Seriously! People on here are crazy, to think she was right!
Trolololol.
Niallbrooke, i think you missed a massive point. It was multiple rape AND ATTEMPTED MURDER. Did you not get the part of the sheriff cocking the shotgun about to dispose of the evidence of their awful awful deed.
So what is she to do? She cannot trust the authorities (as the sheriff was corrupt, possibly he had friends in high places). She also knows fine well they want her dead.
Could she also just leave, and let them get away with what they have done, be allowed to do the same again to some other woman?
So after this life changing event (her multiple rapes and attempted murder), you could say she has been given a new perspective on life. That to regain her own life she has to have a clear conscious, that these men cannot do again to another person what they did to her, and also on some personal level make them suffer for what they did (even the playing field).
Now some compare the things she did to the men as way harsher than what the men did to her? But who are any of you to judge what it feels like to be raped multiple times, and then be so very close to being killed and buried in the woods.
Now i don't think that the sheriffs wife, child and unborn child deserve to die, they are innocents in this story.
And in regard to the sheriff going to jail, and the shame he would feel etc, i'm sorry but that would be a PATHETIC punishment for rape. Have u any idea how short a sentence rapists serve. They do some time, and then back to life for them, whilst the victim is changed forever more and struggles to pick up the pieces of their lives.
AS far as i'm concerned, rape like in this context should mean jail for life, no parole. But even THEN i feel as tho they got off lightly. I'm not for capital punishment at all, but the justice system is a joke when atrocities like this are committed. Taking away the criminals freedom seems not enough, i'm not saying they should be tortured in jail, but perhaps they should be made to work and all of their earnings go to the victim for the rest of their lives (or summin or other).
It's not that she was right, it's that she was completely destroyed by their sustained, vicious attack. They destroyed who she was. She wanted to make them feel as terrified and hopeless as they made her feel.
It's kind of understandable, and within the context of the movie, I am on her side. In reality would I be in favour of this? No way.
come on over tonight I will rape the *beep* out of you, you'll be *beep* blood for the month then you can tell me about how great rape is, *beep* idiot.
share[deleted]
*beep* em.. kill em all.
My punishment for rapists: Cut their dicks off, and then dump acid on the wound. Then cover them in gasoline and set them on fire..
#yolo
I agree with this thought. It's extreme, but if they would televise rapists and murderers being killed in a horrible fashion I think this would cut down on most of the crime. Thought would then be involved before stepping too far over the line. Sure, some would still make mistakes, but the numbers for crimes would drop for sure.
shareThat's just nonsense. There isn't a single study, nor a single example to support that. Public executions existed, yet deterred nobody.
United States has capital punishment for heinous crimes yet it does not deter anyone from committing horrible acts of violence in the US. In certain Shari'a law countries theft is punishable by amputation, but people persist to steal.
Saudi Arabia publicly flogs and beheads people, yet there are still people engaged in violent crimes punishable by beheadings.
It has been proven over and over and over again that death and torture DO NOT deter violence.
So your thought is a man with no genitals will have the ability to rape by way of penetration with his body?
And while some people don't value their lives and will commit crimes, a good portion won't. How many people would stop speeding if they were locked in a stockade over night where people could throw garbage at them?
You sound like someone who doesn't believe in punishment because of some liberal pc agenda.
Did you not read and/or understand my response correctly?
You spoke of televised executions and punishment as a deterrent to violent crime, to which I've replied that it has been proven that those things DO NOT deter crime. I've even given some examples to explain my claim.
Now you're speaking of a man without genitals not being able to rape, baselessly assuming that's my point, which has nothing absolutely to do with my reply, nor have I given any indication of such further nonsense.
And actually, not all rapes are done with genitals. There have been numerous aggravated rapes that were perpetrated, where men and women were being raped with objects inserted into their orifices.
If a person (man or a woman) is going to rape someone they don't need phallus in order to do that. In the movie this is demonstrated as the protagonist actually rapes sheriff at the end with his own shotgun.
