I've been raped, I wouldn't be here to tell you that murder is worse if it was the other way around.
Why? If revenge is the end goal, why is murder justified but not rape or torture? It seems to me at least torture is non-destructive--you get your revenge and the person is still alive to atone and change their life. With murder, they're dead, so they can't learn from it or change their life.Risingblade said:True, but like I said it's a tad harder to do so.FirstNameLastName said:Some would also say that raping or torturing someone for revenge is justified.Risingblade said:That would be true if we were talking purely from a legal standpoint. However if you look at the TC's example, killing someone out of revenge for killing a loved one, some people would actually find that justifiable. Is it still murder? Yes but some people can morally justify it.Dirty Hipsters said:People who say that you can justify murder don't understand what murder is. Murder isn't killing someone, murder is illegally killing someone without justification.Risingblade said:Depends, you could justify murder in some way. Rape on the other hand...not so much if at all. I don't know why but rape just seems crueler to me, sure they're still alive but it's still a horrible horrible thing to do to a person.
If you kill someone in the heat of passion it's not murder, it's manslaughter. If you kill someone in the defense of yourself or others it's not murder it's self defense. Murder can't be justified because to be murder it has to be unjustifiable, that's what makes it murder.
Yep, pretty much this sentiment for me. Both acts are terrible, but once you're dead, it's all over, nothing else happens for you. I personally feel that life is preferable to death, and that people who have been victims of rape, can still find a way to live their lives and be happy, despite the event. Considering the number of people who have actually accomplished this, I'd say it's fairly accurate. Nobody's "gotten over" being dead and moved on with their lives.BathorysGraveland2 said:Murder. In my mind, there's really no question. Murder takes everything away from the victim, and the victim's loved ones. Rape, while terrible and life-impacting, does not take the same away. The victim, through hardship, can still move on with their lives alongside their loved ones.
Murder is final, but a rape victim can still live the rest of their life.
In the case of revenge I'd much rather kill someone than rape and torture them, then let them live. Because of the way revenge works and the way human nature is, that person would be out for counter revenge. So I'd rather not let that person live and have to watch my back for them in the future. Even so if I kill in revenge one of that person's friends or family members might come looking for me for revenge. Trust me, torture will not make someone atone and change their life. It'll make them bitter and they're far more likely to come looking for revenge against you, if not directly, then through your friends and family members. Revenge tends to be a no win situation due to human nature.Lilani said:Why? If revenge is the end goal, why is murder justified but not rape or torture? It seems to me at least torture is non-destructive--you get your revenge and the person is still alive to atone and change their life. With murder, they're dead, so they can't learn from it or change their life.Risingblade said:True, but like I said it's a tad harder to do so.FirstNameLastName said:Some would also say that raping or torturing someone for revenge is justified.Risingblade said:That would be true if we were talking purely from a legal standpoint. However if you look at the TC's example, killing someone out of revenge for killing a loved one, some people would actually find that justifiable. Is it still murder? Yes but some people can morally justify it.Dirty Hipsters said:People who say that you can justify murder don't understand what murder is. Murder isn't killing someone, murder is illegally killing someone without justification.Risingblade said:Depends, you could justify murder in some way. Rape on the other hand...not so much if at all. I don't know why but rape just seems crueler to me, sure they're still alive but it's still a horrible horrible thing to do to a person.
If you kill someone in the heat of passion it's not murder, it's manslaughter. If you kill someone in the defense of yourself or others it's not murder it's self defense. Murder can't be justified because to be murder it has to be unjustifiable, that's what makes it murder.
Fine, but which would you save if they were both drowning in a whirlpool?[Kira Must Die said:]sigh
I really, really don't like the idea of putting these two things in a "which is worse" argument. They're both terrible, terrible crimes in their own way, and shouldn't be compared nor pitted against each other like it's a competition. At the end of the day, nobody wins. No matter what side you choose it doesn't make you look good. It's a pointless argument.
Well, the website is run out of the US, and the "Violence is ok, but Sexy stuff is a no no" is a pretty well established aspect of the popular culture. Not saying I agree with it, but it's pretty obvious that we don't mind showing violence compared to sex. Also I'm pretty sure there are some laws somewhere on the books that would crawl up the site's ass if they tried to start showing sex stuff compared to violent stuff.Pluvia said:Well the Escapist did nothing about that thread that had a video of a guy getting murdered in the OP, but posting a sexual picture will get you permabanned.
So here on the Escapist, plain old sex is far worse than murder. Rape must be a whole new level.
While its difficult to sympathise with cold calculating murderers and repeat sex offenders there are other problems with the death penalty, miscarriages of justice happen. That's a cold hard fact, no emotional aspect or bleeding heart sympathy. Innocent people do get convicted of crimes they did not commit, cases of rape and murder have lead to false convictions and new evidence or a careful re-examination of the facts have exonerated the convicted person. Humans are not perfect and neither are investigative or court proceedings and mistakes happen and things can be overlooked, there are even some occasions were overzealous or malicious police officers or prosecutors are determined to see someone punished for a crime even to the extent of ignoring/excluding evidence or sometimes outright ignoring it.KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:Now I'm for capital punishment in and here's how I see it applies.
Murders: Second degree single offence cases, no death penalty. Multiple offence cases, first or second degree, and especially serial killers? Death penalty, no question. These people are a threat to society at large and it's far kinder to end their lives. Rather than letting them languish in prison.
Rapists: One time offender? Let them live, if they can function in society without doing it again, then they're worth keeping around. Repeat offenders? Death, they're a threat to society. Child rapists? Death. The heinousness of the crime coupled with the likelihood of repeat offences is not worth letting risk them live, and be reintegrated into society.
The reason for the death penalty is not to use killing to show something is wrong, or as a deterrent via threat. It's to remove unwarrantable dangers to society at large. Prisons are supposed to be institutions of rehabilitation, not housing for those too dangerous to live in society. At any rate a life sentence is the same as a death sentence, one is just slower and more torturous. While that might sound appealing... It's also far more expensive, and a burden on an already overburdened system. So for the sake of all inmates, and society at large, it's just simpler, cheaper, safer, and kinder to end their lives.