Is life in prison/the death penalty too harsh for rape?



Page 4 of 4 [ 58 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Page:

blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 7:00 pm
Posts: 1890

Sun Dec 04, 2011 10:56 pm

godoftruemercy wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Violent rape or statutory rape?

ruveyn


Rape is always rape, whether or not "violence" takes place. So people don't use the term "violent rape," because it promotes the idea that you have to be physically overwhelmed or extremely injured to have been raped.

Statutory rape is a weird one, though. I guess a thorough case-by-case evaluation would be needed.


I think it's unrealistic to consider all forms of unwanted sex to weigh the same on the balance of justice.

We had a guy out here who would wait for unaccompanied female joggers on a mountain trail and jump them, violently raping them. He admitted as much in court. I say kill him. He's just an unruly dog that needs to be put down.

A wealthy man who is married to a woman who no longer loves him but is dependent on him financially, who insists on (but does not force) sex is an as*hole who deserves to be shunned by polite society but it's unclear whether you could really say a crime had been committed in the legal sense.

There are many shades of gray between these two characters. I think it's right for the law to recognize and clarify differences between individual crimes in sentencing guidelines.

But some people should just never be on the streets again. Unfortunately execution in the USA is a fairly expensive proposition, with life in prison generally the cheaper option for the state. I'm sure the endless appeals play a part in that, but the real costs of the execution itself - and insuring the execution - are expensive as well. Warehousing people who can't behave in society is relatively cheap. Especially if we stop locking up nonviolent drug offenders.



godoftruemercy
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 7:00 pm
Posts: 298

Mon Dec 05, 2011 3:10 am

blauSamstag wrote:
godoftruemercy wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Violent rape or statutory rape?

ruveyn


Rape is always rape, whether or not "violence" takes place. So people don't use the term "violent rape," because it promotes the idea that you have to be physically overwhelmed or extremely injured to have been raped.

Statutory rape is a weird one, though. I guess a thorough case-by-case evaluation would be needed.


I think it's unrealistic to consider all forms of unwanted sex to weigh the same on the balance of justice.

We had a guy out here who would wait for unaccompanied female joggers on a mountain trail and jump them, violently raping them. He admitted as much in court. I say kill him. He's just an unruly dog that needs to be put down.

A wealthy man who is married to a woman who no longer loves him but is dependent on him financially, who insists on (but does not force) sex is an as*hole who deserves to be shunned by polite society but it's unclear whether you could really say a crime had been committed in the legal sense.

There are many shades of gray between these two characters. I think it's right for the law to recognize and clarify differences between individual crimes in sentencing guidelines.

But some people should just never be on the streets again. Unfortunately execution in the USA is a fairly expensive proposition, with life in prison generally the cheaper option for the state. I'm sure the endless appeals play a part in that, but the real costs of the execution itself - and insuring the execution - are expensive as well. Warehousing people who can't behave in society is relatively cheap. Especially if we stop locking up nonviolent drug offenders.


Unfortunately, rape happens to be one of those things with a very clear cut definition. If someone does not consent or cannot consent, it is rape. Your latter example, I believe, is coercion, which some feminist thinkers think might belong in the category of sexual assault. Here's an essay on the topic of those gray areas-trigger warning, though, and big time. This might be a good topic for another thread.

http://www.racialicious.com/2008/12/21/ ... -epidemic/

Really, I don't understand why rapists get 3-5 or probation in some cases and people go in for possession at all. What's the point of having a prison system if you can't keep all of the people with rampant uncontrolled paraphilias in it?



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 7:00 pm
Posts: 7616

Mon Dec 05, 2011 3:34 am

I support long prison sentences and/or testosterone inhibition, but not the death penalty - mainly b/c I don't accept the death penalty in general. There are some crimes that are so heinous that they deserve the death penalty, like torturing someone to death, but where there's even a shred of a doubt, there's a chance that the state is executing an innocent person. States shouldn't be in the business of doing that. And, as someone already mentioned, it costs too much anyway.



Beauty_pact
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 7:00 pm
Posts: 1357
Location: Svíþjoð

Mon Dec 05, 2011 6:26 am

LKL wrote:
I support long prison sentences and/or testosterone inhibition, but not the death penalty - mainly b/c I don't accept the death penalty in general. There are some crimes that are so heinous that they deserve the death penalty, like torturing someone to death, but where there's even a shred of a doubt, there's a chance that the state is executing an innocent person. States shouldn't be in the business of doing that. And, as someone already mentioned, it costs too much anyway.


