Monday, December 25, 2023

Victims Don't Get Rights to Prevent Society Giving Second Chances to Changed for the Good People

 WARNING: NSFW content is ahead. I advise this to be an 18+ only section.

Addition Note: This is in no way against victims not wanting to be around their perpetrators within places the victim has a right to control. A perpetrator or ex-perpetrator has no right to contact their victim without consent regardless of how changed they may be.

I am not a lawyer.


I've been personally looking up the Christine Weston Chandler (Chris Chan as the popular name) situation where he ended up being guilty of a serious crime involving his mother. The person seems to be very mentally sick and delusional, and I find it even myself a bit sad that he is back out on the streets already with no evidence of proper treatment. It's a shame the US justice system doesn't offer any proper required treatment for these people and I wish that could change for the good.

What do I think in this situational? What should happen to Chris? I really hope he gets the proper help he needs, however I also wish society would still stop making her worse and now since the person has committed something considered "unforgivable" by some, many more people are going and/or has already started to think that intentionally making her life worse is justice because apparently, they think that justice should be about traditional punishment rather than actual rehabilitation, and yet these people wonder why people like Chris Chan continues being crazy...

I'm already seeing a lot of perverted people arguing in favor of things that do not really help Chris Chan become better, but makes her likely worse, and apparently there is this discriminating revenge-desiring idea that if a victim of such perpetrator doesn't forgive then somehow other people lose the right to forgive despite no law recognizing this. At first maybe I was looking at this wrong and maybe was referring to people who think they can forgive replace the victim (but can still "forgive" separately) but after something, I'm starting to think this attitude is in fact, just another "victims should get their revenge" attitude that does nothing but disrespects rights that actually do exist, which is yet, another issue.

From Twitter User GleamyD (or Gleamy Dreams ~ )

After someone contacted an 'amendment' tweet that completely conflicts with a fictional character believing in redemption for everyone, the person ended up arguing that somehow a victim has a right to stop other people from believing in second chances for changed for the good people and argues that somehow an ex-predator moving on with people that the victim doesn't own is a "violation" of the victim's rights. The reason the person believes this is partly due to the delusion that a victim owns the public when the victim doesn't exactly own the public. The person also argued that they can't be fixed despite evidence conflicting such an idea.

This is quite frankly why I'm not expecting people like Chris Chan to ever improve soon because apparently there are freaks who thinks it's alright to vigilante harass changed for the good people off if the victim wants it and I feel that Chris is aware of the discriminating idea that redemption is forbidden at all times for people like her. The entire reason why US prisons are so broken is likely due to the obsession with retribution (a revenge type of justice), and this is sadly partly due to the obsession with victims wanting to get even, but all this did was make many criminals worse, not to mention how hypocritical it was already. Many people has criticized this, despite some victim's wishes, because of how hypocritical it was and how it makes many criminals worse. Despite what the victim wants, it's proven to create more victims and many people has considered abolishing it.

It appears a lot of people are once again making up perverted ideas, not even recognize by law (another reason why society shouldn't be 'courts' of justice), arguing in favor of revenge based ideas making up rights that absolutely doesn't exist to take away actual rights that do (i.e. the right to exist, the right to be around the right people if any, moving on lawfully, being happy). It's extremely a form of perversion and is entirely no different than arguing in favor of public executions because some victims wants it. It's just another issue in society that does nothing but makes many predators worse. I am frankly getting really sick and tired of it. Injustice is one thing I really hate and the stupidity of society like this is what made more criminals re-offend. As a believer of psychology and understands the many consequences of it, it's clear that this perverted attitude is as responsible as broken prison systems causing offenders to re-offend.

In a good society or good community, we don't "punish", we fix and then welcome them back into society after the proper treatment. Normality is something that these people need to be brought back to and that includes the ability to socialize lawfully. Take this away, then these people are less likely to get help, less likely to apologize, less likely to do certain amends and is likely to cause more family issues. Society seriously needs to be responsible better enough by understanding this and actually stop contributing to the problem. Social death increases crime. We need to stop believing in delusions that do nothing but make justice much more harder to achieve.    (Under "Why don't they work?", in forth point.)

In part of the third one I think: “If our goal is to end sexual offending, we need to invest in prevention, hold people accountable, support survivors, and ensure that people with past convictions can reenter society successfully.” — William Buhl, J.J. Prescott and Miriam Aukerman, Detroit Free Press"


Addressing Certain Arguments

I also want to make a different section here as an attempt to be clearer and add some addition criticism.

