Poll: Woman cuts man's penis with boxcutter - gets no jail time

[Something Amyss]

I worded that wrong, I didn't mean you personally, it was a more general "you". I'm just tired of seeing GG-related posts in every thread.

You may have an overall point, but on this particular thread I'd go to the mat. Seeing several of the "ethics in games journalism" folks not even bothering to read an article or do research before they start whining about how unfair things are for men and that feminists are ruining everything? In a thread that could itself be a microcosm of how the claims of ethics and journalism are a complete joke?

They deserve more than a snarky comment about their ethics. But that's all the pathos I have left to give.

 

[Something Amyss]

... I'll assume that this is what you really "feel" about this situation, and leave the analysis of myself aside.

Assume all your want. It's disingenuous and manipulative, but if that's your choice, I can't stop you.

According to Indiana Battery Laws, it looks like this could qualifiy as a Class B Misdemeanour Battery. Which can carry a sentence of one 180 days in jail, and a small fine. Since the penis wasn't removed, and the attacked is likely to make a (more or less) full recovery (supposition on my part), then this would be the minimum sentence. I guess a plea bargain could potentially reduce the sentence, with judiciary provisions or stipulations of some kind...

More to the point, look for other such cases and see how they were handled, especially on plea.

From my lazy and hasty research, this appears to be consistent with her sentence. I mean, if someone can demonstrate otherwise, I'm all ears.

 

[nightmare_gorilla]

secondly the reasons given for circumcision are almost exactly the same as the reasons for FGM. they do it for religious reason, to be visually apealing for the rest of the world, and to desensitize the area in order to discourage the person from masturbating or engaging in sex before marriage. and yes circumcision does desensitize the penis. it is literally almost exactly the same thing.

It isn't. It really, really is not.

Yes, there are problems with circumcising males. FGM, or at least the forms generally complained about, happens to be much worse. Male circumcision is used as a false equivalency, to say "what about the menz?", but it's not the same.

oh ok because you say so then sure. how exactly is it not the same? I might not have all the facts with FGM but isn't it really the same peices of skin even? they cut off the outer lips to make it more visually pleasing and to apease some sky cake man. the only difference as i've said is that i've heard of it being done to young women and young adult women. which yeah makes it more horrifying I mean just try and do it to me at my age I promise you won't walk away without a few chunks taken out of you. but doing it to babies is still very much against their will and still morally wrong. i'm not trying to say "what about the menz?" but i am saying they are the same thing one just has a social stigma attached to it of torture and the other has a stigma of being abnormal if it's not done. i'm not looking for amnesty international to put a stop to circumcisions or nothing but it is infact EXACTLY the same. i'm not a nutty MRA or nothing I fully understand alot of false equivalencies people try to draw but the only difference here is that one is seen as horrendous and the other is seen as normal. they are no less damaging or traumatizing to the individual and they are both led by religious nut jobs trying to keep our society in the dark ages.

Okay, okay, I know the singular of "data" is "datum," not "anecdote," but here goes anyway.
My parents said they did it to me for health and hygiene reasons, though I suppose they might lie to me if the real reason was that my dick wearing a turtleneck skeeved my mom out or that they thought it would attract more sexual partners to me. If they thought it would stop me jacking off, though, they couldn't have been more wrong. Comical crudeness of my tone notwithstanding, I am deadly serious when I say I masturbated so much I felt like the punchline in a joke about how often men wank. Four times a day was quite common for a while there. I don't know how often those of you with your foreskins would rub one out, but I feel like it would almost have to be less than me during my prime.

Circumcision does desensitize the penis.

I'm grateful for that, then, because it an orgasm feels even better to you than it does to me, then I'm not sure I could handle it (rimshot).

Your parent's didn't lie to you. being circumcised does make your life easier with the opposite sex there is absolutely a stigma to being uncut. the health and hygene reasons are true to a degree. I mean if your uncut yeah your more likely to pic up an std if you bareback someone who has it but that's what condoms are for. the hygene thing, eh, as a baby when someone else has to clean it for you yeah it's easier but once your old enough to understand how to brush your teeth or bath yourself it's really just a matter of cleaning it in the shower like any other body part. the hygene is a bit of misinformation that gets around alot so most likely someone told your parents and they just believed it.

the quick answer to the pleasure question is simply that without a foreskin the head rubs up against everything all day every day. as a result it becomes less sensitive. it's like having a gummy bear in your pocket loose vs keeping it in a ziploc bag.

 

[V4Viewtiful]

Women tend to get soft sentences when assaulting men so i'm not surprised, a man did that to a woman's breast he wouldn't see the light of day.
So yes, the sentencing was too short. Insulting even.
You know there was a case where a woman had sex with some kids (around), she had HIV and only got a year. This is more common than ya think.

