Oh dear! What a terribly unfortunate name for a DA in an indecent exposure case.

I'm against "make an example" sentencing which this seems to be a case of. Making stringent laws about exposure is a little excessive to begin with, but any case where a person gets a double sentence as part of some impromptu anti-harassment initiative is bullshit.

I like the intent, but this is a real bad way to start taking harassment seriously.

I'm pretty sympathetic for this guy, to be honest. Show someone your evil, evil sex organs and they lock you up for a substantial fraction of your life? The guy's clearly a creep, but I'll be this sort of sentence stems from the making-the-woman-impure because she saw his junk more than anything else. I'd think that such a sentence should be the same no matter the sex of the flash-er and the flash-ee, and I can't imagine this sentence if the sex of either was reversed.

Ha! Yeah. I can't quickly count the times men have inappropriately shown their penises to me. On the other hand, I have yet to see a woman's vulva I did not specifically set out to see in one frame of reference or another. You, Jeff?

...We could always just cut off the offending body part. Then it could never make anyone impure again!

But seriously, is this crime worth being imprisoned? And do they actually think he'll come out of prison a better person?

On the other hand, I suppose the idea of escalation could apply here... serial rapists sometimes start out being voyeurs/ flashers ect. But I don't know that sending them to prison would help prevent anything... why couldn't they be required to do some public service and get treatment?

Make them read some feminist literature in an attempt to teach them all women aren't their sexual property?

I've found that making patriarchy lovers read feminist literature just makes them defensive, threatened, and convinced that feminists are crazy.

These are not people who have empathy. That's why they can do what they do without feeling bad about ruining someone's day.

This seems like a case made for community service, something that would require him to confront the reality of sexual violence against women. Though I am curious about his history and how it factored into this sentence. I wonder what constitutes felony indecent exposure and what his previous sexual assault was. It sounds like he may be doing more than just getting it out.

...and a previous conviction on six counts related to sexual assault...

This isn't even just a serial flasher. He's a rapist that hasn't learned his lesson. This particular punishment certainly exceeds this particular crime, but when the guy has six counts of sexual assault on his rap sheet, I'm not particularly concerned that he's spending too little time in jail.

Anybody see "Little Children" that came out last year. I was a really interesting film. The primary story had to do with suburban isolation and alientation caused by singular child-rearing in wealthy developments (and interestingly, dealt with a stay-at-home dad who could have been Betty Friedan and a Feminist Lit major, who also harkened back to the stifling 1950's "feminine mystique" played by Kate Winslet.)

Anyway, the subplot had to do with "A Pervert" and the paranoia of the community in the face of this flasher/peeping-Tom. There was one man who became so obsessed with him, that he lost his job because he had to pass by "the pervert's" mother's home several times a day with a megaphone harassing them. Again, the film was good and they dealt with the issues very well. I won't ruin the ending, but I will say that it became very clear that "The Pervert" was mentally ill and that his sexual perversion was a power/control issue that very much was culturally expressed as a result of puritanical WASP, patriarchy. He needed medical attention and the community needed reform and honest communication about those issues most avoided or hidden. See the film.

Now, as to this guy. I do believe that exposure and sexual harassment can escalate into sexual assault, rape, violence, and abuse. So, its important to see all the facts in the case. Perhaps he was more of a danger then the news clipping may reveal or perhaps he is simply mentally ill and needs medical intervention. As we don't have healthcare or rehab for the poor in this country we may never know...

You're right, I didn't notice that he'd been convicted of rape before his flashing convictions... I think it's people like this guy who end up puzzling the system. You can't leave all violent people in jail for $ reasons, and they aren't reformed when they get out. So what do you do for them? I like the idea of chemical castration... except these people aren't so horny they can't control themselves, so I don't think that castrating them would prevent their violence.

So besides throwing them in jail/ death row, and then forgetting they exist, what else can we do?

this guy gets 13 years, but the "i was sleeping when i raped her, so it doesn't count" guy gets off completely (so to speak)?!?

The question of why it's always a guy in practice is certainly an interesting one but I don't know if that should matter in the eyes of the law.

First of all, in general, American sends way too many people to jail.

We have 300 million people, out of the world's 6 billion, but yet we incarcerate 2 million of the world's 8 million prisoners.

By contrast, evil evil evil China only sends 1 million of it's 1.2 billion people to prison (and America locks up more people than China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran, Cuba and North Korea COMBINED).

