Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    I don't want to seem unsympathetic towards people who were abused
    as children because I naturally think child abuse is a horrible
    thing.  But, I think this is ridiculous.  It sounds to me that these
    two women just want the money.  If they win, it will just open the
    way to other women trying to sue sometimes innocent men for having
    allegedly raped them when they were kids.  I think that proven rapists
    and child abusers should go to jail or a mental hospital, but I
    don't think this type of thing should be turned into a money making
    gimmick.
    
    Lorna
    

That is a really good point Herb. I have a friend who was a victim of incest,
but her parents spent a lot of time denying her take on reality while she was
growing up. So, one of the current major issues for her is really, really,
really being sure that it happened (even though it's obvious to me, her
therapist, and everyone else I know of that it did).
	Mez

    I remember seeing where this type of action was brought in another
    state -- I believe successfully.
    
    I think that suits of this type are often brought as a form of
    catharsis.  For 13 years these women (then children) were victimized
    and couldn't (or felt they couldn't) do anything about it. They may
    feel that the suit gives them away to change that.  Having worked with
    a young girl who has been sexually abused over a long period of time, I
    know that she blames herself because she feels like she should have
    done something to stop it and that because she didn't it's her fault
    that it happened.
    
    I don't know RI criminal law but it is probable that the statute of
    limitations for a criminal prosecution has run.
                                                   

It's true that this would be wonderful affirmation, but don't forget that
the results of the abuse can cost LOTS of money.

Therapy alone is $70 a 50 minute "hour" here in Colorado, and group
therapy would be an additional cost.  Recovering from abuse can take
YEARS.

Physical damage can result as well from sexual abuse.  My Ob/Gyn was telling
me of sewing up the horrible tears in babies and young children who were
raped.

Mental effects from abuse can cause people to have difficulty concentrating
and/or handling their job.  Some days for some people it is more effort than
they can make just to come to work, much less to actually deal with people 
there.  So income may be considerably less because of abuse.

I think suing can be quite reasonable in some situations.

           Carol

    RE .5 and statute of limitation.
    
    Wasn't there a court ruling recently (I can't remember the state),
    that extended the statute of limitations in child-abuse cases.  The
    argument was that victims often blocked the memories of child-hood
    abuse, and didn't recall circumstances until therapy in later life
    (or the passage of time) brought them back to the surface.
    
                            cathy
                            

<    Wasn't there a court ruling recently (I can't remember the state),

Yes, but I don't remember the details either.

      Carol

    
    Re: 1 
          If .0 sounds bizarre try this:
    
    ...The father of a woman identified only as Claudine of Saint-Brieuc in
    France, has sued her daughter for "slander" after she disclosed on
    national t.v. that as a child his father repeatedly raped her.
    Becuase of a statute of limitations (the rape occurred 20 years ago), 
    she was FOUND GUILTY. But not only that, she was fined the equivalent
    of $6 (Canadian dollars) with 18 cents damages, and the presiding
    magistrate said that "the current law is totally inadequate since it
    imposes an obligation of silence on all women who fail to reveal in
    time that they were victims of incest"   What is "in time" ?
    
    [ From page B-2 of the Montreal Gazette July 15 1989]

    It has to be a civil case.  Individial's can't bring criminal actions,
    only the state can.  And there are no "damages" (i.e. money) awarded in
    criminal actions.  However, evidence of criminal wrong doing can be
    used to support a civl cause of action.  I'm sure that this was brought
    under tort law.  In most states the statute of limitation for a tort
    is 3 years.  It's just not always clear when the statute starts to run.
    That's issue that the defense is arguing.  They say that it started to
    run at the end of the 13 year period and therefore has "tolled".  The
    plaintiff's must be arguing that it started to run at a later date,
    maybe when they psychologically able to acknowledge what had happened
    and the harm that had caused them.  In recent years that type of theory
    has been used with some success to get cases into court that wouldn't
    have made under traditional rulings.

    In France, a law was passed late last year (after the episode involving
    "Claudine" mentioned in a previous note) which allowed people who had been 
    abused as children to initiate a legal procedure against the concerned 
    parent up to 10 years after reaching their majority, independantly from the 
    time the actual abuse stopped.

The idea behind this law is that, when a child is abused:

	- he doesn't dare speak up against his parents;
	- he doesn't know he can, nor how to do it;
	- he buries this knowledge in his subconscious, and it
	  may not come out until very much later, for example during
	  a therapy.

I think this law is a very good idea. Though I agree that it may open the road
to false accusations of abuse, I very much doubt this would happen except in a
very small minority of cases.

We should remember that false accusations already happen today, and, most 
important, that many, many cases of child abuse go unreported and unpunished.

Though I have no knowledge whatsoever of the case that was introduced as an 
example, I am pained to see the assumption that these sisters are out to make
money.... Granted we don't know whether they have really suffered at the hands 
of their father, we could at least give them the benefit of the doubt!

Regards,
Joana

PS: I use the term "abuse" to cover incest, rape, bodily and/or psychological
    arm.
 
    

    It has cost me countless dollars to 'deal' with my own childhood
    scars. The fact that the abuse occured more than 10 years ago does
    nothing for me in financial terms. I have probably cost myself
    thousands of dollars in self abuse as a result of low self esteem.
    
    Thought: There is NO statue of limitation placed on parking tickets....
    but there is for people who have spend years putting themselves back
    together and strong enough to hold their parents accountable.
    
    Bob-who-is-a-little-more-cynical-today

    [I hope this does not start up a fire strom of debate, I am aware of the
    long history of these problems, I just thought I state my feelings.]
    
    I find myself saying, "I hope they nail the b*****d."  And then I
    found myself troubled because I, like everyone else, have presumed
    him guilty which he probably is, but I can't help but be troubled
    by assuming such without benefit of evidence.
    
    As for civil suit vs criminal, I understand there are a few
    differences:  some concerning penalties and who brings charges.
    There is also a difference in the amount of evidence needed to
    find the defendant guilty.  In a criminal case, the DA would need
    to "prove guilt beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt."  In a civil
    case the plaintifs attorneys need only "prevail by a preponderance
    of the evidence" (too much Judge Wopner, here).  2 against 1 and
    a couple of psychologist expert wittnesses and the women should win,
    as they should.
    
    I hope someone else is occasionally troubled about presuming a case one
    way or the other on the basis of newspaper reports.  Heck, if noone were
    ever troubled by the question of guilt or innocence they'd never find a jury.
    
    ed

    As a survivor of incest, and a woman who is also seeking that the
    perpetrator accept responsibility for his actions, I applaud and
    support the two women mentioned in that article.  I know from my own
    turmoil how painful it is to approach their abuser to defray the costs
    of their own therapy, and whatever other costs there may have been due
    to this (lost work, missed promotions, etc.).
    
    I can assure anyone that doesn't understand the effects of sexual abuse
    in the home that these woman aren't after money.  I know I'm not.  What
    I would really want is a father who loves me, protects me, and has
    concern for my well being and best interests to come before his own sexual
    desires.  That wasn't the case then and it isn't the case now.  
    
