Aids Crisis; Should people with Aids wear special under garments?

Recent events show that there has been much controversy of the rape of a woman that has Aids. I am sure many of you have heard of the unfortunate situation that has occurred. Her rapist later found that he was also HIV positive. There seems to be two sides to this; the people that think that HIV and Aids victims should were special under garments to warn rapists and such of their disease, and the people that believe that this is an outrageous argument.
I find myself in the second category. I think that it kinda makes people think that rape is gonna happen, my as well face the facts. And this is true. People are going to be raped. But, if a person was evil enough to take advantage of someone, no matter the circumstances (no is no), does it make it karma at its worst form? I say if you are gonna rape someone, the STD that you may contract is karma. And, quite frankly, you deserve every part of it and worse even.
People want to stop the Aids epidemic, but I think they are starting to not see what they are doing. Making Aids victims feel ashamed and different from the rest of us, OUTRAGEOUS!!! We have to remember that we are people and all people should be treated just so, not a nuisance to mankind, who could possibly spread a horrible disease.
Why don't we just make every Aids/HIV victim wear a scarlet A for Aids?!
Let me know your thoughts...

Kimtonium wrote:to warn rapists ... of their disease

Oh yes, of course! Why not? We wouldn't want to hurt our childhood heroes, would we?
Is a rapist seriously complaining about catching a disease from the woman he raped? If so, fuck him, and you know I don't use that word lightly. That's terrible. Rapists should not be warned. What does that mean for our society, anyway? Are we really trying to keep criminals safe? By breaking the law, a criminal is subjecting himself to the hatred of others and the consequences of court. He is violating another's rights. He is already putting himself at risk, and we should not go to any effort to "protect" him.

Kimtonium wrote:it kinda makes people think that rape is gonna happen

But I feel almost as if it encourages rape: "Oh, don't worry! Just in case you want to rape someone, we'll make sure you do it safely. :)"
A case could be made that, for the sake of individuals, one of whom has AIDS, in a consenting relationship could be warned, but I don't think that this is fair either. These people already have the burden of bearing the disease. They shouldn't have to wear this fact on their sleeves, because if they do, they will be avoided and judged for something that they have no control over.

Kimtonium wrote:Why don't we just make every Aids/HIV victim wear a scarlet A for Aids?!

Why don't we make every Jew wear a Star of David for "Jude"?

Love, Love, Love your response! I completely agree! I was so angry when I first heard this I wanted to scream. And the fact that this controversy continues just shows the lack of humane and genuinely caring people we have in this world! It makes me sick!    
I did some research and I found the details. Apparently, a man by the name of Richard Thomas let himself into a woman's house uninvited. The woman, who was in a deep sleep because she had taken a sleeping pill, woke to the unpleasant discovery that she was being raped. The man pled guilty and received a measly 5 years and 4 months for the raping of this woman. And, not only did he rape a woman in her home and while she was sleeping he also was quite upset to learn he may of contracted HIV from his victim. He was apparently using drugs and alcohol.
What a disgusting waste of human life! This disgusts me even more! The poor woman! Not only did a stranger slip into her house, she awoke to him raping her, then this whole controversy about special underwear to warn rapists of the danger. This is not a road being constructed! You can't just put a sign up to warn the dangers! This is a person we are talking about! This whole controversy disgusts me in every way!

Kimtonium wrote:The man pled guilty and received a measly 5 years and 4 months

The fact that he plead guilty makes me respect him a bit more than if he hadn't. At least he didn't attempt to deny the fact while still accusing the woman of giving him AIDS. Five years is still a hefty amount of time, and I don't think it's too short for his crimes. Though this man certainly has his faults, and is going to have to work extremely hard to overcome this deed if he ever wishes to move on, there is a possibility that he might be able to help someone as much as he has hurt this woman. Prison has a tendency to kill spirits and breed spite, which can further corrupt people who once had the potential to be welcomed back into society.