As for defending her, many will defend a parents stupid action when children where involved, there was a case where a teacher who told the parents that their child was being bad the child went and told the parents the teacher molested him the dad beat the teacher up only to find out it was a lie.
People defended that too.

and there's this other case of a woman who orchestrated the shooting of a bus after a passenger commented on her bad parenting, she got fewer years than the men she called in (no one was killed luckily/surprisingly)

These types of stories pop up from time to time because they way the system works gives women the advantage and for some reason crime and punishment (in any country and society) is hard to reform, you should read about how criminals are essentially sold to the highest bidder to go to certain prisons

To quote Chris Rock "It's all Fucked-Up!"

 

[the December King]

... I'll assume that this is what you really "feel" about this situation, and leave the analysis of myself aside.

Assume all your want. It's disingenuous and manipulative, but if that's your choice, I can't stop you.

According to Indiana Battery Laws, it looks like this could qualifiy as a Class B Misdemeanour Battery. Which can carry a sentence of one 180 days in jail, and a small fine. Since the penis wasn't removed, and the attacked is likely to make a (more or less) full recovery (supposition on my part), then this would be the minimum sentence. I guess a plea bargain could potentially reduce the sentence, with judiciary provisions or stipulations of some kind...

More to the point, look for other such cases and see how they were handled, especially on plea.

From my lazy and hasty research, this appears to be consistent with her sentence. I mean, if someone can demonstrate otherwise, I'm all ears.

Not interested. I did what you suggested, and am now tired of being belittled by you. I'll conduct my own research, and decide how I feel, but not just to have you snidely attack me again.

 

[the December King]

Hello, all!

In the course of this thread I have had a closer look into one of the aspects that bothers me about the case- the sentencing and punishment of the attacker seemed really lenient ( and not just because she was a woman, but admittedly, that question DID pop into my head). Now, on the books, this seems to be in-line with the sentence often given for this type of crime, irregardless of the criminal's sex. However, there do exist some datasets that contest the notion of fair gender-neutral tribunals and sentencing, and that even if that were so across the board, that it is still a bias.

For example, I found this paper on the disparity in sentencing quite interesting, as it illustrates that the gap in sentencing via gender bias is not as big as some might think, and this parity has a much worse impact in practice on (minorities and) women - get's interesting at around page 218, and the summary at 229 is pretty clear:

http://www.wcl.american.edu/journal/genderlaw/06/alexander.pdf

And this one, detailing how even if charged with the same crime, men will still often face much, much longer incarcerations.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144002

That one was posted in 2012. I haven't begun to read that one, but will start, hopefully shortly- there is a news synopsis of it here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/men-women-prison-sentence-length-gender-gap_n_1874742.html

In short, I still suspect that a man in a similar situation would get a longer sentence, but I'm not blind to the distinct possibility that I'm wrong- certainly, if it was by the books, it would all be equal- and so, I'm going to keep reading.

 

[JimB]

The hygiene thing, eh, as a baby when someone else has to clean it for you, yeah, it's easier but once you're old enough to understand how to brush your teeth or bathe yourself it's really just a matter of cleaning it in the shower like any other body part.

Also when I get too old and demented to clean it for myself and am relying on nursing facility aides who are in a hurry and who don't care; god knows I've seen my share of infected foreskins swelling up around a dick like someone's trying to strangle the penis's head with an inflatable garrote.

Again, anecdotal, though.

 

[Thaluikhain]

oh ok because you say so then sure. how exactly is it not the same? I might not have all the facts with FGM but isn't it really the same peices of skin even? they cut off the outer lips to make it more visually pleasing and to apease some sky cake man.

Ah, no, FGM usually involves removing the clitoris in an attempt to eliminate libido, and/or sewing the vagina shut to ensure chastity.

Removing part of the labia might be considered equivalent to circumcision (though I'm not a doctor), though, and it is increasingly common. Women judging themselves against porn stars are getting labiaplasties to feel normal.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well read the details:
- she just cut him not cut anything off
- she was under the influence of drugs
- first time offender
- the victim didn't want her to get locked up either
- at the end of the day she still has kids relying on her

All in all this was a far lesser crime then it has been pumped up to be, and she got a sentence that she deserved. Yes they could have just got her lynched with the right angry judge, but luckily this one had more then air between the ears.
As for the "applauding", just goes to show there is plenty of gender resentment brooding on all sides.

 

[Lightknight]

Well read the details:
- she just cut him not cut anything off
- she was under the influence of drugs
- first time offender
- the victim didn't want her to get locked up either
- at the end of the day she still has kids relying on her

All in all this was a far lesser crime then it has been pumped up to be, and she got a sentence that she deserved. Yes they could have just got her lynched with the right angry judge, but luckily this one had more then air between the ears.
As for the "applauding", just goes to show there is plenty of gender resentment brooding on all sides.