As for this prisewinner, I do think he deserves to be punished, as he's a seriously dangerous pervo, who WILL hurt a woman sooner or later (and probably already has hurt women).

But, putting a sex offender in prison will NOT cure him.

He'll be ostracized, and perhaps attacked (maybe even sexually) by his fellow inmates.

He will probably not get any therapy, unless he's in a few unusual state prisons that have some sort of sex offender treatment program.

And when he makes parole, he will have the same rapist mentality he had when he got locked up, and, worse yet, he will blame women for what happened to him while he was in the joint.

That's why many rapists go right back to attacking women when they come home (often assuming the same M.O. and carrying out attacks in the same area against the same demographic of victim).

It would be better to put men like this suspect in locked ward psychiatric hospitals.

They'll get the treatment that they need and, (at least in my state, New York) they will not get released unless two doctors sign a letter saying they are cured, and that letter is submitted to a civil court judge who is empowered to order their release.

As for the run-of-the-mill subway train flasher, making them read feminist literature would NOT help.

As for the "community service" angle - here in New York City, that's used as a cheap way to keep the streets clean without hiring more sanitation workers (that is, the city uses poor people arrested for petty crimes as unpaid labor to sweep the streets).

See here : http://gangbox.wordpress.com/2007/04/30/uncivil-service-municipal-forced-labor-in-new-york-city/

I don't approve of that, in any situation.

I would suggest that transit systems should have more conductors, security guards and transit cops on duty on the trains during rush hour, when these attacks are most likely to happen.

Have them on the lookout for the perverts - and, if they expose themselves or molest a woman, detain them, give them a summons, eject them from the system and, in 30 days time, have them take a day off from work, go to court, and pay a fine.

Keep a record of the men they detain, and if a guy frequently gets caught, then he might need to be sent to those psychiatric facilities I talked about above.

Is "sexual assault" rape in CA? I get so confused by different states' refusal to call it rape.

"Oh dear! What a terribly unfortunate name for a DA in an indecent exposure case."

Peepers - I don't get the joke!

What's wrong with the name "Wagstaffe"?

It's a perfectly normal name, I think it's English and I used to work with a Jamaican guy with that last name about 20 years ago.

Is it because of the 'staffe' part of the name?

What does that have to do with penises? Isn't Staff an old English word for a flagpole or a long wooden pole?

Unless this sex offender guy had a very unusual medical condition, I doubt seriously that his penis was either 30+ feet tall or made out of wood.

You know what, Gregory? My comment was in poor taste. I'm disinclined to go into it further because it's not nice to make fun of people's names. I am confident that if it truly interests you, you will figure it out.

Peepers: Thank you for pointing out the name. I laughed my ass off.

Why can't they be put on a public list just like sex offenders [assuming that the law doesn't see him or people like him as one]? Even if they are not directly harming someone - it is still sexual harassment.

I have no problem with a multiple offender like this spending a significant amount of time in jail -- as others have pointed out, seemingly "harmless" perverts like flashers can and often do escalate, and the fact that he has several other sex offense convictions rightly raised a red flag with the DA.

It's interesting that you recommend a locked psych hospital for such offenders, Gregory. Having worked on a couple (though these were not long-term facilities), I've actually been privy to conversations about certain patients along the lines of, "We can't help this guy, he belongs in jail."

Criminal behavior that is primarily attributable to psychosis can be treated fairly successfully with medication and therapy. Criminal behavior that is primarily attributable to psychopathy/sociopathy is much more difficult to eradicate; personality can't be reliably medicated. A lot of psychiatrists/psychologists won't work with antisocial patients b/c the latter are so resistant to treatment and given to recidivism.

I find the chemical castration option the most interesting in certain cases. Although I have only anecdotal evidence in its favor, it has seemed to work well for pedophiles, e.g.

I dunno, the question of punishment is definitely a complicated issue, and I sure as hell don't have any answers.

ankathry,

I have a SERIOUS problem with the whole castration thing!

Remember, America has a long ugly history of certain men (that is to say, African American men) being castrated because they had, allegedly, "raped" White women.

Of course, in those days, ANY sexual contact between Black men and White women was presumed to be "rape" even if it was consensual.

(and, on the flipside, ANY sexual contact between White men and Black women was presumed to be consensual, even if it was quite plainly forcible rape)

In light of that history, I have serious problems trusting the American judicial system with the power of castration (chemical or otherwise) because I know damned well which kind of men would be getting castrated (that is, men my color or darker).

