Poll: rape worse than murder?

[kissthebottle]

A small, but I think major point I forgot to make in my original post...

It is amusing (not really, though) how many people have an opinion on how rape survivors cope with/recover from/live with being raped and life after assault and I can tell aren't speaking from experience at all (My guess is they haven't been assaulted in this way). You guys make it sound so easy. :/

I am pretty sure if you are dead, you don't care that you're dead. Because you're, uh, dead? (sans speculative religious whatnots about what happens to you/your soul/being after you die).

This is again why I don't find these heinous acts comparable in any way.

 

[Bat Vader]

I find both to be equally horrible and anyone that commits either crime should punished to the fullest extent of the law.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

It's ways mystified me why rape is considered so terrible we can compare it to murder. And I say that while fully acknowledging that something about it is incredibly traumatic to people and I'm not trying to minimise that. I just don't get why, if someone beats the crap out of me and leaves me bleeding on the street with a couple of broken legs, that doesn't seem to be as bad as rape to people. Yet rapes just another form of assault, what makes it so much more traumatic once the wounds heal? If we perceived sex differently or evolved different sexual habits would rape just be the equivalent of assault? You see animals raping each other without the intense emotional response we humans have. My male dog got raped for a couple of seconds by another male dog at the dog run before I broke it up and he wasn't bothered after.

I'd just like to repeat I don't want to say the trauma caused should be disregarded, rape is evil because we as humans know the pain it causes each other.

Murder is the end of everything, if there's no Afterlife then you are gone forever as a person.

 

[kissthebottle]

It's ways mystified me why rape is considered so terrible we can compare it to murder. And I say that while fully acknowledging that something about it is incredibly traumatic to people and I'm not trying to minimise that. I just don't get why, if someone beats the crap out of me and leaves me bleeding on the street with a couple of broken legs, that doesn't seem to be as bad as rape to people. Yet rapes just another form of assault, what makes it so much more traumatic once the wounds heal? If we perceived sex differently or evolved different sexual habits would rape just be the equivalent of assault? You see animals raping each other without the intense emotional response we humans have. My male dog got raped for a couple of seconds by another male dog at the dog run before I broke it up and he wasn't bothered after.

I'd just like to repeat I don't want to say the trauma caused should be disregarded, rape is evil because we as humans know the pain it causes each other.

Murder is the end of everything, if there's no Afterlife then you are gone forever as a person.

There is no comparison between human sex and animal sex.

Animals are on a different intellectual plane and sex for animals is about procreation and nothing more. And the dry humping between male dogs is a dominance thing. They know full well they're not going to make a baby. TOTALLY different thing. Animals function entirely on instinct.

Whereas sex amongst humans has a lot of different other factors involved. Humans defy evolution and nature on a regular basis. Yes procreation is a product of it. But other than dolphins, humans are the only species to have sex for pleasure. Humans invest emotions in sex. Humans lust. Animals don't do these things. Rape is a result of another human feeling entitled to another human's body. Their desire to exercise power over them. It isn't an equivalent to assault. It IS assault. Just a specific type of assault.

To be completely honest, I would have rather had my leg broken and beaten up than have been raped. Sure, there can be mental trauma from that, like I could still be afraid of going down a dark alley or walking alone at night (I mean...as a woman, without any history of assault of any kind this is still not in our best interest). But my leg and bruises heal. Whereas what I had to deal with being raped, the aftermath of immediately going to Planned Parenthood the next morning (because I was frightened and terrified to leave my house and had to wait for a friend) to get Plan B, get medically evaluated, decide if I want to pursue legal recourse, which is another string of traumatic events in which you have to relive the worst thing that's ever happened to you, telling your story to people who probably won't believe you, where you are put under a microscope (what were you wearing? How much did you have to drink? Did you "lead him on" in any way/aka did you have the tenacity to be nice to the guy at all? Your entire sexual history also gets scrutinized. All things that are irrelevant because bottom line a guy had sex with you without your consent). That stuff wouldn't come into play if the guy just beat me up and I pressed charges. And everyone's trauma is different, for me it causes problems in my sex life despite having a loving partner in a healthy, stable, long term relationship, and requires me to see a therapist.

Basically rape is a specific type of assault, and it's a very difficult one to seek justice for as well. It also is a big component of structures of oppression as well which makes it a bit more complex to boot. Giant can of giant worms is giant.

 

[chuckman1]

I consider a brutal beating on average far worse than rape, though rape has the added problem that both can occur at the same time.

