Who's the worse abusive father?

[General Zod]

The most common type does, and even those that do not involve the rapist sticking his dick where it doesn't belong, their body still treats it as sexual stimulii (aka gives him a boner).

That was to address the remark about how can they rape people without getting an erection, not whether or not they were the most common type. As it's fairly obvious how they can rape someone without an erection.

[Nova Andromeda]

--Actually, it goes a long way toward stopping them from committing sex crimes by largely removing their desire for sex. That is what the doctors say when one is castrated due to prostate cancer at least (the lack of desire part). However, one need not rely upon it when punishing the offender. The point is Father #1 doesn't seem like a violent criminal in manner that Father #2 is since he never beat his daughter. This makes him much less of a general threat.
-BTW, you might want to support your claim with some evidence next time....

The vast majority of studies such as this one performed on sex crimes indicate the primary motivation was for power or dominance over the individual, rather than sex itself. Which suggests removing someone's genitals will have zero impact on their desire to commit such a crime.

--How about a better resource. That site deals mostly with chemical castration (not actual castration), it attacks its constitutionality of chemical castration, and it lumps physically violent sex crimes with those that aren't. I don't see how this helps your position that a nonphysically violent sex offender who is physically castrated cannot function in society under supervision (such as the ankle bracelets and thearapy). In fact, a quick glance at pubmed results show something entirely different; here are two citations:
The impact of surgical castration on sexual recidivism risk among sexually violent predatory offenders:
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2005;33(1):16-36.

Testosterone, sexual offense recidivism, and treatment effect among adult male sex offenders:
Sex Abuse. 2005 Apr;17(2):171-81. Related Articles, Links

[Darth Wong]

This is the toughie.

If the SOB isn't doing all of this out of some kind of sick gratification and genuinely thinks that he's 'teaching her a lesson', then he might not be beyond rehabilitation.
Perhaps a long prison sentence coupled with mandatory psych therapy may be appropriate. Or death, if the prospect of rehab is nil.

On the other hand, the sexual abuser probably knows that his behaviour is wrong, and is doing it anyway because of some sick compulsion. The violent cruel father actually believes that he's doing the right thing, which indicates a truly fucked-up mentality and a total inability to empathize with the suffering of others.

Obviously, the easiest route is to say "kill them both", but while both are truly repulsive I tend to lean slightly toward condemning the violent abuser more, because there's a cruelty evident in his behaviour while the first guy is more sick than cruel.

[Netko]

Discounting the obvious no-brainer option of "kill them both", I have to say that the violent abuser should get to go to jail/be shot/whatever. As has already been mentioned, while sexual abuse is extreamly bad, permanent disfigurment accompanied by similar psyhological damage is worse. At least thats what I would choose if I was ever in a position to choose between those two horrid options.

If we take a look at the situation when the abuse ends (say they turn 18 and run away or something), the poor daughter of abuser #1 would, (un)fortunatly, at least have a better chance of finding someone good and normal who could show her that not all people are monsters and help her get over it as much as possible. The girl in option #2, sadly, would have a much smaller chance of that, realisticly, because of her disfigurement.

[Coyote]

Like others, I voted "kill both" but at the same time incline towards the sexual abuser. I am not a psychologist but I will try to explain what I think is my rationale.

The sexual abuser will leave psychological problems in that kid's head that will not be seen by others-- for the rest of her life, a casual remark or callous "joke" wil bring it all up again and no one will know. The stigma of being different and wondering "did I bring this on myself somehow?" could cause further psychologival withdrawal.

A physical abuse victim has obvious scars to point to and focus on-- the world can see it and realize "that's wrong". Many people still believe that if they can't see the physical effects, then "it's all in your head-- get over it! snap out of it!"

In the long run, I am of the opinion that our psyches come up with far worse things when allowed to percolate.

[wolveraptor]

If this physical abuse is bad enough to leave scars for the rest of her fucking life, that's going to have major psychological implications, and it means he hit her fucking hard. Psychotherapy would have a lot more difficulty dealing with a problem that so obviously manifests itself, and in a way that won't go away without plastic surgery.

As to what to do with the father, that depends on the motives for this behavior. In any case, he should be severely penalized, and if possible, rehabilitated.

