Dad unleashes eye-for-eye wrath after girl's rape, police say

For clarification...Who is the sicko? The father or the stepson?

Both are sickos. But the dad more so than the 18 year old stepson. I really don't understand the fathers reasoning or rationale here. He's got a criminal record for various incidents, yet he thinks that since his 8-year old daughter was raped by the stepson (what the hell is wrong with the son?) he is justified in beating and sexually assaulting the son in an attempt at retribution. Somebody below made a comment about Karma...I half agree with that statement and half do not. The little girl was innocent, so she should have never suffered in any way. This obviously pissed the father off though...I mean if he was willing to beat another human being with a baseball bat and then shove something in the kids anus, he must have really been hurt by the stepsons actions. What a crazy sick world we live in.

If anybody did that to my daughter, they'd be lucky to still be alive. There is nothing in the criminal justice system that can atone for that sort of action.

I don't know, I know two wrongs don't make a right, but when you catch someone sodomizing your 8 year old daughter....

Jaychnz:

It is amazing how many people can rationalize away immediate responses, but when it occurs to them, WATCH OUT!

Two wrongs DON'T make a right, and they never can. There is absolutely no justification for the stepfather's actions.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not defending the son either. As a survivor of childhood molestation by a family member, my sympathies lie squarely with the young girl.

However, I must point out that one of the most insidious problems faced by molested children is the guilt associated with the molestation. Despite the fact that it is NEVER their fault, these children often feel as if they did something wrong, or could have done something differently that would have prevented the molestation from occurring. It can often take years of therapy to overcome that.

So, how much worse will that poor child's guilt feelings be now that her brother's been brutalized and both he and the father are facing jail?

The point here is that taking matters into your own hands is NEVER the right way to handle it. The father was being extremely selfish, because instead of focusing on helping his daughter, he was focused on venting his own anger. In the end, he has only served to exacerbate and complicate the situation by making the son a victim as well.

I hate to say it, but I think the mother and daughter are better off without him, and I hope that his sentence is at least as long - if not longer - than the sentence for the son.

But it was the stepfather who exacted vengeance, and he's the one who CAUGHT the kid molesting his daughter. So, I don't think that he had any doubt that the kid did it. I mean, if you catch someone doing something red handed, Innocent until proven guilty pretty much flies out the window. Perhaps not for the law, but certainly for the person who knows what they saw.

Yes, I had missed that point in my first reading of the article, which is why I corrected my post.

Even so, there is still no justification for the stepfather's actions, and I stand by the corrected version of the post above.

The point here is that taking matters into your own hands is NEVER the right way to handle it. The father was being extremely selfish, because instead of focusing on helping his daughter, he was focused on venting his own anger. In the end, he has only served to exacerbate and complicate the situation by making the son a victim as well.

Well put, moeloe, because that is precisely the heart of the matter.

I hate to say it, but I think the mother and daughter are better off without him, and I hope that his sentence is at least as long - if not longer - than the sentence for the son.

Spot on, too. If he was a real, caring father, his priority would be for the family as a whole and how things can best be sorted without inflicting further pain by his actions on the little girl

i agree. and how about getting that 18-year-old some help? i think that may be more appropriate than shoving a wrench up his ass. the father has not helped anyone by doing this to his step-son. if anything, he's made this even more traumatic for his daughter, and he's certainly not setting a good example for the rest of the family.

An 18 year old raping an 8 year old will put him away for a really long time. A pedo in the prison system will see his fair share of rape. I don't see why the father had to do anything to him.

Should the stepfather had a cup of tea before acting?

wmo - 2.5

Exactly!

We all have to examine ourselves and hope that nothing happens to our families, we don't know the way that we could react.

I would have to say the man snapped, not because he witnessed the act, but because the "system" put, in his mind, a known child molester on the streets. Did anyone think about that? It's bad all around and we can't get folks to turn off the TV and stop making ads, but wtf, they just let this 18 year old out to maybe, who knows, find MY daughter.

They all need some love and compassion. They need it yesterday. With this world, it's hit or miss. We're not civilized yet, just clever.

The Justice system doesn't do @!$%# about these people.... they slap em on the wrist, jail em for a year and then let them back into the general population to continue doing what they do over and over. You call that justice? Malarky. I can't fault the father for getting an eye for an eye. I can't say I wouldn't have done the same thing, in his place. It's not proper behavior, but really, who's thinking rationally after their 8 year old child was anally raped? I know I wouldn't be...

The system is very broken. The system does not work on these people. If I had an eight year old daughter and someone did that to her, I'd definitely have done the same thing. That guy deserves a medal.

If something is broken, why not use a wrench to fix it? Justice was done.

One would hope so, I guess that depends on his ability to learn his lesson.

I don't think vigilante justice is the answer in most cases, but I hold firm in my defense that he tried the law first, and it failed him. I've been in a similar situation (no sexual abuse, murdered family member, actually) and the perp walked. I didn't resort to vigilante justice, but I wanted to for a very long time. As far as I know, they are still out there walking around, enjoying their life. It sickens me.

That and the mother should've left the boy in jail... especially after the father already specified he would hurt the boy. Crazy as it sounds, he would've been safer in the jail than left to his step-father's vengeance. And what was she thinking bailing him out just to return to the scene of the crime where the 8 year old would be around again? It just doesn't make any sense to me. At all.

And what was she thinking bailing him out just to return to the scene of the crime where the 8 year old would be around again? It just doesn't make any sense to me. At all.

Could it be because they are BOTH her children, cynna66, and mothers just don't abandon their children, no matter what they do?

It is never fair to judge people from afar because we do not know their pain, their journey or their experiences.

