One In Eight Convicted Rapists Spend No Time In Jail

Post Reply New Topic

"Date rape isn't rape. It's the woman's fault for being there and getting drunk. Women are inferior and men are entitled to their bodies any time they want them." I said something that is not completely in line with your thinking, so is that what I'm supposed to say next, right? /sarcasm. Or maybe the world isn't as black and white as they taught you in women's studies class.

In the law books for most or all civilized places there is usually first, second, and third degree levels of rape, and other divisions and classifications. They are prosecuted differently, some more harshly than others. I think that is a good thing. Do you think all convicted rapists should be given the same punishment? Yes or no?

Depends which country you are in. In my country it is a very narrow and specific, laid down in law with no grey areas.

In all the countries I have lived in rape is rape is rape. What a ridiculous notion you are putting forward. Do you really believe that someone can be sort of raped, but not properly raped like that person over there. Rapist here get prosecuted exactly the same. There is no distinction. Sentences may vary, but the conviction remains the same.

Motherknowsbest, what you are saying makes no sense. You say all rapists get treated the same, but get different sentences? If all rape is equal, why don't all rapists get the exact same sentence?

Are you really going to argue that there aren't different laws for different kinds of situations where rape occurs? You are really going to argue that first-degree, second degree rape don't exist? Sorry, but you are just embarrassing yourself... that's a pretty ignorant thing to say. Severity of punishment has many factors like whether force was used, whether the victim was drugged, whether the victim is mentally ret*d or a young age. With a simple google search you can find the exact wording of these laws for different states, etc. Google "first degree rape" and you get headlines like "Teen charged with First Degree Rape".

There seems to be concern and an assumption that some people supposedly don't consider rape a serious crime. I think it is a serious crime but that doesn't mean all perpetrators should be punished the same.

So one in 8 don't get jail time... how many should get jail time? What number would you be content with? Should all rapists just get jail time? Some of you guys are just intent looking for something to get outraged about. Excuse me if I actually like to be informed and have actual knowledge and facts about a situation before I get all up in arms about it. I guess rape is just another one of those things many people can't discuss in a rational intelligent manner.

Since you have descended to the level of ad personam remarks, I will add that I am glad you have been graced with omniscience. I, for one, am pleased to recognize that I don't know everything. Especially about the private lives of perfect strangers.



I think I made it perfectly clear that I am discussing reconciliation in se. I see no basis upon which to accede to your hypothesis that no healthy woman or man can ever reconcile with an assailant. A reconciliation procured by force, coercion or manipulation is, of course, vitiated ab initio, but not every purported reconciliation is tainted with those characteristics. While you correctly suggest a variation in degree of offensiveness of an assailant's behaviour, that does not prove your assertion.



1) You make a mistake of tense. Rape is an indication that X and Y did not have a healthy relationship. Past events do not preclude a change in state. The relationship that was unhealthy last year might well, through hard work, be substantially more healthy this year.
2) You make a mistake of absolutism. Relationships do not exist in a dichotomous state in which they are either healthy, or unhealthy with no other possible state. Relationships exist upon a qualitative spectrum and move on that spectrum. I posit that it is possible for a relationship to present unhealthy characteristics, but demonstrate substantive health.
3) You make a mistake of presumption. Because Y may be codependent is not equivalent to Y must be codependent. I accept the possibility that you assert. But I do not accept that this possibility (or even probability) leads inevitably to the conclusion that no victim of sexual assault can ever be reconciled with the assailant.



I don't believe I presented my premise in that form. I believe, rather, that a two individuals may recover the healthy state of their relationship. This is not to suggest that most, or even many, in fact do, but rather to suggest that it is an analytical fallacy to deny the possibility.

For someone who likes to be informed and have actual knowledge and facts before getting all up in arms, you certainly seem to be uninformed.

I never said that first degree or second degree rape doesn't exist. I said it doesn't exist in any of the countries I have lived in. And guess what, it doesn't?

And do you want to know something else really interesting, there are lots of countries outside of the USA and they have completely different laws to the USA.

And do you want to know something else even more interesting? The news article in question is from a newspaper in one of those other countries, dealing with the issue in that country and has nothing to do with US law and what is going on in the USA.

All research that I know shows that abusers are always abusers. There may be times when they can act normal but it is only a matter of time before they revert to type. Current advice (everywhere as far as I know) to people being abused is to get away and have no further contact with the abuser at all.

http://au.reachout.com/find/articles/an ... lationship

I would be very interested to see the research that supports your theory that rape victims can be reconciled and live in a healthy relationship with their rapist.

Last edited by MotherKnowsBest on 28 Jan 2010, 11:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

I merely corrected your attempt to talk for us both and everyone else along with you...unless you were referring to the royal "we".

I think I am better positioned to judge what I may or not be able to judge than you can judge what I may or not be able to judge....what with us being strangers and all.

It is my assertion that healthy relationships do not entail recent accusations of rape. If one has so recently accused another of rape that before the accused is even sentenced there has been a reconciliation, that is not healthy.

I make no mistake in tense.
You are wrong, as a result of making the mistake of assumption. I have made no statement about whether or not any relationship characterized by some unhealthy characteristics can be healthy. I referred specifically to the characteristic of rape and I stand by my assertion that it is not something that characterizes a healthy relationship.
Actually it seems to be you who is making assumptions. I am not claiming that no reconciliation is possible but rather that no healthy relationship is possible; you premised reconcilation on such a relationship.

Well I believe that your belief is erroneous. So far as I know I am representing the mainstream view of professionals in the field, including those whose views are based on research. You are welcome to contest that, but there is a prior body of knowledge that is not creditably addressed or undermined simply by you making assertions to the contrary.

Nonsense. This is a complete cop-out. Unless significant numbers are involved proportionate to all rape convictions, then it is irrelevant as an explanation or justification of 1 in 8 convicted rapists not receiving any prison sentence.

I am not discussing some abstract analytic pedantism, but the actual situation described in the article. Based on your comments it seems like that is what you were discussing too, but unless there is a significant amount of such happenings as you describe, they are quite irrelevant to the 1 in 8 figure that constitutes the subject under discussion.

[quote=pandd]I am not claiming that no reconciliation is possible but rather that no healthy relationship is possible.[/quote]

It seems, then, that the real difference between us lies in the question of whether reconciliation can restore health to a relationship. From personal experience as a victim of violence, I have found the answer to be, "yes," but I don't expect an anecdotal, ab personam example to be persuasive to you.

[quote=pandd]Unless significant numbers are involved proportionate to all rape convictions, then it is irrelevant as an explanation or justification of 1 in 8 convicted rapists not receiving any prison sentence.

I am not discussing some abstract analytic pedantism, but the actual situation described in the article. Based on your comments it seems like that is what you were discussing too, but unless there is a significant amount of such happenings as you describe, they are quite irrelevant to the 1 in 8 figure that constitutes the subject under discussion.[/quote]

You raise an important point. I don't for a moment suggest that reconciliation accounts for the full extent of non-custodial sentences. I do believe that it may be a contributing factor in some cases, though I am in no position to assert the extent.

We should also bear in mind that South Australia is one of only two jurisidictions (New Zealand is the other) in which sexual assault cases can be diverted to a restorative justice process. It would be interesting to know whether or not cases that have been successfully managed through this process are included in the original article's statistics.