How bad is bad?
How violent is violent?
Here in New York the cops picked up a guy who’s a serial masher — he rubs up against women in the subway — and fresh out of jail for the same thing. The DA wanted him committed as a habitual sex offender. The judge said no. In no time he was caught doing it again.
As the article discusses, though, as offensive as this guy’s behavior is, is it really “violence”? Is every unwanted, even lewd, phyisical contact a violent act? Does the system really have the resources to incarcerate a guy like this forever? Let us accept the claim in the article that, as an empirical matter, these kinds of guys do not typically cross the line into more serious forms of sexual assault. On the other hand, like other sorts of sexual predators, this man clearly “cannot” stop himself.
Almost every woman, especially in an urban setting, has had some kind of unwelcome grope from a stranger come her way. In the scheme of things, just how much are prepared to do to about it?
Subscribe to Dean's World by Email
19 comments
Didn’t President Clinton give us the “one free grope” rule via Gloria Steinem?
Okay, in all seriousness: this appears to me to be one of those “tough cases make bad law” situations. It appears that he’s basically a nut and needs to be treated like one, but what’s the appropriate answer? I’d imagine the judge(s) in question taking a lot of Excedrin.
Coincidentally, Dr. Helen has a somewhat related column about “visual sexual aggression.”
At times I’m rather surprised that people think that sexual permissiveness is the norm today. It seems to be that we’re sexually permissive in some ways but radically non-permissive in others.
We should flog him, problem solved.
My friends and I have always found that a quick response (pointing at the offender and laughing, knees in the groin, stomping a high-heeled foot down and shouting ‘f*ck off” at an offender in a crowd) is effective. People who ‘can’t stop themselves’ do manage to stop.
Guys who do this are weak in so many ways, they’re not the worst problem out there.
I don’t think so, Naftali. He spent years in prison — probably worse punishment than flogging — and went right back to his old ways the first chance he got.
Ron Coleman’s last blog post..Pink and grey
I”m not so sure prison is a worse punishment than a serious, serious, dosage of serious pain. In some communities, prison is not seen in the same way that functioning Americans see it. A well known subset of the ‘black’ community is a case in point. They have ‘peeps’ inside and ’street cred’ outside, and a tour in prison is a known possibility from very early in their lives. For this guy flogging may or may not work, and if it doesn’t, we should either kill him or incarcerate him. But for many, I suppose it would work.
Put me in the category that thinks we can handle these creeps without law enforcement and the justice system.
Knee to groin, high heel to foot, public humiliation, etc.
Works for me.
Dean - you are onto something. This country is definitely sexually schizophrenic.
Kill him?
Kill him?
For groping?
I’m 100% for capital punishment in cases where it’s deserving; but FOR GROPING?
I don’t understand the reasoning judges use. Here in Wisconsin we have violent sex offenders turned loose right and left by courts all over the state. They don’t have to just be a repeat offender, but repeat habitually, and then it is iffy.
Here in my home town a little over a week ago a guy was finally deemed “sexually violent” after 15 years of repeat offences. Worse, three were against young 12, 14 and 15 yr old girls. One he got pregnant.
“Here in my home town a little over a week ago a guy was finally deemed “sexually violent” after 15 years of repeat offenses. Worse, three were against young 12, 14 and 15 yr old girls. One he got pregnant.”
It sounds as though it would have been better had we had the prudent and effective apparatus to extinguish those vibes when they had previously expressed themselves in real crime.
But hearing can be deceiving.
I agree with maggie, personal action is required. The old yell “Masher!” purse-across-the-face routine would probably work well. I certainly don’t think we need to criminalize every man who bumps into a woman on the subway to handle goons like this.
bcostin’s last blog post..?We need more white people.?
“I agree with maggie, personal action is required. The old yell “Masher!” purse-across-the-face routine would probably work well. I certainly don’t think we need to criminalize every man who bumps into a woman on the subway to handle goons like this.”
That’s called vigilantism, which I am strongly in favor of when the government fails to enforce order, its foremost function.
But vigilantism as a law enforcement policy is flawed; I simply don’t want my wife to have to worry about rabid dogs who cannot live amongst men as men do. Because ,ultimately, that burden commands certain personal resources, making her and everyone one else that much less productive.
Also, vigilantism in practice never, ultimately, adheres to the moralistic standards of deterrence held to by modern men.
So if you wish the people not to descend into tribalism and lawlessness, you would have to stop advocating ‘take care of it yourself’ for an official government law enforcement policy.
So if you wish the people not to descend into tribalism and lawlessness, you would have to stop advocating ‘take care of it yourself’ for an official government law enforcement policy.
Oh for pity’s sake. Is it ‘vigilantism’ when a kid punches a bully in the nose? Is it vigilantism when a customer who has been cheated goes to a store and demands his money back (and gets it)
Functioning human beings have the right to defend themselves and take care of their needs without the constant intervention of authorities. If we rely on authorities to protect us in every situation, our ability to provide for our own needs will fade. Pretty soon, we’ll lack the survival skills of a simple ameoba. We’ll be Europeans. You don’t want that to happen, do you?
“Is it ‘vigilantism’ when kid punches a bully in the nose?
Yes, of course.
In my school we seek to ensure that he does not have to do so.
The second example is a bit more complicated.
Ron: This guy is committing the offense of battery when he rubs up against a woman in the subway. ‘Frottage’ doesn’t work without the physical contact. Unwanted, intentional physical contact is one of the definitions of ‘battery’, for which adequate laws already exist.
I don’t really see the need to institute a new crime because his actions may have a sexual (for him) element. It doesn’t really matter why he’s making contact; he’s making illegal contact.
Not to be argumentative, but does the law really define “unwanted touching” as battery? I mean, I know it’s been stretched to include things like spitting at people, and that just making threatening gestures can be construed as assault in the courts, but isn’t that more of an “I’ll know it when I see it” for the judge to sort out, rather than a hard rule?
No, physical contact, other than purely accidental and fleeting, is pretty easy to identify as battery. Spitting assuredly is and I don’t see it as a stretch at all.
Personally, I’d rather take a punch than have some unknown spewing his phlegm on me. Same with blood or other bodily fluids. I’d consider the punch far less dangerous to my health.
Require that the judge’s wife and daughters spend 24 hours alone with the fiend. Likewise the lawyer who defended this trash. Also require all liberals to get mugged.
Better yet - seperate sex transportation!! Nothing is worse than unmarried to each other men and women mingling. It leads to problem after problem. Keep them far apart. I mean it.
Detroit,
I actually lived in/near Southfield for a year, 8 years ago. would you mind shooting me an E-mail at naftalimi@gmail.com?
You must log in to post a comment.