And the article never verified that the 8 year old was, in fact, her biological daughter. I mean, she very well could be. But the article only verifies the father's paternity. I know it isn't fair to make judgements on people's lives, but that's what we all do. I think it's part of what makes us human. I'm just putting my two cents on the whole subject out there. I fully admit to my assumptions. No argument there. =)

I hold firm in my defense that he tried the law first, and it failed him

How exactly did you come to the conclusion that the law "failed him"? The kid hadn't been convicted of anything yet, so it isn't as if he got away with assaulting the little girl, or got a light sentence or something. A bail amount was set, and the mother (of BOTH children) paid it. You might make a case that the mother was wrong to bail the son out, but that is not the fault of the law, nor does it mean the law failed either the young girl or her father.

Ms. Cyprah:

I understand your point:

Could it be because they are BOTH her children, cynna66, and mothers just don't abandon their children, no matter what they do?

But isn't there a limit here? Sure, you don't get rid of your love, that stays. But do you put one in danger from the other? I don't think so.

Of course we don't know all the facts, but assuming they are what they are said to be, the mother was making one huge mistake, one that could rebound horrifically to her young daughter. Why would a mother do that?

Rationality must come into play, at some point in time.

How exactly did you come to the conclusion that the law "failed him"?

I didn't, but will put my two cents in. If a criminal such as a pedophile (which, time after time, psychologists say are uncurable) is let out on low bail, what is occurring is that he or she is being given the chance to harm another child.

Bail is meant to prevent that, pending trial. A low bail, or other form (supervision by parents, etc) is not, generally, conducive to meeting this goal.

If the facts are as stated, and assuming the young adult goes back to the house where his sister lives, then the law has, in fact, failed the sister and the father for it is allowing the perp to, once again, abuse the daughter and worse.

If a criminal such as a pedophile (which, time after time, psychologists say are uncurable) is let out on low bail, what is occurring is that he or she is being given the chance to harm another child.

Agreed. However - the article does NOT say how much the son's bail was. In fact, the only mention of a bail amount is in relation to the father, whose bail was only $17,500 despite the fact that he also committed a brutal sexual crime, coupled with a brutal physical assault. This is also despite the fact that the father has a past criminal history, while the son does not.

Therefore, while I agree that the son's bail should have been set quite high, I think the father's should be even higher, since he's got an obvious propensity toward violent crime, and his attack on the boy was far more brutal even than the boy's attack on his sister.

And in both cases (father and son), an order of protection should be issued keeping them far away from the mother and the little girl. After all, at this point they are BOTH sex offenders.

I assumed (I know, I know) that the son's bail was also low as the family didn't seem to be of the higher socioeconomic type.

I don't think they are both sex offenders. Clearly, the act undertaken by the father was not to fulfill a sexual need, but for brutality and violence.

If a man hits a woman on her breast, is he a sex offender?

But I agree they should both be kept away from the girl, and probably the mother also as if the facts as told to us are right, she clearly doesn't give too much of a damn about her.

I didn't forget the rape of the girl at all. But that doesn't justify vigilante justice. The world would be a dark and scary place if we let victims act as judge, jury, and executioner.

Just for a while. : ) As it is, it seems impossible to get rid of either judge, jury or executioner when none of them are equipped to rule. So instead, they control.

Spiffie,

I think the reason most of us are sympathizing with the father here is that initially he tried to do the right thing, and the system failed him. Someone like that should be held without bond, especially since he was caught in the act, and release should not have been an option. The system that was supposed to punish him let him back out onto the streets, and it was THEN that the father decided he had to deal out the punishment himself.

And, in this case, I don't think it was a mistake at all what the man did. I think he had plenty of time to think about it, and he did what needed to be done. Now that kid knows what it feels like to have something forcibly rammed up his backside, a lesson he should have learned in prison.

That is true, and no, the father shouldn't have acted in that fashion. The boy would've been safer had the mother NOT bailed him out. For some reason she seemed to have more sympathy for her rapist son than the defiled and abused 8 year old. She went against her husband, bailed the boy out to come back to scene of the crime. The father went bat@!$%# and exacted revenge upon the boy. I'm not saying it's right, but I can't say in that man's position I wouldn't have acted the same way (or worse... murder). The boy shouldn't have been bailed out... for his own safety AND because it should be the law. He committed a serious crime. He should be in jail. It's a tough subject, but that's how I see it.

The law failed, as it often does. The father ended up paying for his actions, too, along with other charges for things that I don't feel should be against the law in the first place, ie, possession of marijuana.

As long as our system is broken, until they fix it and make it fair, things like this will continue to happen.

I understand the intense, visceral emotion, but justice isn't justice when served hot. It's vengeance, pure and simple,

Absolutely right, Spiffle. We are either ruled by the law, or we are not. Once anyone takes the law into their own hands and does what he/she likes, with the blessing of everyone else, we have sunken beyond animal levels. It becomes a free for all, the strong brutalising the weak.

What makes this man any less of a criminal than the stepson he was buggering? What makes him less brutal than the stepson? What makes him any different if he can quietly and calmly plan and execute that on someone? That young man clearly needed psychological help, not revenge. Changing his life so that he doesn't repeat that awful act should be more important than damning him forever. Otherwise we will simply get more of the same. The answer is to try to change the law, or protest about it, not become judge and jury ourselves. The law cannot apply to some and not to others.

As I said before in a similar post, it is not aye eye for an eye that let's us retain our sight. It's love, education and forgiveness. Given America's history of hangings, lynchings and swift justice, and the consequences of those, one would have thought it would have learnt something from them by now. They weren't the answer then, and they are not the answer now. Two wrongs NEVER make a right. It is easy to bay for someone's blood when it has nothing to do with us, but it would be an entirely different thing if the teenager were related.

