Re: Still no pity
@Still No Pity
>guy who admitted to two separate health professionals that he gets a sexual kick out of extreme violence and then tries to convince the court that he was misunderstood.
Back then, he was trying to get help, not self-incriminate.
>Where are the 'boundaries'? Having heard his admission, what if he acted out his fantasies and killed someone,? No amount of pre-agreed boundaries or safewords would help the submissive then would it?
There are *no* boundaries. If your contingency happens, we eat it. Concrete infringement of rights cannot be legitimized based on a vague assessment of risk, undertaken by a person or agency that undertakes no risk and pays no price for his infringement.
Even if we must permit such things in some form, we need to stop allowing it as a "power" (where the act of issuing the order starts off being right except in cases of abuse as assessed by a uselessly tight standard) and start treating it as a "justification" (where the act is prima facie criminal because it does infringe on people's rights without full due process of law, but may be justified). For example:
The order will be issued by a police officer (P) with no intervention by court (b/c they just rubber stamp). There should be no Act empowering it, thus it is by default Abuse/Excess of Authority (crime). But it will be considered justified (thus allowed to stand) if:
a) It does not exceed proportionality (risk & severity).
b) Recognizing its infringement, the State recompenses V (order recipient) with a percentage of his income proportionate to the restriction (risk is not taken into account, only the severity of restriction). Even a narrow restraining order concerning non-approach of 1 individual should be worth 10% of his income, and general restrictive regimes like the one here should be worth 100%.
c) Because it is a *justification*, not a *power*, the individual issuing orders must acknowledge his own personal responsibility as an infringer and contribute to the State compensation with a portion of his own income, up to 50%. Thus, a single officer can order 1 very restrictive regime or 10 minimal regimes in his name, or anything in between.
d) If unforeseen circumstances increasing the actual severity, the State must provide extra compensation.
Failure to achieve all four conditions, even marginally, will mean collapse of justification defense and incarceration for P.
If there are still Sexual Risk Orders under this kind of scheme, I might consider them justified.