Many who are raped are mentally tortured to death, when they take their lives, later, as a result from what was done to them. Does that mean that you'd agree to the death penalty for rapists, in the event of that happening? They did torture someone/some to death, after all.

Some systems of death penalty only cost so much because they are ineffectively constructed. I do agree that it'd be horrible if someone innocent would be put to death, however, but then again, many innocents are currently in jail, all over the world, getting frequently raped, and many people actually seem to find that acceptable, and even funny, amazingly. I'd much rather be put to death than raped in jail, personally.

Just for the record, again, my imaginary torture system would only be for people that you can be sure were guilty. However, I suppose it would also be sort of pointless, if it wasn't known about... retribution is good, but merely that is just not good enough... there should be a positive, preventative result from it, too. But making it public might not be very good, either; it probably could mess up society in new ways, even if it hypothetically would lead to less rape. I guess maybe the best solution to it all indeed would be if the human species just was entirely wiped out from an asteroid impact. The little good with humanity is completely overshadowed by all the bad... even if one never should forget about the good. It's a losing battle, though... history clearly tells that you can forget about hope for humanity. Sorry, I'm rambling. =_=



techstepgenr8tion
SomeRandomGuy
SomeRandomGuy

User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 7:00 pm
Posts: 15680
Location: Eating over the sink.

Mon Dec 05, 2011 8:11 am

Beauty_pact wrote:
LKL wrote:
I support long prison sentences and/or testosterone inhibition, but not the death penalty - mainly b/c I don't accept the death penalty in general. There are some crimes that are so heinous that they deserve the death penalty, like torturing someone to death, but where there's even a shred of a doubt, there's a chance that the state is executing an innocent person. States shouldn't be in the business of doing that. And, as someone already mentioned, it costs too much anyway.


Many who are raped are mentally tortured to death, when they take their lives, later, as a result from what was done to them. Does that mean that you'd agree to the death penalty for rapists, in the event of that happening? They did torture someone/some to death, after all.

Under this kind of outlook abusive parents and school bullies should also get the death penalty. You have to be really careful how much you want to extend the analogy of psychological suffering and PTSD amounting to torture.



Burnbridge
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 7:00 pm
Posts: 971
Location: Columbus, Ohio

Mon Dec 05, 2011 8:38 am

godoftruemercy wrote:
Unfortunately, rape happens to be one of those things with a very clear cut definition. If someone does not consent or cannot consent, it is rape. Your latter example, I believe, is coercion, which some feminist thinkers think might belong in the category of sexual assault.


Nope. Legally in the US the only distinction between rape and sexual assault is that the first involves "penetration" and the latter does not. Insufficient consent¹ or false consent² given under duress, if followed by penetration, is rape. If followed by touching an external body part (including external genitalia, arms, cheeks, etc) is sexual assault.

-
¹. Such as body language, a look in someone's eyes, or no positive "yes" answer
². Such as when a person lies about their STD status, etc


_________________
No dx yet ... AS=171/200,NT=13/200 ... EQ=9/SQ=128 ... AQ=39 ... MB=IntJ


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 7:00 pm
Posts: 31560
Location: New Jersey

Mon Dec 05, 2011 10:18 am

godoftruemercy wrote:

Rape is always rape, whether or not "violence" takes place. So people don't use the term "violent rape," because it promotes the idea that you have to be physically overwhelmed or extremely injured to have been raped.


Apparently you do not know what "statutory rape" means. Under the laws in some states consenting sexual intercourse with a person who is below the legal age minimum for consenting to sexual intercouse is legally defined as rape. So you are saying that having consenting sex with a girl one day before her sixteenth birthday is the same awful horrible crime as having consenting sex with the same girl one day after her sixteenth birthday. Oh how dreadful!

When I was a kid we used to have the saying: "Sixteen will get you twenty"

ruveyn



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:00 pm
Posts: 29155
Location: Lancashire, UK

Mon Dec 05, 2011 10:32 am

ruveyn wrote:
Apparently you do not know what "statutory rape" means.