Peepers, I know from personal experience just how embarrassing it is when you tell a joke and it bombs. There's nothing worse than having to explain a joke, so I can truly sympathize with your testiness over my comment.

With that said, I still don't understand your joke.

The DA's name was Wagstaffe, and it's funny that he's prosecuting a sex offender?

Again, is it because the "...staffe" part of his name sounds somehow penis like?

Not to me it doesn't...

It seems that sepra got your joke - maybe it's a cultural thing here, and maybe we don't have enough in common culturally to share a joke.

Sorry to have hurt your feelings, Peepers - but I really didn't get the joke, and I still don't.

Gregory, I'm not saying castration is the answer. That's a nasty history you brought up, and one I admittedly hadn't thought of.

Nonetheless, I think it bears investigating in cases of pedophilia. Virtually no sexual contact between an adult & child (in my state, that's 12 years and younger) can be considered consensual, regardless of the race of the parties involved.

I'd also be interested to see chemical castration considered as an option for repeat violent sex offenders. As you point out, though, there's a lot of ugly history to be considered, and it might not be a viable option in terms of judicial enforcement; American justice is emphatically non-blind.

Gregory, I appreciate your sympathy, but actually, it is for my own internal reasons that I regretted my impulsive mean-spiritedness. Please do not take it personally.

That was not me testy. That was me declining further comment.

How does psychiatric help sound? Poo to simple workshops and "feminist" reading material telling The Flasher women are not objects. Not as shocking as the enviro of a psych hospital (which might be one step less harsh than hard prison time...no pun intended). Treat him like a psych patient, perhaps he'll start rethinking his revealing ways.

Ah, my apologies Gregory. Good call, great minds

ankathry, even with pedophelia, the legal system tends to lump in true pedophiles (adults who sexually abuse children) with young adults who have sex with slightly younger teenagers (for example, a 20 year old guy with a 16 year old girlfriend).

There's a racial angle here too - Black males with White girlfriends who are slightly younger than the age of consent tend to be singled out for excessive prosecution.

For instance, in Georgia, there was a young Black man (who had been raised in a mostly White town by his adoptive White parents) who is serving a 10 year prison sentence for having consensual sex with his girlfriend (he was 18, she was 16)

And in the same state, there was an 18 year old Black man who was at a party with his girlfriend and several other young couples.

He was performing oral sex on his girlfriend when the cops broke in - she was White, he got arrested, and he's serving 12 years for criminal sodomy.

Imagine if Georgia castrated "child molesters" - these two guys would be the first ones they would pick!!!

Again, considering American history, castration is NOT an option for ANY sex offender, no matter how henious.

I could see how chemical castration could work with pedophilia, bc I believe them when they say they're actually attracked to children. So I think that there's a chance it would work.

But usually, sexual assault is not lust based, it's power based, right? And the main sexual organ is the brain, anyway. And you don't need a working penis to rape somebody. So I'm not sure that chemical castration would even work.

That said, Gregory brought up a very good point, we can't trust our government not to wield this tool as they have every other- unfairly.

And I remember somebody asking, apparently this guy was "convicted more than two decades ago for a violent rape."
http://www.examiner.com/a-883865~BART_serial_flasher__rapist_sentenced_for_exposure.html

"Again, considering American history, castration is NOT an option for ANY sex offender, no matter how henious."

...and even without considering history, there are more reasons to not castrate convicts.

1) What if an innocent person got convicted and castrated? Castration, amputation, execution, etc. can't be reversed.

2) What if a guilty person got an early release after castration? Changing someone's hormones that little can't stop him or her hurting other people with his or her hands and feet.

Mina, what about making chemical castration available to people who want it? I vaguely remember reading an article interview about a pedophile who wanted to be chemically castrated, because he didn't trust himself. While I think that mandating chemical (or surgical) castration, to my knowledge it's not even available to those who are trying to reform and want it.

Granted, I'm not so optimistic to think that all that many sex offenders of any type would fall into the 'wanting to reform' category.

"Mina, what about making chemical castration available to people who want it?"

Wouldn't *that* count as yet another voluntary body modification?

I agree about the no castration thing. For me, it goes along with the death penalty. The fact of the matter is that the government is doing something cruel that it can never take back, and if the person is innocent even more harm is done.