    I have invested a lot of myself to try to get him to become the father
    I needed and never got.  I know now that I will never have that.  But
    what makes it worse is in that process he became more cruel, heartless,
    selfish, and totally closed any doors to allow for a chance of healing.  
    
    Not only is that rejection traumatic, but it takes getting to that
    point (for a victim of sexual abuse) to see how really awful it is for
    a child to have had to live through that abuse.  
    
    I have found others to provide the support I need through individual
    therapy, group therapy, and finding support through others like myself. 
    The therapy has been essential in my recovery, but it has been
    very expensive.  For my father not to provide in financial ways the
    things he couldn't provide emotionally is yet another example of
    abusive behavior. 
    
    My first choice would be to pursue my father on a criminal charge. 
    This would be my only hope of any rehabilitation on his part.  He won't
    do any of his own healing on his own.  If the state made him face these
    issues, there may be a chance at my having a "father".  But there is no
    way that could happen.  My only recourse is to pursue him financially,
    to lessen the already overwhelming pressures in my life, and allow me
    to continue my road to recovery without having financial demands get in
    the way.
    
    No, I don't think these women are in any way "gold diggers".  I believe
    they too would prefer see this addressed in a criminal court.  I also
    believe that many of those that want to see child sexual abuse stopped
    would like to see the statute of limitations elimated in these cases. 
    Maybe if these perpetrators knew that they could go to jail 20 years
    later, when the child becomes an adult and realizes exactly what
    happened, they may think twice before satisfying their own needs with
    that child.
    
    Jean
    
    P.S.  If any one out there knows of an attorney in Florida that is
    sensitive to these issues, please send me mail.

    re .15, and others, I find it difficult to believe that two women
    who are after 5 million dollars are not gold diggers, regardless
    of what happened to them as children.  I also find it difficult
    to believe that their therapy cost millions of dollars or that the
    affects of child abuse prevented them from becoming millionaires.
     We all have reasons we could cite for not being as advanced in
    our careers as we would like to be, but most people never become
    millionaires regardless of the type of childhoods they had.
    
    Even if these women are sincere in their belief that 5 million
    dollars will make up for the abuse suffered in their childhoods,
    I am tired of having money held up as the answer to everything,
    as the ultimate reward.  I just don't think money is what this type
    of thing is all about.  I think this is just another example of
    how materialistic and greedy our society has become.  I could even
    understand them suing to make him held responsible for paying actual
    counseling fees incurred, but not for a huge lump sum.  Their becoming
    rich isn't going to make him either well or sorry.
    
    Lorna
    

    While I agree that no amount of money will 'heal' the wounds, it must
    be brought to bare that one cann't destroy anothers life with impunity.
    If the only recourse they have is in dollars , so be it. Unless you
    have been a victim of sexual abuse, you simply cann't understand their
    feelings. In law there is a term called treble damages. The purpose of
    treble damages (triple damages) is to send a clear message to the
    offender that the courts felt their actions were totally irresponsible
    and equally outragious (usually happens in cases where faulty
    equiptment results in personal loss etc) furthermore, the courts have
    a history of settling these matters in exactly that matter. How much
    does one sue for in the case of a lost life..loss of a hand etc. This
    is far more damaging in the sense that the perpetrator has destroyed
    the very essence of a persons self. How do you compensate for the 
    result of ones first sexual encouter being his mother....or the child
    who is repeatedly used to satisfy her fathers sexual urges?? Do I
    see the women as vindictive and in want of extreme revenge??? Yes...
    and it is totally justified in light of the damage done.
    
    Rick
    
    ps... Counseling doesn't 'fix' the damage but merely allows the person
    to understand the victimization and hopefully some healing...WE NEVER
    FORGET...and it can never be undone. There is no trust greater than
    that of a child to his/her parents. That violation totally destroys
    trust. Some people are never able to trust again. What is that worth?

    I will attempt to explain the components of the $5M that the women
    are asking in their suit.
    
    First and foremost, the lawyers will take 1/3 of the award, no matter
    what the amount.
    
    Second, damages can be awarded for the actual harm incurred. 
    These will probably take the form of therapy fees, etc.
    
    Third, punitive damages can be awarded to show the displeasure of
    the court in the harm committed.  These awards are the largest, depending
    on the message the court wants to send to society that these harms
    will not be tolerated and that others should take note of their
    behavior lest they be found liable for large punitive damages also.
     This is the traditional method that courts have for discouraging
    inappropriate (there's that word!) behavior.
    
    Also,  civil suits are the only available remedy once the criminal
    statute of limitations has run out.  And as was noted previously,
    the difference between "beyond a reasonable doubt (100%)" and
    "preponderance of the evidence (51%)" is great.  Hard to prove the
    criminal, not so hard to prove the civil.
    
    In the cases of child sexual abuse particularly, the trust that
    is lost is so damaging that many children deny for a long period
    of time that it even occured.  A friend of mine had "blackouts"
    of many parts of her childhood due to incest and is currently in
    therapy trying to just deal with everyday life.  If the perpetrator
    cannot be punished criminally for what they did, at least they should
    be made to suffer financially (hit them where it hurts) and have
    those proceeds benefit their victims.
    
    Sue
    

    I can believe that the women aren't after money as such.  It seems
    reasonable that they would want revenge, and I can understand why
    they want to force their father to become the father they need.
    
    I suppose the civil suit, if the jury agrees they were wronged to
    the extent of $5 million, is a suitable forum for revenge, but the
    court can't do anything else.  It can't offer them comfort, or
    healing, or the love they should have had, or the trust.
    
    But revenge doesn't heal anything.  The injury is still there, and
    it isn't any better for having had blood poured on it.  The only
    things that heal are love, acceptance, forgiveness -- the things
    one gives oneself, painfully and slowly.  It seems like after all
    the wrongs and abuse this man committed, the daughters are STILL
    trying to earn his approval and STILL trying to figure out what
    they did wrong.  It's like they're saying, "Maybe if we beat him
    over the head with this stick, he'll admit it and love us."  
    
    I'm not really trying to make any point in particular here.  I
    don't see that suing is such a terrible thing to do.  I'm afraid
    it won't accomplish much, however, and that when they realize they
    can't get the thing they really want, they'll be even more
    disappointed and hurt.  And God knows they've been hurt enough.
    
    --bonnie

    
    Lorna, if the daughters win the money and turn $3 mil over to a fund
    for abused children, will you feel better? (Giving $1.3 mill to the
    lawyers, that leaves them with  $350,000 each. Its not so much: maybe
    my managers salary for 5 years... and it IS going to be taxed!)

 If the daughters aren't "in it for the money," why doesn't the court simply
award them whatever compensatory damages are necessary and award the punitive
damages to a fund (of the daughter's choice) that deals with abused children
or something?

 The Doctah

 Spoilsport. :-)

    Re .20, 'Ren, yes, I would feel better (about their motives) if they 
    did this.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    
    Until our criminal justice system starts dealing with men who rape
    their wives, their children, and other peoples' children as criminals
    (and maybe even if/after that happens), I support lawsuits that
    go after huge sums of money.  I believe that the main reason men
    engage in this behavior is because they can.  The vestiges of a
    legal system where women and children are seen as male property
    continue to influence our modern laws, and more importantly, the
    enforcement of those laws.
    
