As I’ve said before, we need to as a society decide; are we a punish and detain society or are we a rehabilitate and educate society? It is cases like these that really test the conviction of these views.

The desire for revenge is not a healthy one. As I posited above.

How then do we make things better for the victims; given that punishing the men further will not change things for them.

I don't think revenge will alleviate the suffering of the victims; revenge is not the panacea that those seeking it think it will be; and I am saddened that they think it will fix anything for them. This is exactly what I was posing when I said the above; how do we make things better for the victims?

[–] 2taldropkickwut 1 points 1 year ago

You assume what the victims think and are assuming what is good for them. Speaking to what is good and healthy for them is incredibly condescending.

You ask how to make things better for victims. The victims directly said what would alleviate their suffering. Why do you not believe them? How would you know better?

The victims made it crystal clear what they wanted. And they are now legally prohibited from speaking about their experiences, permanently, under threat of prosecution.

How does this result help them in any way? Now they have to carry it with them in silence enforced by the legal system.

The only lasting consequences are being borne by the victims.

This result is disgusting.

To speak to the wider issue though.

The strawman question of punish and detain or educate and rehabilitate is just that. The goal is preventing recividism. (Which coincidentally is what the victims above have said they wanted.)

The largest factor in reducing recividism and in particular for sexual offences, is offender age. Recividism rates drop as age increases across the board.

Detention remains the most effective tool for prevention for those who have demonstrated they will carry out crimes against the body of another we have, by far.