Gregory: "staff" is a very common euphanism for a penis and shows up both literature and vernacular, from a very long time ago into the modern day. The dude was "wagging his staff" which is why it was funny. Not so much now that it has to be explained... but that's fine. It was funny in it's mildly mean way.

I think he should have underwear permanently attached to his body.

Erm ....

13 years. In prison?

Murderers get 7.

This is California. 3 Strikes, baby.

What should he get? Counseling. Drugs, mebbe. Outpatient care.

13 years? Do any of you have any idea how severe that is?

It seems stupid to give a guy like this 13 years in jail when he is most likely suffering from some sort of mental disorder. This man probably needs help, not punishment. By not giving him that help, not only are we doing an injustice to ourselves (that's our tax money we're spending to keep him locked up, and you're just delusional if you think jail will change him for the better), we're also doing an injustice to him by not helping him. It would be cheaper, more humane, and just more logical to help him instead of punish him.

I've ridden BART before (BART is the SF Bay Area train system). There are a lot of homeless people, "bums" if you want to call them that, that ride it. A lot of them have mental health problems.

"Oh dear! What a terribly unfortunate name for a DA in an indecent exposure case."

I laughed. Good stuff.

"You're right, I didn't notice that he'd been convicted of rape before his flashing convictions..."

"What should he get? Counseling. Drugs, mebbe. Outpatient care."

Hmm.

Something important needs to be pointed out to everyone that is suggesting treatment for this guy. All sexual offender treatment programs have very low success rates. Our current understanding of what causes a person to commit a sexual offense is similar to our understanding of alcoholism before the Betty Ford Clinic.

Most of the offenders that attend sexual treatment programs go through the motions and say the words they are supposed to say. Then they get an early release and offend again. Unfortunately, it is like this for many other prison treatment programs.

Keeping this guy locked up for a number of years will not allow him to victimize anyone else for a while. I think the long sentence was justified for a repeat offender.

Gregory, I find it odd that you included Cuba in the list of countries to compare prison populations with America. Cuba has shipped violent criminals and people with mental health issues to America to stay. Did Cuba just pass along the problem or did Castro think that America's systems could take better care of those people?

"Something important needs to be pointed out to everyone that is suggesting treatment for this guy. All sexual offender treatment programs have very low success rates. Our current understanding of what causes a person to commit a sexual offense is similar to our understanding of alcoholism before the Betty Ford Clinic."

Do you have a source or three to back this up?

I don't doubt it, but it would be nice to read a bit more about it.

I am frankly very surpised to be reading that everyone is upset that this guy was sent to prison. Upon reading the article, I was upset that he wasn't sent to prison sooner. I am a person who is EXTREMELY skeptical of out criminal justice system and our rush to put people in jail and even to kill them. But I think problems in the system are slightly beside the point. Yes, there are too many people in our prisons, in part because we love to use drugs to lock up racial monorities. But that is irrelevant to this case, in which there is a man who is sexually victimizing women. It is not his first time, and there is reason to believe it could escilate. And yes, there are problems with the ability to reform criminals in jail (that are extemely serious and too complex to address here) but that does not mean we need to stop punishing criminals, it means we need to reform the system. We aren't going to stop locking up murderers because we think the system is broken. We need to fix it. I am happy to see that the crime was taken seriosuly, as it often is not. Using sex to victimize someone and establsh power over him or her is a very scary serious thing, even if it is flashing and not assault (which this guy has also done) and it can't be soemthing that is brushed off. I personally am happy to hear that we think this is serious, harmful, and actionable, as opposed to just unfortuante, or god forbid even funny.

""staff" is a very common euphanism for a penis"

Not in New York City it isn't!

I live in a largely Black and Latino part of the city (West Harlem) but I work in midtown, so I'm exposed to New Yorkers of all races - and in my 39 years on this planet this is the first time I've ever heard ANYBODY call a penis a "staff"!

Dave - back in 1980, in response to a protest movement demanding open emigration to America, Castro opened the borders ...and took the opportunity to deport most of Cuba's prison and psychiatric facility inmates.

Basically, it was a money and resources thing - emptying the jails and mental hospitals saved the Cuban government a lot of money and resources that could be used for other things.

The total number of Marielitos was 105,000 - and most of them were not prisoners.

Which proves my point - even though Cuba is a dictatorship, the country has a tiny prison system by American standards.