-She held a man captive for hours and mutilated him even if she didn't actually remove a limb/appendage.

-Being under the influence of drugs doesn't get you off of a case. Do I need to bring the mass of DUI related cases to bear here for precedence that you are still held accountable for your actions while under the influence of drugs you willingly took?

-In most cases like this, the charges are pursued by the state, not the individual. So them wanting or not wanting the mother of their lover to go to jail (which I'm sure would strain that relationship) is irrelevant.

Holding someone captive for hours alone should warrant jail time.

 

[Ikaruga33]

Well read the details:
- she just cut him not cut anything off
- she was under the influence of drugs
- first time offender
- the victim didn't want her to get locked up either
- at the end of the day she still has kids relying on her

All in all this was a far lesser crime then it has been pumped up to be, and she got a sentence that she deserved. Yes they could have just got her lynched with the right angry judge, but luckily this one had more then air between the ears.
As for the "applauding", just goes to show there is plenty of gender resentment brooding on all sides.

Oh great, I guess it's cool for me to go cut up my wifes breasts. After all, I'm not cutting any limbs off, so it's fine right?
Get fucked. Assault normally carries a much harsher sentance. It should especially be harsh as she mutilated such a sensitive body part. I don't give a fuck if she's on drugs or has kids. While on drugs or alchohol you're still responsible for your own decisions. It's why we have drink driving sentances. Having kids shouldn't excuse you either. If anything, an investigation into whether or not she should be separated from her kids should be made, as such violent behavior likely isn't healthy.

 

[Maze1125]

Oh great, I guess it's cool for me to go cut up my wifes breasts. After all, I'm not cutting any limbs off, so it's fine right?

I think you'll find that some men do things like that all the time and get absolutely no punishment at all.

 

[Ikaruga33]

Oh great, I guess it's cool for me to go cut up my wifes breasts. After all, I'm not cutting any limbs off, so it's fine right?

I think you'll find that some men do things like that all the time and get absolutely no punishment at all.

Yes, and that's wrong too. But, be honest, women most likely get off much more easily than males do.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

Well read the details:
- she just cut him not cut anything off
- she was under the influence of drugs
- first time offender
- the victim didn't want her to get locked up either
- at the end of the day she still has kids relying on her

All in all this was a far lesser crime then it has been pumped up to be, and she got a sentence that she deserved. Yes they could have just got her lynched with the right angry judge, but luckily this one had more then air between the ears.
As for the "applauding", just goes to show there is plenty of gender resentment brooding on all sides.

It's certainly not as bad as it looks in first glance, but I still think that much harsher measures should have been taken.

Doing drugs shouldn't have any impact on the sentence, when you do drugs willingly you're responsible for whatever you do under their influence.

That being said, the degree of the mutilation and the fact that the victim didn't want her to get jail time makes this look a bit less absurd

 

[nightmare_gorilla]

oh ok because you say so then sure. how exactly is it not the same? I might not have all the facts with FGM but isn't it really the same peices of skin even? they cut off the outer lips to make it more visually pleasing and to apease some sky cake man.

Ah, no, FGM usually involves removing the clitoris in an attempt to eliminate libido, and/or sewing the vagina shut to ensure chastity.

Removing part of the labia might be considered equivalent to circumcision (though I'm not a doctor), though, and it is increasingly common. Women judging themselves against porn stars are getting labiaplasties to feel normal.

Ok that i'll admit is worse than circumcision it's been a while since FGM has been talked about I forgot the more horrible examples. but i still maintain that circumcisions frequency and generally accepted as the norm makes it equally bad. they definitely are the same crime just a varying degree.

As far as women getting surgery to "feel normal" after seeing pornstars that is total BS. women feeling the need to compare themselves to porn is an issue of self esteem not sexism. I've had this argument hundreds of times and simply put porn is not a competition with normal women it's a fantasy. same is true for men if you feel the need to get enlargement pills or surgery because of porn you lack confidence and self esteem. these people need therapy not surgery.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Ok that i'll admit is worse than circumcision it's been a while since FGM has been talked about I forgot the more horrible examples. but i still maintain that circumcisions frequency and generally accepted as the norm makes it equally bad. they definitely are the same crime just a varying degree.

What about an adult making their child get their ears pierced, though? Not sure where the line is drawn.

As far as women getting surgery to "feel normal" after seeing pornstars that is total BS. women feeling the need to compare themselves to porn is an issue of self esteem not sexism. I've had this argument hundreds of times and simply put porn is not a competition with normal women it's a fantasy. same is true for men if you feel the need to get enlargement pills or surgery because of porn you lack confidence and self esteem. these people need therapy not surgery.

Oh, I was getting off topic there, certainly, though it is something of a concern for society. People treat porn as sex education (consciously or not), which causes all sorts of problems.

