The worst crime ever?

[johnny]

Originally posted by Moiraine: quote: Originally posted by Donut: I think it WAS over six million and it WAS the greatest crime ever. And it was commited by Nazi scumbags AND we need to put these scumbags down where ever they raise their scumbag heads! Even if they are children. *coughbollockscough*

Ditto Pastry.

And I believe there's something worse than taking someone's life, it's taking someone's dignity. Killing people in a fair battle is one thing, there you have a chance, but what the Nazi did was slaughter people like cattle, people they tried to make appear as being not really human. Spirit wounds are much worse than physical ones.

IMO, the worst crime is torture - inclusing rape and paedophilia in that category.[/QUOTE]and not too long ago it happened again, deathcamps in bosnia and in kosovo. Will humans ever learn ?

[Neb]

The worst crimes are, in my opinion:

Rape and paedophilia.

Murder is bad, but at least there isn't someone going around with mental scars forever.

A rapist would be one of the few people that I can honestly say that I would kill without a second thought. And not quickly. Or painlessly.....

[Calaethis Dragonsbane]

yes but what would that do to *you*? leave U with mental scars as well?

[Melusine]

Originally posted by Calaethis Dragonsbane: I dont think there *is* a worst crime; there are several very sick ones, some of which are as contemptable as each other; I find that mass murder is as vile as raping, or some other crimes I dont want to go into; even the thought of them makes me feel psychally sick. there are some very sick ppl out there. I dont know about the rest of you, but I feel that some crimes cant be 'rated'. I dont think I can write anymore on this topic, I already feel sick.

I agree 100%

quite so. Even some "not as bad" crimes can be very sick/bad under certain circumstances

[Lavindathar]

Originally posted by John D Harris: quote: Originally posted by Lavindathar: And it wont get locked as long as we keep it clean, and on topic, without spouting stupid comments that could offend or upset people. And theoretically, a woman could rape a man. Same way a man could rape a woman. Drugs etc are a way to avert physical confrontation. But, technically, IIRC in England, a woman cannot rape a man. This is something to do with the law doesn't recognise that a woman can rape a man. I'm not sure if this is true, but I remembered it to be.

I remember reading years ago about a case here in the US where there a Judge ruled that a man can not be raped by a woman. The reasoning was that a man must be willing for the ummm........mechanisms to work.[/QUOTE]Exactly.

I knew it said that, just wanted confirmation. It isn't recognised, because an errection is the sign that the man is willing. By law in England anyway.

And without an errection, the rapist isn't going to get very far.

[andrewas]

Originally posted by Lavindathar: ]Exactly. I knew it said that, just wanted confirmation. It isn't recognised, because an errection is the sign that the man is willing. By law in England anyway. And without an errection, the rapist isn't going to get very far.

OK, legaly a woman cant rape a man. So what? People interpreting the law too strictly is one of the reasons the justice system is in the state its in.

However, a mans "mechanisms" (nice euphemism whoever came up with it) are not under completely concious control (Unless your some kind of super-yogi) and react indepenently of, and in spite of the mind.

So from a pragmatic standpoint it is possible for what most people would interpret as rape to take place. And thats not even including the more inventive methods.

Originally posted by andrewas: quote: Originally posted by Lavindathar: ]Exactly. I knew it said that, just wanted confirmation. It isn't recognised, because an errection is the sign that the man is willing. By law in England anyway. And without an errection, the rapist isn't going to get very far.

OK, legaly a woman cant rape a man. So what? People interpreting the law too strictly is one of the reasons the justice system is in the state its in.

However, a mans "mechanisms" (nice euphemism whoever came up with it) are not under completely concious control (Unless your some kind of super-yogi) and react indepenently of, and in spite of the mind.

So from a pragmatic standpoint it is possible for what most people would interpret as rape to take place. And thats not even including the more inventive methods.[/QUOTE]I agree with you.
My oldest brother was held down by a pack of girls and raped behind their school when he was 16. He's a little guy, barely 5' tall and maybe a hundred lbs.
He wasn't willing in spite of his "mechanism" displaying another opinion and it really messed with his head.
He had no way of prosecuting the crime simply because "his mechanism" was working against his will.

[Darlon]

Originally posted by Sir ReGiN: quote: Originally posted by uss: quote: Originally posted by Sir ReGiN: pedophilia (sp?) is by far the worst crime. To do such a terrible thing to a child and to completely ruin their lives is a horrible thing to do, and should give a definite death penalty!

ah, i forgot about that crime.
ReGiN, recently in Estonia, a horrible pedophilia crime happened. a 13 year old boy(not me!! nor was it any of my classmates!!) took about six 1 month - 6 year old children inside an old wooden house in a forest and raped them. the worst thing is that he might not get ANY punishment at all because there aren`t any rules about pedophilia which is caused by a child! all of the victims mothers tore down the wooden house. fortunatelly, one of the victims fathers is threatening to kill the bastardly perv and the boy is even afraid to go out of his house. cruel, yes, but the asshole deserves much more of a punishment than that.[/QUOTE]God, that's just horrible. In that particular case I think it would be for the boy's own good if they kill him.[/QUOTE]Whoa! I think thats going too far.

Kill a 13 year old CHILD?!?! uhh dude hes underaged, no matter how horrible it may have been hes underage so killing him will be just as unjust.

[andrewas]

Originally posted by Darlon: Whoa! I think thats going too far. Kill a 13 year old CHILD?!?! uhh dude hes underaged, no matter how horrible it may have been hes underage so killing him will be just as unjust.

Agreed, but the viable choices are lock him up, kill him or treat him. Leaving him to run around free to do it again is the worst thing possible. Locking him up wont happen since the law says he hasnt commited a crime. (See my above comment on following the law too strictly). Treatment is usualy ordered by the courts. See previous point. Hopefuly his parents will get the lad psychiatric help and leave the area. Elsewise his life is screwed up permanently.