Kimtonium wrote:he also was quite upset to learn he may of contracted HIV from his victim

I am not surprised by the fact that he was upset at contracting the virus, just horrified that he thought he had the right to voice his concern. By his actions, we can assume he doesn't care much for the welfare of others, so how can he expect others to care for his own welfare, especially after committing such a terrible crime?
I would be able to accept (while still disagreeing with) an argument along the lines of "HIV and AIDS victims must wear special undergarments in order to protect our citizens," but "in order to protect our rapists" is really a disgusting thought.
The diseased should not have to distinguish themselves from the healthy. You are expected to keep yourself safe and others safe if you are ill, meaning you won't deliberately cough into their drinks or engage in intercourse when you know the danger of the outcome. Any negative consequence one receives from raping/killing/hurting another individual is most likely deserved, as was this man's new illness.
There are plenty of people who are severely diseased, who have much more contagious diseases than AIDS, yet who walk free without any notice of their illness. There really is no reason to label these people as "unsafe". One who deliberately spreads a disease could be charged for murder or possibly manslaughter (whatever the charge, deliberately harming another is certainly illegal). If we do not brand felons for their actions, then by no means should we brand someone who has done absolutely nothing wrong.

Chiasm Chicken,

Though I do agree with you on how you respect him more now that he has pleaded guilty, I do disagree with one of your opinions. 5 years and 4 months? Honestly, I am a bit confused how you don't feel it's right to protect our rapists from AIDS, but seem to think that jail is a bad thing because they will have a horribly hard time going back into society. No offense, but what is it? I can guess that you don't want to encourage rape, but you also don't want to hurt the rapist? I mean, what the hell?
    

I also read something on Facebook that I thought you would quite enjoy, it went something like, "When dogs attack children, we put them to sleep. Why don't we do the same to predators?" I mean I get that a dog is a dog and a person is a person, but do you see my point? A dog would make physical scars that will face with time, but a sexual predator will make scars that will never go away. They will plague that person for the rest of their lives. And 5 years and 4 months is enough? 5 years and 4 months, for a life that will never be the same again? People that are raped can develop severe emotional disorders and anxiety. And 5 years and 4 months is enough?       

Just know that I completely respect your opinion, but I am trying to prove a point, so excuse my harshness!

Kimtonium wrote:you don't feel it's right to protect our rapists from AIDS, but seem to think that jail is a bad thing because they will have a horribly hard time going back into society

Jail is not a bad thing in moderation, but five years and four months surrounded only by people who have committed equal or worse crimes is sure to corrupt a person. It is going to be difficult for any criminal to rejoin society, and the amount of time spent in jail will not change that by a large fraction. But the most important thing after preventing the crime from occurring in the first place is to prevent the crime from happening again. You should not surround yourself with people and behaviors you are trying to distance yourself from. This is what jail is. The only helpful bit of this would be protecting AIDS victims who are about to be raped: once their disease is discovered, the rapist is unlikely to commit the crime. But that could be interpreted as, "Hey! New anti-rape protection badge: get AIDS today!"
I apologize if that joke was in poor taste.

Kimtonium wrote:you don't want to encourage rape, but you also don't want to hurt the rapist

I do not want to "not hurt the rapist". I simply do not want to corrupt him any further. I do not want to take a human being who has made a mistake and take him and force him to relive that mistake for five years and four months until that's the only thing he will ever be any good at. Jail does not make better human beings. It does not matter how long you stay there. You will likely not be any better for it.

Kimtonium wrote:5 years and 4 months, for a life that will never be the same again

And the rapist's life will never be the same, either. You have to live with a mistake like that. You will be publicly hated by anyone who knows your past. Of course we have to take responsibility for our mistakes, but what if he was a genuinely nice person who made the mistake of raping someone? His whole life is ruined because of that. Rape ruins two people's lives, but there is the possibility of healing both of them, something that would be impossible if the rapist were to spend the rest of their lives rotting in jail cells.

Kimtonium wrote:Just know that I completely respect your opinion, but I am trying to prove a point, so excuse my harshness!

You haven't said anything mean, don't worry.

Chiasm Chicken,

You have me even more confused than I was before. I know that you aren't trying to protect the rapist, but I mean give me a break. What the hell is this, trying prevent the rapist from reliving his "mistake" over and over again for 5 fucking years and 4 months? I can see that we will probably never see eye to eye on this matter, but I need to at least explain where I am coming from.