I'm surprised anyone is recommending castration as punishment for men like this. It's such a knee-jerk reaction to sex crimes.
But it won't actually stop or prevent sex offenders from offending again.
The absence of a penis/balls will not turn entitled, patriarchal perverts into caring, empathetic men. It will not make pedophiles normal.
It just means they have to use objects other than their own genitals to attack people.

katie, you're missing the point. Do you seriously propose incarceration as a solution to the problem of men exposing themselves on subway trains?

The government would love that - because the federal and state governments catch all solution to every social problem is prison.

And of course you know WHICH men who expose themselves would get jail time!

It would probably go a little something like this:

The Mexican restaurant worker who got caught peeing in a train station would get 10 years + deportation.

And the White stockbroker who whipped it out and masturbated in front of a Black high school student would get 90 days probation.

Remember, this is America, the land of the heartless and the home of the paid, so we can already predict those kind of outcomes.

Still support the prison solution to this problem, Katie?

I'm inclined to agree with Katie. The sentence for flashing his penis is definitely inappropriate, but minimizing this type of violation as usually just some dude exerting his patriarchy makes me really uncomfortable. Many serious offenders test the waters and start out with flashing and other types of farassment til it doesn't get their rocks off anymore.

Well, if he is a repeat offender I agree that the penalty should me stricter. But I think 1 years is a bit excessive. How about a year or two then mandatory therapy? If this guy is constantly flashing his naughty bits then he has some kind of problem and needs help. Jail time isn't going to change his mindset, just like it won't help a drug adict recover.

Or, put a big sandwich board on him that says "I flashed my penis on the subway" and stand him outside of a some kind of women's organization or something of that nature.

By the way, Wagstaffe? Tee hee.

So does anybody give a shit about protecting women from these assholes or what? Cry me a fucking river about these assholes getting nailed but flashing is not just some boyish prank. Why are we fucking talking about the men and not the women they did this to?

Because the question specifically centers on criminal justice and the offenders, ginmar.

It seems like an important one to me. It seems like it bears consideration of multiple factors, including the one Gregory has brought up about racial inequity in the justice system. (My heart aches for Genarlow Wilson.) Compassionate consideration of how criminals should be treated and what concessions should be made to encourage fair treatment is not the same as condoning the crime.

If I ever have to serve on a jury for a case like this, I'll be glad we had this conversation.

Gregory-

Think about it. Wagstaffe. Flashers. Wag staff. WAG STAFF! Presumably the dude was wagging his "staff" around.

yes, Gregory, I do still do support punishing men who are sexual preditors. Obviously there are flaws, and obviously I do not support putting a black man in jail forever and not punishing a white man for the same crime. Again, that is beside the point that I am making. I am happy to see that women are being protected and we are taking this seriosuly as a preditory, harmful, and fucking CREEPY thing that deserves punishment.

"yes, Gregory, I do still do support punishing men who are sexual preditors. Obviously there are flaws, and obviously I do not support putting a black man in jail forever and not punishing a white man for the same crime."

Meanwhile, now I'm reminded a bit of this:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/09/16/1032054759536.html

I'm with Katie on this one. My first reaction to "We can't (and shouldn't) send all of these guys to prison for a decade" was well, why not? Now, I do know that there are reasons why not, but I was responding to the terms of the discussion which tend to be along the lines of "sexual harassment." This is ASSAULT.

P.S. great joke, Peepers!

Chemical castration is reversible. It's not cutting off the penis or testicles. It just means that the sex offender can't get it up and has no sex drive. It's mostly used for violent rapists or pathological pedophiles (meaning ones who readily admit they're only attracted to very young children).

Jeremy F.-
I don't have any internet sources to back that up with, sorry. There are a number of articles I have read over the years in local newspapers and conversations I have had with correctional staff that work with sexual offenders that I base most of my conclusions upon.

Also, one of the many classes my mother teaches in prison is a Cognitive Intervention Program (CGIP) and that will sometimes have a Sexual Offender Treatment (SOT) emphasis. The CGIP students have a 40-35% success rate and the CGIP SOT students have a success rate that is lower. (I would have to check how much lower) Keep in mind that these classes are voluntary. There is no punishment for refusing these classes, but full completion is usually rewarded.

Gregory-
Let me give you another example, a Filipino man was working in Saudi Arabia and killed a Saudi. The Filipino claims it was self defense. The Saudi court agreed that self defense was probably an issue and then reduced his sentence from 15 to 10 years. Then the victim's family decided that the Filipino should be beheaded. So he was.

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=80740

The criminal justice system in America works very different compared to all those countries you compared America against in your earlier comment.

