~ archived since 2018 ~

"It is illegal, and considered rape, for corrections officers to have sexual relations with inmates." See she didn't really rape him. It's just a legal technicality.

andejoh · 2017-08-08T20:19:54+00:00

At least they didn't mention his name. She threatened to harm him for goodness sake, but they have to down play it because believe the victim goes out...

andejoh

August 8, 2017

44 upvotes

/r/MensRights

Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	"It is illegal, and considered rape, for corrections officers to have sexual relations with inmates." See she didn't really rape him. It's just a legal technicality.
Author	andejoh
Upvotes	44
Comments	43
Date	August 8, 2017 8:19 PM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/6sg969/it_is_illegal_and_considered_rape_for_corrections/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/it-is-illegal-and-considered-rape-for-corrections.916252 https://theredarchive.com/post/916252

Comments

[–]Imnotmrabut 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Approximately 95% of all youth reporting staff sexual misconduct said they had been victimized by female staff. In 2008, 42% of staff in state juvenile facilities were female.
Allen J. Beck, Ph.D., Paige M. Harrison, Paul Guerino *Sexual victimization in juvenile facilities reported by youth, 2008-2009.,* U.S. Department of Justice Publishing, 2010. NCJ 228416

[–]Revoran 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LoicyT 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]LoicyT 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Okay what I mean is that it is more common for someone to walk free from an age of consent violation if there is a doubt that the person intended to violate age of consent because the young bitch lied or misled someone, whereas a person who commits actual rape never walks free if it is proved they did it. These differing instances also technically prove that someone who vioaltes age of consent is not committing rape, because supposing we viewed it as rape, you can't 'accidentally rape' someone, because rape is an intentional violation of a person's unwillingness to have sex, and if such a thing actually occurred during an age of consent violation, then there wouldn't be any way to claim "well they lied about their age" and get leniency.

Its a shot at people who claim that statutory rape is actually rape. If it were actually rape, you couldn't get off on technicality like "they lied about their age".

[–]LoicyT 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]andejoh[S] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RapeMatters 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]badon_ 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy -4 points-3 points-2 points 9 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

[–]HotDealsInTexas 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]RapeMatters 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]andejoh[S] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RapeMatters 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]1493271 points 9 years ago* [recovered] (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]HotDealsInTexas 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]RapeMatters 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]RapeMatters 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RapeMatters 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]andejoh[S] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HotDealsInTexas 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I didn't even have to suggest that the actions were defensible, or moral, or right, and here is everyone

How the hell is "If you could lose your job you might threaten your lovers too" not suggesting her actions were defensible? At the bare minimum you have implied that the threats are something a normal person would do in that situation and it's the fault of the system for putting her in a situation where she could lose her job if the relationship was found out, and you have referred to them as "lovers," which strongly implies you consider this to be a consensual relationship.

I said something which gave no indication as to my position of the issue and here come the labels and claims.

Okay, you're right, I was jumping to conclusions based on implications and your past post history. I apologize for judging your too har-

For starters, we don't even know how their sexual relationship started. Maybe he seduced her and she realized she'd get in big, big trouble later.

Never mind. I think that made your position pretty clear. You're right, it's clearly his fault for "seducing" her. How could any woman possibly resist him when he was wearing that slutty prison jumpsuit? How could we expect her to control her sexual urges and actually do her goddamn job?

Look, the one who has ALL the power in this scenario is the guard. She's in a position of immense authority, she can essentially inflict arbitrary punishments on him, and the best part: he's a prison inmate, a class of people society more or less considers subhuman and untrustworthy. Who's going to take the word of a prisoner over the word of a guard? But clearly he must be the one who seduced her. Right.

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]HotDealsInTexas 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]andejoh[S] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

For starters, we don't even know how their sexual relationship started. Maybe he seduced her and she realized she'd get in big, big trouble later.

Actually we do unless you don't believe the victim. It seems though that there is not proof either way so you're simply not believing the victim because? I suspect penis.

I take it you're not the most brilliant person here so I'll explain something. You're making what's called a positive defense. You're saying that she would be guilty, but she's not because X.Y, and Z. The issue is that when you make a positive defense, the burden of proof shifts and all you have is speculation. The state has already made it's case. If you want to rebut it, show us the proof.

EDIT: In case you haven't figured it out. Most of the comments here aren't angry comments (which I think you're hoping for) , but rather are mocking you for your stupidity. Instead of triggering people like you hope, you're probably giving them a big belly laugh.

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

The state has already made it's case. If you want to rebut it, show us the proof.

The state made its case based on a technical law that denies requirement of proof, as it is considered 'proven by violation of law'.

If you want to see positive defense and other fairy tales, look no further than "position of authority" laws which claim that abuse occurs even if it isn't actually proven that someone did, in fact, abuse their authority.