In my mind, jail is not a place to make people better, it is a place to put people that no one else wants because they are dangerous. Do you really think I give a shit about the fucking rapist becoming more corrupt? Just in case you did, I don't. Jail isn't a rehab for criminals, I am sorry to break it to you. It's a place for people that, yes did make a mistake, but it must have been a pretty bad one for them to end up in jail. This isn't like when you accidentally step on someone's foot. You can't accidentally become intoxicated, slip into a woman's house, and rape her. I mean come on! Stop living in a fairytale where everyone will get better, sometimes shitty stuff happens, and sometimes the shitty people that do the shitty things deserve a some time in a shitty place!

Have you yet to think of the woman? Here you are talking about this rapist, with no concern of how this would affect her. Let's take a step back and try to walk in the rape victim's shoes. Okay, Chiasm Chicken, let's pretend that you were this woman. You decide that night to take a sleeping pill to get a better nights sleep and go to sleep without thinking anything of it. Then you wake to an intoxicated man raping you. Without any words exchanged, he pulls up his pants and walks out of your house. What do you think you would want to happen to him? Would you think of how he would have to think and relive of the "mistake" of trespassing into your home and raping you? When you would lay in bed at night, and think of your poor rapist stuck in a little cell rotting away? Or, would you say fuck him and leave it at that? With the emotional damage that he most likely left on you, I would think you would be pretty pissed and probably think he deserved every last minute in jail. Hey, if you say hell no, I would totally feel bad for my rapist and think that 5 years and 4 months is enough for everything that he has done to me, than fine you win. But I can almost guarantee that you aren't going to honestly feel bad for your fucking rapist. So, you can put an end to this or you can once again thoroughly confuse me, but it's up to you.

Once, again I apologize for my harshness. I am just trying to prove a point to you. I also apologize for my language, shit fucking happens.

Kimtonium wrote:it [jail] is a place to put people that no one else wants because they are dangerous.

In that case, the sentence should not be five years and four months. It should be forever. You give someone a trial of limited time because you think that they can someday rejoin society. If they can't, they don't get limited time. They stay forever.

Kimtonium wrote:You can't accidentally become intoxicated, slip into a woman's house, and rape her.

I didn't say it was an accident. I said it was a mistake. A mistake as in something really bad happened and it was entirely his fault but he can still learn from it. A mistake as in things can get better.

Kimtonium wrote:Stop living in a fairytale where everyone will get better

What did I ever say to give you this impression? I am an optimist. I believe everyone deserves a second chance. I do not believe that anyone is so corrupt as to never be able to contribute anything positive at all to anyone's live whatsoever. If you are putting someone in for five years and four months, that person is still getting out. If you don't want them to get out, give them a longer sentence. Argue for the death penalty. If this rapist is so bad as to deserve so much longer, then go ahead and do away with his life; it would still be better than spending five years and four months in jail.
If you think this rapist should never be released, say so. Twenty years? He's still getting out. He's still going to commit crimes. He's still going to hurt people. Fifty years? Same thing. Don't argue for a "longer" sentence if you think this person is so bad. Argue for death.

Kimtonium wrote:Have you yet to think of the woman?

Yes. Believe it or not, I do have the ability to think about more than one person at a time.

Kimtonium wrote:What do you think you would want to happen to him?

I would want him to serve some time, but I also would understand that these actions had ruined his life as well as my own. I would not want him to turn sour during those five years and four months and go out and do it to someone else. I would want him to serve enough time to realize and think about what he's done, but not enough to adopt the behaviors of worse criminals. If I was so scarred that I would like this man to never see light again, I would argue either for the death sentence or two life sentences, not five years and four months, and not longer.

Kimtonium wrote:When you would lay in bed at night, and think of your poor rapist stuck in a little cell rotting away?

Yes.

Kimtonium wrote:would you say fuck him and leave it at that?

You seem to think that this is the better option. It is, but it also contradicts all the "emotion baggage" you are arguing for. Saying "fuck him" and leaving it at that would be moving on entirely. It be saying, "Oh yeah, I was raped once, that guy's a dick but I never think about it any more." It would not be reliving the moment and it would not be ruining my life, so please drop this "example" as soon as you understand just how stupid it really is.