Indeed; in the UK, underage sex is often not prosecuted depending on circumstances.



godoftruemercy
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 7:00 pm
Posts: 298

Mon Dec 05, 2011 1:28 pm

ruveyn wrote:
godoftruemercy wrote:

Rape is always rape, whether or not "violence" takes place. So people don't use the term "violent rape," because it promotes the idea that you have to be physically overwhelmed or extremely injured to have been raped.


Apparently you do not know what "statutory rape" means. Under the laws in some states consenting sexual intercourse with a person who is below the legal age minimum for consenting to sexual intercouse is legally defined as rape. So you are saying that having consenting sex with a girl one day before her sixteenth birthday is the same awful horrible crime as having consenting sex with the same girl one day after her sixteenth birthday. Oh how dreadful!

When I was a kid we used to have the saying: "Sixteen will get you twenty"

ruveyn


Yeah, I was talking about statutory rape laws, which are weird, often varied, and need to be way more case-based. So I agree with you. In NY the official age of consent is 17, but if you're up to four years older than a 16-year old, sex is considered consensual. Personally, I think it's a good system-what you want to be avoiding with a statutory rape law is authority figures/older people in general pressuring/coercing/deceiving children into sex. I don't know if we're an exception. Also, in the state where I live I'm pretty sure you can have statutory sexual assault and statutory rape.

Quote:
Nope. Legally in the US the only distinction between rape and sexual assault is that the first involves "penetration" and the latter does not. Insufficient consent¹ or false consent² given under duress, if followed by penetration, is rape. If followed by touching an external body part (including external genitalia, arms, cheeks, etc) is sexual assault.

-
¹. Such as body language, a look in someone's eyes, or no positive "yes" answer
². Such as when a person lies about their STD status, etc


Ooh, I meant sexual assault as an umbrella term for rape, legal sexual assault, and all the fun "not-rape"-type exploitative acts that aren't illegal. Danged autism!



Burnbridge
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 7:00 pm
Posts: 971
Location: Columbus, Ohio

Mon Dec 05, 2011 1:31 pm

godoftruemercy wrote:
Ooh, I meant sexual assault as an umbrella term for rape, legal sexual assault, and all the fun "not-rape"-type exploitative acts that aren't illegal. Danged autism!


I think "intimate violence" is perhaps the umbrella term you were looking for?


_________________
No dx yet ... AS=171/200,NT=13/200 ... EQ=9/SQ=128 ... AQ=39 ... MB=IntJ


godoftruemercy
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 7:00 pm
Posts: 298

Mon Dec 05, 2011 1:44 pm

Burnbridge wrote:
godoftruemercy wrote:
Ooh, I meant sexual assault as an umbrella term for rape, legal sexual assault, and all the fun "not-rape"-type exploitative acts that aren't illegal. Danged autism!


I think "intimate violence" is perhaps the umbrella term you were looking for?


That'll do it! Thanks!



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 7:00 pm
Posts: 7616

Mon Dec 05, 2011 4:50 pm

Beauty_pact wrote:
LKL wrote:
I support long prison sentences and/or testosterone inhibition, but not the death penalty - mainly b/c I don't accept the death penalty in general. There are some crimes that are so heinous that they deserve the death penalty, like torturing someone to death, but where there's even a shred of a doubt, there's a chance that the state is executing an innocent person. States shouldn't be in the business of doing that. And, as someone already mentioned, it costs too much anyway.


Many who are raped are mentally tortured to death, when they take their lives, later, as a result from what was done to them. Does that mean that you'd agree to the death penalty for rapists, in the event of that happening? They did torture someone/some to death, after all.

No. I think that the crime would *deserve* death, but that the criminal justice system is not infalliable so to keep from killing the wrong person, the state shouldn't kill anyone. Letting someone, who deserves death, rot in prison for a few decades instead is the lesser evil to the possibility of having killed the wrong person.



91
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 7:00 pm
Posts: 3063
Location: Australia

Mon Dec 05, 2011 5:05 pm

LKL wrote:
No. I think that the crime would *deserve* death, but that the criminal justice system is not infalliable so to keep from killing the wrong person, the state shouldn't kill anyone. Letting someone, who deserves death, rot in prison for a few decades instead is the lesser evil to the possibility of having killed the wrong person.


+1

"Many that live deserve death but some that die deserve life" Tolkien


_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.


Display posts from previous:  Sort by  


Page 4 of 4 [ 58 posts ] Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Page:




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
Jump to: