O_o-Dimensia_Juice-x_X
I mean people who take things to the extreme. If perhaps you said "Should a man get the same immunity as a woman if say he has a dui" sure! He definitely should. But now that we're comparing ***** to a speeding ticket. If you could manage to keep this in the realm of reality I could perhaps take you seriously.
you misunderstood, then. my apologies for not being clearer: I was merely establishing that there is a limit to what you believe makes one a victim first-and-foremost, and what makes one a criminal first and a victim second.
that question was intentionally extreme, because we have to find if there is an upper limit to what qualifies one as a victim first. if you had responded that the man in possession of child pornography* was entitled to the same immunity as anyone else for being victimized, then I'd've known, due to the extremity of the test case, that your view towards the sanctity of victim immunity was absolute.
the fact that you do acknowledge a limit to victimhood, though, leads me to question just where that cutoff exists.
so, again, I would ask: the battered individual who is wanted for felony hit-and-run, are they a victim first, or does their crime outweigh the crime committed against them?
*there is a reason I named a specific act, rather than your more generic dismissal of calling them ***** and moving on. "*****," of course, is a psychological diagnosis, rather than a crime. the crime occurs when the individual acts on their impulses, and due to the nature of sex crimes in general, namely the fact that they are about power dynamics rather than desire, and that ***** is about unnatural desires, rather than acts of power and dominance, the two are really only tangentially related. so, while a ***** is obviously not someone to trust with children, they are also not inherently criminals unless they have acted on their urges in some way.
200
100
100