 

[Maze1125]

Ok that i'll admit is worse than circumcision it's been a while since FGM has been talked about I forgot the more horrible examples. but i still maintain that circumcisions frequency and generally accepted as the norm makes it equally bad. they definitely are the same crime just a varying degree.

What about an adult making their child get their ears pierced, though? Not sure where the line is drawn.

Well, that's not nice, because it causing their child pain purely for the sake of aesthetics.
But the key point is that it's not mutilation, because an ear piercing will heal back up on its own given enough time. Circumcision will not.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

oof, the anti-GG snark has moved into this thread even...still, not sure why I'm surprised, same old stuff, even before gamergate.

OT: didn't read every detail in the different links posted, but as far as I read, she didn't have proof of it, so I can only say it was completely uncalled for of her to do what she did. (she kidnapped him and did that to him premeditated, this wasn't a spur of the moment thing like she walked in on it.)

I personally know that if I did walk in on something like that, I probably wouldn't be able to stop myself in the rush of the moment and would beat the person to death, I really don't think I'd ever cut off their junk, but their face would be so smashed in that I doubt they'd be able to breathe.

I'll wait until I see more on this, not really willing to judge it until better facts are out there.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

Your parent's didn't lie to you. being circumcised does make your life easier with the opposite sex there is absolutely a stigma to being uncut. the health and hygene reasons are true to a degree. I mean if your uncut yeah your more likely to pic up an std if you bareback someone who has it but that's what condoms are for. the hygene thing, eh, as a baby when someone else has to clean it for you yeah it's easier but once your old enough to understand how to brush your teeth or bath yourself it's really just a matter of cleaning it in the shower like any other body part. the hygene is a bit of misinformation that gets around alot so most likely someone told your parents and they just believed it.

the quick answer to the pleasure question is simply that without a foreskin the head rubs up against everything all day every day. as a result it becomes less sensitive. it's like having a gummy bear in your pocket loose vs keeping it in a ziploc bag.

just speaking off of anecdotal evidence here as well, but as a guy who was circumcised, I'm damn similar to JimB, if I was any more sensitive down there I probably would've splooged in my pants just by catching a breeze at the wrong angle going through puberty, thankfully I've slowed down a bit to just daily, but if I had been any more sensitive, I don't know if I could've functioned correctly at school without needing to do it at lunch break every day. Not that I'm going to circumcise my kid if I have a boy eventually, but I still feel like it's healthy discussion.

 

[Schadrach]

women around the world are fighting "genital mutilation" as a human rights crime when women get their naughty parts snipped but circumcision is one of the most common procedures. you want to see gender inequality on full display ask a woman what they think about circumcision. "ugh no they're so disgusting i wouldn't sleep with an uncut guy." is one of the tamer answers i've heard

It could be worse, there's a case in Florida where a judge is enforcing a family court agreement that requires that a 4 year old child be circumcised without medical or religious reason, in which the child himself is strongly against it being done. He's only four, but it's apparently not hard to understand someone wanting to cut off part of your penis because they think it would look better that way. My personal opinion: It's his penis, it's not a case where there's a medical reason for circumcision, there's no good reason why they can't hold off on cutting off part of his penis for cosmetic reasons until he's old enough to actually decide for himself if he'd prefer it cut off.

Of course, the solution the anti-circ people want can be summed up as "male children should have the same legal right to genital integrity that female children are given." That this is in any way controversial seems silly. Then again, it's just another example of a law that technically violates the 14th Amendment, but because of which group is denied protection no one gives a fuck.

Firstly, the forms of FGM people tend to be concerned about are much worse than male circumscion.

It's an interesting thing that. Because "real" FGM has been sold as being what WHO would call Type III FGM (infibulation), which is only ~10% of all FGM performed. There's a reason why discussion of what FGM entails always surround the practice as it's done in Sudan, Kenya, and one or two other places (the places where type III is most common), and not the rest of Africa, or any of the places in Asia where it's practiced, while discussion of how often it happens includes everyone.

Counting every case, then only describing the worst type of case and trying to create the association that you are talking about the same thing is rather shockingly common in advocacy research of many kinds. I've always wondered why the anti-circ folks don't take the total number of complications from circumcision (however mild) and the fact that the most severe complication is death (from resultant infection or bleeding out, happens in the low triple digits/year in the US) and pull the same trick.



To be more on topic, why the hell wasn't this woman charged with kidnapping, assault (or possibly mayhem or similar depending on what sort of damage she did), a drug charge, and bring in CPS along with a real sentence and not a few months of home confinement? Then again, women always get lighter sentences than men (and for some crimes it makes more of a difference than race), and there are even a few politicians in certain places who want to specifically bar imprisoning women and close women's prisons.

You know what I wonder? What happened to her accomplices (2 men helped her). Are they still being sorted out? Have they been sentenced to anything? I kind of suspect at least one of them will get worse than she did.