In case you haven't figured it out. Most of the comments here aren't angry comments (which I think you're hoping for) , but rather are mocking you for your stupidity. Instead of triggering people like you hope, you're probably giving them a big belly laugh.

You being triggered would just be icing on the cake. That response is you being triggered, because instead of staying on point you start getting pissy. In your own words you claimed that people who make positive claims need to provide evidence, and yet the laws of "position of authority" state in plain terms that no such evidence is needed to prove coercion and abuse of position. Instead of being all over that, you're all over me for trying to get you to understand this by pointing out that, despite breaking a law, we don't know if she actually abused her position of authority other than to warn him against sleeping with other women. She did not threaten him with bodily harm unless he had sex with her, which would be actual rape.

This doesn't require any sort of positive proof from me. If that had happened, it would've been written into the report and the news article. The only thing she threatened him with is bodily harm for sleeping with others. That's bad enough, but its not a threat of coercion INTO rape.

If you can't understand this and you want to fall back on the "muh positive defense needs proof" rhetoric, I can't do anything more for you.

[–]andejoh[S] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

The state made its case based on a technical law that denies requirement of proof

BS, it certainly does require proof. You may not agree with the sufficiency, but he has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (and there's the point reasonable, not beyond all doubt which some people think the standard is) that sex took place.

"If you want to see positive defense and other fairy tales, look no further than "position of authority" laws which claim that abuse occurs even if it isn't actually proven that someone did, in fact, abuse their authority."

When the law defines having sex with a prisoner abuse of authority then your choices are not to have sex with a prisoner, which is hardly difficult to do or commit a crime. Choice was hers not necessarily his and she made it. Adults realize that there are consequences to actions unless you're suggesting that she's not an adult.

"You being triggered would just be icing on the cake. That response is you being triggered"

Whatever helps you sleep at night. I rather enjoy mocking you.

"In your own words you claimed that people who make positive claims need to provide evidence, and yet the laws of "position of authority" state in plain terms that no such evidence is needed to prove coercion and abuse of position. "

Because it's not a positive defense. You're trying to be purposefully obtuse. Since when does a prosecutor defend. What you have is a violation of the law, which also has to be proven. Again beyond a reasonable doubt so we went into that room not to have sex, but to be transported to the realm of Westeros in order to help the Starks get revenge on the Lannisters wouldn't fly (see told you I enjoy mocking you). They also have his testimony that they had sex. Witness testimony is certainly proof.

"Instead of being all over that, you're all over me for trying to get you to understand this by pointing out that, despite breaking a law, we don't know if she actually abused her position of authority other than to warn him against sleeping with other women."

Other than. You just admitted that she abused her position of authority. You're just saying that it wasn't because she had sex with him. It was because she wouldn't let him have sex with anyone else. She knew that was a condition of employment. If you can't restrain yourself, don't take the job. I'm saying that the law defines that as abuse of authority so actions have consequences.

The law against running a red light is not a suggestion. We don't just punish the people who run red lights that cause accidents.

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

This appears to me as a version of dunning-kruger along the lines of perceiving the self to be successfully 'mocking'. Its like a layman mocking a physicist for what the layman sees as inconsistencies in higher math. You've convinced yourself but that's about all.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20131125-why-the-stupid-say-theyre-smart

Now, I'm not calling you stupid implicitly, but you're behaving dangerously close to that line.

Since when does a prosecutor defend.

A prosecutor has to defend their claim that a law was broken. Positively. They have to provide evidence otherwise there's no case. All claims require a defense of said claims. You seemed to recognize this on the one hand by sduggesting that if I make a claim I have to make a 'positive defense' of it, but then do not see that such positive defenses of claims are also required by 'attacking'. This is probably where you got confused. Just because someone is attacking someone in a courtroom does not mean they do not have to defend their own arguments and claims with reason, laws, and proof.

You just admitted that she abused her position of authority.

No, we don't know that.

We don't just punish the people who run red lights that cause accidents.

As awful as this analogy is, we'll go with it.

Suppose someone ran a red light last night. We don't know if they actually harmed anyone unless we get proof of it. Just because they broke a traffic law does not mean that someone actually got hurt. Similarly, just because she broke a law against sex with inmates does not mean that she actually hurt someone. The law ASSUMES injury was caused, unlike the red light law which assumes injury COULD have been caused, which is why its a terrible analogy.

Personally, I think it makes sense to punish people not for running red lights but for harming others if they run a red light. The red light tells you that you might hurt someone and you should stop. However, I've had the experience of red lights which stay red for 4 minutes with no one else around, no oncoming traffic, etc. I've sat and waited just to see what would happen. After 5 minutes, it becomes clear that there's a malfunction, and I 'technically' run a red light in order to keep going. But I check to make sure its safe.