    Saying that men (some/many, who knows how many?) engage in this
    behavior because they can is quite provokative.  But think about
    it:  a white, "professional" man might fantasize about robbing a
    bank or embezzling money from his company, but he's unlikely to
    do it... why not?  I think the answer for some men is -- because
    they fear they'll get caught and that the punishment they'll
    face, if caught, will be severe.  But men need fear no such reprisal
    if they abuse thier wives and children -- it seems that no one cares.
    
    In Ray Flynn's state of the city address, he talked about how angry
    he was at Charles Stuart, because he (rough quotation) ~"perpetrated
    a terrible hoax on our police department and on the people of this
    city."~  Folks, fooling the police department is NOT the worst thing
    or the only bad thing Charles Stuart did -- he killed his wife and 
    child!!!!!  But I think that what many of us (and I include
    myself in this, too) focussed on was what Charles Stuart did to
    important people -- like the police or the mayor.  Those folks are
    still alive.
    
    I say...  let's make it expensive and painful and embarrassing for
    men to assault women and children -- the way it's painful and
    embarrassing for men to rob banks or stop computer systems.
    
    Justine                                      

 I agree with making it painful and embarrassing for men who assault women 
and/or children, but I don't believe in the economic windfall for the victims.
I agree they ought to be compensated for their trauma, but I disagree that they
ought to be awarded masses of money in punitive damages. Put the guy in jail.
Let him experience punishment that way.

 Chances are that very few people could afford to simply write a check for
$5 million. Are we to try to get blood from a stone? Or should we simply doom
a perpetrator to poverty? Is that the punishment you all want? To see a 65
year old die in the streets because when he was 23, he abused someone and they
awarded the victim far more than he could ever hope to repay?

 I disagree with the notion that money solves everything. It doesn't. Fining
someone who makes $30K/yr $5M is unreasonable, IMO.

 Does everybody who ever has anything bad happen to them deserve to become
rich?

 The Doctah

    re: .28
    
    A talk show I heard on the radio the other day interviewed a
    psychologist of some sort who was doing child abuse research in
    New York state (didn't catch the name).  One of his findings is
    that abuse by women is grossly underreported because many things
    are considered abusive when a man does them and not when a woman
    does them.  For instance, if a woman helps bathe a boy child's
    genitals, that's mothering, but if a man helps bathe his girl
    child's genitals, that's abusive fondling.
    
    --bonnie

    re: .30
    
    >>For instance, if a woman helps bathe a boy child's
    >>genitals, that's mothering, but if a man helps bathe his girl
    >>child's genitals, that's abusive fondling.
      
    I don't think that either situation automatically constitutes abuse. 
    There is a big difference in washing a child using a wash cloth vs.
    fondling a child in a way that sexually stimulates the child.  I think
    that the age of the child makes a difference.  I don't think that boys
    or girls past the age of 7 or so need "help" in washing their genitals.
    
    It would be interesting to know what data this psychologist used to
    develop his findings.  Has he interviewed a lot of men who are now
    feeling that their mothers were sexually abusive to them?  
                                            
    Laura
    

    re: .31
    
    Yes, Laura, he has interviewed several young men who feel their
    mothers were sexually abusive, but who find their complaints
    dismissed by even the psychologists they have seen. 
    
    I don't think he was saying the reality is an either-or situation. 
    He did seem to be saying that people's interpretation of events is
    frequently shaped by the gender of the offender.  His findings
    were that women and men commit abuse about equally often, but
    women tend to use emotional abuse while men tend to be physically
    or sexually abusive, and men's abuse is reported much more often
    than is women's abuse.  Yes, he did give numbers, but I couldn't
    write them down while I was driving.
    
    --bonnie

    re .30  Something makes me uncomfortable about this description.
    Something along the lines of the fear of a non-abusive parent, that
    their innocent actions will be taken for abuse?  My experience and
    listening to others stories of sexual abuse is that in the abusive
    situation it is quite clear that the abuser is doing it intentionally.
    They are doing it for their own gratification (sexual or sadistic)
    rather than because it is part of caring for the child, they usually
    warn or threaten the child about not telling anyone (fear), they frequently
    try to place blame for what they are doing on the child (shame).
    And usually the actions themselves _are_ inappropriate either within
    the framework of that family or society.
	Linda

    
    re .27:
    
>Put the guy in jail.
>Let him experience punishment that way.
    
    Then this would be a criminal proceeding, not a civil one, and
    as someone mentioned, the statute of limitations may have (or has?)
    run out on that.  It is also much easier to start a civil suit than
    a criminal one.

> Chances are that very few people could afford to simply write a check for
>$5 million. Are we to try to get blood from a stone? Or should we simply doom
>a perpetrator to poverty? Is that the punishment you all want? To see a 65
>year old die in the streets because when he was 23, he abused someone and they
>awarded the victim far more than he could ever hope to repay?

> I disagree with the notion that money solves everything. It doesn't. Fining
>someone who makes $30K/yr $5M is unreasonable, IMO.
    
    Presumably, the father's got plenty of money, otherwise they wouldn't
    be suing for such a large sum.  There's something called the "deep
    pockets" notion.  That is, no one (or no lawyer would take on such
    a case) goes after someone who doesn't have or can't "afford" the money
    they're asking for in a civil suit.  And I think judges and juries
    generally don't allow a person to go into poverty over a settlement.
    

    re: .33
    
    I don't know enough about abusive parents to really answer your
    objection, Linda.  Since one of his major points was that women
    have different patterns of abuse than men do, I suspect his answer
    would be that women don't follow the same pattern of overt
    threats.  
    
    The young men he interviewed didn't have any doubt they were
    abused by their mothers.  The school officials and psychologists
    were the ones who didn't believe there was actual abuse.  So it
    might also be that boys-abused-by-mothers is at the same stage of
    disbelief and horror that girls-abused-by-fathers was a few years
    ago.  
    
    I find the whole thing too sick to comprehend.  I grew up in what
    I thought was an average family, where we yelled at each other and
    fought a lot and still stuck together.  I can't even imagine what
    kind of mental warping it would take to make someone take pleasure
    in the sexual pain of their own children.  It exists, I know that,
    I'm not trying to deny the reality.  But it's one of the few human
    behaviors I really can't understand.  Physical abuse, yes.  Sexual
    abuse just doesn't compute.
    
    --bonnie

    Thanks for clarifying what they said on the program Bonnie, that
    sort of answers my question.  I sometimes hear people say 
    that the child abuse issue has gotten blown out of proportion to
    the point where parents are afraid to hug their kids.  My experience
    is that in a sexual abuse situation, _both the child and the abuser_
    are aware on some level that it is abuse.  The abusers acts are
    *intentional*, and the child is traumatized.
    
>        The young men he interviewed didn't have any doubt they were
>    abused by their mothers.  The school officials and psychologists
>    were the ones who didn't believe there was actual abuse.  So it
>    might also be that boys-abused-by-mothers is at the same stage of
>    disbelief and horror that girls-abused-by-fathers was a few years
>    ago.  