[Glocksman]

On the other hand, the sexual abuser probably knows that his behaviour is wrong, and is doing it anyway because of some sick compulsion. The violent cruel father actually believes that he's doing the right thing, which indicates a truly fucked-up mentality and a total inability to empathize with the suffering of others.

True, but if the violent father can be persuaded that he's 'disciplining' his daughter wrong, then he's not beyond the possiblity of rehabilitation.
Whereas the track record of rehabbing sexual offenders in cases like this is close to nil.

I wouldn't hold my breath on the odds of rehabbing the violent offender, but I lean towards offering him 'leniency' (if you call a long prison sentence coupled with mandatory therapy leniency) if he can be rehabbed.
Whereas I'd just hang the sexual offender by his offending private parts.

I guess it all comes down to whether or not the violent father had 'good' motivations but was acting on them in this sick way, or got off on the violence itself.

'Good intentions' equals therapy, prison sentence and a chance to live.
Self-gratification equals a death sentence.

[Uraniun235]

Obviously, the easiest route is to say "kill them both", but while both are truly repulsive I tend to lean slightly toward condemning the violent abuser more, because there's a cruelty evident in his behaviour while the first guy is more sick than cruel.

While he might be doing it for his jollies, I must point out that there are plenty of sexual crimes committed less for sexual gratification and more for the power trip. The sexual abuser could be just as cruel in his motives as the violent abuser.

[Tinkerbell]

Violent. Hands down, no explanation. The violent father.

[Cal Wright]

Kinda lame, it's a kill em both situation. Take option three out leave it with a one or the other.


As tough as it is, I'd hang the sex offender. Reasoning being that the violent abuser may be physically and mentally damaging thier child, there's still a chance that the child can come out stronger for this. (Think being able to take a hit like a boxer later in life). The sexual abuser is taking away something from the child that she can never get back. Plus, she'll never have a healthy relationship afterwards.

[Mr. T]

Initially I was leaning towards the sexual abuser. But after reading the arguments I changed my mind to the violent abuser as I agree that the acts he commited were more evil in nature. Although it's a close call, and if given the chance I'd kill both in a heartbeat.

[Zero]

I would still go for the sexual abuser, simply because that's a horrific perversion of an act that's supposed to involve both love and fun. Twisting such an act to instead be pain in the mind of the victim is unforgivable to me. I've met people who have gotten over both kinds of abuse, however, so for the sake of things, I will admit that given good opportunity, I'd kill both of the worthless fuckers.

[Rye]

They both require ridiculously long sentences, perhaps life/death for the sex offender, since abusive sexual behaviour and the accompanying psychological problems are nigh impossible to rehabilitate out.

Though both of these abusers undoubtedly left both mental and physical scars on their victims, I suspect the mental scars will be more difficult to overcome from the sexual abuse. She'd be very lucky if she could ever trust anyone ever again.

[Nova Andromeda]

... life/death for the sex offender, since abusive sexual behaviour and the accompanying psychological problems are nigh impossible to rehabilitate out.

--What the fuck is wrong with you people? You keep spouting this crap about sex offenders being impossible to rehabilitate and say nothing about the problems of rehabilitating physically violent offenders despite the fact that you have provided nothing useful to support your position!
-Why don't you fucking read my previous post, the associated links to pubmed, and find something that refutes those studies before spouting more unsupported opinions!

I suspect the mental scars will be more difficult to overcome from the sexual abuse. She'd be very lucky if she could ever trust anyone ever again.

-BTW, who the fuck are you to say a victim of prolonged and severe physical violence is worse off than someone who suffered prolonged sexual abuse without associted physical violence?!? I suspect your opinions add up to precisely jack shit so why don't you dig up some evidence to support such a claim or is that just to difficult for you?

[Darth Wong]

I, too, would like to hear some evidence from these people who keep insisting that the psychological damage caused by sexual abuse is worse than the psychological damage caused by being physically brutalized and tortured, or that violent child abusers are more easily rehabilitated. I've seen this claim repeated many times in this thread, without a shred of evidence.

[Darth Servo]

Mathmatically, this is quite simple.

Physical damage + psychological damage > psychological damage alone.

[Death from the Sea]

Kil both, but I think sexual abuse is worse. Again, can't quite explain.

I am in total agreement with you. I think the sexual abuse is slightly worse, mainly because it is sexual in nature.