So murder gets my vote.

I beg to differ. As someone who knows people that have suffered both the rape left a long lasting impact that hasn't gone away after 40 years, only improved. Where as people I know who suffered violent physical assaults and robberies managed to overcome it quickly. Though, to be fair the people I knew robbed at gunpoint spent much time in prison so they probably were used to this kind of thing.

 

[Casual Shinji]

You see animals raping each other without the intense emotional response we humans have. My male dog got raped for a couple of seconds by another male dog at the dog run before I broke it up and he wasn't bothered after.

That's a REALLY silly comparison.

You can say the same about child murder. How lionesses don't have an emotional response to having their cubs murdered by a rival male, and then getting impregnated by said male. So why should humans care if it happened to them?

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

You see animals raping each other without the intense emotional response we humans have. My male dog got raped for a couple of seconds by another male dog at the dog run before I broke it up and he wasn't bothered after.

That's a REALLY silly comparison.

You can say the same about child murder. How lionesses don't have an emotional response to having their cubs murdered by a rival male, and then getting impregnated by said male. So why should humans care if it happened to them?

Because our children take a lot longer to raise to adulthood(or even capable of surviving alone) than a lions children and we tend to have much fewer in our lives? Making a single child a huge investment of resources for us, so being wired to be emotionally super protective of children makes sense to me. I'm wondering if prehaps we were wired a little differently rape wouldn't bother us as much, like if we were more like our Bonobo cousins and sex was nothing more than a hello.

I feel like I should drop this before I get into offensive territory.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

Both are heinous crime which incur hefty punishments under the law, as it should be and as shall it ever be.

For myself, why I think a lot of people will say rape is worse is because on some old, medieval and impersonal level we can understand why you'd want someone dead. Outside of a few outliers we can't and don't rationalize the gross and intimate violation of a rape the same way.

CAPTCHA: I'm Batman.....I wish captcha, I wish.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

-snip-

Ahhh, optional labour? Yeah, I think there are multiple nations that do this already. I thought you meant indentured labour. Though I'm still opposed to the death penalty. Death penalty should be optional. Everybody should get to choose to die, but enforcing that one must die in the name of the state? That shouldn't be seen as something applicable in a society given entirely to liberty.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

-snip-

Ahhh, optional labour? Yeah, I think there are multiple nations that do this already. I thought you meant indentured labour. Though I'm still opposed to the death penalty. Death penalty should be optional. Everybody should get to choose to die, but enforcing that one must die in the name of the state? That shouldn't be seen as something applicable in a society given entirely to liberty.

In the case of people who commit crimes like rape and murder intentionally, what about the person who had their liberty STOLEN by the rapist/murderer? Either way a felony convict basically has no rights, or liberty while they're serving their sentence. Still the death penalty only should apply who present an extreme danger to others, especially with the bleeding hearts around who insist on freeing felons who are convicted of multiple murders, or rapes. It sounds callous and cold on the one hand, but on the other hand what about their victims? Also why should society pay for someone's well being, when their soul purpose is to inhabit a cell in a prison, because they're too dangerous to let out into society? It's not to die in the name of the state, it's to die because they've actively forfeit the right to live.

Though as I said before this should be saved for people who are so psychologically broken that they WILL offend again. Serial rapists and killers specifically. They're competent and otherwise sane, but they're either pathologically compelled to commit their crimes, or they just see people their playthings. It's not right for society to have to collectively pay for them to languish and it's cruel to let them languish their life away in a cell.

 

[kirwan464]

The way i see this is how badly would i react if this happened to a family member or friend.
If i had one that was murdered i would kill the person that did it, possibly beat the life out of them.
Now on the other hand if it was rape, i would keep the person that did it alive as long as i could, and torture them every day.
from a purely living standpoint murder is worse, however the emotional damage from rape can be devastating.
i couldnt answer which is bad or less bad, i think it depends on the person.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

In the case of people who commit crimes like rape and murder intentionally, what about the person who had their liberty STOLEN by the rapist/murderer? Either way a felony convict basically has no rights, or liberty while they're serving their sentence. Still the death penalty only should apply who present an extreme danger to others, especially with the bleeding hearts around who insist on freeing felons who are convicted of multiple murders, or rapes. It sounds callous and cold on the one hand, but on the other hand what about their victims? Also why should society pay for someone's well being, when their soul purpose is to inhabit a cell in a prison, because they're too dangerous to let out into society? It's not to die in the name of the state, it's to die because they've actively forfeit the right to live.

