A Colorado woman who had a ‘paranoia’ about child molesters has been sentenced to life in prison after she shot a wanted sex offender and dumped his remains in a drainage ditch. Deka Simmons, 38, will spend the rest of her life behind bars without the possibility of parole over the murder of 48-year-old Daxcimo Ceja in […]
A week or even a year after some trauma I would give her benefit of the doubt. This dude banged a 17 yo who may have been of legal age a quarter century ago …seems a little excessive. Dude was almost 50 and killed for something he did when he was 25. That’s wild.
Most of Lemmy came from Reddit. “17” immediately brings everyone out of the woodwork to talk about how that is totally legal and you are just a prude and what not. Which ignores the whole “rape” thing (hard to tell if it is “just” statutory based on the article, but “assault” is mentioned).
I’m not going to say that violent murder was justified for a lot of reasons. But this is the kind of shit that gets all the self reporters to come out of the woodwork and start citing Romeo and Juliet laws and play the “how low can you go” game of consent.
Simmons (the woman who murdered the guy) was not the one he had the relationship with. Her trauma (as described in the article) was that she believed her stepfather abused her daughter. As far as the article covers, she had no involvement with the guy she shot and dismembered at all. He had a warrant for failing to register as a sex offender; Simmons apparently saw that and, because of her “disdain for pedophiles”, murdered him.
Whatever your feelings on the guy, we simply can’t condone extrajudicial killings. I know it feels good sometimes to think “Yeah, that guy deserved it!”, and in some cases, maybe they do, but it doesn’t matter - it’s still vigilantism.
I’d really like to see improvements in how law enforcement deals with sexual assault and rape - it is absolutely awful what a lot of jurisdictions currently put reporters through before failing to deliver a speedy trial or any trial at all… but vigilantism is a really dangerous path.
On the one hand we have a shitty option, on the other hand we have a shittier option. I’d clarify that I very much understand where you’re coming from and it’s a noble goal to envision a society free from sexual assault but embracing vigilantism is also a really bad idea.
This is why it’s so important that we actually prosecute these crimes and in a timely manner–to maintain faith that justice can be served. Sadly, with the Supreme Court as it is, faith in the justice system is continuing to be at an all time low.
The problem is a “justice” system that is fundamentally broken.
For the sake of simplicity of language I will assume a female victim and a male rapist but understand that is far from always the case.
A woman is raped. She does everything “right”. She gets a rape kit immediately and reports everything she can about the rapist. Let’s say the cops actually find them.
The “defense” is that the rapist’s lawyers run a character assassination. Because the only evidence she has is that they had sex. But hey, she is a slut who wanted it rough. And a gold digger. And the lawyers are going to make sure to ask EVERYONE she knows about her sexual history to make sure they don’t miss any important evidence.
And understand that “predator” is the term for a reason. These predators very much pick their prey. So maybe she has a drug problem. Hell, maybe she HAD a drug problem or sought psychiatric help ten years ago when going through a rough patch. Now she is unstable and untrustworthy
Congrats, her reputation is completely destroyed and odds are the defendant is found not guilty. And all of that assumes this was even needed and the judge didn’t just say “Well, boys will be boys” and brush it away.
This is why rape victims don’t come forward. Because it mostly just means that their abuser will continue to torture them for months or years after.
Do I think vigilante justice is justice? No. It is far too easy to get the wrong person or send the wrong message.
But justice is already fucking far from a thing under these circumstances and it is hard for me to really feel bad when a predator gets got.
The former 17 year old is not who murdered him. It was a stranger.
He was murdered for “failure to register”, which meant he already faced justice. He was murdered by a stranger because she disagreed with the justice system
A week or even a year after some trauma I would give her benefit of the doubt. This dude banged a 17 yo who may have been of legal age a quarter century ago …seems a little excessive. Dude was almost 50 and killed for something he did when he was 25. That’s wild.