        I think you are right.
    		Linda

    re: .36
    
    Yeah, Herb, I'll bet that's the truth, all right... 
    
    --bonnie

<Or should we simply doom
<a perpetrator to poverty? Is that the punishment you all want? To see a 65
<year old die in the streets because when he was 23, he abused someone and they
<awarded the victim far more than he could ever hope to repay?

Although (depending on the father's circumstances) I believe the $5 million
may be excessive, I *don't* think that the paragraph above is all that
bad.  Those of us who have *been* abused *know* the devastation that it
has wrought in our lives, CAUSED BY the perpetrator.  It affects many of us
EVERY DAY OF OUR LIVES, while some of us are "lucky" and only are affected
in areas of trust, sex, intimacy, child-rearing, holidays, and family 
gatherings.  Why is it that the perpetrator should be protected, so that
he (or she) can live a normal life while the victim/survivor is still
struggling?  If the punishment should fit the crime, then the punishment
MUST BE SEVERE.

         Carol

>Why is it that the perpetrator should be protected, so that
>he (or she) can live a normal life 

 Maybe it's just me, but I don't consider prison to fall under the category of
"a normal life."

 The Doctah

    Mark,
    
    The statute of limitations ran out; prison is not an option.
    
    							Ann B.

re: .24

Herb, I shared this note with a friend of mine, and it really helped lift her
spirits. Thanx a bunch.
	Mez

    I'm having a hard time understanding why some participants in this
    topic are trying to protect the abuser.  
    
    While some have a good understanding of the effects of incest, others
    just seem to read past it and talk about that "poor old man".  Maybe
    those that don't understand need to re-read what has been said here,
    try to understand the unbelievable depths of pain that incest survivors
    must face, and hopefully be thankful they will never have to know that
    trauma.
    
    Those that have a problem with the way the legal system works should
    possibly address it in a different topic, where it can be discussed as
    a general social issue, and have participants that are more objective.
    
    Jean

    I think that for those of you who 'can't understand' the pain of an
    abused child maybe you need to put it into terms that you can
    understand. For me, the father of 2 girls, I will never be able to
    completely enjoy my relationship with them due to my own childhood.
    I have invested years of theropy in order to function with very little
    hope of ever having a normal life. A good example of how devastating
    abuse can be is Sybil. She was so perturbed over her situation that
    she literally became 27 different people inorder to cope. The problem
    is in our ability to comprehend the level of devastation.  It reminds
    me of the death camps in europe. The crimes were so heinous that they
    go beyound our ability to understand....they loose meaning. That is the
    exact problem with child sexual/physical abuse. It really upsets me to
    hear/read how "painful" divorce is..how hard it is to survive such a 
    terrible abandonment..hell we loose sleep over the IRS the football
    game..or other trivial matters. As adults we have a hard time dealing
    with personal loss. Try to imagine, if you can, a six year old..beaten
    so bad that he is physically impaired..or *used* to the point they can
    no longer feel emotion. I was fortunate in that I was able to get
    angry. This anger, of course, caused me alot of trouble too..I have
    broken bones in my hands so many times (fights) that they are
    disfigured. BUT I was able to survive by developing these tendencies.
    Even today, I am able to completely shutdown my emotions if I need to,
    able to remove myself from my body, so to speak, and become detached
    from the situation. 
    
    Rick
    
    Ps...my apolgies to anybody who may have been offended by my comparison
    to the death camps- its just that when I visited Dachau, in Germany, it 
    was the closest thing I have found that describes my inner pain..the
    death of my soul...the realization that somethings can't be explained
    or understood by those who did not experience the horror.
    

    Re .43, to try to explain the way I feel.  First, of course, I think
    child abuse, incest, etc., is a horrible thing.  There probably
    are not words to adequately describe how horrible it is.  It is
    not that I feel so sorry for the "poor old man."  My feeling is
    that this type of case belongs in criminal courts.  My feeling is
    that our legal system is supposed to consider the accused innocent
    until proven guilty.  I believe this type of case should be brought
    into criminal court, and that the same sort of rules should apply
    in regard to providing evidence, before someone is considered guilty.
     Finding a man guilty of sexual child abuse, will ruin his life.
     I think before this is done to someone it should be absolutely
    certain that he is guilty.  Our legal system provides at least that
    much for murderers.  I think that men or women who are found guilty
    of sexually or otherwise physically abusing their children should
    be either put in jail or mental hospitals like other criminals.
     I don't think large sums of money being awarded to victims should
    be part of it.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    re .47:  Are you listening?  The statute of limitations ran out,
    and they *cannot* bring him into criminal court on charges of
    child abuse any longer!
    

    Re .48, No, I'm not listening, Ellen, because nobody's speaking,
    but I *am* reading!  No need for sarcasm.  In .47, I was giving
    my opinion in general of this type of case, not necessarily
    specifically this case.  It seems obvious that since the statute
    of limitations has run out, then they are, unfortunately, out of
    luck, in this case.  If they would like to sue him for an amount
    of money to actually settle counseling fees, I could support that.
     I cannot support their suing him for 5 million dollars.
    
    Lorna
    

    I too am dismayed at how many people seem to jump to the defense
    of the perpetrator.  I've noticed this in other notes as well.
    Rather than pursue the topic, or support the victims, I see
    people quickly defending the accused, thereby derailing the topic.
    I think this is indicative of the way 'society' thinks in general;
    it's also indicative of the denial that comes into effect when
    the topic is 'just too icky for words'.
    
    IMHO, these two women lost something that not even $5 million can
    replace--their identities, their innocence, their ability to love
    themselves and others, their self respect, their inner peace.
    

	re: reparations 

	I still look upon the money I'm receiving from the man
	who raped me (now paroled and working) as somehow
	"dirty" money... even though I'm giving part of it to
	good causes, which is fun because it makes me feel like
	a benefactor of sorts.  I haven't yet used any of it to
	"Get some counseling", as the spokesman of the parole-
	grant board instructed (hmmm... the last time I can 
	remember that I said "f*ck you" to someone).

	I'd definitely sleep easier if He were still in jail, as 
	opposed to out and paying me money.  It doesn't seem fair.

	It's too bad there is not enough evidence to bring 
	criminal charges against the father of this case,  but I
	disagree with forcing the incest victims to spend the
	reparations in a certain way if they were to win the suit.

						nancy b.

    Re .51, that's just it.  No amount of money can give them back what
    they lost, so why deal in money at all.  To me the fact that they
    are suing for an emormous amount of money to repay them for emotional
    damage is indicative of what a greedy, materialistic, superficial
    society we live in.  I do not see disagreeing with the women in
    this case as "jumping to the defense" of their father.  I think
    what he did is wrong, and I think society should admit this stuff
    goes on and deal with it.  I merely disagree with their method of
    doing this.  Nancy, the only reason I mentioned counseling was because
    some people commented on the high cost of counseling as being part
    of the justification for them asking for the money.  
    
    Lorna
    

 Lorna-

 You have two choices: you either support the $5 million dollar suit (if you
really want to be PC you could make it $25 million) or you side with the 
perpetrator (and become equally guilty as the perpetrator.) Welcome to
the world of binary logic.

re: unstated rule about this topic  (for the nth time, the statute of 
    limitations...)

