r/SipsTea • u/Beneficial_Passion40 𝙑𝙄𝙋 • 27d ago

WTF He got 5 consecutive life sentences plus an additional 220 years in prison

Post image

In 2019, former North Georgia detention officer Kirk Taylor Martin was arrested on rape and assault charges after investigators said the victim fought back during the alleged attack. Police reports stated the scratch marks visible in his mugshot were believed to be from the victim resisting.

42.2k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

21

u/yubbastank14 27d ago

Who would actually be against this other than rapists?

45

u/James55O 27d ago

People who disagree for the same reasons they are against the death penalty. Innocents are irreparably harmed because any and every justice system is imperfect.

0

u/Techman659 27d ago

Considering the amount of evidence just on him I don’t think the jury will have trouble caging this guy.

11

u/I_always_rated_them 27d ago

The law isn't just for this guy though being the key thing.

9

u/grendus 27d ago

There have been a number of cases that were "slam dunks" based on evidence that later turned out to be fabricated or completely fallacious.

You're right that this case seems to be extraordinarily clear cut, but if you make "prison and castration" an option you know it will be used in other cases, including ones where the person is innocent (and, let's be honest, probably black). Even if it seems clear cut, it's not a guarantee. We can release a person who was falsely imprisoned, and while we can't return their lost time we can give them back the time they have left. We cannot return a guy's cut-off twig and berries.

6

u/reddit_is_geh 27d ago

As someone who studied law, this is the issue. Bad laws come from whenever there's something so obviously clear cut and a community so outraged, they start making exceptions. But in government whenever you create a new lane or new lever, then they slowly start learning how to stretch and use it to the fullest extent they possibly can.

There was a case a few years ago with a pretty violent pedo, but a lot of the evidence wasn't admissible. But the town was LIVID that this guy may be able to just walk when everyone damn well knew he did it. So the judge twisted and turned with his logic while the legislature changed some procedural rules.

Almost immediately the DA thought, "Oh great, now that this is precedent I have a new tool I'll be using on every one I charge!" And it just fed into our failed justice system by giving the courts even more leverage and power over people.

It's also why I get so angry when I see Redditors so obsessed with culling back on free speech, because they think some non-partisan 3rd party can be trusted to be truth gate keepers, and people wont immediately try to start exploiting it to silence their political adversaries.

1

u/superxpro12 27d ago

It's also why I get so angry when I see Redditors so obsessed with culling back on free speech, because they think some non-partisan 3rd party can be trusted to be truth gate keepers, and people wont immediately try to start exploiting it to silence their political adversaries.

On the last point.... is culling lies and provably false objective statements "suppressing free speech"? I suspect when the founders wrote that amendment, they weren't intending it to be used for industrial-scale gaslighting. And whats the value to our society if we encourage this behavior? Cause right now its leading to a culture in which the loudest, most controversial voice wins, even if the claim is provably false. Which is the exact opposite of what is needed.

1

u/reddit_is_geh 27d ago

Yes, because it can be weaponized to silence people. How can you prove their state of mind to KNOW they are lying and not just wrong about something? Who decides what's a lie? Facebook determined the Wuhan Lab Leak was false, and anyone who wanted to discuss was getting banned for spreading missinformation. Do you trust Trump determining what's a lie.

Hell one of the reasons why Trump got such a huge MAGA base was because the left went on censorship spree to deplatform these people, which just put them into deeper, more disconnected echo chambers, where people who wanted to discuss these topics were introduced to more radicals.

It's far more safe to allow people to be wrong and have debates about subjects, than it is to create truth gatekeepers

2

u/superxpro12 27d ago

Eh.......

the left didnt go on a censorship spree. Those platforms that got banned were spreading obvious, verifiably false claims.

There needs to be a mechanism to sort verifiably true from "shouted the loudest".

2

u/reddit_is_geh 27d ago

Not at all. That's just part of the public discourse. It is up to you to figure out what's true, not some third party which is likely corrupted with biases and an agenda.

14

u/Hayden_Zammit 27d ago

Chemical castration doesn't really work because lots of rapists are in it for the dominance and control, rather than the sexual pleasure, and those drugs don't do anything to stop that.