Though as I said before this should be saved for people who are so psychologically broken that they WILL offend again. Serial rapists and killers specifically. They're competent and otherwise sane, but they're either pathologically compelled to commit their crimes, or they just see people their playthings. It's not right for society to have to collectively pay for them to languish and it's cruel to let them languish their life away in a cell.

Well ... for starters, even prisoners deserve rights. Law should be a shield, not a sword. As they say; "An eye for an eye would only make the world half-blind." The argument could be made that the victim gains nothing by merely killing prisoners. Also, what you'll find is that it's the quality of the lawyer, not the crime, that determines the decision of death of those participants in a particularly grievous crime. So unless one is to enable mandatory death penalties, regardless of appeals or circumstantial information, then the entire thing falls apart.

( http://deathpenaltyblog.dallasnews.com/2010/02/victims-families-speak-out-aga.html/ )

So basically it's the amount of money that can determine the end result. Not the actual deliberation of the nature of their crimes or the role that they played in it. There is also something to be said about how exactly it benefits a victim to have their assailant legally killed. You're assuming a subjective weight, especially given that despite how cruel you may think it is ... death is a scary thing. What is more cruel, however, is someone sitting on death row .... years on end. There is a reason why prisoners fight for a reprieve, despite knowing full well they will languish in that death row prison cell.

It is less cruel to merely have no death penalty, and the stability of internment without possibility of parole, than this act between reprieve and condemnation. And yet, most prisoners fight to have that appeal.

I also find your argument somewhat probematic. For example, I've been involuntarily detained. For mental health, specifically. I was a taxpayer ... I had my own apartment ... but because one doctor misinterpreted a psychological stressor and because I had schizophrenia, they appealed to a magistrate to issue a warrant for my arrest. Naturally losing all elements of my self-obtained livelihood. I've never been a threat to society, only a threat to myself. What is the mechanical difference between someone like me 'inflicting' upon society and an inmate? More to the point, is it really better to just execute people who are constantly deemed unfit for basic civil liberties?

It's a bit of a stretch, but it's still in the same vein. Society deemed I was dangerous, imprisoned me, forcing me into a system where I was dependant on others of the community with no choice in the matter. I wasn't in a cell because of something I had done, but rather on the idea that I represented some hidden danger to myself. Infact, your average schizophrenia sufferer is far more likely to be a victim of violence than a perpetrator of violence. I was fortunate to rebuild my life, but I always have that threat looming over me. That I'll need to rebuild, again.

Anyways ... I still disagree with death that has to be inflicted. Especially when there is no good evidence to suggest that death penalties are somewhat cheaper, given the much longer case times, the number of appeals sought, and the protocols in place that bog down the process. And if you are seriously adjudicating MANDATORY death penalties without possibility of appeal, then no. Because there has to be utter certainty no rehabilitation is possible, and that takes time.

 

[Lightknight]

At least a rape victim gets to decide if they want to move forward from it.

I doubt they get to decide that anymore than someone who's had a traumatic childhood gets to. Some things mark you for life and will negatively influence your day-to-day life and interactions with others for the rest of your life.

It's easy to say someone can just move on with their life, because hey, they're still alive. But would you say the same to someone who'd lost both their arms and legs?

What I mean is, they get to have the option of moving forward or not moving forward. This isn't an option for a murder victim.

People make it past rape all the time. Most of the time even. People with a traumatic childhood do too. Do you know what people never make it past their event or even have the option to not move past? People who are murdered. That's who.

Don't try to pretend that people experiencing trauma don't have more freedom over themselves than people who are dead. That's ridiculous. The person who kills makes the last decision that will ever be made for the person in their life. A person who rapes steals time from the person, potentially injures them, and traumatizes them but there is a day after and a very real road to recovery if they're willing to traverse it.

Am I honestly the only person insulted here? That people are saying rape victims are better off dead? I mean, holy crap. What a devaluation of people who have been raped. I mean, are we really so gung ho about elevating the status of the crime above murder that we're willing to write off its victims?

Yes, crimes are relative. But a person who was raped usually recovers. Committing a crime from which a person never and cannot recover is the ultimate crime. Compared to that, anything else may only be penultimate at best.

 

[happyninja42]

At least a rape victim gets to decide if they want to move forward from it.

I doubt they get to decide that anymore than someone who's had a traumatic childhood gets to. Some things mark you for life and will negatively influence your day-to-day life and interactions with others for the rest of your life.