Vigilante justice is not tolerated here. Relatives of a victim do not make decisions regarding punishment, juries and judges do that. America does not outsource the confinement of criminals. The quality of life for an American prisoner is comparatively high. You can not escape punishment by giving bribes to law enforcement in America. (Well, not NEARLY to the degree that it happens in those other countries.) Technology and training of American law enforcment is such that criminals are caught more often here.

All of those reasons I just stated will lead to a higher prison population compared to those other countries, in my opinion. Could you answer a question for me, why do YOU think America's prison population is comparatively high?

As kind of a side note, an estimated 27% of America's state and federal prison population is made up of illegal immigrants. Those are people that are convicted of crimes other than border crossing in America.

La Fille Torpille-
Unfortunately, I have heard of instances where sexual offenders have used Viagra to "get it up" despite chemical castration.

I have no idea on what kinds of punishment are appropriate for what kinds of crime, and I don't want the responsibility of trying to figure it out.

::threadjack::

If I shoplift a CD with ten songs from a store, I'll be charged with a misdemeanor and probably have to pay a fine of several times the cost of the CD. If I instead illegally download the same ten songs that are on that CD, I'm potentially liable for $1,500,000 in statutory damages. That's right, ONE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS. Where's the sense in that?

At first, it seemed like 13 years is harsh.

Its very harsh when considering the countless females let off with probation for raping children, which happen to be their students nonetheless.

But something needs to be done, if left unpunished, you would see the similar reaction that has occured with female and male rapists - they somehow see it as a free pass to keep raping.

But with the most recent headlines like "I was asleep when I raped her" or "I like have intercourse with little boys", this sentence is entirely too harsh.

I mean, how is flashing nearly as bad as forcibly raping your male students?

Scilian, you fuck.

"Countless females?" Riiiight.
Why are you fools so focused on the teeny tiny minority of rapists who are women? Just fucking ignore the fact that the vast, overwhelming majority of rapists (including statutory) are men. Fucking fuck. It's clear you don't give a SHIT about women and girls. Noooo, it's all "what about the boyyyyys?" in a thread about something completely unrelated. When an underage boy is raped it's an outrage, right? It's the only time you fucks give any attention to rape - when a boy or man is the victim.

Dave -

You're still dodging the question.

America has 5% of the world's population.

But 25% of the world's prisoners.

Also, America is 70% White, but the prison population is only 45% White.

That's a recent trend - as recently as 1980, America had a majority White prison population.

That was around the time when America began mass incarceration of people involved in victimless crimes - in particular, folks involved in selling narcotics.

Oddly enough, although, according to the FBI, 80% of drug dealers are White, 75% of people who get locked up for selling drugs are Black or Latino.

Don't you think that's the slightest bit odd?

Or maybe it doesn't bother you, since it's not members of YOUR race getting locked up???

As a Black man who "fits the profile", I have to worry about the American gulag, since it's so easy for somebody my color to end up in leg irons in this country.

Just to close with another statistic - if Black Americans were a seperate country, we'd have a higher per capita incarceration rate than North Korea.

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea locks up one out of every 88 of it's people.

And the good ol' USA locks up one out of every 34 of it's Black citizens.

Kinda sad when you compare our justice system (or at least the part of it that polices Black America) to Kim Jong Il's kangaroo courts - and Kim's totalitarian "justice" system actually comes out looking better!!!!

After all the above comments I'm not sure I have anything original to say, but I'm compelled to add my voice to those who feel America's trend of locking up more and more of the population is wrong headed.

Since 1980, each year we have imprisoned a higher percentage of the population than the year before -- yet we still have a higher crime rate than Canada, Japan, and the EU. It's almost like business in which growth is seen as a positive outcome.

http://trinifar.wordpress.com/2007/02/16/prison-population-growth/

We've become so focused on punishment we've forgotten the point is to lower the crime rate. We've forgotten the goal is to actually change people's behavior and that prison is only one of the many methods to be used. Meanwhile, prisons continue to suck up more and more each state's budget.

"It's almost like business in which growth is seen as a positive outcome."

I heard that some places outsource prison management. Hmm...

Talking about prison in general and about sex crimes is talking about two different subjects. Too few rapists get punished, adn they almost never get stopped before they're committing rape. You want to talk drug offenses? Those are the product of a racist system. RApe? It's practically legal. You can't discuss the two in the same breath.