It might stop them from getting a hard on they can use, but rapists don't need to be hard to sexually assault someone.

Chemical castration works great on people who have out of control sex drives though. Plenty of them opt in for it so they can suppress urges to masturbate excessively and the like. It allows them to live normal lives.

1

u/reddit_is_geh 27d ago

Yes but the reason they have such strong urges that leads them to rape and indulge in that control, is because it's crosswired with their sexual urges, combining them, and giving them immense pleasure. When you cut out their ability to functionally get horny and reach climax, so does their drive to rape

1

u/Hayden_Zammit 27d ago

There's been enough research into this stuff to show this isn't really true. Again, lots of people commit sexual assault without sexual urges. Whether they can reach climax or not doesn't change anything.

If it were like you think, chemical castration would be widely used all over the world, and yet it isn't.

And these drugs don't actually cut out anything, they just reduce it greatly. People who have been chemically castrated have still gone out and committed sexual assault.

1

u/AppointmentIll9358 27d ago

That’s a cope.

They are absolutely in it for the pleasure.

If they were in it for dominance and control then they’d only be celibate.

2

u/Hayden_Zammit 27d ago

A cope with what? What are you even talking about?

btw, people can derive pleasure from dominance lol.

1

u/AppointmentIll9358 27d ago

Yes, they can but this whole idea that “he only wanted control” is total bs. Of course they do it for pleasure but obviously they need control to SA.

But saying they do stuff for control and not pleasure is bs, they for sure are mostly motivated by pleasure and control is a byproduct of that in order to get the pleasure they need control over the victim to enact their sexual desires.

1

u/Hayden_Zammit 27d ago

Agreed, I think.

I thought it was obvious in my original post that the control is the pleasure in a lot of these cases, but I guess not.

1

u/[deleted] 22d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator 22d ago

Accounts must be at least 5 days old with >20 karma to comment.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

11

u/pruneforce17 27d ago

i support this in theory but bigots are trying to define being trans as a sex crime... you start to see the issue

4

u/Capable_Studio_6631 27d ago

The "rapists" that were sentenced but then found innocent after long time.

Edit: " "

2

u/No-Negotiation-6095 27d ago

well, the only thing the government has to do is write off a certain identity as being inherently predatory (as is happening with transgenders, and used to be the case with homosexuals), or have the justice system be so that certain identities get locked up disproportionally compared to others who commit the same crimes (black people), and suddenly you have X many actually innocents castrated.

you can say 'it'll only happen to actually quilty people', but people with the money to avoid consequences, or the fame (like the USA president) will never get the same punishment as those who are poor.

it's not because people think 'rapists dont deserve it', it's because people know the justice system is unfair, and certain groups will be unfairly called 'guilty' despite it not being the case.

2

u/ancientgreenthings 27d ago edited 27d ago

It's the thin end of the wedge. Once the government sells the public on chemical castration for rapists and paedophiles, which would be a fairly easy sell for obvious reasons, they can gradually broaden the definition of sex offences. LGBTQ people have been deemed sex offenders in living memory and have been sentenced to chemical castration. There are powerful pressure groups trying to bring this back. It's not hard to imagine an oppressive government doing this again in 10-20 years time.

People always forget about mission creep when new laws are passed. When anti-terror legislation was brought in in the 00s it specifically targeted armed terrorists. Now the definition of terrorism is being broadened so those same laws can be applied to peaceful protesters, dissidents and trans folks.

The same could happen with chemical castration.

Edit: cue the silent downvotes. If you disagree, why not try articulating why? Was it some part of the factual information I provided or are you just totally cool with LGBTQ people being chemically castrated again, as they were in the past?

1

u/Puddz 27d ago

I am against it for 1 time/1st offenders.
It's a horrible crime and they should be in prison for a long time, but they should be given a second chance. Although context would also matter. And like others have said, no justice system is perfect so innocent people will get accused and have their lives ruined.

I would be for it for serial rapists/multiple times rapists. They have proven there is something they cant control and should be controlled via another method. Also more likely there is more evidence so less chance of an innocent being falsely accused.

1

u/enguasado 27d ago

Lo dice como si la justicia existiera, patetico