Are crimes against 'women and children' really the 'lowest' in prisons?

jeanjolie

I remember reading this: Boiling Water Over Killing

I know it's not a phenomenon exclusive to Irish prisons, however having lived here for a while I got a sense that the 'protector' mentality is high among a lot of Irish men. Even young ones...Not towards family or friends but just towards a young woman on the street.

Remember some of my classmates said they would 'restrain' rather than help a young boy from defending himself against woman even if she was much older and had some sort of weapon.

Do you think this 'faux mentality' needs to die it's needed death?

suicide_circus

faux mentality?

Birneybau

Protecting the vulnerable is wrong?

Samuel T. Cogley

It's just scumbags being scumbags and a self fulfilling prophecy. Majority of Scumbags decide they're going to pick on nonces because they've got no-one to defend them (and to be fair it's s despicable crime). If rape was committed by a majority of big lads who stuck together house burglars would be the ones in specialist wings.

There used to be a genuine 'ethos' of not picking on retards, old people or kids but until you see that on the outside as well as on the inside it's not a code or anything like that it's just self preservation.

xzanti

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

It's just scumbags being scumbags and a self fulfilling prophecy. Majority of Scumbags decide they're going to pick on nonces because they've got no-one to defend them (and to be fair it's s despicable crime). If rape was committed by a majority of big lads who stuck together house burglars would be the ones in specialist wings.

There used to be a genuine 'ethos' of not picking on retards, old people or kids but until you see that on the outside as well as on the inside it's not a code or anything like that it's just self preservation.

Oh my.

Billy86

Birneybau wrote: »

Protecting the vulnerable is wrong?

Of course that's taking the assumption that all women are vulnerable. I don't get the feeling they'd apply the same logic to someone who attacked a 5'4 120lb guy (unless physically impaired) but feel they still would to someone who attacked a 6ft, 185lb woman who spends a lot of time in the gym etc.

Samuel T. Cogley

xzanti wrote: »

Oh my.

Retard is the correct term for all manner of IQ reducing conditions. It might not be politically correct but neither is Scumbag or nonce, which is neither politically correct or technically correct so perhaps we could dispense with the selective PC policing?

Richard Hillman

They have to do something to assure to themselves that they are not the certified lowest of the low. Every criminal tries to justify their own crimes by comparing their own failings to somebody elses.

In prison and for prisoners, they spend their entire lives being the bad guy but they are so dip ****ted stupid they suddenly think they are the good guys when somebody strolls into Prison with a worse crime than they committed.

pragmatic1

Have mates that did time. Yeah you're fcuked if you do crimes like that, and rightly so.

Samuel T. Cogley

pragmatic1 wrote: »

Have mates that did time. Yeah you're fcuked if you do crimes like that, and rightly so.

You're fcuked regardless of crime I thought? Depending on how pretty your mouth is I suppose.

please helpThank YOU

Crimes against a Innocent Man/Women and being in Jail for a heinous Crime the not commit like the Guildford four Uk , Nora Wall the Irish Nun, Ireland cops framing innocent people that has to be one of the lowest crimes to innocent person in my opinion this has gone in Ireland on regular basis.

Glenster

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Retard is the correct term for all manner of IQ reducing conditions. It might not be politically correct but neither is Scumbag or nonce, which is neither politically correct or technically correct so perhaps we could dispense with the selective PC policing?

Scumbag and nonce are words which reflect what a person does and is responsible for. So I think its reasonable to use those words.

The word you used is a pejorative term for someone who cant help being what he is.

pragmatic1

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

You're fcuked regardless of crime I thought? Depending on how pretty your mouth is I suppose.

They have said that if you just do your time, people will leave you alone. Just don't be acting like you're the big hard man and you'll be fine.

Canis Lupus

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Retard is the correct term for all manner of IQ reducing conditions. It might not be politically correct but neither is Scumbag or nonce, which is neither politically correct or technically correct so perhaps we could dispense with the selective PC policing?

I think they no longer use 'retard' medically, it's intellectual disabled.

(I still say retard)

Canis Lupus

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

Crimes against a Innocent Man/Women and being in Jail for a heinous Crime the not commit like the Guildford four Uk , Nora Wall the Irish Nun, Ireland cops framing innocent people that has to be one of the lowest crimes to innocent person in my opinion this has gone in Ireland on regular basis.

There's some capital punishment going on in your posts.

Samuel T. Cogley

Glenster wrote: »

Scumbag and nonce are words which reflect what a person does and is responsible for. So I think its reasonable to use those words.

The word you used is a pejorative term for someone who cant help being what he is.

It's also a legal definition, as spastic is a medical one. There is no need to go overboard on being PC as it's counter productive when there is no intent behind it but carry on, seems some how appropriate in this thread.

livedadream

I figured that was because of the community she was a member of?
i think revenge attacks in prisons are more likely if your crime was gangland related or had a traveler involvement.

Samuel T. Cogley

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I think they no longer use 'retard' medically, it's intellectual disabled.

(I still say retard)

Thanks the simple and helpful correction is appreciated.

Glenster

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

It's also a legal definition, as spastic is a medical one. There is no need to go overboard on being PC as it's counter productive when there is no intent behind it but carry on, seems some how appropriate in this thread.

I'm not a particularly PC person. But its fairly universally accepted that that word is offensive to people with intellectual disabilities. You don't have to use words with intent for them to offend people.

Ireland and the US no longer use it as a medical term. In the US Rosa's law was passed in 2010 which replaced it with mental disability in all federal statutes.

