2 eyes for an eye

Growing up in a city rife with motherless souls reveals some harsh realities.

Women and young girls being raped, regarded as an inferior species, tortured, beaten, controlled by being kept financially dependent, disallowed from leaving the house, making friends, or being educated (so that certain illiterate SOBs could feel more masculine and have some sanity), and deprived of the freedom to simply grow as living beings, with cases of violence and rapes skyrocketing, is what I have seen and read with regularity.

To Western world dwellers, their worst idea of what life for a woman could look like in a remote city in India is still far from reality.

It would be fair to say that noticing how damaging these experiences could be for someone has led me to form an extreme conviction that certain crimes forfeit the right to exist, and rape is one of them.

Education, alone, can solve many issues I mentioned, but rape makes only capital punishment and execution on gallows seem proportionally justifiable.

And since the punishment is so extreme, TikTok trials aren't effective for forming an opinion.

Crimes can be categorized in various ways. Some acts are radioactive enough that, even when unproven, they create immediate buzz and mass reactions, with the most dormant, rational-ignorance-preaching experts ready to cast judgements. Those experts think they can influence the narrative in such cases.

However, virality is not evidence. An allegation of rape, because of the serious harm of the allegation, should be treated with more caution rather than less.

Society is divided into 3 camps today. The first camp prefers to straight-on doxx the accused of the heinous atrocity, without knowing much or waiting for evidence, to cast their judgement. Their primary source is feminist No.14 @feminist_doll on TikTok, who holds a PhD in Patriarchy Studies.

The second group is likely to be sceptical about the credibility of victims and, naturally, false allegations.

They are the reason women are uncomfortable reporting sexual assault cases. It causes a sense of embarrassment, distrust in the system, and the ensuing fear that they would be treated with raised eyebrows. This 150 IQ camp is not aware that the statistics on false allegations are consistently low and are inflated with 'no crime' cases (unable to obtain enough evidence to be proven in court). The evidence also does not support public anxiety that untrue reporting is widespread.

The smallest camp comprises of rational living beings who adhere to their impulse to backlash, but do not preemptively dismiss anything the complainant says as dishonest. They wait for due process, but still partially lean on the women's side because of what is actually being alleged.

But caution shouldn't be replaced with squeamishness. Once proven, punishment should be something harsher than twelve years of prison lasagna. And serious investigation doesn't mean that only 3.4% of recorded rapes end in a charge during a year, and the median wait for even that is 438 days.

Stop hiring incompetent and overworked people who are spending more time investigating the complainant and are not able to perform their fu*king jobs.

The modern altruism-driven institutions place outsized importance on how the accusation might hurt the accused, not the victim.

India gives you a picture of why crowds, ultimately, throw flowers at cops for shooting rapists in broad daylight. It's because the judiciary wouldn't ever get over with their procedural BS, and if it did, it would still not proportionally deliver equitable judgment.

It's not surprising. Because when due process is fragile, trials keep piling up, and appeals breed appeals like rabbits in a meth lab, the woman's trust in courts starts declining.

And, in the end, the government emerges from behind a mountain of stamped paper to announce that Justice Has Run Its Course™, only to announce a lenient punishment.

The Weberian state fails to keep its contract. And that's why vigilant crowds salute and shower cops with flowers.

The institutions' moral language of 'rehabilitation', 'offender', 'reintegration into society', 'reentry plan', 'first-time offender', 'restorative justice' conceals the guilty's heinous actions and the indignation they deserve.

Camus was troubled by the idea of the death penalty. He accused the state of hiding execution beneath polite words, and explained why execution caused nausea by writing countless pages giving the condemned man all the sympathy. However, Camus forgot and hid the victims. Don't understand what stopped him from painting vivid pictures of the details of the crimes, just like he did of the guillotine's brutality. Or maybe they were so grotesque that they were better off hidden.

Capital punishment doesn't "besmirch our society"; it erases the besmirching that the tragedy causes.

Killing someone's soul and expecting them to live with it is worse than the death penalty.

This is not being sadistic or bloodthirsty. Humans still run on H₂O and O₂. And even Dracula would reject a motherless animal's haemoglobin-less blood.