 You are only allowed to talk about this specific case in this note. Unlike the
vast majority of other notes where you can talk about the problem in a general
sense in addition to addressing the specific problem, you may not attempt
to talk about the general problem in this note.

 The Doctah

<    No amount of money can give them back what
<    they lost, so why deal in money at all.  

Although no amount of money can give them back ALL of what they lost,
it can give them back PART of what they lost by restoring lost funds
and by giving a badly needed sense of affirmation to the victims.

       Carol

< You have two choices: you either support the $5 million dollar suit (if you
<really want to be PC you could make it $25 million) or you side with the 
<perpetrator (and become equally guilty as the perpetrator.) Welcome to
<the world of binary logic.

*I* have not done either.  For the average person, I believe $5 million
to be excessive, but it is possible that in this case it is not excessive.
I have stated as much previously.

This is a sensitive subject.  *How* you say something here can be as important
as *what* you say.

          Carol 

    It is not that you *can't* discuss a broader topic (I assume here you
    mean sexual abuse / incest as a whole?)....if you WANT to discuss a
    broader version please use topic 816 (Sexual Abuse of Children /
    Incest) or topic 202 (Sexual Molestation) in this notesfile.
    
    -Jody
    

    
    Lorna,
    
    I didn't think you were defending the father.  I think asking for
    a huge penalty in cases like this is a good idea -- mainly because
    of the message it sends.  The jury will ultimately decide how much
    to award (assuming the two women win their case), and obviously,
    if the guy doesn't have the money, they won't get it.  But if this
    guy were worth millions, then asking for thousands really wouldn't
    be punishment to him.
                   
    I dare say that serving time in jail (as one does for committing
    crimes that society finds sufficiently terrible) has an impact 
    on one's earning power -- so would I feel bad if this guy
    went broke as a result of being found guilty (in a civil court)
    of raping his two daughters?  Not even a little.
    
    Justine

    Perhaps the only way these women can hurt their father is through
    his wallet, perhaps this is the only way they can make him
    feel pain, perhaps this is the only way they can get revenge.
    There are people I imagine who only feel when their money
    is threatened, who can be punished only if they lose their
    money.  He got off easy if all he loses is money...
    
    Or aren't these women allowed to want revenge?
    

Besides sharing Herb's wonderful fantasies with my friend, I shared note 942.46
with her (after checking with the author first). She asked me to post the
following as a reply. I'll be glad to forward any replies directly to her, as
she only sometimes reads womannotes.

	Mez

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>The problem
>is in our ability to comprehend the level of devastation.  It reminds
>me of the death camps in europe. The crimes were so heinous that they
>go beyound our ability to understand....they loose meaning. That is the
>exact problem with child sexual/physical abuse. 

This is amazing.  That's exactly the same thing I said to my shrink a couple
of months ago.  You have no idea how validating it is to hear the same
comparision from someone else.   It is especially significant to me because
the coping mechanism I used to survive the sexual abuse during my childhood
was to forget.  It is only recently that I have begun to remember bits
and pieces of the abuse, bits and pieces of abject horror.  I am still
grappling in my own mind with the reality  of it all,  with the question of
why.   


Thank you Rick for entering that.

>*I* have not done either. 

 You didn't support the suit?

.6>I think suing can be quite reasonable in some situations.

.39>Although (depending on the father's circumstances) I believe the $5 million
.39>may be excessive, I *don't* think that the paragraph above is all that
.39>bad. 

 The paragraph described a man who died broke and homeless 40+ years after
a suit awarded more money than he could have ever earned to his victims.

.56> Although no amount of money can give them back ALL of what they lost,
.56>it can give them back PART of what they lost by restoring lost funds
.56>and by giving a badly needed sense of affirmation to the victims.

 That sounds an awful lot like support to me.

 BTW- I don't think anyone has argued against compensation for lost funds.
The only argument has been about the validity of awarded millions in punitive
damages to victims.

>This is a sensitive subject.  *How* you say something here can be as important
>as *what* you say.

 Contrary to popular belief, I fully understand that. That was the reason for
my sarcastic entry. I do not appreciate being accused of "siding with the
perpetrator." Sheesh! Nothing could be further from the truth. In the old
west, I would've been referred to as a hanging judge.

 I just see a difference with the way people are willing to treat molesters
and the way they are willing to treat murderers. With molesters, it looks
very much like it is impossible to punish one severely enough. However, if the
same molester were to actually murder his victim, then the "life in prison w/o
the possibility of parole" = 12-15 yrs is sufficient. That just seems strange
to me.

 The Doctah

>    Perhaps the only way these women can hurt their father is through
>    his wallet, perhaps this is the only way they can make him
>    feel pain, perhaps this is the only way they can get revenge.

 (Aside: these are the arguments I run into when discussion capital punishment)

 Are we, an allegedly civilised society, supposed to allow victims to hurt
their assailants?

 Are we, an allegedly civilised society, supposed to make the guilty feel
pain? Doesn't that merely bring us down to their level?

 What place is revenge in a civilised society? Have we not evolved at all from
homo habilis?

 If these arguments are so compelling for why we should treat murderers as
"victims of society," why do they not apply to child molesters, especially
in light of the fact that most molesters were themselves molested as youth?

 The Doctah

    As much as I hate to get into these tit-for-tat discussions...
    
    I offer that yes, intellectually, we know that we should not
    stoop to the perpetrator's level, should not want revenge;
    BUT,
    on an emotionally level, well, that's another story...who among
    us wouldn't or hasn't at one time or another, wanted revenge.
    
    As incest victims, these women also gain validation as well
    as that 'sweet feeling' of revenge. By simply instigating
    the suit, they are saying 'hey world, look what he did to us,
    it really happened'...and if they are so lucky as to actually
    *win* the suit, then they can be gratified that *others* out
    there finally believe them.
    
    maia
    

    re last several,
    
    We have not mentioned justice.  Perhaps we should.  But only to lament
    our inability to resolve this situation.
    
    In any situation of this sort, the perpetrator has committed an act 
    of such evil that the victims will forever bear the scars.  The evil
    cannot be undone.  Mark does well to bring us face to face with our
    claim to be civilized...what treatment, indeed, is appropriate for this
    abuser?  Civilized judgements aren't supposed to be vengeful.
    
    If the victims will in some way gain psychological ease, or validation
    for their blacked-out terrors, or reparation to fund further treatment;
    if, in short, that evil done them can be mitigated in some small or
    partial way, by a punitive monetary settlement...I think we as a
    society can support that settlement, even if it extracts an 'unfair'
    price from the abuser.  The point of injustice is that it is precisely
    that the fine is 'punitive' that may validate the haunted lives of the
    victims, that their emotional healing may require this societal
    vengeance upon their transgressor.
    
    I think that it is the right thing to do.  I won't call it justice
    though.  I think there is none here to be found.  It is, more
    precisely, vengeance.  And I repeat; it is proper.
    