There, but for the grace of God...as they say.

Please don't misunderstand my meaning. I don't exactly approve of this man's reaction. The law is the law. I simply state that I can understand where he is coming from, emotionally. As Kevin said, the justice system in the country is broken. They will both get jail time for their actions. All parties are being punished, although not for long. They will both be back on the streets in 6 months time. I can simply empathize with WHY the man reacted like he did. If anyone ever raped or touched my son in any way, I would more than likely react in a similar fashion, punishment be damned. How could you be satisfied with a government who releases sex offenders on bail to return to the scene of the crime? Sometimes the law just doesn't protect people like it needs to. Perhaps it's because they're too busy filling the jails with people that have minor marijuana possession charges, thereby taking up space better suited for child molesters, murderers and rapists. All I have to say is I really feel for the 8 year old girl who has to deal with all this bull@!$%#. No child should ever be subjected to this sort of behavior.

Ms. Cyprah,

I normally agree with most of what you say. I respect you and your opinion greatly. And, I do agree that forgiveness is extremely important. However, I think most lynchings were carried out on innocent parties, and the victim's "crime" was nothing more than being black. I would, most likely, not be defending the man's actions if he had killed the boy. But I think that kid did need to understand what he had done to that poor little girl. And now he knows. If that teenager were related to me, I'd feel the same way.

Here's an excerpt from a novel I am writing:

They say two wrongs don't make a right. While I agree that, technically, it is a literal truth, I don't agree with its meaning, because I know for a fact that sometimes a wrong can only be righted by applying another wrong. In such a case, it's true, two wrongs do not create a right, but they do cancel each other out leaving behind a right that, while present all along, had been overshadowed and suffocated by an uncorrected wrong. I know that sometimes very bad things must be done in order for the greater good to persevere.

I would, most likely, not be defending the man's actions if he had killed the boy. But I think that kid did need to understand what he had done to that poor little girl.

But when we are angry and mad at someone, where do we stop short in that justice? That boy could have died later from the effects of what was done to him. It all depends on a person's capacity to bear such actions. Everyone is different. And what would have happened then? Both the father and the brother would have been gone, devastating the whole family in the process.

People also forget the psychological effect on that poor girl, not only of the rape, but she will mistakenly continue to believe, for a long time to come, that she was responsible for what happened to both the brother and the Dad. I think she could have done without that as well.

I tend not to get into discussions about this subject because I too was sexually abused at 9 years old and it really pains me when I see vigilante comments from those who have never been in such a situation, who would never know what that really feels like, and the horrendous aftermath it has, especially if the perpetrator is one of your own family, and particularly for the mother caught in the middle and who would be losing out on all fronts.

By the way, Kevin, great excerpt. I do have to concede some agree with that, even though I would still have doubts about it. We are all human, I suppose.

But when we are angry and mad at someone, where do we stop short in that justice? That boy could have died later from the effects of what was done to him. It all depends on a person's capacity to bear such actions. Everyone is different. And what would have happened then? Both the father and the brother would have been gone, devastating the whole family in the process.

I see your point, and I agree. As I said previously, I was in the position, at one time, where I could have carried out vigilante justice and I did not. First, I wanted to wait, I wanted to give it time. After a couple of years had passed, I decided that I was never going to do anything about it. But that decision was not reached out of compassion. It was a selfish, cowardly decision on my part. I didn't want to spend my life in jail, and that is the only thing that stopped me. I spent a long time trying to figure out how I could do it without getting caught, but ultimately I decided the risk was too great.

That young man clearly needed psychological help, not revenge. Changing his life so that he doesn't repeat that awful act should be more important than damning him forever.

No, he needed what he got: an object lesson in what it feels like to be the victim and the receiving end of being brutalized. I would wager a safe bet that he may never brutalize another person like that again.

spiffie said: "I understand the intense, visceral emotion, but justice isn't justice when served hot. It's vengeance, pure and simple..."

I hear your point and agree to an extent. We do have a justice system in place, but I find myself thinking that perhaps we should let a little bit of vengeance pass sometimes in cases like this. There seems to always be cases like these which make many many many folks say the son got what he had coming to him. Count me as one of those.

I'd like to this father go to trial, stand before a jury and have that jury look this father in the eye and say, "Ten-dollar fine. You're free to go."

I saw a video where this older teen walked up to a couple and sucker punched the guy. He went down, and the teen just beat the hell out of him, beat him until he was unconscious. The girl tried to intervene, and he beat her unconscious.

The kid walked away. An older man, in his forties, had witnessed the whole thing. He walked, nonchalantly towards the teen who had perpetrated the attack and then sucker punched the teen, and I mean he nailed him. The teen was out, like a light. Then he walked away.

Seems to me it was a good lesson, but not quite properly taught. He should have stayed there, and when the teen woke, told him "that's what it feels like to get sucker punched, did you like it?"

But, of course, he had his own butt to worry about and left.

No, he needed what he got: an object lesson in what it feels like to be the victim and the receiving end of being brutalized.

And who decided that he needed that? Everyone has different standards of punishment, which is why there is rule of law.

I would wager a safe bet that he may never brutalize another person like that again.

Ah yes, one of the ends justify all the means.

I'd like to this father go to trial, stand before a jury and have that jury look this father in the eye and say, "Ten-dollar fine. You're free to go."

As an emotional reaction, I would like this as well. However, that is worlds away from saying "yeah, the dad was totally awesome for ignoring the law and taking vengeance into his own hands."

No, he needed what he got: an object lesson in what it feels like to be the victim and the receiving end of being brutalized.