"Why are you fools so focused on the teeny tiny minority of rapists who are women?" -SarahMC

First of all, don't feed the trolls.

Second, despite the fact that it's been deliberately phrased in a way to piss off the readers of this blog, Scilian does have a point. If the topic of discussion is the inequality of punishment handed out by the American judicial system, one of the points you have to consider is:

"What would the punishment have been if the perpetrator was female?"

I think the answer should be obvious to everyone. I doubt the police would even take the time to find the woman.

I hate that this is my first post, and also hate to agree with a troll, but as the old saying goes, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Qtiger - what's that got to do with the price of eggs? And why are you completely agreeing with someone who in your own words is a troll?

Remember, this guy has committed sexual assaults in the past, so we're not just talking about exposing himself. The simple fact is that women very very very rarely commit these types of crimes, so I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make, or how useful your comment is. The inequality in the justice system with regards to sexual offences most often does NOT swing in favour of women (who are usually the victims), so why don't we talk about that instead?

Or, why don't we talk about Mary Kay Letourneau, a 34-yr-old school teacher who had an affair with her 13-year-old student and was sentenced to 7 years, and will have to register as a sex offender for the rest of her life? (They're now married with kids). Why do men always assume that women get off scott-free? They don't. But too often men do.

"Qtiger - what's that got to do with the price of eggs? And why are you completely agreeing with someone who in your own words is a troll?"

I apologize if the point offends, but that doesnt make me a troll. I find this site very anti-man, much more so than pro-women.

"The simple fact is that women very very very rarely commit these types of crimes"

So women dont expose themselves at the beach, bars, or parties? Countless do. But its ok to do it in front of 13 year old boys at HS parties because the cops arent called? Ever hear of Mardi Gras? Did you know its illegal for women to expose themselves even then, but NO police cannot stop them because so many do it? What about women who expose themselves to truckers and bikers, meanwhile little children in adjacent cars are subjected to it?

If its not a crime for women to do it, why is it any more of crime when a man does it?

Just because crimes committed by women are grossly under-reported and under-penalized, does not mean they are are any more trivial.

Pointing this out doesnt make me a troll. I do the same to christians as well. Hypocrisy needs to be called out, and I call it like I see it. I noticed none of the 8 women that made headlines in the past 17 days for teacher student rape was never posted here or discussed, but think of the hundreds if not thousands that went unreported or simply didnt make the news.

Call me a troll, I dont care. But rooting for female rapists to walk scott free, or simply ignoring the problem while cheering a male who got thirteen years for exposure, a crime committed hundreds if not thousands of times a day by women, well, just makes the hypocrisy all that more vile.

If exposure is a sex crime worth 13 years, than any woman who has done this should be given an equal punishment.

But pretending it doesnt happen, when its common knowledge it does happen (if not thousands of times in a day), but at the same time attack someone for pointing it out, go right ahead. Intellectual dishonesty at its best.

I sat down with my mother this morning and asked her about specific numbers relating to recidivism rates and the CGIP classes. The average person in my state, Wisconsin, that is released from prison is about 75% likely to recommit. A person that successfully completes a CGIP course only has about a 35% recidivism rate. That's a 40% drop, well worth the resources. When I asked her about the CGIP SOT results she said, "Ugh, dismal".

Gregory-

First of all, you and I had the discussion of drug crimes in another thread and I really don't think it belongs in this thread.

http://feministing.com/archives/007428.html#comments

"Or maybe it doesn't bother you, since it's not members of YOUR race getting locked up???"

Seriously, NOT cool. You lost some respect points with me on that one.

"Oddly enough, although, according to the FBI, 80% of drug dealers are White, 75% of people who get locked up for selling drugs are Black or Latino."

Are there racist judges, DAs, police, and juries in this country? Sure. Call me optomistic, but I think it's a vast minority. I believe that the level of crime committed plays more of a part into the sentence that person receives than ancestry. You have to go back farther in the cause and effect chain to figure out why those numbers are the way they are.

Crime rates are higher in big cities compared to small towns. There are higher concentrations of minorities in big cities compared to small towns. This could be causing the prison population issue. No, this doesn't mean that I think minorities are causing all the crime in the big cities, I think that the big city way of life compared to the small town way of life is the big difference maker.

I would hope that if person #1 is convicted of first degree sexual assault and person #2 is convicted of third degree sexual assault that person #1 would get a harsher sentence. I could care less about the race of either person.

"You're still dodging the question."