    DougO

    A victim's anger and thoughts of revenge are natural and valid feelings.
    It is sometimes said by psychotherapists that, though actions may
    sometimes be wrong or inappropriate, there is no such thing as a 'wrong'
    feeling.  It is only, according to this view, in the translation of
    feeling to action where we often go awry.  Granted, there may be a karma
    associated with feelings, and their scars may run deep; in fact, because
    they may unconsciously influence the way we interact with others,
    feelings can indirectly effect on the world around us.  And it is in the
    way that actions, consciously or unconsciously, influence the world,
    that they differ from feelings.  This is because actions can have direct
    moral consequences.  I could fantasize all day, for example, about
    killing someone, but until I pull the trigger that person continues to
    live.
    
    There are a lot of questions involved with translating feelings into
    behavior.  Moving aside from the specific issue of monetary payments,
    it is worth considering the general problem.  Is vengeance, as a
    moral principle, ever valid, for either individuals or society?  I tend
    to believe that it isn't; apparently others disagree.  In particular,
    does the legal system in a civilized society carry out vengeance on
    behalf of its victims?  Is an evil excused if it is thought to have
    some sort of cathartic or therapeutic value?  Does our sympathy for
    victims give society license to commit any act whatsoever, to express
    what some might consider a rather base form of human behavior (such as
    revenge), by translating legitimate anger into potentially illegitimate
    behavior?  Can society, in its desire to heal the hurts of victims,
    never overstep moral boundaries?  The death penalty, which civilized
    societies have abolished, is one clear example of this phenomenon.

    However, whether other forms of punishment, even of the retaliatory
    kind, should be even be compared to something as overtly and clearly
    barbaric as the death penalty, is a valid question.  I only bring it up
    because retaliatory catharsis is commonly used as part of the
    justification for the death penalty.  When considering how society
    should deal with such problems and care for its victims, whether or not
    a large monetary settlement qualifies as "illegitimate behavior" per se
    on society's part is another issue, but if revenge is the sole basis
    for it then it does need to be evaluated in terms of revenge.

    Of course, all of this raises the issue of whether the U.S., as a
    society, is interested in being civilized.  Since the U.S. clings to the
    use of capital punishment, one might infer that it is not.  On the other
    hand, there are nations which amputate the hands of thieves, so by
    comparison this country does have a way to go before it hits
    rock bottom on the barbarity scale.

    I am reminded of the woman whose daughter was killed by Ted Bundy, but
    who continues to fight actively to abolish the death penalty.  She has
    risen above the lowest of instincts to stand up for what is right, and
    she serves as a model for all of us.  She reminds us that legitimate
    anger and hurt does not excuse us from being a civilized society.
    
    Whether using the legal system to carry out vengeance is 'proper' or
    not is a matter of opinion.  Others will have a different view, but in
    my opinion, it depends on what level we don't mind our society stooping
    to.
    
    Mike

    It becomes annoying when I read all the rhetoric about being a kinder,
    gentler people..not stooping to the barbaric behavior of capital
    punishment..and not hear the outrage that this kind of case is stating. 
    A sexually abuse child suffers a fate worse than death. They live with
    the reallities of their world, unable to excape. Sexual abuse of
    children is the most heinous of all crimes. It literally shatters the 
    heart and soul of the person. What are their options? Do they not have
    the right to be validated that they were harmed - destroyed in a 
    tremendous avalanche of pain and suffering. Do we not share their
    outrage...? I offer that maybe, just maybe, we are focusing on the
    wrong issues. Can we really suggest that, because the only recourse
    is money, that they should not be vindicated? Talk to any surviver of
    incest and you may come away with a new perspective.
    
    Rick
    
    
    As long as this country tolerates, thru inaction, sexual abuse to
    exsist, we need to use whatever means possible to punish the
    perpetrator.

>Can we really suggest that, because the only recourse
>    is money, that they should not be vindicated? 

 Maybe I missed something. Did someone actually advocate that?

>    As long as this country tolerates, thru inaction, sexual abuse to
>    exsist, we need to use whatever means possible to punish the
>    perpetrator.

 How about ending the tolerance?

 The Doctah

    Doctah...
    
    I agree. We should not tolerate abuse. The problem is in our
    attitudes towards the situation. I know of a situation in which 
    a man was *convicted* of having sex with his retarded daughter. We,
    unfortunetly, were friends with this family. He ended up on some
    probation and (sigh) had to get permission when he wanted to leave the
    state from time to time. This gross injustice is what sets us all up for
    future abuse. There should have been a collective attitude of disgust,
    instead they were compassionate for the perpetrator because he was
    sorry. Not nearly as sorry as she was. 
    
    Rick

    Re .68, would you really rather be dead?  Right now?  I'm serious.
     "A fate worse than death" .....  People survive and go on with
    their lives, isn't that really better than being dead?  
    
    I realize sexual abuse of children is a "heinous" crime, but I would
    think that murdering a child would be worse.  At least it's possible
    for them to survive child abuse and go on with their lives.  One
    way or another life is hell for a lot of people.
    
    Lorna
    

    Well, let's think...
    
    I'm being murdered.  The pain and horror are indescribable.  In
    five minutes, it ends.  Everything ends.
    
    I'm being sexually assaulted.  The pain and horror are indescribable.
    In five minutes, it continues.  In ten minutes, it continues.  The
    next night, it continues.  The next week, it continues.  The next
    month, it continues.  The next year, it continues.  It doesn't end.
    It never ends.
    
    						Ann B.
    

    re 68..
     
    Right now?..no..But I assure you that there are times that sexual
    abuse (or physical abuse) can be far worse than death. Death has a
    finallity to it. I guess it would be necessary to define life. 
    "one way or another life is hell for alot of people" Are you trying to
    equate the hell of a child that is being sexually abused to some other
    personal problems that befall us as adults ? Please do not minimise the
    plights of these children by seeing their pain thru the eyes of an
    adult. 
    
    Bob
    
    

    And add to the list of long term effects a high incidence of multiple
    personality disorder among survivors of child sexual abuse.
    
    The scars run very deep and are never completely healed.  That is the
    legacy of a child who has been sexually abused.
    
    Laura

    re .67, Mike V-
    
    >  A victim's anger and thoughts of revenge are natural and valid feelings.
    > ...                             This is because actions can have direct
    > moral consequences.  I could fantasize all day, for example, about
    > killing someone, but until I pull the trigger that person continues to
    > live.  
    
    This was the only paragraph in which you addressed the victim before
    you moved on to the general question.  I found your treatment
    incomplete.  Mike, the possibility exists that victim's traumas will be
    partially relieved, that some healing may occur, when a societal
    vengeance, a sanction, is taken against the transgressor.  When the
    choice of an action is between that sanction being taken, or not, I
    find it morally valid to take that sanction as an attempt at healing.
    
    > Is vengeance, as a moral principle, ever valid, for either individuals 
    > or society?  I tend to believe that it isn't; apparently others disagree.
    
    Yes, quite clearly others disagree; vengeance can be morally valid.
    
    > In particular, does the legal system in a civilized society carry out 
    > vengeance on behalf of its victims?  Is an evil excused if it is thought 
    > to have some sort of cathartic or therapeutic value? 
    