Considering the fact that more than three quarters of all sex offenders were once victims of sexual assault or child molestation themselves, it's highly likely that the brother had that "object lesson" long before he touched his sister. In fact, that is very likely why he assaulted her in the first place.

I would wager a safe bet that he may never brutalize another person like that again.

And you are almost guaranteed to lose that bet. As mentioned above, a hugely disproportionate number of sex offenders and child molesters were once victims of the same type of crime. Which means that the father's actions make it far more likely the son will offend again.

The father ended up paying for his actions, too, along with other charges for things that I don't feel should be against the law in the first place, ie, possession of marijuana.

Those "other charges" were from years ago, and involved far more than possessing marijuana. They included several charges of felony assault, and a burglary charge. Do you advocate making physical assault and theft legal too?

If anything, the father's previous criminal history shows that he was no shining example of parenthood to begin with, and that his propensity for violence extends far beyond a moment of rage over the injury done to his daughter.

Most normal people simply would not react in that manner. Even if they were tempted to, self-restraint and a sober consideration of the consequences to their family would stop them. Just as it stopped you. Even for the few who did go "over the edge", they would have likely stopped with beating the kid up, and not gone to the level of shoving a wrench up his anus.

Sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, that father is just as depraved and sick as his son, and deserves the same punishment, if not worse. After all, he was still the adult (moreso than a kid who just turned 18), and his responsibility to his daughter should have taken precedence over his anger.

Am I out of line to think that pedophiles are the worst possible perpetrators? What is wrong with a part of our population that engages in this behavior? It's unacceptable. If its a sickness, fine. Quarantine the sick. Though I'm no expert, I'd find it hard to believe that this can be cured. Once a pedophile...I would imagine that some, with extensive counseling, might be able to never do it again, in essence, controlling the disease. But that's a risk. Who's kid gets to be the guinea pig?

Frankly, everyone deserves a second chance, except pedophiles.

SirAce,

I don't think you are out of line at all. I agree.

Should that happen, it's quite possible that the only person who will be capable of taking in the daughter would be, the step-mother. Who is probably taking care of the son too.

Thanks for pointing that out, Smiling Jack. Vigilante approaches never take into account what really happens to the victim in the process. Revenge is sweet, but all it does is make life for the original victim more complicated and doubly harder in the end.

Well, Jack, I wouldn't say we were exactly glorifying it, per se. Well, perhaps I did say he deserved a medal. Okay, okay, he doesn't deserve a medal. But ... anally raping an eight year old girl? How can someone do that? I can't help but wish the very worst for him. I would like to be able to be more understanding, but when it comes to sexual abuse, I do not understand it, I will never understand it, nor do I really WANT to understand it. It makes me angry to think that anyone could willfully do that to a child. I normally possess great empathy, but trying to place myself in the head of someone who is knowingly hurting a child is impossible for me. I can't do it. I don't understand them, and I have trouble even seeing them as human beings. Normal humans don't do that, and I don't think that that type of behavior is something that CAN be corrected by therapy. I think conviction of sexual abuse on a child should carry a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment.

Perfectly insightful Jack. I am of both minds about this thing, I find myself sympathizing with the father, but this point you've made fleshes out the reality of it. The daughter's safety should be the most paramount point, not the son's punishment. Now the only person to protect her is her mother and big brother, already both failures at this task.

This psychopathic teenager doesn't deserve freedom. If given the authority, I would sentence the son to jail for 2 years with 5 years parole

Did you make a typo somewhere?

2 years' jail is hardly entirely taking away his freedom.

My emotional reaction is the psychopathic teenager deserves 10 years of prison. Unfortunately, the reality of the penal system is often unfair. Drug dealers serve far more time than rapists, even incestuous rapists. The reason I said 2 years is because the 8 year old sister should not have to experience the trauma of a trial. Therefore, in order to avoid putting the little girl on the witness stand, which would produce even more shame, embarrassment, and pain for her, the DA would have to offer a plea bargain. If the DA could get a longer sentence, I would be thrilled. Protecting that child from having to testify should be prioritized. My second point was that despite his father's criminal history and the heinousness of his crime, if given the choice I would give the father a light sentence in exchange for a guilty felony plea. Obviously, this dysfunctional family is in serious trouble and the chances that this little girl will grow up to be a violent offender herself is significant. I think protective factors need to be placed in the girl's life by Child Welfare Services or whatever community agency is available in their community, even if it means removing the girl from the home. The girl undoubtedly needs mental health services to process not only her experience of at least one anal rape but also her feelings related to the consequences her brother and father will face. This is a very disturbing story, one of which there is no easy solution.

Thank you for your comment. I appreciate your point of view.

Unfortunately, the reality of the penal system is often unfair. Drug dealers serve far more time than rapists, even incestuous rapists.

True, though to be fair, "unfair" is a wholly subjective opinion.

The reason I said 2 years is because the 8 year old sister should not have to experience the trauma of a trial. Therefore, in order to avoid putting the little girl on the witness stand, which would produce even more shame, embarrassment, and pain for her, the DA would have to offer a plea bargain.

Ah, quite a valid point. I still don't feel that prioritizing this to the point of accepting a 2-year sentence is appropriate.

Further, I'm not at all well-versed in the legal process, but isn't there a way to keep the child off the stand? (Considering that the boy's crime has all but been confirmed to the point of putting him in jail.)

Seems to me it must have been pretty low for the mother to be able to afford it.

You usually only need 10% or so - that's what bail bondsmen are for.

The cops seemed to think the kid did it.

What was the bail? And why isn't that part of the article?

Sure, all the facts are not in. But the central theme of the article is clear enough.

A better example of the criminal justice system gone amock is here in Atlanta, Georgia.