So a year is the maximum timeline for someone to get over being taken advantage of by a sexual predator? Did I get that right?
Most of Lemmy came from Reddit. “17” immediately brings everyone out of the woodwork to talk about how that is totally legal and you are just a prude and what not. Which ignores the whole “rape” thing (hard to tell if it is “just” statutory based on the article, but “assault” is mentioned).
I’m not going to say that violent murder was justified for a lot of reasons. But this is the kind of shit that gets all the self reporters to come out of the woodwork and start citing Romeo and Juliet laws and play the “how low can you go” game of consent.
Simmons (the woman who murdered the guy) was not the one he had the relationship with. Her trauma (as described in the article) was that she believed her stepfather abused her daughter. As far as the article covers, she had no involvement with the guy she shot and dismembered at all. He had a warrant for failing to register as a sex offender; Simmons apparently saw that and, because of her “disdain for pedophiles”, murdered him.
Whatever your feelings on the guy, we simply can’t condone extrajudicial killings. I know it feels good sometimes to think “Yeah, that guy deserved it!”, and in some cases, maybe they do, but it doesn’t matter - it’s still vigilantism.
Do you say “Batman should not be hunting down criminals because they have no beef with him”?
Also, I love your use of words “had the relationship with”, shouldn’t it be “sexually preyed on”?
0 years is the maximum timeline for vigilantism.
I would agree with you if sexual assault and rape weren’t crimes that people regularly get away with.
I’d really like to see improvements in how law enforcement deals with sexual assault and rape - it is absolutely awful what a lot of jurisdictions currently put reporters through before failing to deliver a speedy trial or any trial at all… but vigilantism is a really dangerous path.
And allowing sexual assault and predators running rampant isn’t a dangerous path?
On the one hand we have a shitty option, on the other hand we have a shittier option. I’d clarify that I very much understand where you’re coming from and it’s a noble goal to envision a society free from sexual assault but embracing vigilantism is also a really bad idea.
This is why it’s so important that we actually prosecute these crimes and in a timely manner–to maintain faith that justice can be served. Sadly, with the Supreme Court as it is, faith in the justice system is continuing to be at an all time low.
Prosecution isn’t the problem.
The problem is a “justice” system that is fundamentally broken.
For the sake of simplicity of language I will assume a female victim and a male rapist but understand that is far from always the case.
A woman is raped. She does everything “right”. She gets a rape kit immediately and reports everything she can about the rapist. Let’s say the cops actually find them.
The “defense” is that the rapist’s lawyers run a character assassination. Because the only evidence she has is that they had sex. But hey, she is a slut who wanted it rough. And a gold digger. And the lawyers are going to make sure to ask EVERYONE she knows about her sexual history to make sure they don’t miss any important evidence.
And understand that “predator” is the term for a reason. These predators very much pick their prey. So maybe she has a drug problem. Hell, maybe she HAD a drug problem or sought psychiatric help ten years ago when going through a rough patch. Now she is unstable and untrustworthy
Congrats, her reputation is completely destroyed and odds are the defendant is found not guilty. And all of that assumes this was even needed and the judge didn’t just say “Well, boys will be boys” and brush it away.
This is why rape victims don’t come forward. Because it mostly just means that their abuser will continue to torture them for months or years after.
Do I think vigilante justice is justice? No. It is far too easy to get the wrong person or send the wrong message.
But justice is already fucking far from a thing under these circumstances and it is hard for me to really feel bad when a predator gets got.
Hence my comment.
Colorado age of consent is 17…
In Denmark the age of consent is 15!
I’m not sure which is better, but I do remember that as a 15 year old, I thought it was OK.
I think Norway has a system that regards age difference, and I think that’s probably as close to a good standard as we can come.
Not for rape.
He didn’t rape her, they had a relationship.
The former 17 year old is not who murdered him. It was a stranger.
He was murdered for “failure to register”, which meant he already faced justice. He was murdered by a stranger because she disagreed with the justice system