Kimtonium wrote:With the emotional damage that he most likely left on you, I would think you would be pretty pissed and probably think he deserved every last minute in jail.

Though I know that what these people have done was horrendous, I am still able to feel terrible for the people who caused these things to happen, because I recognize that they're actually humans and not just monsters sent to make my life hell. It's a little thing I like to call empathy.

I apologize for my rudeness, but I am never going to believe that this person is a "disgusting waste of human life", no matter how despicable his history may be.

Dearest Chiasm Chicken,

I hope that you realize I am debating, not fighting personally. I have taken your response in that way; no other way. Tell me if I get out of hand.

Anyway, back to the debate. I found your response very interesting. And I can tell you have strong feelings of the topic, that I completely respect. But you still left my confused. Maybe not so much confused, just surprised at you response. For example...


If I was so scarred that I would like this man to never see light again, I would argue either for the death sentence or two life sentences, not five years and four months, and not longer.

This just confuses me. Are you saying that it's either 5 years and 4 months sentence or death? Please elaborate.


If you don't want them to get out, give them a longer sentence. Argue for the death penalty. If this rapist is so bad as to deserve so much longer, then go ahead and do away with his life; it would still be better than spending five years and four months in jail.

This just proves my theory of you thinking that prison is worse than death. Is this correct? I am just wondering what you think would be a better punishment. Do you believe more in community service? Also, I would argue for the death penalty. I suppose I must by a pessimist, but I really don't give a shit about rapists and murderers in jail. Sorry. As far as I am concerned, he could die and I wouldn't care. Sorry if that's to harsh for our precious criminals. (Oh, and by the way, don't take this as all criminals.) Also, you say that if a rapist is so bad. What makes a rapist so good as to not take his life?


He's still going to commit crimes. He's still going to hurt people. Fifty years? Same thing.

Then why in the hell do you want him back in society? Is this just you seeing through my eyes? Either way, why would you want him back into society? I get that you think he can make a positive influence on someone's life, but would you want him as your neighbor? Would you want him to walk around your neighborhood?


Yes. Believe it or not, I do have the ability to think about more than one person at a time.

For one, very sassy. Figured I would let you know. But, do you honestly believe that you have the popular opinion? Or, do you think the rape victim would favor my point of view, that this rapist deserves nothing, even life itself?


Kimtonium wrote:
When you would lay in bed at night, and think of your poor rapist stuck in a little cell rotting away?
Yes.

Sorry if I doubt this. I get you are a very caring person, but can you honestly say you care about someone that did such a horrible thing to you? Would you think differently if it was your sister or your mom or you future daughter?


It would not be reliving the moment and it would not be ruining my life, so please drop this "example" as soon as you understand just how stupid it really is.

Stupid? Wow, you have such a colorful vocabulary. I severely doubt that it wouldn't ruin your life. Someone fucking violated you in your own bed! How can this be an insignificant thing? I get that I could of elaborated and I didn't mean it like this. I meant that you would be hurt and pissed. I thoroughly apologize for not explaining what I meant by this.


I would not be arguing for what I am if I had not already experienced things similar to what we have mentioned here. Yet I am still able to feel terrible for the people who caused these things to happen, because I recognize that they're actually humans and not just monsters sent to make my life hell. It's a little thing I like to call empathy.

I apologize for my rudeness, but I am never going to believe that this person is a "disgusting waste of human life", no matter how despicable his history may be.

As far as I am concerned, you have no right to say I have no empathy, for one fucking situation, involving a fucking rapist that I don't give a shit about! I, once again, apologize that I don't care about rapists. And you know what, you don't know me. You don't know if I care about other things and other people. And if you were raped I would feel empathy for you not your rapist piece of shit. I also apologize for voicing my opinion on this fucking disgusting waste of human life that is the center of your empathetic feelings.

Kimtonium wrote:Are you saying that it's either 5 years and 4 months sentence or death? Please elaborate.