A prisoner, who was being taken from a hearing, overpowered his tiny little female guard. Took her weapon, went into a courtroom and in front of thirty eye witnesses, shot the Judge dead, turned, and shot his court reporter dead.

So far the Conty has spent 4 million and counting to defend him.

Now, tell me how that makes sense?

The cops seemed to think the kid did it.

The article doesn't really say that, but rather that he is a suspect. It may very well be that the kid did it - but not enough information is provided to rush to a judgement.

Also, given the criminal and violent history of the stepfather, who had a hand in raising the son, even if the son did do it, I think it likely that the father bears at least a portion of the blame. He doesn't strike me as a role-model, exactly.

and a stepson with no criminal record.

Chasing,
Look closer. No adult criminal history. The teenager is 18. Adult criminal history begins at 18 so in less than a year it is known the teenager did not break the law and get arrested. You assume that is his criminal history. That is a wrong assumption. The juvenile records are sealed so you don't know whether this was his first offense. He could have been arrested as many times as the step father when he was 12-17, and we would have no idea. There is a big difference between judging an 18 year old's criminality in a few months v. his lifetime. So you are the one jumping to the conclusions. Do you not trust the police have the right suspect? If the step father would turn himself in for raping his son, why wouldn't he turn himself in for raping his daughter?? Your logic is silly.

that the step father had a hand in raising the son

Also you really don't know how long the step-father has been in relationship to this family. It is possible that the step-father and mother were married in the last year in which case you have made another faulty assumption, that the step father had a hand in raising the son.

most of the relevant details have been left out of the story

And just for kicks, how do you know that MOST of the relevant details have been left out of the story? How can you quantify what you don't know that is relevant in this situation? Relevant to what, by the way? Your position, full of assumptions and defense of this boy, is slightly appalling. But you are entitled to your opinion.

Hmmm, I've never heard anyone espouse that view point? Got a link?

Now, an eye for an eye, you hear that all over the world. If anal rape was the crime, then .... you get the idea.

I have, however, heard of a Judge who reduced a convicted criminal's sentence because of the statistical likelihood of him being raped in jail.

I've seen it used as a joke, like "That guy raped a girl, which is the most horrible thing you can do. But now he'll go to prison and get but raped himself, and ha ha, anal rape is really funny". I've never understood the mentality, if rape is bad, rape is bad period, not horrible when it happens one person but hilarious or justified when it happens to another.

that makes no sense.

If a man kidnaps a person, ties them to an electric chair and kills her.

Is it the same thing when the state does it?

Hmmm, I've never heard anyone espouse that view point? Got a link?

Now, an eye for an eye, you hear that all over the world. If anal rape was the crime, then .... you get the idea.

Translation: no one's singled out anal rape as a fitting punishment, but when they justify and applaud it using a vague, Biblical platitude, then it's totally different!

that makes no sense.

If a man kidnaps a person, ties them to an electric chair and kills her.

Is it the same thing when the state does it?

I wasn't aware that the father in this case, or prison bullies, represented "the state."

Jack:

I was responding to this part of the post:

I've never understood the mentality, if rape is bad, rape is bad period, not horrible when it happens one person but hilarious or justified when it happens to another.

Absolutism, which is exactly what this author was preaching, ain't generally a good thing. I was merely exposing the utter absurdity of such absolutism in the criminal sense.

Note, also, I was not applauding the actions of the father, quite the opposite. Just pointing out an inherent contradiction and lack of support in the poster's statement.

Absolutism, which is exactly what this author was preaching, ain't generally a good thing. I was merely exposing the utter absurdity of such absolutism in the criminal sense.

I don't think that's what Stacy is advocating in the general, philosophical sense.

I don't know of anyone who makes electric chair quips, but prison rape quips are commonplace. IIn addition, I think the legal difference between sentencing a person to the electric chair through due process of law, vs. a vigilante tying up a really bad guy and sticking him on an electric chair is still central to Stacy's point. I may be mistaken there, though.

My only point is that horrific acts can alter character depending on who is doing the act.

Hence, my electric chair example. May not have been the best, but it came quickly to mind.

And prison quips are common place, but not as "punishment," but as an expression of reality, which it is. As I stated before, there was a Judge in D.C. who would reduce a criminal's sentence by x years, due to the fact that, statistically, he would be raped y times in prison.

I remember an instance in Virginia where the ACLU sued the State saying that the State had to allow prisoners to put personal effects up on the walls of their cells, it was not allowed at that time. Virginia fought it, and lost.

So, prisoners put up posters, etc, all over the bars, their cells.

A few years later the ACLU sued Virginia saying that by allowing prisoners to put up posters, the prisoner's actions could not be monitored from the outside and rapes were occurring behind the posters.

The Virginia officials were a bit miffed, as they had initially told the ACLU (and the court) that was the reason why they prohibited such things in the first place!

The entire idea of behavior modification has, for some reason, gone away. After all, isn't that what prison is supposed to be about, behavior modification?

Or is it just punishment? Or is it just to take those people out of circulation?

Whatever prison was meant to be, it has lost its way.

Well, I, for one, would never rape anyone, so that justice would not be carried out on me. If that happened to me, it wouldn't be justice, it would just be rape ... and then I'd have to get them back.

I find it a bit fascinating, to expand the thread some, that so many people find this type of behavior/punishment repugnant, but only so in the context of Western Civilization.

Not saying anyone on this thread has said it, but I have seen numerous threads which seek, through cultural relativism, to say "who are we to judge their practices as they are of a different culture."

In many cultures, Islam being one, an "eye for an eye" is practiced with brutal regularity. Is it wrong for them to do it? Or for any culture to do that which we deem barbaric and horrific?

Or do the circumstances, the "culture" really matter?