Maybe because I don't see what causes the problem the same way that you do.

This site is only "anti-man" if you consider all men sex offenders. :shrug:
Is there something wrong with being anti-rapist/anti-abuser/anti-harasser? If you're neither of those things, why do you identify with them? Just 'cause you have a dick?
It's not anti-man to be anti-rape/anti-abuse/anti-harassment. If you think it is, perhaps you should check your own attitudes about men.

But rooting for female rapists to walk scott free...

Please point out an instance where this occured. As Ledlight pointed, out, women ARE brought to trial and are often put in jail when they rape children.

Do you even have any experience with stuff like this? Or is your opinion informed completely by the media?
I used to work at a child-welfare advocacy organization, and YES, women who commit sex crimes are charged with sex crimes. I know it happens, and when it happens it's not treated lightly.

Wow, Scilian. So you think that the young women who flash breasts to the Girls Gone Wild cameras or for beads at Mardi Gras should get the same treatment as this dude who whipped his penis out? Let me explain something: men have used their penises to dominate women for centuries. Women have a very valid reason to be frightened of a man who flashes his penis, because he is of the class that oppresses women. As soon as men start to feel frightened for their safety and/or life because a woman flashes her breasts, then we can talk about it.

Also, let's think about why women flash breasts for GGW and Mardi Gras. It's because they have bought into the idea that they are only worth what is in their bras, and that doing something sexual will reward them. We live in a patriarchy, dude.

Quite contrary, your speech seems very similar to me. Let me try something real quick:

"Let me explain something: women have used their bodies to entice men to sin for centuries..."

There, it's your speech, only from a few centuries in the past, and talking about how women's bodies are evil instead of men's.

Qtiger, I don't think Quite Contrary was saying men's bodies are evil. Again, the argument that feminists think all men are evil is used all the time to discredit us. It's distracting, and not remotely true. The fact is, some men use their penises as weapons, as tools for domination, fear, and the possession of one is part of the criteria one needs to be in the upper eschelons of the patriarchy. Because of this, women are often frightened when a man exposes him self. This is because that action is often not sexual, but a demonstration of power, entitlement, and the desire to remind women that they are powerless and unentitled.

Also, breasts are not soley sexual. Arguing that children should be protected from them is somewhat silly, considering our government's assertion that not using them to feed children is as reckless as riding a mechanical bull while pregnant. This isn't entirely relevant, since I know women who flash during Mardi Gras are using their breasts in the sexual way (the only truly socially acceptable way).

When women start using their breasts to viciously attack or assert dominance over men, I'll give credit to the idea that female exposition is as heinous as male exposition. We live in a world of unbalance. The actions of the oppressed can't be put in the context of those of the oppressor.

Kudos, Kissmypineapple.

KMP,

I don't even remotely think that feminists hate men; after all, I certainly don't hate myself.

That said, 1) imho public indecency laws are about American squeamishness regarding nudity, not about a person feeling threatened/dominated. If nudity is used as/with a threat, that's some flavor of assault.

2) Penises are not solely sexual either. I'm sure a prime use of indecent exposure laws is against men urinating in public.

3) Many indecency laws include an exemption for breastfeeding.

I seem to sidetracked myself. My point is that, imho, the origin of 'male nudity bad/female nudity OK' is all about body image, and has nothing to do with male dominance of women, patriarchy, etc. I'm just shocked when feminists, who are/should be conscious of all of society's body image nonsense, seem to play along with said nonsense. If I were to say that I think it is acceptable for 'attractive women' to expose their bodies but that 'unattractive women,' for example women of size, should be prosecuted if they expose themselves in public, I would undoubtedly be the recipient of a hefty dose of flames. I would expect that the same would hold true for people advocating a gender double standard, and am surprised that it doesn't seem to.

I hope I've gotten my point across. I'm never as good at explaining complex topics in text as in person.

"...We could always just cut off the offending body part. Then it could never make anyone impure again!"

...

Uhh, not funny. :(

I think all men who expose themselves publically deserve to go to jail, as do women. Both should be treated exactly the same but most definately punished for doing so. When I was 15, not very long ago a man exposed himself to me and I was very shaken up by this. These people ARE a danger and in this case I think he got what was coming to him. It is not a case of the man damaging the womans 'innocence' that is the problem, the problem is that as a girl I had no means to defend myself and i was very vunerable. All flashers need to be dealt with before they get too confidant and take it a step further..