Austrian Man Hides and rapes Daughter for 23 years.

Originally Posted by zeldask8r

I just read the story, and I really have to wonder, why the girl being confined didn't escape? I mean, honestly, If I was locked in a cellar and was given the resources, I would get out at any means necisary. If she was down there for 23 years, odds are she could have found a way out. When the father came down to rape her, she could have killed him. there was a TV down there, she could have broken the screen and stabbed him to death with one of the glass shards. I really find this unbelievable.

It sounds like a condition called Stockholm Syndrome.

Stockholm Syndrome is used to describe a phenomenon where victims or captives come to identify with their captor or abuser, and, as means of defense, grow sympathetic to them.

I suppose it's the same question that runs through people's heads when victims of domestic abuse insist on staying with their partners, although this is of course, a more extreme case.

You find examples of Stockholm syndrome in people who have undergone tremendous physical or psychological abuse, from children who have suffered at the hands of their parents to concentration camp survivors. When you're in these kinds of situations, it's impossible to achieve a sense of perspective; your environment is so restricted that it's impossible to look for any comparative standards. The victim or captive may identify with their captor out of fear at first, and eventually, the smallest acts of kindness will be magnified and blown out of all proportion.

Often, it starts out from the captive believing that if they are cooperative and helpful, then their captor will not hurt them. In doing so, they often foster states of dependency, and an incapacity for dynamic thought or behaviour. Similarly, there can be a resentment towards possible rescuers because their actions have the potential to jeopardise their safety.

The victimiser can be seen as omnipotent, and even benevolent in that they don't kill the victim. They grow to appreciate these perceived acts of kindness, and deny their own anger and resentment - which would not enable their survival.

Many people who come out of hostage situations refuse to help prosecute their captors, and even campaign for their defense trials!

But moral governing law is not based on the morality of just one person, but a concensus of people. When are we ever truly judged based on our own morals? There are a number of things that the U.S. permits by law that I would hold to be immoral.

hey i didn't call for his torture, but there is no point in wasting time or resources on the scum. he needs to die. although- maybe if he could be locked up and raped all the time, it'd be "eye for an eye".

Originally Posted by Margar

hey i didn't call for his torture, but there is no point in wasting time or resources on the scum. he needs to die. although- maybe if he could be locked up and raped all the time, it'd be "eye for an eye".

I agree. I personally have questions about the death penalty, but in this case, I can't think of a better person who deserves it more. Not only is there the physical, mental and emotional suffering of the daughter involved after being imprisoned/raped/used as a baby factory for 24 years, but the kids/grandkids will NEVER be able to escape the stigma of their ordeal and pedigree. It is they that I feel the most for, despite the horrific ordeal of the woman who was raped constantly over her decades of imprisonment underneath her own house. There is simply too much physical, mental and emotional suffering of so many people to simply just dismiss it all away with a snap of one's fingers for the sake of playing the moral high ground card.

And no, I fully disagree with the argument that believing people like that guy being worthy of the death penalty somehow equates you to their level and makes you 'just as bad as they are'. No, just no.

Originally Posted by Big Bro Davidia

But moral governing law is not based on the morality of just one person, but a concensus of people. When are we ever truly judged based on our own morals? There are a number of things that the U.S. permits by law that I would hold to be immoral.

Yes, power is with people, and the people decide what is the law.

Well regardless, we don't know if he believed he was doing wrong or not. I am just stating that if he thought he was doing no wrong, then 15 years for doing nothing wrong in his own mind is a bit unfair.

Originally Posted by GarmGarf

Yes, power is with people, and the people decide what is the law.

Well regardless, we don't know if he believed he was doing wrong or not. I am just stating that if he thought he was doing no wrong, then 15 years for doing nothing wrong in his own mind is a bit unfair.

I grant you that he may not have believed that what he was doing was wrong. But if he knew that the law of his land declared such a thing wrong (and there's no way one can seriously doubt that he didn't know it was against the law), then he must have acted with the knowledge that if the law enforcement caught him, he would have to suffer the consequences of said law. It's not like he was unaware that the state would punish him for this.

Originally Posted by Rew

I grant you that he may not have believed that what he was doing was wrong. But if he knew that the law of his land declared such a thing wrong (and there's no way one can seriously doubt that he didn't know it was against the law), then he must have acted with the knowledge that if the law enforcement caught him, he would have to suffer the consequences of said law. It's not like he was unaware that the state would punish him for this.

I think it's fairly safe to say that he knew that he was doing wrong, and that he was breaking the law in doing so.

People who are genuinely unaware of their wrong doing are usually pretty blatant about it, and are obvious in their breaking of social/legal norms.

On the other hand, this man put a lot of energy into hiding his actions which suggests that he understood the implications of what he was doing.

Originally Posted by Vega

I think it's fairly safe to say that he knew that he was doing wrong, and that he was breaking the law in doing so.

People who are genuinely unaware of their wrong doing are usually pretty blatant about it, and are obvious in their breaking of social/legal norms.

On the other hand, this man put a lot of energy into hiding his actions which suggests that he understood the implications of what he was doing.

Exactly, he knew what he was doing, but kept rationalizing the situations, giving him a way out.

It is almost sad. really

Originally Posted by Vega

I think it's fairly safe to say that he knew that he was doing wrong, and that he was breaking the law in doing so.

People who are genuinely unaware of their wrong doing are usually pretty blatant about it, and are obvious in their breaking of social/legal norms.

On the other hand, this man put a lot of energy into hiding his actions which suggests that he understood the implications of what he was doing.

Oh, I agree with you, that the man knew what he was doing was wrong. I was just taking GG's assertion for granted that he didn't believe he was in the wrong for the sake of argument.

It's people like this that make police states attractive. And that's a scary thought.

Well if he knew that he was doing wrong, then my point is nullified. I never said that he didn't know, I just said "if he didn't know..."

Originally Posted by GarmGarf

Well if he knew that he was doing wrong, then my point is nullified. I never said that he didn't know, I just said "if he didn't know..."

It was an important point that you brought up GarmGarf, and all we can do is speculate given what we know.

Do you agree that if he put so much effort into hiding his actions, then he must have known that he was doing wrong?

Originally Posted by Vega

It was an important point that you brought up GarmGarf, and all we can do is speculate given what we know.

Do you agree that if he put so much effort into hiding his actions, then he must have known that he was doing wrong?

He could have done all the hiding so that his wife wouldn't know that he committed adultery. So yes, he knew something about what he was doing was wrong, but he could have believed it was only the adultery which was wrong, and all else was fine. He could believe that since he made the daughter, she is his property, and he can do what he likes with her.

this news had made me smile
a sick smile
because i thought the person telling me was telling me a joke.........
:/

Originally Posted by GarmGarf

He could have done all the hiding so that his wife wouldn't know that he committed adultery. So yes, he knew something about what he was doing was wrong, but he could have believed it was only the adultery which was wrong, and all else was fine. He could believe that since he made the daughter, she is his property, and he can do what he likes with her.

He can believe that all he likes as far as I'm concerned. I'm all for relative morality. However, that wo