Poll: rape worse than murder?

[Casual Shinji]

Murder has many faces, rape tends to have only one.

It's the idea behind the act rather than whether or not the victim walks away from the act that makes people who think rape is worse think rape is worse.

To put it a bit cheesier... Murder strips someone of their life, rape strips someone of their soul. If you hold any value to the concept of a soul that is.

 

[Lilani]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Some would also say that raping or torturing someone for revenge is justified.

True, but like I said it's a tad harder to do so.

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.

 

[BoogieManFL]

I'd rather be raped than murdered. Rape is horrific, but you still have your life ahead of you. I would think that eventually most would be able to come to terms with it and rise above it.

 

[J Tyran]

It would depend on the victim, some rape victims struggle and never succeed in putting the pieces of their life back together while others can. Murder doesn't give even that slim consolation, no chance for the victim to try and salvage something.

You can see this sometimes in the statements of the victims, many rape victims do say "I wish I had died" while others say "I'm glad I survived when other victims have not".

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

Oh dear, this old chestnut again.
Logically, I can see how it makes sense to people that murder is worse. But rape is something always incredibly ugly, it is a life being subdued, violated and tortured for another's sexual gratification, then thrown to the gutter as a piece of used meat. Screwing up a person's state of mind makes a life much harder to bare, relationships and trust are something to be feared. The mind is the ruler of a person's world; if it is damaged, the pain can become unbearable(speaking from experience, not talking out my arse here).
Murder, like others have said, can have too many faces to compare to rape. But if I had to choose what would happen to me, I would certainly choose murder.

 

[BathorysGraveland2]

I think it's worth making clear what sort of rape we're talking about, as there are various kinds. For example, an 18 year old who has sex with a 16 year old, even if they're in a consented relationship, is technically considered a form of rape. Often doctors or teachers who have sex with students, even if they're of a legal age of consent, is also considered rape. So is a sober person having sex with an intoxicated person. These scenarios, in my mind, aren't comparable whatsoever with forceable or blackmail rape.

Just an important distinction to consider, I think.

 

[Willinium]

I find that rape is far worse than murder can ever be. If one is murdered then that is it no more pain no torture just dead that is it, but if one is raped then something sacred is taken from them, they shall know pain that may never heal a trust broken and a mind fractured. Rape is far more reprehensible to murder.

 

[happyninja42]

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.

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.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Hm. I guess it depends. Victims of extremely traumatic rape are many, many times more likely to commit suicide, or live with lifelong neuroses or injury that inflict on them, their friends, their family, and society in general. Not only that, but if the ultimate goal of life is to be the driver of your own fate ... being murdered, assuming it's a clean murder that was never seen coming, the victim technically hasn't lost any of their agency beyond that of the incidence of death. After all ... to the person so murdered, they likely wouldn't even know what was happening to them.

Whereas rape is the willing subdual of another. Removing them of their liberty, and very often their livelihood and agency via torture and sickening lust to dominate another's very being. A literal destruction of a person's true capacity to enact their will to power. Whilst something in me says murder is worse, I can't seem to marry this to metaphysics. Which makes it seem to me that I have a bias to say murder is worse, rather than a means to put the different crimes into a rational order.

Needless to say, rape should be considered a crime punishable by a far harsher sentence than merely 3 years. That's pathetic.

(Edit)It could be said rape is worse than murder. Assuming all of us are capable of anger (I've yet to meet a person so unflappable as to say they have never been mad) then murder is understandable. Rape isn't. many people murder for various reasons.

And for those that say murder is worse, because everything is lost, then why is it we have no problem with militaries? I think it's because murder is understandable. Killing is understandable, on some innate level. But rape? I think there's a reason why people may see rape as worse, because it seems far more inhuman to envisage. People can empathize with getting mad ... being so mad that you bash in someone's skull with a torque wrench just seems like mad+. But it's harder to empathize with rape.

It seems like something alien. Cold, and inhumanly malevolent.

 

[cleric of the order]

There was an argument I heard from a strong sexual assault survivor.
IT went something like rape is not the worst thing ever because rape victims don't tend to kill themselves afterwards and by Equating it as worse then having lost their lives you are damaging their ability to bounce back from the incident.
And I agree with that.
Life is hard but people are tough and while it is a horrible crime it isn't horrible as others.
People can bounce back and have come back from worse events in their lives.
And I suppose I'm really glad a lot of people are optimistic about it.
But wait leniency?
I wouldn't know about that.
We tend to, if I'm not mistaken revile a rapist, (even an assumed one) as soon as they are pointed out.
They are right after the pedos in the prison shank train.
And stuff like that.
I don't know how the legal system breaks it down, I'm not cop or a criminal lawyer(but my grandfather was) but if there is sufficient reason to incarcerate a person accused of a crime that evidently everyone in this thread concedes to be abhorrent (often less so then total end of human life), along with the media, criminals and I should not be chastised for assuming the general population.
The legal system made up and supported for the service of the aforementioned general populous should at least reflect that, through the confines of our antagonistic system.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Some would also say that raping or torturing someone for revenge is justified.

True, but like I said it's a tad harder to do so.

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.

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.

OT: It depends on how much value you put on a human life. So here's what I think.

Rape is a tool of sadism and control, it literally takes a broken person to commit the act, and at the end leaves two people broken. Rape victims have to carry the scars both emotionally and physically for the rest of their lives. Rape generally causes PTSD in people, while some people may become better for it, others will break and spiral in to self destruction, or suicide. While still others may try to function the best they can but will still carry the rape as huge burden as long as they live. Still, excluding suicide there is still hope for recovery, and it is at least partly true that what doesn't kill us makes us stronger. But there will always be that part of a person that's still wounded.

Murder on the other hand denies the world of a living person. On the one hand the experience is over for the victim, they'll never have deal with it. Even if you believe in the afterlife in any form(as I do), that's probably something that won't bother a soul all that much. The pain and suffering that is life is over for them and they get to move on. On the other hand their friends and family will be shattered by their sudden, untimely, and unnecessary death. So murder has the potential of, and usually does create more than one victim. The friends and family are the ones who have carry the loss. Still a lot of the same could be said for rape as friends and family of the victim will have to carry the victims pain to some extent too. The perpetrator and their loved ones may also end up carrying the burden of a murder as well, especially if it was in the heat of the moment. The exception here of course being sociopaths, especially serial murders. Both of who, usually see people as things, not people. Still a sociopath's friends and family will have to carry that with them for the rest of their lives.

So both are equally bad on the face. Where you might get some difference in the level of this is the; brutality, and heinousness of the crime. Some one who rapes and mutilates a child has committed a far worse crime, than someone who shot and killed someone else out of rage. On the other hand someone who slowly killed and mutilated someone else has committed the more heinous act, compared someone who only raped someone they knew once.

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.

 

[RedDeadFred]

]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.

Fine, but which would you save if they were both drowning in a whirlpool?

Sorry

OT: As others have said, I believe that taking a life is worse than ruining it. The murder victim has no chance to build themselves back up. They're just gone. Then again, if the rape victim can't get back up and are just living in misery, that's probably worse. I voted depends.

 

[happyninja42]

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.

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.

 

[Nazulu]

It's murder. Not all rape victims are traumatised, many coming back completely functional. All murder victims however, have no comment.

 

[Kyber]

I think it really depends on the time of day.

 

[J Tyran]

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.

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.

When this happens a person that got a long or permanent custodial sentence can be released, try to make the most of their remaining years. Someone that was executed is gone, you cannot undo it. Often cases where the death penalty was carried out are never even re-examined, around three people a year have had their convictions overturned in the United States for the last forty years with an estimated 2000 overturned rape convictions in the last 25 years (although some portion of that are certainly rapists managing to squirm their way out of the conviction).

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

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.

When this happens a person that got a long or permanent custodial sentence can be released, try to make the most of their remaining years. Someone that was executed is gone, you cannot undo it. Often cases where the death penalty was carried out are never even re-examined, around three people a year have had their convictions overturned in the United States for the last forty years with an estimated 2000 overturned rape convictions in the last 25 years (although some portion of that are certainly rapists managing to squirm their way out of the conviction).

While the system isn't perfect, life sentences can also get paroles for serial killers and serial rapists if we're not careful. So it's really a losing proposition either way. Not to mention the damages the State usually ends up paying those wrongly convicted. I'd support full life sentences if prisons had some sort of way of paying back into society in a physical way by working the prisoners who are deemed not too much of a risk. That'd help pay for the prison, have the possibility of prisoners learning skills and having some in house currency, and provide some sort of goods to the population. Then I'd say let the prisoner's in house behaviour speak to weather or not their death sentence should be suspended. If they're productive and don't cause trouble, commute them to life.

 

[beastro]

They're too much different kinds of horrible to compare.

Still, rape boils my blood more.

 

[happyninja42]

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.

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.

Yeah it's just you think the bar for what violence you're allowed to show here would be set a little lower than murder. Like it's:

A video showing someone quite literally being murdered: Fantastic, breaks no rules.

Boobs: Permaban you sick freak.

It's just so absurd it's funny.

Oh I agree. If given the choice between showing people violence and sexy times, I'm going to pick sexy times personally.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

While the system isn't perfect, life sentences can also get paroles for serial killers and serial rapists if we're not careful. So it's really a losing proposition either way. Not to mention the damages the State usually ends up paying those wrongly convicted. I'd support full life sentences if prisons had some sort of way of paying back into society in a physical way by working the prisoners who are deemed not too much of a risk. That'd help pay for the prison, have the possibility of prisoners learning skills and having some in house currency, and provide some sort of goods to the population. Then I'd say let the prisoner's in house behaviour speak to weather or not their death sentence should be suspended. If they're productive and don't cause trouble, commute them to life.

Isn't this a good thing, though? Shouldn't prisons be about rehabilitation rather than punishment? If we're talking about greatest good. And there's plenty of life sentences without possibility for parole. Specifically for serial killers. Also, are we honestly entertaining indentured labour? I'm of the opinion that real jobs exist for those of whom live in the community. After all, the US has this very real problem. Every job you're giving to an inmate is one less job fulfilled by a person in the community. I shudder at the thought of a situation where a nation looking for cheap labour then decides to process more court cases with ever dwindling protocols as to assign and prove guilt.

Whilst education of inmates is a natural means to better the inmates and prepare them for the potentiality of release. But indentured labour to fulfill the role of free labour is a bad idea. Can anyone else say; 'Siberian gulag'?