    Hmmm, you've made a leap here.  When it is morally valid, vengeance
    is not 'an evil' and doesn't have to be excused.  I think you are only
    considering half the equation.  When the victim is considered, then the
    civilized society faces the choice of attempting to aid the healing, or
    refusing to make the attempt.  I know which choice *I* consider morally
    valid. 
    
    > by translating legitimate anger into potentially illegitimate behavior?
                                          
    We are not addressing anger nor seeking its relief.  We are attempting 
    to reach a victim whose psychological scarring may be reachable in no 
    other fashion, who *knows* that as long as society has not *punished* 
    the abuser, that the abuse may happen again.  We are socialized here 
    to respect authority, to trust in it.  When the authorities swing into 
    action and *refuse* to punish transgressors...the psychological damages 
    caused are an ongoing part of the original abuse.  By refusing a sanction, 
    the 'civilized society' you posit has worsened the damages to the victim.
    There is no neutral course here.  There is no perfect course for a
    civilized society; there is no such society.  I think that attemnpts to
    impose such a vision have the effect of worsening the effects of abuse.
    
    Your entire analysis showed that tendency, Mike- in removing the
    further effects upon the victim of society's refusal to exact a
    sanction, you effectively join that society to the abuser.  Your
    'civilized' society perpetuates the damages to the victim.  I find 
    my only moral choice to be in support of the victim.  I find your
    analysis to be only applicable in the perfectly civilized society which
    has no crime, and no need for your analysis.  But here in the real
    world, when our society faces the choice to punish the abusers, or to
    refrain from it and thereby increase the damages to the victim, your 
    analysis is too flawed to accept.
    
    > but in my opinion, it depends on what level we don't mind our society 
    > stooping to.
    
    When sanctimony hurts victims worse, I'd rather see society stoop.
             
    DougO

           -< Dare to prattle 'we must be civilized', to a victim?! >-

Doug, are you suggesting that it is not okay to dicuss the ethics of anger,
revenge and justice with a victim?

Yes, I would dare.  I haven't decided if I agree with Mike's analysis yet
(I've thought a *lot* about this, completely outside the context of this
note, whether "revenge" should be condoned and provided by the judicial
system) and yes, I might just dare to say to a victim "I sympathise with
you.  Your anger is justified.  But I think the recourse you seek is
morally impermissible, and I won't support it."

Are you saying that ethical codes have no place in the "real world", or that
it is wrong to discuss analytically the moral implications of such a code
if the application of said code would hurt someone who has been hurt?
If so, I disagree.

On the other hand, if you are saying there might be better times, better
notes, or better forums to have such a discussion than others, I might agree.
(That is, I don't see discussing the moral implications of revenge with
a victim as wrong, but I wouldn't walk up to a woman two days after she's
been raped and say "You are *wrong* to want to kill him!")

D!

An analogy:

Suppose that The Abuser willfully puts out an eye of The Victim.

Suppose that medical technology is sufficiently advanced that we can do
eye transplants between arbitrary donors and recipients.

Would it be reasonable to sentence The Abuser to donate an eye to The
Victim, to replace the eye that he has destroyed?  (Honest question.
I don't know, but I think so.)

Note that, despite the ancient formulation of "an eye for an eye", we would
*not* be dealing with vengeance or retribution here, but with restitution --
with subjecting The Abuser to a cost, in order to make good that which he
has taken from The Victim.

Is this a reasonable analogy for DougO's argument in .76? -- that The Abuser
has made himself liable to extraordinary costs, not as a matter of "vengeance",
but in order to restore The Victim to a state (somewhat approximating) the
state s/he would have been in had the abuse never taken place?

	-Neil

>    Mike, the possibility exists that victim's traumas will be
>    partially relieved, that some healing may occur, when a societal
>    vengeance, a sanction, is taken against the transgressor.  When the
>    choice of an action is between that sanction being taken, or not, I
>    find it morally valid to take that sanction as an attempt at healing.

 Doug, this paragraph begs the question, "Is the possibility of healing a
carte blanche for victim's vengeance via society's ability to sanction?"
The end that I am trying to reach is how we find an appropriate balance between
victim's rights, victim's needs for validation, victim's needs for vengeance,
the possibility of healing on the part of the victim, and some sort of uniform
and acceptable set of sanctions through which the aforementioned are 
accomplished.

 It is morally and ethically right for society to sanction the doers of bad
deeds. However, the possibility of victims healing as a result of the sanctions
are not and should not be the sole factor on which they sanctions are based.
In other words, a particular victim may "need" a certain level of sanction
to heal, but this level of sanction may be unreasonable in relation to the
crime committed. Also, the fact that one victim may need more or less of
a sanction to effect healing should not cause person A guilty of crime X
and person B guilty of crime X to have radically different sentences. That
would gut the deterrence aspect of punishment as well as be unfair.

>When the authorities swing into 
>    action and *refuse* to punish transgressors...the psychological damages 
>    caused are an ongoing part of the original abuse. 

 Yes.

>By refusing a sanction, 
>    the 'civilized society' you posit has worsened the damages to the victim.

 Agreed.

>But here in the real
>    world, when our society faces the choice to punish the abusers, or to
>    refrain from it and thereby increase the damages to the victim, your 
>    analysis is too flawed to accept.

 I agree, with the slight reservation that the punishment should be in 
proportion to the crime whenever possible.

 The Doctah

RICCI - I've really appreciated all that you've contributed to this
note.  It gives me faith in that there are others out there that really
understand and care.  

I have to believe that sexual abuse has taken on more awareness in 
society and that society is reaching out to help children more than
ever now - unfortunately there are so many that were victims way back
when that are just getting strenth/courage to speak up.  And I guess
we may look at adults or survivors of that abuse and just expect that
because they are adults now that they should be able to MOVE ON with 
their life.  It's a very difficult thing to comprehend.  I'm afraid 
that those survivors have lost so much normalicy in the process of 
growing up that expecting them to act in normal perceived adult ways (?)
just doesn't fit.  I have a lot of respect for the two sisters that
are suing their father.  It gives me shivers to think of the courage
they had to muster up to do that - and to go through the angony of 
trying to prove themselves in front of others.  I guess I believe 
that they have each other - and that's what gave them strength.  The 
money is immaterial - just forget about the amount they are asking
for - I'm sure their lawyer had a lot of input into deciding on that
amount.  I just hope the outcome gives these sisters the self esteem
and sense of self and empowerment that this crime so brutally robs
one of.

I can only suggest to those that really can't comprehend this to 
place themselves in a roomfull of survivors of sexual abuse and listen.
It is terrifing.

    On the idea of better alive than dead, I offer a quote from ee
    cummings;

    "Being undead is not being alive" - I suspect many survivors are
    undead. liesl

    re 84
    
    One of the most tragic realities of child sexual abuse is they 'die'
    over and over again. Studies have been done on POW's in terms of their
    survival etc. One thing is painfully obvious, take away their will and
    you defeat them. The Iranian hostage situation should have demonstrated
    this very fact. Many of the MEN suffer effects today, from the ordeal.
    How can anybody suggest that children deal with trauma better. Often
    times children had been faced with trauma that is far worse than any
    thing healthy adults can phathom. Its scary, to me, that there doesn't
    seem to be enough people who can understand this fact. 
    
