Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

255001434 t1_irqwt6t wrote

Reply to comment by JackMitcham in Serial ‘jogger rapist’ to be released from Oregon prison by LuceeCarioca

Yes, he served his time which is why he's getting out and I didn't argue against that, but he was a serial rapist. He hunted people. It is of public interest to know that he will be in public again. It's pretty weird that you don't think so.

>What will anybody do differently with this information?

You don't think it might be of interest to someone to know if this guy moved into their neighborhood? We wouldn't know who he was without it being in the news. Would you want to know who this guy was if you were a young woman or had a teenage daughter?

This is not fearmongering. It is of legitimate public interest, but you seem more concerned about protecting his privacy.

38

JackMitcham t1_irqx270 wrote

> You don't think it might be of interest to someone to know if this guy moved into their neighborhood?

That information is not given in the article. They're not listing where he's moving to.

>Would you want to know who this guy was if you were a young woman or had a teenage daughter?

I don't see how knowing that this guy exists matters at all, especially as a national news story, not a local one.

Can you give me a good reason why someone in Pensacola, FL should care about this?

−3

255001434 t1_irqxtsn wrote

Do you hold this same high standard for all news articles, or are you just particularly concerned with this guy's privacy? This is more important to the public than quite a lot of news stories that make national headlines.

>They're not listing where he's moving to.

They don't need to. By making it known who he is, people will be able to find out if he's someone they come into contact with.

Since you brought it up, he may have "served his time", but he was only convicted of one out of the nine rapes he admitted to, because of the statute of limitations. He did not serve time for eight rapes that we know he did. There's nothing to be done about that, but I still don't view him as someone has paid for his crimes, as you seem to.

27

CyanideKitty t1_irr0h3g wrote

So are you proposing we make the sentence for rape a life sentence then?

Contrary to what the media wants you to believe people can come out of jails after decades and NOT repeat their past mistakes. I guarantee you I live near multiple rapists (many men still continue or lightly force it, even if she changes her mind mid sex) , they just haven't been caught by the law (or in my case my ex would rape me when I said no. Marital rape was made illegal in 1993, I got married in 2004. I was told by multiple cops in multiple districts/cities/counties not to bother because we were married and marriage is a 24/7 consent situation. Any movement that is not immediate pulling out after she says no makes you a rapist, technically.

Really, what does knowing about a convicted rapist do vs knowing I live near a bunch of not caught rapists? Absolutely nothing in my eyes. Plus he's old as fuck who has served his time. He's done his time, he can now resume a "regular life".

−26

mjgoot t1_irr2y4z wrote

let him be your sister or daughters neighbor then.

12

CyanideKitty t1_irr68oi wrote

These people could already be getting raped by their significant other for all I know. Until/if he reoffends he has served his time, is "rehabilitated", and is free to live out his days (until he reoffends, if he does). Why should we only worry about those who have "paid their debt"? Shouldn't we fear monger the unknown rapists as well as those who have served their time? No, we shouldn't because that just pushes a living in fear of everything society even more than we already do.

Also, I'm in Milwaukee, how do I or my sister or anyone I know need to know a rapist is Oregon is released? At most that should be a COMMUNITY alert, like with pedophiles.

−14

255001434 t1_irrej9a wrote

>So are you proposing we make the sentence for rape a life sentence then?

Did you not read my comment? From the first line:

>he served his time which is why he's getting out and I didn't argue against that

My comments were simply about why this story is worthy of being news. Who are you arguing against?

He admitted to nine rapes, but was only convicted of one of them because of the statute of limitations. There's nothing we can do about that, but I'm not going to pretend this is someone who has paid for his crimes. Those eight other victims would probably have something to say about that.

You seem to think all rapes are equal and of equal threats to society, but this is a man who hunted down multiple victims after seeing them in public, including a 13 year old girl. Anyone he crossed paths with was a potential target. He is the most dangerous type of rapist there is and the type that people in his vicinity would most need to be warned against. As the article says, he isn't required to notify his neighbors, so reporting the story is one way because don't know where he will move to.

Edit: He's 63, which is not young, but he is still capable of harming someone. I would want to know if he lived near the young women in my family. Nice that you don't think it matters, since other men are "technically" rapists too. Some men are much more dangerous than others. You don't seem to get that.

9

Sovrin1 t1_irtv0nh wrote

"served his time" means nothing. society owes nothing to this predator. we'd all be better off if it stayed locked in it's cage.

4

[deleted] t1_irr8lfj wrote

[removed]

2

CyanideKitty t1_irrdzri wrote

Oh I know better but knowing better didn't put a rapist behind bars because I kept being told that. Many women raped by their spouses are told that daily.

4

JackMitcham t1_irr9ztq wrote

> No one fucking told you "marriage was a 24/7 consent situation"

I believe her. Lawyers are still making this case in court.

>and even if they did, you know better.

And how does that help arrest the rapist?

3

[deleted] t1_irraymu wrote

[removed]

1

CyanideKitty t1_irre3gv wrote

I couldn't have a case because cops refused to take a report because marriage is a 24/7 consent. This happens to many women.

3

JackMitcham t1_irrb96p wrote

>What lawyers?

Many lawyers. Trump's lawyers, for one.

>What case?

The case that one cannot rape one's spouse. I was very clear in my original post, I don't know why you're confused.

>What rapist is getting arrested?

None, that's the point.

>Her ex-husband?

I mean, yeah. She literally said she was raped. What is confusing you? Jesus Christ man, pay attention.

0

[deleted] t1_irrc6j7 wrote

[removed]

1

JackMitcham t1_irrh3eb wrote

> No idea what Trump's lawyers have to do with this conversation. > >

YOU ASKED which lawyers are making this case in court.

>she stated she was told by law enforcement many years later that it was legal.

Yeah, when she tried reporting the crime. You don't have a problem with that?

>on your idiotic comments.

Enjoy the ban, I guess.

2