Just a question, not an attempt to hijack the thread, and no response expected.

Is it wrong for them to do it? Or for any culture to do that which we deem barbaric and horrific?

Every judgment requires context.

For example, most of us here think that sharia law is repugnant, compared against our metrics of fairness and brutality.

I don't agree with a general "it's a different culture, so don't judge them" sentiment, but cultural context does indeed need to be taken into account, especially when judgments of brutality/immorality usually come with finger-pointing to specific sectors or facets of said culture.

And just how far do you go? Isn't that a slippery slope into pure cultural relativism?

Is there no right or wrong?

Is killing the teenage daughter, because her older brother was dating a girl that was not of his caste, not repugnant in any way, shape or form?

And just how far do you go? Isn't that a slippery slope into pure cultural relativism?

Is there no right or wrong?

For you personally, and for me personally, there definitely is. For our society, there is a set of morals common to most of its members, and thus construed as "right and wrong" within that context. However, if you're talking about truly absolute rights and wrongs, there is no such thing.

You can find my personal views on morality in an old article I wrote.

I will read it.

However, if there is no right or wrong, no absolute right or wrong, then that puts interesting shades on just about every facet of our life.

It never states what his criminal past is. We do know that there were some possession of marijuana charges. There is a possibility that his past criminal record is simply other marijuana possession charges, and I hardly think that qualifies him as a criminal. Just because the prisons are packed with people who have done nothing more than have a small amount of a dried plant doesn't make those people criminals.

So, in light of all these comments, none of us knows enough about any of these people to judge them. Except the 8 year old girl. There's nothing more we need to know about that. What happened to her was tragic, and she didn't deserve it.

sure we know what his criminal past was, we just don't know his name to verify it independently:

Tarrant County court records show the father had received two years deferred adjudication probation in November 1996 after pleading guilty to burglary of a habitation.

As part of that plea-in-bar agreement, the man avoided prosecution on four other charges: possession of marijuana, theft by check, and two cases of assault with bodily injury. His probation, however, was revoked in 2000, and he was sentenced to two years in prison.

The father also received a 30-day jail sentence for assault with bodily injury in 2001 and a 20-day jail sentence for possession of marijuana in 2006, records show.

The 18-year-old stepson does not have an adult criminal record in Tarrant County, records show.

possession is not the most problematic of the charges... the assaults are. assault with bodily injury is a serious charge, which is what he committed (again) to his step-son. i think he just assaults people at the drop of a hat... this time just happened to be a reason some people can justify.

The boy is only alive because it wasn't my daughter.

What a perfectly nonsensical thing to say. I'm pretty sure there are a million reasons why the boy is alive. For example: he was not hit by a bus. Also for example: the law protects him from people like you.

Just sayin'.

I truly belive in "structured vigilantism".

Can you clarify?

That seems rather self-contradictory to me.

What makes you think these people were rich?

You are making a huge assumption, and allowing your personal beliefs to interfere with reality.

This has nothing to do with "rich v. poor."

And, as the prior poster asked, what is "structured vigilantism?" I suppose you mean, you wish to be king/queen and mete out the punishment you think is appropriate.

Well, that doesn't work.

That poor little girl is ruined for life,

That is so completely untrue. It is possible that the rape will affect her for life, but only if she is not given the help she needs to overcome the emotional damage that has been done.

I was molested as a child as well - not just once, but repeatedly over the course of nearly four years, and all by an adult male relative. It did have a very devastating effect on me for a long time, but that was because I was not ready to really deal with it and tried to simply "forget" about it instead. That doesn't work.

Eventually I got help, and once I did, I was truly on the road to recovery. I learned to stop blaming myself for what happened, to stop feeling ashamed of being a rape victim, and to recognize that as long as I allowed being a "victim" to dominate my life, I was allowing my attacker to maintain control over me (even though he was long dead). Once I was able to work through those feelings, it was as if a new person emerged. I wasn't afraid any more, and I never will be again.

Any person who is raped, regardless of their age, can overcome the experience and even become stronger for it. It will take time, a great deal of love and support, and some therapy or perhaps joining a rape survivor's group - but it can be done.

But if the people in that little girl's life think she is "ruined for life", then she will too, and that will do far more damage to her self-esteem and ability to heal than her attacker did.

Seriously?

What if there is a baby for the consequences? It happened before. Who can forget and forgive a traumatic situation so easy.

The child in this story is 8 years old. She's not physically mature enough to get pregnant.

But even if a rape does result in a pregnancy, so what? There are plenty of options for dealing with that, all the way from the "morning after" pill to adoption to actually keeping the child.

I have a friend who was raped 20 years ago. She ended up with TWO permanent reminders of the rape - her 19 year old son, and HIV. She has never once regretted the decision to keep and raise her son, and he is a wonderful young man of 19 now. Like me, she has overcome the effects of being a rape victim, and no longer sees herself as a "victim" at all. She even completed her degree at the age of 40 and now works as a social worker providing assistance to people who are newly diagnosed with HIV.

The human capacity to recover and triumph over adversity is immeasurable and amazing.

Eventually I got help, and once I did, I was truly on the road to recovery. I learned to stop blaming myself for what happened, to stop feeling ashamed of being a rape victim, and to recognize that as long as I allowed being a "victim" to dominate my life, I was allowing my attacker to maintain control over me (even though he was long dead). Once I was able to work through those feelings, it was as if a new person emerged. I wasn't afraid any more, and I never will be again....

I have a friend who was raped 20 years ago. She ended up with TWO permanent reminders of the rape - her 19 year old son, and HIV. She has never once regretted the decision to keep and raise her son, and he is a wonderful young man of 19 now. Like me, she has overcome the effects of being a rape victim, and no longer sees herself as a "victim" at all. She even completed her degree at the age of 40 and now works as a social worker providing assistance to people who are newly diagnosed with HIV.