It's easy to say someone can just move on with their life, because hey, they're still alive. But would you say the same to someone who'd lost both their arms and legs?

What I mean is, they get to have the option of moving forward or not moving forward. This isn't an option for a murder victim.

People make it past rape all the time. Most of the time even. People with a traumatic childhood do too. Do you know what people never make it past their event or even have the option to not move past? People who are murdered. That's who.

Don't try to pretend that people experiencing trauma don't have more freedom over themselves than people who are dead. That's ridiculous. The person who kills makes the last decision that will ever be made for the person in their life. A person who rapes steals time from the person, potentially injures them, and traumatizes them but there is a day after and a very real road to recovery if they're willing to traverse it.

Am I honestly the only person insulted here? That people are saying rape victims are better off dead? I mean, holy crap. What a devaluation of people who have been raped. I mean, are we really so gung ho about elevating the status of the crime above murder that we're willing to write off its victims?

Yes, crimes are relative. But a person who was raped usually recovers. Committing a crime from which a person never and cannot recover is the ultimate crime. Compared to that, anything else may only be penultimate at best.

The few examples in this thread, (and I admit I haven't read every one of them), that mentions that death is better than rape, seem to indicate this viewpoint is that of the victim. That in some cases the victim's ability to recover from the trauma, makes them feel that life isn't worth it, having to live through that event. And so for them, death is preferable to life. I personally don't agree with this mindset, but I'm also not a rape survivor, so I can't say how I would honestly react to it. I'd like to think I would be able to recover and find enjoyment in life, but I can't speak to that theoretical eventuality. I can understand that for some people, it might be impossible to move on, everyone is different, but I don't think that's the same as saying that rape victims, in general, are better off dead. I think it's more of a case by case basis, with the majority of people being able to recover from it, with your typical margin for variance of those who can't.

Though it might be interesting to see if it's actually the rape that is causing the desire to not be alive anymore, or the fact that it has created a depressed/suicidal drive in the victim as a byproduct? *shrugs* I mean the same logic of "I can't ever get over this, every day is pain and misery" that was described as being the existence for a rape survivor, could be applied to anyone who is suicidal. For them, whatever negative aspect of their life is something they can't overcome and move on from, thus driving them to want to die. So maybe this isn't an aspect of rape specifically, and just one facet of the larger issue of depression/suicide? *shrugs* Just a thought.

 

[Erttheking]

You can't exactly measure how bad something is. Life is a mess like that.

 

[mrgerry123]

Murder without question is worse for me although if I was suicidal I suppose I wouldn't mind as much. I think that rape is better because you have a choice of what to do afterwards whereas with murder you don't. Murder takes away far more of a persons freedoms than rape.

 

[Arshaq13]

The few examples in this thread, (and I admit I haven't read every one of them), that mentions that death is better than rape, seem to indicate this viewpoint is that of the victim. That in some cases the victim's ability to recover from the trauma, makes them feel that life isn't worth it, having to live through that event. And so for them, death is preferable to life. I personally don't agree with this mindset, but I'm also not a rape survivor, so I can't say how I would honestly react to it. I'd like to think I would be able to recover and find enjoyment in life, but I can't speak to that theoretical eventuality. I can understand that for some people, it might be impossible to move on, everyone is different, but I don't think that's the same as saying that rape victims, in general, are better off dead. I think it's more of a case by case basis, with the majority of people being able to recover from it, with your typical margin for variance of those who can't.

It's like you took the words right out of my mouth, back when I was a teen I was convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt rape was worse than murder, the thought being that death was better for the victim compared to chance of severe lifelong trauma.
And then I grew up, became an adult and I finally realized what actual responsibilities are and now given the experiences I want to experience in life plus the thought of looking after your family after they retire being the only child and all, I don't know. Right now in the state of mind I have about how it's just become my biggest goal to give my family the easiest life they can have, I'd personally choose to be raped over being murdered.
But then again, even though I would like to say that I'm pretty arrogant and strong-headed and someone who's bounced back from a lot of things, I have no idea if I would ever recover after being raped even though I want to say I will..

This is all confusing ; what I am trying to say is that question like this can be pretty subjective. I'm not sure if there's a clear answer for this.

 

[Nieroshai]

Someone who has been raped can still live a meaningful life, albeit tinged by the experience. Someone who has been killed can't live at all. What's worse: violating someone's human rights for mere moments, or violating someone's primary human right permanently?