Rosa was a 9 year old girl with down syndrome who was hurt when people called her a retard. TBH that's reason enough to me not to use it anymore.

Samuel T. Cogley

Glenster wrote: »

I'm not a particularly PC person. But its fairly universally accepted that that word is offensive to people with intellectual disabilities. You don't have to use words with intent for them to offend people.

Ireland and the US no longer use it as a medical term. In the US Rosa's law was passed in 2010 which replaced it with mental disability in all federal statutes.

Rosa was a 9 year old girl with down syndrome who was hurt when people called her a retard. TBH that's reason enough to me not to use it anymore.

And if I offend anyone with that disability in this thread I apologise, everyone else can just get on with it tbh.

please helpThank YOU

:)

Canis Lupus wrote: »

There's some capital punishment going on in your posts.

You Made my Day:):D.

goose2005

similarly in women's prisons, women who murdered their own children are usually ostracised/attacked

jeanjolie

jeanjolie wrote: »

Do you think this 'faux mentality' needs to die it's needed death?

Why is it a "faux mentality" and why should it die?

People are more sympathetic about victims who may be more vulnerable. The rape of a particularly young or old person will draw more revulsion. It's human nature. Are you saying that you would react to the news that a 2 year old was raped in the exact same way as if you heard the victim was 22?

reason vs religion

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

And if I offend anyone with that disability in this thread I apologise, everyone else can just get on with it tbh.

This is such a galling response - the suggestion that only someone with an intellectual disability is entitled to be offended. But what about the family members of people with such a disability? And what about those who think your language perpetuates prejudice, and who, as they are not personally affected, feel they are in a better position to call you out on your insensitive language? This is how social norms develop, btw.

jeanjolie

Deleted User wrote: »

Why is it a "faux mentality" and why should it die?

People are more sympathetic about victims who may be more vulnerable. The rape of a particularly young or old person will draw more revulsion. It's human nature. Are you saying that you would react to the news that a 2 year old was raped in the exact same way as if you heard the victim was 22?

If an innocent woman was attacked compared to an innocent man then yes...perhaps I might feel more sympathy but because she might be more vulnerable.

If however, for example a teacher was bullying a male student and he assaulted her physically or sexually, I wouldn't have any more sympathy for her than I would a man who did it.

In other words, if they did something and get attacked they had it coming whether they're a 5ft 4in woman or a 6ft man (IMHO)

One eyed Jack

jeanjolie wrote: »

I remember reading this: Boiling Water Over Killing

I know it's not a phenomenon exclusive to Irish prisons, however having lived here for a while I got a sense that the 'protector' mentality is high among a lot of Irish men. Even young ones...Not towards family or friends but just towards a young woman on the street.

Remember some of my classmates said they would 'restrain' rather than help a young boy from defending himself against woman even if she was much older and had some sort of weapon.

Do you think this 'faux mentality' needs to die it's needed death?

If I understood what you were talking about, I might offer an opinion, but seeing as I can't even understand what you're saying or where you stand on whatever 'faux mentality' you're talking about... I don't know what to think!




Dafuq is a 'faux mentality' anyway?

jeanjolie

jeanjolie wrote: »

In other words, if they did something and get attacked they had it coming whether they're a 5ft 4in woman or a 6ft man (IMHO)

But what's this development about victims who "had it coming"? That's a strange tangent in a strange thread.

Maybe outline the circumstances in which a child might have a savage assault or a rape coming to him or her so I can consider it further, thanks.

not yet

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

It's also a legal definition, as spastic is a medical one. There is no need to go overboard on being PC as it's counter productive when there is no intent behind it but carry on, seems some how appropriate in this thread.

What about slow..? What does that cover.

Just asking for a friend.

pickarooney

reason vs religion wrote: »

This is such a galling response - the suggestion that only someone with an intellectual disability is entitled to be offended. But what about the family members of people with such a disability? And what about those who think your language perpetuates prejudice, and who, as they are not personally affected, feel they are in a better position to call you out on your insensitive language? This is how social norms develop, btw.

The historically proven method of deweaponising words like this is to allow them to enter common parlance to describe someone acting a bit stupidly.

jeanjolie

Deleted User wrote: »

But what's this development about victims who "had it coming"? That's a strange tangent in a strange thread.

Maybe outline the circumstances in which a child might have a savage assault or a rape coming to him or her so I can consider it further, thanks.

Lol...no.

I'm saying that some men have this 'protector' attitude where they think that assaults/attacks against women and children are wrong even in situations where you're getting robbed, or attacked.

Obviously rape is never justified against anyone, but if some 15 yr old knacker girl came up to me and demanded money or else they would get a 15yr old boy to beat me up, then all bets are off. I would have no problem breaking their necks...well maybe not that far but you understand.

ohnonotgmail

jeanjolie wrote: »

Lol...no.

I'm saying that some men have this 'protector' attitude where they think that assaults/attacks against women and children are wrong even in situations where you're getting robbed, or attacked.

Obviously rape is never justified against anyone, but if some 15 yr old knacker girl came up to me and demanded money or else they would get a 15yr old boy to beat me up, then all bets are off. I would have no problem breaking their necks...well maybe not that far but you understand.

who are these men that think it is not ok to defend yourself?

andekwarhola

I would say that when prisoners get attacked (for crimes against women and kids) in prison, there might well be an altrusitic motive but it's presumably as much about having a pseudo-moralistic excuse to exercise violence.