punishment amount ultimately doesn't necessarily serve a purpose other than inflicting harm on the guilty. You don't believe he's changed, but neither of us really knows, and we couldn't really prove that he would change if he spent another 20 years in a cage.
But one thing we do know, based on a lot of research into human psychology and sociology is that if you treat a person like a monster, they tend to become monsters. The more you ostracize someone the fewer options they have, the more they're pushed back towards being unable to live a normal, lawful life. The US has one of the most punitive justice systems and they have a recidivism rate of like 80% within 5 years of release. Over in incarceration systems like the Netherlands', it's about half of that.
There's really no evidence to support the claim that more prison time = more well behaved citizens after, in fact all evidence pretty much points to the contrary. So I gotta wonder why people would advocate for it. And surely, in this case and other extreme cases, it is because of the crime. Whether he changed or not, whether he ever commits a crime again or not, whether he does feel remorse or not, let's not kid ourselves that it would matter for most people.
Most of the people here wouldn't feel differently if he had come out with an apology or something. It's just a smokescreen for bloodsports, for wanting a bad man punished, not turned into a not-so-bad man. There is something innate in us screaming to have the ill elements of our society tortured, and it's just an inherently reactionary impulse that we as a society need to work out of our system to actually create a better world instead of just perpetuating a neverending cycle of suffering.
And by all means, hate the guy, for sure. The boos are deserved and all, I'm not saying he shouldn't catch any flack, but I don't think kicking him off a sports team or sending him to jail for another couple of years will untraumatize that poor kid he raped, nor will it make him a better person.
I definitely don't agree with the last point there, I've known plenty of violent criminals who have paid their time and were actually remorseful. This man has done neither, so I'm not willing to entertain that the system did it's job. Especially when the system quartered the sentence of another nation for a violent crime against a minor.
You can call that punitive justice if you want, but arguing that If they never do another crime it's successful just sounds like another way to say 'boys will be boys, they just made a small mistake". Especially with this argument:
Sure, that's all true. But I can't imagine seeing her rapist allowed to play in the Olympics after getting a slap on the wrist isn't going to not be re-traumatizing. It's also not a good look for the Dutch, since it shows they care more about sports than they do their image or the suggestion that they're light on child rapists.
It's not that I wanna call it that, it literally is punitive justice. You're not putting any arguments down for why your approach would make things better for anyone involved other than "the perpetrator should just have been punished more".
Like I get your point of view, that rapists generally get away with it too often, but that's kind of immaterial to the argument at hand - this person didn't just get away with it. They were caught, they were convicted, they served some time, the only issue is that it wasn't enough time in your opinion and that they returned to a public life. But would more time really have made a difference? It's arbitrary as hell, since if he had spent 10 years behind bars but never apologized and returned to play volleyball in the olympics, I don't think you'd view him a lot more favorably. How do you settle on a just time in prison for ruining someone's life? It's all either arbitrary or subjective. Some would want him jailed for life, others think 20 years would be fine, other think 7, others want him dead, etc.
My point wasn't that there aren't former criminals that are remorseful, my point is that the punitive justice system doesn't care if they are. Reform is not the point and whether they come out a changed person is irrelevant. You serve your time, you get out. And frankly, a lot of the time, prison changes people for the worse. I don't think you have any data to back up the point of view that more prison time is gonna make someone less likely to commit another offense in the future. If anything, they're just more likely, since they have a hard time adjusting to life outside after a long time in jail.
You can't change the past. If she saw him mopping streets she would probably feel traumatized again, simply because of being reminded of it, not because of anything pertaining to the guy's occupation.
This isn't some national hero being cheered by people as he goes. The public hasn't forgotten. People have been booing him during the game, his face is everywhere online with "rapist" plastered right next to it, negative articles are flowing, this isn't a victory for him. Idk why this whole thread is pretending like he's won at life or something just because he gets to be in a competition at the olympics. It's probably done more to harm his life than if he hadn't participated. And again, to be clear, I'm not shedding any tears for him over here, but I do feel the very strong tide of sentiment that he should just disappear somehow.
It's like when people disingenuously say they's fine with trans people existing but that they should exist elsewhere. You know that you wouldn't even be okay with this guy serving you burgers. This same crowd would like him fired from any job.