And what about the 15 year old high school girl who falls in love with the Quarterback? He takes her out to a movie. He starts getting handsey with her. It's not what she wanted but so as to not scare him away she doesn't stop him. As he paws her he grows more aggressive. Soon he's tugging at her panties and she wants him to stop but he's stronger than she is. How do you protect against that? Tell your daughter she's not allowed to date? Do you think she's not going to sneak out or come up with a story "I'm going over Sara's house for the night". Kids are impulsive. They know all they know. But they have no idea what it is that they don't know. That's how many of them get into trouble - not recognizing the danger.

I need to stop! I'm starting to feel agitated. I wish there was a solution. I know of none.

 

Hi AK,
Thanks for the response, but the Bible does not figure in my conclusions, I am a non-believer, but I do respect the rights of others who choose to do so.

Make the punishment harsh in order deter others from this offence.
E

 

hi JoJo
How on earth can: 'SA ranges from being seen urinating against a tree' fall into the category I posted???

I posted 'committing a sexual crime against any other non-consenting person'

If peeing against a tree is a SA, I guess most of us would be guilty of SA

Have you ever being on a camping holiday in the countryside?

E

 

Make the punishment harsh in order deter others from this offence.

Deterrent works on the sound minded. Those who are of poor mind do not see the potential consequences of their actions at the time of the offense. They only see the thrill they get. No bank robber has ever said "I don't want to go to jail so I'm not going to rob the bank." They rob because they believe they can get away with it. With sex crimes there's a lot that never gets reported. So there are a lot of perps who see very little chance of getting caught. Bribery or threat can effectively silence a victim. The fear of being exposed as someone who was raped keeps many women from ever speaking out. The fear of having to relive the event silences many. And children are even more easily manipulated. Punishment is needed for those we can prove need it. But Uncle Joe - nobody thinks he'd ever harm a child. (names are made up and not intended to reflect on any particular person). It's not till years later the child, now an adult, speaks up about it. As in MY case, I didn't speak up about the BSA until I was in my 60's. My perp has long been dead and buried, and probably never punished for any other BSA victims there may have been.

 

But there ARE more violent acts that can be perpetrated against a child or a woman.

More violent than rape followed by beheading? I think that is violent enough to require maximum punishment.

 

hi JoJo
How on earth can: 'SA ranges from being seen urinating against a tree' fall into the category I posted???

I posted 'committing a sexual crime against any other non-consenting person'

If peeing against a tree is a SA, I guess most of us would be guilty of SA

Have you ever being on a camping holiday in the countryside?

E

Depends on the state. Being seen urinating can be called "Public Exposure". A minor crime but one that can still get you hemmed up. That's why I posted the link in post #38. A distant family member committed a minor infraction (not just urinating on a tree) and was accused of flashing. He served 3 years. Of course we have HIS version of events, but many guilty SA's will likely minimize their acts and responsibility. He may very well tried to encourage someone to "Help" him. I'm leaving it at that.

While "Logic" prevails in such matters, the laws are not always quite so logical. As has already been stated in this thread someone convicted of SA should be executed. I merely pointed out that there are a range of levels of SA that need to be considered. And once again we're off topic. Going back to the original question - is there a way we can engineer something to protect the innocent?

 

More violent than rape followed by beheading?

While I don't mean to minimize rape, your comment focuses on murder. And since I've never experienced being raped (men do get raped too) it's conceivable that death may be a better alternative to having to live with the experience of being raped.

But can we stay on topic? I'd really like to walk away from this thread but for some reason I can't. How can we protect the innocent?

 

A bit about Bangladesh. I have personally known two Bengalis. One was a doctor who is one of the few n the world who knows how to treat I rare condition I suffered from. The other was a compiler engineer (female) who worked on a project I led.

It is a class society split on ethnic / religious lines, with Hindus being the elite and the more numerous Muslims the working class. I have to wonder if the case that brought about this thread is related to that, i.e. perpetrator of the elite class and victim in the lower class?

 

A bit about Bangladesh. I have personally known two Bengalis. One was a doctor who is one of the few n the world who knows how to treat I rare condition I suffered from. The other was a compiler engineer (female) who worked on a project I led.

It is a class society split on ethnic / religious lines, with Hindus being the elite and the more numerous Muslims the working class. I have to wonder if the case that brought about this thread is related to that, i.e. perpetrator of the elite class and victim in the lower class?

Bangladesh is a Muslim majority country ( 91.0% to 91.4% muslims) . Hindus are only 8% of the population. Working class consists of both Hindus and Muslims. Religion has nothing to do with it. Elite class consists of Politicians, business tycoons, government bureaucrats and media personalities, this class has Muslims, Hindus and others. In the particular crime case that I brought to this thread, both the victim and perpetrators were Muslims. They all belonged to lower-middle class. The accused man was a drug addict. Actually, the law and order situation is horrific. Corruption plays a big negative role in every sector.