But both are horrid an should be punished in a terrible and gruesome manner.

[Mrs Kendall]

I voted violent is worse cause it happens more than the sexual in the description and if he's hitting her hard enough to leave marks he's hitting really hard. I agree with the many people who say killing them won't help a thing. They need to be punished or rehabilitated, and it needs to be published in all newspapers and on news channels to humiliate them as an extra mode of punishment. The last suggestion would also help with people in public knowing who they should look out for when they get outta jail.

Not that I'm totally against killing them both but I would prefer to have them suffer in jail for years while waiting to be put on death row. But that case would only fill up prisons even more. Of course we could always build another jail like Alkatraz and stick them all there together.

[Surlethe]

Violent seems, logically, the worse; sexual seems, emotionally, the worse.

In any case, both deserve to die slowly and with much pain and agony.

The sexual abuser needs to die in a method involving rats, heated metal, sex toys, horses, whips, and fire.

The physical abuser needs to die in a manner involving fire, molten copper, plutonium, whips, tongs, and blackjacks.

[Kuroneko]

This seems to be a rather simple question. There are very negative effects caused by the latter father that are not caused by the former, but not vice versa. Since it is natural to evalutate one's performance as father as the effect one has on one's children, it is rather obvious that the latter is worse.

[Kuroneko]

Reading through the thread, it seems that this is a highly contentious issue. It should be empasized, however, that the question was not about who is more morally culpable or more abominable a person, but who makes a worse father. Which is a worse act ethically is a separate and much more hazy question--utilitarianism evaluates the latter father as being more immoral, while Kantian ethics seems to give that title to the former.

[Vicious]

I picked the violent abuser for many of the above mentioned reasons, but I'd kill them both in a heartbeat. Both of them should be castrated, as neither deserve to have and raise children.

[Death from the Sea]

I, too, would like to hear some evidence from these people who keep insisting that the psychological damage caused by sexual abuse is worse than the psychological damage caused by being physically brutalized and tortured, or that violent child abusers are more easily rehabilitated. I've seen this claim repeated many times in this thread, without a shred of evidence.

from what I learned in the Police Academy about violent physical abusers, they were 1) abused by their parents as a child, so they grew up thinking it is the way things are 2) have issues with controlling their emotions like rage and anger, which leads them to "lose control" 3)many of them are heavy drinkers and when they get drunk they get mean and want to fight, so they beat on those that are around(like family members)

The types/categories of rapists or sexual abusers we were given are
opportunistic - sadistic - angry - powerful

the opportunistic mainly is your child molestors/pedophiles, they rape or sexually abuse kids when the opportunity presents itself(hence the category name)

in the breakdown of pedophiles there are two categories
regressed and preferential
regressed pedophiles are opportunistic
preferential pedophiles actually prefer having sex with children to adults or can only be aroused in the presence of a child. truely disturbed.

now none of this really proves which one is worse, but it might give you a little better understanding of why. even though the why is never a good enough reason.

also it should be noted that this is a highly subjective topic. I may think getting a beatdown is better than being raped, while someone else may think getting raped is better than being beatdown. If I had to choose between the two, I would take the asskicking.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

Mathmatically, this is quite simple.

Physical damage + psychological damage > psychological damage alone.

Umm, logically fallacious. You assumed the Psychological Damage on both sides to have similar values.

[Pick]

also it should be noted that this is a highly subjective topic. I may think getting a beatdown is better than being raped, while someone else may think getting raped is better than being beatdown. If I had to choose between the two, I would take the asskicking.

I would agree with this statement, as well. The damage that will be incurred will depend on the child, as well as many other factors in the child's life. Even assuming that the only thing that is different is the father, the other variables could have an effect on the degree of damage done to the child, and hence how I'd view the situation.

If, for instance, the girl were highly religious, being violated regularly might have a different mental effect than if she were not aware or in consideration of a divine mandate that considers it a hellworthy tresspass.

Also, if I recall, a few months ago there was a story of a nine-year-old girl who was raped by her father who strangled herself to death with a telephone cord. Hence severe trauma and violence can still make themselves clearly manifest as a result of sexual abuse.

Again, as someone who has suffered neither of these things, I could not form an opinion based on personal experience. However, like Death from the Sea, I believe I would take the severe personal injury before sexual abuse.