"Would you still say the same thing if the victim was in a real limited public place (online chat room or real life place) with the predator?"

That really depends on the owner of the place. I would personally prefer a small local furcon to not allow an ex-perpetrator if the victim is currently in it and the victim complains but this still really depends on what the owner as it's not what the victim owns.

"People like Chris Chan need to leave the internet forever because otherwise it somehow increases a risky situation and causes fear from many other victims!"

Chris Chan violated his mother outside the internet. She simply leaving the internet and being banned from it is not going to decrease the risk. It would be great if she simply left the internet to get proper treatment during certain time, despite that, her never coming back while still being outside prison isn't going to change the risk itself much. I don't know why some people seem to think a person leaving the internet forever with respect of 'moving on' is really going to magically fix the issue.

"The victim doesn't need to welcome the perpetrator back in the victim's life."

I AGREE WITH THIS. However that only works in certain situations such as the victim's own personal spaces such as a home or otherwise personal area(s), this does not include the perpetrators life that the perpetrator actually does own, including her own social space, her own home, her family, that kind of stuff. A victim certainly has every right to not let the person back into their home and/or contact them.

"But a stranger giving a second chance to 'perpetrators' that got enough treatment to come back into society violates the victim's rights because 'reasons'!"

A victim doesn't have a right to chase after the perpetrator lawfully moving on in their own life away from the victim. They also do not have a right to go after the perpetrator lawfully moving on with their own family, social friends, or existing society in general. A victim doesn't have to 'forgive' supposedly but that doesn't prevent other people from still giving a second chance in their own life (including with the perpetrator) that the victim does not own.

"But a victim may feel less safe, so their rights are violated!"

Having personal, yet understandable feelings like that does not change the fact that one doesn't get a right to enforce vigilante forcing ideas against rights that do exist. I should also point out that when dealing with a predator like Chris Chan, we need to understand that there may be a specific risk just by being outside of prison alone. Internet or not really doesn't change the risk at this point judging by the fact that she committed the offense outside the internet. She's in society either way, so what else is there? Prison? Well that won't happen likely unless she does something else that makes her go there, which wouldn't be good.

"Well, I still argue that people like her shouldn't be allowed to live a fulfilling life in society."

Then don't be surprised that they refuse to get help, refuse to give disclosure (properly) to their victim(s), and stuff like that.

"Well, it's only their fault for doing that, not us."

This is one of the most delusional tone-death arguments I've ever seen. This is the "la la la, I'm not responsible for this!" argument this big society likes to believe in and it's despicable. This is clearly no different than arguing that US prisons are not responsible for partly why the recidivism rate is very high. Psychology is real, and there is no evidence that free will exists. Even then, the likelihood pattern is there and many people are different.

"Well, some criminals didn't re-offend despite treated bad, so that proves my point!"

No, that's not really how it works. This is about likelihood at least, and it's been very clear that bad behavior such as US prison treatment does likely increase offending rate. When one country got rid of a similar US style prison, the rate noticeably went down. I don't even really need to explain this do I? There is research by research that society refusing to let these people have a good pathway to come back to, does increase more problems. This has been studied, realistically theorized, and very likely proven. It's real.


These type of predators are clearly broken individuals that need to be fixed/cured. We need to fairly make sure that happens and if society continues to make up more "excuses" that do nothing but discriminate against human beings, then they continued to being part of the problem. One big important thing that needs to be promoted is the separation of human beings and actions. And I firmly believe if society refuses to actually do the right thing, then I side with ex-predators keeping their name in secret if it's the only way to have a family, and/or socialize lawfully and be happy. This doesn't stop the victim from healing in their own life.

I think one thing that inspired me to make this article is due to an experience I've had with another person. This person was accused with doing certain things, but turned out to be likely false. During the time, many including myself believed the person was guilty, the person ended up attempting suicide (likely due to banishment from certain communities), and this really pissed me off at the idea that the person can't come back ever. One person argued that if improved, they should come back with better watching but one delusional freak replied saying something that means "Nope, 'consequences'" and sadly got some more upvotes.

Let's normalize criticizing this part of society with good words. I'm pretty sick of injustice.

Everyone can properly be redeemed. End of story.

Article might update...