From what I understand, you think that the rapist deserves a longer sentence than five years and four months. I think that, according to your own logic, this is a rather pointless argument to make. You seem to think that this rapist should never be on the streets again and should never have a chance of rejoining the civilized world. If this is in fact your opinion, it would make more sense for your to be arguing for the death penalty as opposed to simply a "longer sentence", as the death penalty would permanently put positive prevention on any crimes that criminal would have otherwise committed, instead of just postponing those crimes (and breeding spite in the heart of the rapist, making those crimes more severe), as extended jail time would do, assuming the criminal is incurable. Undoubtedly some criminals cannot be helped with the time and funds we currently have, but this is not the case for many, and it is for those exceptions that I am arguing.

Kimtonium wrote:This just proves my theory of you thinking that prison is worse than death. Is this correct?

Circumstantially, yes, but my feelings regarding this are a bit more complex than that. I believe that all humans, no matter how "evil", can recover and change even if it would take longer than a lifetime. Jail only slows down this process. For some it would provide a good opportunity to reexamine their lives and make some changes, but for most it would simply provide for an excuse to further their resentment towards civilians.
To explain more completely, I would need to know about any sort of afterlife that exists and what it is. If none exists, then, for the individual, jail is better than death; I don't think that anyone is deserving of ceasing to exist. But society—at least, our modern day society—would be better off with an incurable criminal dead instead of taking up space that could be used to punish people who still have the potential to return to society.

Kimtonium wrote:Do you believe more in community service?

Absolutely. Community service is both beneficial to society and gives criminals something to focus on and strive for: a goal, hopefully, to improve life for others by completing this service.

Kimtonium wrote:you say that if a rapist is so bad. What makes a rapist so good as to not take his life?

Forgive me for not being clearer: when I used the phrase "If a rapist is so bad", I was attempting to communicate from your point I view; you believe (from what I've picked up from this conversation) that rapists are bad enough to deserve death.
All it comes down to is potential. I would not argue against the death penalty because I do think it is better for society. I just don't think that long jail times are productive in any way.

Kimtonium wrote:why in the hell do you want him back in society? Is this just you seeing through my eyes? Either way, why would you want him back into society? ... Would you want him to walk around your neighborhood?

I want him back in society because, after learning a lesson, he could do good. I don't think any positive influences on society should be eliminated.
I would certainly be interested in talking to him and understanding what led him to perform such a thing. I've always enjoyed reading and watching interviews with criminals. More often than not, the interviewee is focusing on making it clear that they, too, are human, that they feel regret and pain as clearly as anyone else, and that they are sorry, or at least aware of the destruction they have caused.

Kimtonium wrote:do you honestly believe that you have the popular opinion?

Oh no, I definitely do not have the popular opinion. But it's my opinion, and I am entitled to it, and I'll nurture it and keep it in its own dark little corner and make sure it's safe from all the other opinions out there that might want to change it.

Kimtonium wrote:can you honestly say you care about someone that did such a horrible thing to you? Would you think differently if it was your sister or your mom or you future daughter?

I believe so, though I may never know for certain. It is not that I care for them, but that I pity them: it is in the same sense that whenever I complain about someone to someone else, I feel horribly guilty, because they are still people and I really have no right to be listing out their flaws. I would definitely have a less rapist-sympathetic viewpoint if it had been a relative or friend and not myself who had been raped.

Kimtonium wrote:Stupid? Wow, you have such a colorful vocabulary.

Up yours, you whining potato mold. Reach into the deepest crevices of your mortal soul and seek the luminescence that may be discovered so as to possibly shed some light onto your sense of perception. Stupid.

Kimtonium wrote:How can this be an insignificant thing? I get that I could of elaborated and I didn't mean it like this. I meant that you would be hurt and pissed.

Thank you for clarifying. I interpreted it as being insignificant: normally when I say to myself "fuck him/her/that", it is my last thought concerning them…ever, marking them unimportant in my life.

Kimtonium wrote:You no right to say I have no empathy, for one fucking situation, involving a fucking rapist that I don't give a shit about!

You'll note that I never actually said you had no empathy. It is clear that you have a great deal of it for the victim in question. But I think it would be accurate to say that you have limited empathy—as do I, as do we all. One with unlimited empathy would have both of our points of view and mean them. If either of us had it, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.