Pretty sure the impact of rape is slightly longer than 'mere' seconds of the physical act. Regardless of the minimization, is an equivalent prison sentence for a rapist to a first degree murderer acceptable to you?

Moments aren't seconds. Decades are moments compared to, well, forever. By no means was I diminishing how heinous rape is. My point was that my stance holds that murder is worse since it ends life rather than scarring it.

EDIT: I suppose I need to say more. As far as penalty (and we're talking about the law here) in both cases we are talking about violent crime. Rape is predation, and in many cases murder is predation, so those people do need to be kept away from society and/or closely watched as there's no reason to believe they won't do it again. Further than that, it's a case by case thing. Is this person a serial offender? Was the murder for personal gain or was the person provoked and therefore a volatile person in need of rehabilitation? Was the rape actual sexual assault, or was it sexual harassment? (I ask this because this actually comes up in court) There are a lot of factors and my knowledge is in forensic science, not the workings of court, so aside from what I've said so far, I just don't know. I just perceive death as a greater injustice than sexual violation.

 

[Lightknight]

At least a rape victim gets to decide if they want to move forward from it.

I doubt they get to decide that anymore than someone who's had a traumatic childhood gets to. Some things mark you for life and will negatively influence your day-to-day life and interactions with others for the rest of your life.

It's easy to say someone can just move on with their life, because hey, they're still alive. But would you say the same to someone who'd lost both their arms and legs?

What I mean is, they get to have the option of moving forward or not moving forward. This isn't an option for a murder victim.

People make it past rape all the time. Most of the time even. People with a traumatic childhood do too. Do you know what people never make it past their event or even have the option to not move past? People who are murdered. That's who.

Don't try to pretend that people experiencing trauma don't have more freedom over themselves than people who are dead. That's ridiculous. The person who kills makes the last decision that will ever be made for the person in their life. A person who rapes steals time from the person, potentially injures them, and traumatizes them but there is a day after and a very real road to recovery if they're willing to traverse it.

Am I honestly the only person insulted here? That people are saying rape victims are better off dead? I mean, holy crap. What a devaluation of people who have been raped. I mean, are we really so gung ho about elevating the status of the crime above murder that we're willing to write off its victims?

Yes, crimes are relative. But a person who was raped usually recovers. Committing a crime from which a person never and cannot recover is the ultimate crime. Compared to that, anything else may only be penultimate at best.

The few examples in this thread, (and I admit I haven't read every one of them), that mentions that death is better than rape, seem to indicate this viewpoint is that of the victim. That in some cases the victim's ability to recover from the trauma, makes them feel that life isn't worth it, having to live through that event. And so for them, death is preferable to life. I personally don't agree with this mindset, but I'm also not a rape survivor, so I can't say how I would honestly react to it. I'd like to think I would be able to recover and find enjoyment in life, but I can't speak to that theoretical eventuality. I can understand that for some people, it might be impossible to move on, everyone is different, but I don't think that's the same as saying that rape victims, in general, are better off dead. I think it's more of a case by case basis, with the majority of people being able to recover from it, with your typical margin for variance of those who can't.

Though it might be interesting to see if it's actually the rape that is causing the desire to not be alive anymore, or the fact that it has created a depressed/suicidal drive in the victim as a byproduct? *shrugs* I mean the same logic of "I can't ever get over this, every day is pain and misery" that was described as being the existence for a rape survivor, could be applied to anyone who is suicidal. For them, whatever negative aspect of their life is something they can't overcome and move on from, thus driving them to want to die. So maybe this isn't an aspect of rape specifically, and just one facet of the larger issue of depression/suicide? *shrugs* Just a thought.

https://mainweb-v.musc.edu/vawprevention/research/mentalimpact.shtml

It seems to affect about 30% of the victims more extremely than the others and about 10% are impacted severely. So like 31% develop PTSD and 11% do not lose the diagnosis. Interestingly enough, women are more likely to develop PTSD if they are battered and children are more likely to develop it if they are abused than either category.

I mean, the numbers are pretty terrible, since it is a traumatic event. But this is nothing like a universal claim that they should have a bullet to the head or even that they would have preferred that.

As you pointed out it is highly relative and the more pertinent question would be if causing severe PTSD is worse than murder. I would still say no for all the reasons I gave above. Murder is the absolute end and no control is in the hands of the victim ever again.

 

[Lightknight]

You can't exactly measure how bad something is. Life is a mess like that.

It is certainly subjective to a point. But in a lot of ways social norms do provide some decent rules. For example, is murdering a human or murdering a grasshopper worse?