Wow.

From where I stand, you and your friend are two very strong people, moeloe.

The human capacity to recover and triumph over adversity is immeasurable and amazing.

Absolutely spot on, moeloe, as my experience was very similar, lasting from 9-14 age. And here I am having a wonderful life, feeling great about myself and nobody's victim, though I didn't have counselling for some years and it did affect me then. Human beings are very resilient. Given love, value and respect, we can overcome almost anything.

Both need to go to jail. Both of them are dangerous to society.

Absolutely, Robert, thank you. Most of the comments advocating vigilante actions appear to have forgotten one thing: the law had not yet acted in this case.

If we are going to start deciding what punishment everyone should have for any crime we don't like, and also do it ourselves, given the chance, why do we need any kind of laws? We might as well go back to the caveman days of everyone for himself. Some of these chilling comments showed that we have hardly evolved through the centuries, despite our so-called education and innovations. We are still back there somewhere, living by a lawless code to suit ourselves when we feel like it, yet expecting some kind of law to work for us when we are in need of it.

We really cannot have it both ways.

Using violence against another doesn't make anyone into a man/woman. That's the mark of a coward taking out their feelings of inadequacy on another equally helpless human being simply to feel self righteous. It solves nothing at all in the end except the sad destruction of everyone involved.

I think that is the main point which must be discussed.

The legal system, as flawed as it is (and it is) had not even had a chance to work here.

I understand the issue of the teen being let out on what would seem to be minimal bail, that is an issue, but one which the parents could deal with (not let the teen back in the house, protect their daughter, get a restraining order, etc).

But, I suspect that the teen, when tried, would have been found guilty and sent to jail. And as noted by many, pedophiles are not treated well in jail.

Adding my $0.0000000002.

Also I blame the fashions and TV/movie culture of violence and sex. Girls are dressed with less clothes and look like mini-women and our Media does not help having more precaution about the messages sent, all of this add to the testosterone's of young males and we have a recipe for disaster.

Erm... raping an 8-year-old is a far cry from watching Greek and Lindsay Lohan's latest antics.

and we have a recipe for disaster.

Just like Columbine and VA Tech were the fault of TV violence and video games, right?

Managing what your children watch and do is the parents' job. I'd rather not have the media abide by Puritanical standards simply because some parents can't parent properly.

P.S. - Who's to say the occasional horrific sexual act is at all a new phenomenon?

Mr Huang

We raised 5 kids of only one year apart. Therefore, I know a lot about parenting and the influence of the Media. Girls are pushing to be growing up at a faster pace nowadays.

Therefore, I know a lot about parenting and the influence of the Media.

Great, so you should know that simply blaming the media for corrupting children is a cop-out, as parental supervision should be a strong mitigating factor.

If the media was a general recipe for disaster, this kind of event would much more common.

Girls are pushing to be growing up at a faster pace nowadays.

And they have been for a while.

Girls are pushing to be growing up at a faster pace nowadays.

No, I do not believe girls are pushing to grow up faster than they used to. It is more likely that the technological age they are in, the increased opportunities available to them to take responsibility for their lives, instead of merely getting married, and the vast opportunites to educate themselves much more now raise their awareness at an earlier age. But they are still youngsters, still ignorant of many things in life, and still in need of guidance and protection, except not in a controlling, repressive or limiting way.

As parents we tend to harp on about how we were brought up, always comparing now to then, but that's a fool's paradise. No two ages can be compared because the social ethics would have been different, the customs and protocol would have been much different and the aspirations, above all, would be very different between them.

For example, I had no mobile phone, no computer, no television and no car when I was a teenager. As transport was very limited, we hardly left our local village. How could I tell my own kids that they should behave like I did and don't go too far from home, don't use their phone too much and to leave the car in the garage? It really is so silly when we judge ourselves by the past instead of appreciating life in the present and being fully grateful for it.

Our age and their age bear no comparison because they cannot go back in time to relive our lives. The only time they know is now and that's all they can live by. This is their world and they will always be more confident within it than their parents ever will be. That confidence might make them appear more mature than they really are, but they still need us.

Ms. CYPRAH,

We bought only one nice gift for Christmas for them

The girls worn lipstick for the first time when they were 15.

We bought the car to the kids 6 months previous graduating from College.

Nowadays:

I can't find nice dresses for my grandkids.

The shoes even for a 5 yrs old have wedges or 2" heels.

Fashions showing the navel were all over and the very tiny skirts is dominant in our culture.

I am a very modern Mom and Grandma even when I was raised in an all girls, nuns' school and still I don't allow my grandkids to wear something that I consider that is in bad taste in my home. Thanks God my daughters and sons-in-law are in my same page. I consider that the body is not for exposure.

You just have to say NO and never pushing out of your home the kids when they are 18.
How many times I got disgusted listening to parents saying: "I can't see the day that you (the kids) are getting out of my house".

I can't find nice dresses for my grandkids.

The shoes even for a 5 yrs old have wedges or 2" heels.

Fashions showing the navel were all over and the very tiny skirts is dominant in our culture.

I frankly have never seen 2"-heeled shoes for five-year-olds, but I'm sure they exist.

I don't know how diverse your local shopping options are, but I'm right next to New York City, where the fashion industry goes bats--- crazy, and my 13-year-old sister, who's mildly obsessed with being trendy, has had no trouble finding heelless shoes, sufficiently long tops (she's actually a fan of the ultra-long tops), and appropriately long sundresses (though she's not a fan of dresses).

While there are kids out there who dress quite provocatively, that's hardly indicative of the media being a blight on decency. Parental control and self-control can, and dom cancel out acting on the compulsions of media.