A technical violation of the law. But did I harm anyone? Why should I be punished in such an instance? This is the problem with the analogy of the red light and the assumption of harm caused by an act such as sex in a 'position of authority' rather than needing PROOF harm was caused.

Like you said, there's no proof that the sexual activity even happened, let alone whether she coerced him into actual sex acts or not. So we're just taking the word of a criminal for it.

[–]andejoh[S] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

This appears to me as a version of dunning-kruger along the lines of perceiving the self to be successfully 'mocking'. Its like a layman mocking a physicist for what the layman sees as inconsistencies in higher math. You've convinced yourself but that's about all.

You're just mad that you can't get under my skin nor do I accept your inane protestations. I've never liked bullies and don't intimidate easily.

"No, we don't know that."

Yes we do. She threatened him. You can't make the argument that she has an unalienable right to have sex with whoever she wants, whenever she wants as long as they're willing and she is somehow having her rights violated by being prevented from doing so and then claim she is not violating his rights by preventing him from doing the same.

"The law ASSUMES injury was caused, unlike the red light law which assumes injury COULD have been caused, which is why its a terrible analogy."

I disagree. The law is there because a person could be injured and it's to dissuade a person from abusing their position of authority. That's why they don't care whether he consented. Assuming that he couldn't consent is not the same as assuming injury.

"Personally, I think it makes sense to punish people not for running red lights but for harming others if they run a red light."

And we should allow blood money payments to avoid prosecutions since people are "compensated" for their loses, they haven't been injured. We should eliminate all punitive damage awards, etc. because people should be punished if the other party hasn't been harmed. The issue with this is that it doesn't discourage crime.

Let's say I steal $10,000 for 100 people. Why would I care if I got caught 90 times if all I had to do was give the money back? I would still get away with $100,000. What you do is you punish the red light violation and you punish it more severely if it causes injury. A person who tries to kill someone shouldn't get away just because the hit man they hired was an under cover cop and no one was killed.

That seems to be the case here. If you look at PREA, they do exactly what you talk about. The classify the crime based on the level of "consent" of the inmate. I assume (granted it's an assumption so take it as that), that the punishment is depended on the level of consent of the inmate. Sometimes the guard doesn't even go to jail. They're just fired. I suspect that in this case, she'll be doing prison time since there is some coercion. Even if you're right that he "agreed" to have sex with her. We don't know whether he would have agreed had he the option of having sex with someone else. We could only assume he did as she threatened him not to. The person raped at gun point always has the option to take the bullet, but most people would believe that consent wasn't obtained even if that person were to agree to have sex in return for not being killed.

"Like you said, there's no proof that the sexual activity even happened, let alone whether she coerced him into actual sex acts or not. So we're just taking the word of a criminal for it."

Where did I say that? I said that the video evidence coupled with his testimony is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I even pointed out that his testimony, first-hand non-hearsay witness testimony, is proof. I mock you for your insistence that there are still doubts regardless of how unreasonable they are.

[–]mwobuddy1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You're just mad that you can't get under my skin nor do I accept your inane protestations. I've never liked bullies and don't intimidate easily.

Highly ironic. Weren't you the one trying to mock someone and claim moral and logical superiority?

suspect that in this case, she'll be doing prison time since there is some coercion

If she'd coerced anyone into sex, then we'd be hearing about that.

I said that the video evidence coupled with his testimony is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I even pointed out that his testimony, first-hand non-hearsay witness testimony, is proof.

Please present the video evidence of her verbal coercion, the video evidence of them fucking, or anything else. And you're assuming that people don't lie about being raped. This is comedy gold.

Let's say I steal $10,000 for 100 people. Why would I care if I got caught 90 times if all I had to do was give the money back? I would still get away with $100,000. What you do is you punish the red light violation and you punish it more severely if it causes injury.

The red light analogy was already flawed enough, but now you're equating potential harm directly to actual harm, via running a red light where no one is hurt vs stealing money from others.

Stop please. My sides can't literally even anymore.

[–]andejoh1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Highly ironic. Weren't you the one trying to mock someone and claim moral and logical superiority?

What's immoral about mocking people? I think it's even funnier that your so upset that I'm not "triggered". You went to the wrong sub for that.

"Please present the video evidence of her verbal coercion"

You don't need video evidence of her verbal coercion. You have his testimony, which is evidence. It is blistered by the video evidence.

"The red light analogy was already flawed enough, but now you're equating potential harm directly to actual harm, via running a red light where no one is hurt vs stealing money from others.

Stop please. My sides can't literally even anymore."

Now you're descending way past the inane and are no longer interested in even the pretense of communication. I suppose if I'm causing you physical discomfort, it may be worth continuing ar least for me. I suspect that's not accurate and you won;'t actually be able to resist replying.

[–]mwobuddy1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]1493271 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]McFeely_Smackup 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]McFeely_Smackup 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]1493271 points 9 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]McFeely_Smackup 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]1493271 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link