 

Don't discount the deterrent effect.

Serious fools are seldom deterred by rules and penalties. That has been my observation.
That is why I use locks, to keep both thieves and fools from having an easy time doing whatever.

 

Serious fools are seldom deterred by rules and penalties. That has been my observation.

"Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line!"

Sorry. That line immediately popped into my mind when I read your post.

 

Recently I am often seeing an Youtube add that grabbed my attention. It's a robotic puppy for kids. I'm wondering if an updated version can achieve what we're discussing. What if the Robotic puppy/dog bites if it see a perpetrator just like a real dog does?

 

Sometime in the future all humans will be micro chipped like pets so they can be tracked if they go missing and generally kept tabs on.

 

Recently I am often seeing an Youtube add that grabbed my attention. It's a robotic puppy for kids. I'm wondering if an updated version can achieve what we're discussing. What if the Robotic puppy/dog bites if it see a perpetrator just like a real dog does?

Sure, go for it. Be sure to get really good liability insurance.

 

Recently I am often seeing an Youtube add that grabbed my attention. It's a robotic puppy for kids. I'm wondering if an updated version can achieve what we're discussing. What if the Robotic puppy/dog bites if it see a perpetrator just like a real dog does?

Consider that mechanical capabilities mustbe controlled by some form of "intelligence" that must be provided "somehow." So the much greater challenge is providing that "intelligence", and interfacing it with whatever sensors the remote controlled device has available. As is common, the usefullness of the controlled device is limited by the capability and sensors of the control logic. As aways, any "smart machine" is composed of both "smart" and "Machine", which are not the same entity. Without the attached "intelligence" it is only a robot!
Certainly a robot can be very useful, and they have been for many years. But automation and actual intelligence are quite different! The automated robot follows a programmed script, subject to intended limitations, (for safety). Thatis quite different.

 

When I was 13 I dated a girl. Her mother had a Chihuahua. That dog wouldn't let me NEAR her (the girl). We'd lock the dog in a bathroom or go elsewhere to accomplish our childish attempts at understanding our sexuality. In response to the notion of keeping a mechanical dog nearby is not practical. Kids ride school busses, attend classes, go to church - etc. They can't always have a guard dog near by - Live or Electronic.

I understand your desire to protect kids. It's noble. Unfortunately it's not easy. Kids can slip away from your sight in an instant. My firstborn disappeared in a Sears store. I literally blinked long enough to look at a tool and POOF! He disappeared. Panicked, I headed for the nearest door. No sign of him or anyone else. Another shopper called out to me - "Are you looking for a little boy? He's right here." And he was safe. But it could have been different.

Since dogs are generally not allowed in stores, a mechanical dog MIGHT be allowed in. But if it bites - the store is liable, as well as the owner of the machine. It's like if someone breaks into your house to steal something. You shoot them in the leg to stop them and YOU go to jail, and the burglar takes you to court and now owns your house. In order to avoid losing everything you have to take the burglar's life. Can you? I can't. Nothing I have is worth killing someone for. Come after a child, grandchild, wife - that I can see taking drastic measures. But then I'd have to live with that. You might say "I can live with that." But can you ? ? ?

 

For "fairly non-lethal self defense, I recommend a larger-bore firearm shooting blanks. At close range the mizzle flash will cause burns that are painful enough to discourage most folks. So if the attacker runs, good. If not, the second round, or possibly the third, might not be a blank. Generaly, the first shot is adequate to convey the message.

 

For "fairly non-lethal self defense, I recommend a larger-bore firearm shooting blanks. At close range the mizzle flash will cause burns that are painful enough to discourage most folks. So if the attacker runs, good. If not, the second round, or possibly the third, might not be a blank. Generaly, the first shot is adequate to convey the message.

Just what we need — eight year olds carrying lethal weapons. What could possibly go wrong?

 

Recently I am often seeing an Youtube add that grabbed my attention. It's a robotic puppy for kids. I'm wondering if an updated version can achieve what we're discussing. What if the Robotic puppy/dog bites if it see a perpetrator just like a real dog does?

Pie-in-the-sky. You are still faced with the exact same basic problem you had before. How is your robotic dog going to identify "a perpetrator"? Saying that we'll use AI only works in the movies.

 

Pie-in-the-sky. You are still faced with the exact same basic problem you had before. How is your robotic dog going to identify "a perpetrator"? Saying that we'll use AI only works in the movies.

The one that I saw in the youtube video has artificial intelligence. Not only it looks like a real puppy, it is quite more advanced than what I imagined. It has 'responsive movement'. Now, coming to your perpetrator question, what if the puppy is trained to identify dangerous situation like someone slapping, beating, touching inappropriately, trying to assault the kid etc.? What if it can detect overall violent behaviour?