    RE: liesl
    
    Good quote. I think that it makes a good point. Being alive is a
    relative state. I know someone who was beaten so bad that they suffered
    permanant brain damage, another who was raped and sodomized by her father 
    which required many operations to repair. Then there is the celebrated
    cases ie Sybil, who's torment was so great that her personallity
    literally shattered into fragments to survive.
    
    bob
    
    ps....I can appreciate the fact that it is not easy for 'normal'
    healthy people to understand the pain of child sexual abuse. I am
    saddened, however, because this isn't a valid excuse to be complacent.
    Look around you......see things as they are and not as you wish them to
    be. The next victim may be somone you know. 

RE.33> They are doing it for their own gratification (sexual or sadistic)

I believe the word sadistic is derived from the last name of:
MARQUIS de SADE.  A sadist is said to be one who derives immense pleasure from
inflicting pain - (physical, sexual or psychological) on defenseless, powerless
harmless people. It is obvious that his disciples - or those who think like him
are still stalking planet earth. The modern day equivalents are,
Chester the Molester and his fan(g)s. One news account stated:

[Associated Press] - For months, residents of this tiny town (Underwood, Mi.)
searched with John Rairdon to help raise $10,000.00 and form volunteer groups 
to help find his missing 13-year-old daughter. Now Rairdon has been charged with
one count each of first and second-degree murder and first-degree  intra-
-familial sexual abuse. Police said he admitted sexually abusing his daughter,
Sarah..,for five years before stabbing her with an awl. Sarah disappeared while
walking home from school on May 20th 1985. Her body was found seven weeks later
in a farm pasture. According to a complaint filed in Otter Tail County District
Court, her 38-year-old father said he had sexually abused his daughter for the
past five years (from when she was 8 years old till her death at 13). John
Rairdon told authorities he killed her *when she refused his sexual advances.]

He was deviously intelligent enough to fake innocence and convinced the town
residents to donate $10,000.00 to help find Sarah.. while all the time he knew
what became of his own daughter. ( A combination of characteristics peculiar to
Marquis de Sade and Chuck Stuart ?)  

RE:73 - You are absolutely right ! Some "survivors" do not even survive, 
        they literally die at the hands of their own "protective" parents. 
  
Then there are others who become indirect victims of the abusers.
    ------------------------------------------------------------
A few years ago I met De...who was about 29 years old at the time. After an
outing (one evening) while we were conversing, she began to sob uncontrollably.
When I asked her what it was, she replied: "Just hold me please, I'll tell you 
later". When she stopped  and I asked her what it was, she said the following: 
    "When I was  young one of my parents used to molest me...I was having a
      flash-back a while ago...." 
The pain she shared with me that evening also became my pain. The dynamics
of the relationship changed drastically after the conversation. 
In some ways, I indirectly became a victim of the  parent who molested her.  
It affected the relationship in several ways. The tears she left on my shoulders
that evening will symbolically remain with me till...(?)
  
RE: >> punishment and civilization >> 

o Was the Nuremberg Trial and the subsequent punishments justified or not?
o Was  A. Eichmann's execution proper or not ?
o Are we talking about the kind of civilization that gave us Dachau, Buchenwald?
o Or are we talking about the kind of civilization that gave us the Marquis de
  Sade's school of brilliant intellectuals ?

RE: >>Monetary  compensation for victims >>

    Was it morally and intellectually wrong for the Canadian govt. to compensate
Canadian-Japanese for the incarceration they unfairly endured during WW II ?
Are we being concerned about those who unfairly receive large sums of money that
they don't deserve - like the $80,000.00 Chuck Stuart received ? Or.. 
*Claudine was ordered to pay her father who had abused her...Pensez-Y !

    re .77, D!-
    
    > Doug, are you suggesting that it is not okay to dicuss the ethics 
    > of anger, revenge and justice with a victim?
    
    No.  I'm saying that to our societal response to abusers should
    take cognizance of that response's probable impact upon the victims
    of the abuser.  We want to help the victims.  Certainly 'discussing'
    ethics of anger may be appropriate.  But for someone who has been so
    abused, so damaged, that their mental health requires a societal act
    against the abuser, to tell them "oh no, we can't do that, it would be
    evil" is a travesty.  It places society upon the side of protecting the
    abuser from paying for crimes, and further hurts the victims.
    
    > Are you saying that ethical codes have no place in the "real world", 
    > or that it is wrong to discuss analytically the moral implications of 
    > such a code if the application of said code would hurt someone who has 
    > been hurt?
    
    No.  I'm saying such codes are incomplete if they do not take into
    effect their own probable impacts upon the victims.  If they result
    in further damages to victims, in the interest of some hypothetical 
    'ethical' treatment of the abuser, I consider it patently unethical.
    The victim's needs come first.
    
    DougO

    Correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that much of this discussion
    seems to be assuming that punishment is always and necessarily an act
    of revenge.  This may be the cause of some confusion, because this has
    not been my assumption.

    The issue is not "protecting the abuser from paying for crimes", but
    what constitutes an acceptable means of making the abuser pay.  In
    part, this means determining whether vengeful forms of punishment are
    legitimate.  However, even if we grant that the acting out of pure
    vengeance can be morally valid (a debatable assumption), the issue
    still requires evaluation because civilized societies can and should
    define boundaries of acceptable behavior, which in turn includes
    establishing the limits of acceptable forms of punishment for abusers. 
    Some might theoretically argue, on the other hand, that the U.S.
    Constitutional prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment is
    "protecting" abusers, or that those who might be offended by (for
    example) torture, maiming, or killing as punishments are committing the
    "travesty" of putting the abuser's rights above that of the victim.

    This is not, however, the view of a civilized society, which does not
    lower itself to this level.  In a civilized society, accepting
    responsibility for our actions does not end even because of our honest
    and heartfelt compassion for society's victims.  This compassion does
    not absolve a civilized society from the moral consequences of its
    behavior.  This is a general philosophical principle, and applies
    specifically to violent and what many of us consider clearly barbaric
    forms of societal punishment as torture, maiming, and killing.  On the
    other hand, monetary payments, I would think, fall into a different
    category of punishment, with the potential of correspondingly different
    implications.

    -- Mike

    From Wednesday's Nashua Telegraph (I don't type well enough to do the
    whole article -- ok, ok, I didn't bring it in either):
    
    NH HB 1050 was before the Judiciary Committee.  It seeks to extend the
    Statute of Limitations for Incest which is currently 6 years beyond
    age 18.
    
    Several persons gave testimony, 11 victims, some specialists in incest
    therapy and some law enforcement officials.
    
    The specialists said that confronting their attackers in court is often
    essential to the therapy.  The law enforcement official who was quoted
    said that those who commit incest do not usually stop.  Having a law
    like this is necessary in order to get the offenders who are probably
    still doing it.  One of the victims said that she hoped for a law like
    this so that she could protect her 2 year old niece.
    
    There's more in the article.
    
    ed