Also, my views come from an academic, theoretical and research perspective as I'm an MS in Criminology.
If you're interested in learning why public executions were abolished, I urge you to read up on it.
Equally, you'll probably find many examples of why we've moved away from tribal revenge type 'justice' to the one we have now. All major schools of western jurisprudence agree that threat of cruel and unusual punishment does not, has not and will not deter crime.
So looking at this statistic people on these boards believe that 1.25 million people deserve to be killed, or even tortured to death?
If they didn't want to get tortured to death, they shouldn't have gone out and raped someone.
C whut I did thar?
If you didn't c whut I did thar, replace "and raped someone" with "wearing sexy clothes", "and drunk too much", "and walked home alone" or any other victim-blaming excuses rapists, their families/friends or even the authorities use sometimes.
That's the reality of a survivor reporting a rape. "She/He had it coming because she/he dressed sexy/announced his/her availability/acted irresponsibly". Rape is the only crime where it's up to the survivor to prove that they didn't bring the crime upon themselves in some way. Scenarios where a rapist is asked "why did you force sex on that person who didn't want you to" or "WTF is wrong with you, you subhuman monster, the world is better of without you in it" are vanishingly rare.
This movie was a revenge fantasy. Key word: fantasy. The scenarios presented in movies are over the top and torture porn-ish, but some survivors have probably fantasized about giving their abusers the justice they deserved but were too good to carry out, and that many community members were reluctant to dish out because the accused was such a pillar of the community or had rich parents or threw a football real good (see: Roethlisberger, Ben) or was such a damn "nice guy" or whatever. Unfortunately, that's probably the most justice many survivors will ever get: a revenge fantasy. When violent rapists are punished to the full extent that they deserve and when survivors are no longer being called sluts and teases will be the day when revenge porn films will stop being made.
If I haven't made my point, please Google "Cleveland, TX gang rape". You'll see plenty of quotes about how the 11-YEAR-OLD VICTIM was asking for it because she dressed older than she was. An 11-year-old girl.
Well said, Dick. ::applause::
share[deleted]
In my opinion she deserved to be raped after what she did.
What an utter, *beep* imbecile you are.
http://www.last.fm/user/DeleriumGirl
Dafuq? If you really believe that someone deserves to be sexually violated for any reason, please off yourself. Lean into the strike zone and take one for the team, because you don't have the basic human decency required to live among the rest of us.
shareThey started it.
She finished it.
Good for her.
I'll point out the advertisements for the original movie said something like: "This woman just killed, burned, and mutilated five men.....AND NO JURY IN AMERICA WOULD CONVICT HER."
The point being that after what they did to her, she had the right to punish them, and a jury of her peers would understand that.
"My girlfriend sucked 37 d*cks!"
"In a row?"
They started it.
She finished it.
Good for her.
I'll point out the advertisements for the original movie said something like: "This woman just killed, burned, and mutilated five men.....AND NO JURY IN AMERICA WOULD CONVICT HER."
The point being that after what they did to her, she had the right to punish them, and a jury of her peers would understand that.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Reverse the genders. If it were 5 women who beat and raped a man, would he have the right to punish the women who did it to him? Would a jury of his peers understand?
We're mad at Mike. Do you know who we're mad at? Mike? You dang right!
Reverse the genders. If it were 5 women who beat and raped a man, would he have the right to punish the women who did it to him? Would a jury of his peers understand?
Yes, he would be justified in punishing.
And any jury who has a problem with that should be hanged.
NO ONE deserves to be raped. Not one single person. And you are scum to say that anyone deserves it. What did she do, in your mind, to deserve that? Ride in a canoe by herself?
shareI don't believe in the death penalty but, I don't blame the girl in the movie for doing what she did. If someone is a victim of a violent crime and they're driven to vengeance, fine, can't say I blame them. I just don't think it's for the government to exact revenge in the form of murder. Killing someone is murder no matter which way you spin it. Whether or not it's justified under the given circumstances is up for debate.
share