Well, we are not talking the same.

To me a darling and beautiful dress for a 5 years old it has to be embroidered, laces and bows (good quality), etc., and not tops or T-Shirts. Sundresses belongs to the beach or a pool party.

To Determined0a1:

If you think that how a child (or a woman) is dressed, or even how they act, has any bearing on whether or not they get molested/raped, you know absolutely nothing about the subject. Rape is not about sex, or sexual attraction - it's about power, control, and the rapists' need to dominate someone or something. It is also a crime of opportunity.

It's important to understand that the average rapist does not really see their victim as sexually attractive, because doing so would require them to see the victim as a person, and make it harder for them to commit the act of rape. To the rapist, you are just as "seductive" whether you are wearing a mini-skirt and tank top or completely covered in filthy mechanic's overalls - because what they find "seductive" is NOT your body, but the idea of dominating your will and having total control over you in the most pervasive way possible.

Attitudes such as yours can be terribly damaging to the victim of a rape, because you are basically blaming the victim for not dressing modestly enough, when the truth is that there is NOTHING the victim could have done differently to avoid being raped.

As for your comments about the media - if you don't like the influence that television has on your children, there is a simple answer... turn it (the TV) off.

To me a darling and beautiful dress for a 5 years old it has to be embroidered, laces and bows (good quality),

So you're talking about a formal girl's dress, then.

I've definitely seen those around, as well. My sister just hasn't had an occasion formal enough to mandate such a thing in at least 5 years.

Again, fashions change. Women of the Victorian era would've blushed crimson at what women in the 70's wore.

moeloe, good points about seguing from rape to provocative attire and the corrupting effect of evil media. It's essentially blaming the victim and shifting blame away from the perpetrator, no matter how much one tries to avoid saying so.

I consider that the body is not for exposure.

"Exposure" is relative, as well. Simply declaring opposition to "exposure" is essentially meaningless.

Victorian women would've blushed crimson at a modern woman wearing capri pants and a sweater, and many conservative Muslim women think it highly immoral to expose anything more than one's eyes and hands.

(Newsvine didn't capture my edits of my previous comment, which is why this is by itself.)

If you think that how a child (or a woman) is dressed, or even how they act, has any bearing on whether or not they get molested/raped, you know absolutely nothing about the subject.

Thanks God that I am not an expert in the subject.

To me a darling and beautiful dress for a 5 years old it has to be embroidered, laces and bows

Sounds very nice, Determined, but parents have to be careful that they do not control their children's life to such an extent by expecting them to live out their personal dreams or expectations. What suits your children is what other children are wearing, what's in vogue, modified to suit each child's tastes.

This is because most teenagers are very sensitive at this age to rejection and so they care about what their peer groups say and do at that young age more than even their parents. They have that need to belong to a group of some kind, to feel valued by their peers. When we force them to dress or behave in ways which make then feel isolated and on the outside of their friendship groups, they tend to lead double lives and become psychologically tense, lacking in confidence and with low self-esteem.

As an education manager I used to see lots of sad results of parents who were too strict with their children, forcing them to wear things that were considered 'old fashioned' or unattractive. Some kids got over that by changing their clothes at school then changing back afterwards, while tryng to deal with the constant fear of being found out. Very tragic, indeed.

As to keeping children at home, one of the best places for anyone of 18 or over is university. That is the bridge between home and work and helps the individual to begin the adult development process, not remaining at home to be controlled longer than is necessary, but to have the freedom to make decisions for themselves and to build their confidence. Sometimes we are so keen for teenagers to live the lives we had, or dream of, we tend to forget that they are individuals in their own right who need the space and respect to develop their own personalities and talents, and in their own way, for the world they are inhabiting, not the one of yesteryear.

Ms. Cyprah, my kids knew very from where they came from in our culture and being Cuban refugees was the icing on the cake. My kids approve my taste and give blank check (opinion) for buying to their kids.

The problem that we have in our country is that individuality is surpress and thinking that we have be and do like the Johns is completely wrong. Kids don't have to "fit".

Saying NO is very healthy.

Saying NO is very healthy.

I agree, Determined. As long as your child is totally happy, there is no problem. But I think it has to be their choice too. I was just giving the other point of view from the teacher angle because they see a lot in the way kids interact with one another, and are treated in a malicious way simply for not conforming, that parents are seldom aware of.

In this case, Ms. Cyprah is correct.

Unfortunately, violence is still needed across the globe.

What bothers me is that they allowed the boy back into the home of the girl.

This is an example where we don't know enough information. Should the boy be taken out of the home? Should the girl be removed from this violent household containing a member with a criminal record? Was the mother going to take the boy to his grandmothers? Do the police really think the boy raped the girl, at all, or are they simply following protocol for cases such as this. The only "proof" we have comes from an "eye-witness" account from an individual who, frankly, is a criminal and, yes, is not the natural father of this boy -- what better scapegoat?

As I've said above, it may very well be true that everything is as everyone assumes. Or, alternately, everyone could just be making asses of themselves, come to find out that the boy is innocent.

In the interest of fuller disclosure - the only reason I have a brother (we're all adopted) is because his biological father made outlandish claims about him, was violent, and eventually dumped him on the street, at the behest of his stepmother. Of course there's more to the story - but that's my brother's tale to tell. Turns out, of course, that all the "reasons" turned out, upon inspection, to be BS - but that didn't make my brother any less homeless (until we got him, anyway) or any less scarred.

Scary to think that, first blush, apparently most of the people on this thread would have been on his father's side - you know, not actually knowing any real information, and all.

And we never cease to disturb the world.

Oooooooh. Nice.