View on rape, and the punishment/lack thereof, of the perpetrator

[Thaluikhain]

Firstly, the vast majority of rapes are committed by friends or family of the victim. If the person is a friend or spouse or whatever, then they can easily argue consent, and it becomes her word against his. This is one of the reasons the conviction rate tends to be single digits percentile.

Secondly, the number of false accusations isn't any larger than those of other crimes [footnote]at least when you don't have your police force almost exclusively male[/footnote], though it's constantly cited as a major issue, much more than in any other crime. In any case, given the tiny conviction rate, this is one of the least troublesome areas for false convictions.

Thirdly, there's a massive problem procing a rape took place. In all other assaults, the defualt assumption is that the victim didn't agree to be assaulted. With rape, consent is taken as default, and you have to prove the victim didn't consent. Which leads us to:

Fourthly, society tends to dismiss or blame rape victims. Any time rape comes up in the media, there will be a barrage of "she was asking for it", "it's bad, but it's her own fault", "women should take more steps to stop rape", "this wasn't really rape"[footnote]In cases where it is, obviously. Alot of people still assume that if the two are married, it's not rape, and this thinking blurs over alot towards acquaintances as well[/footnote]. Which leads us to:

Fifthly, it's hard to determine the amount of rapes, for various reasons. It varies from place to place, of course, but generally 1 in 3 to 1 in 6 women will be raped at least once within their lifetimes. The conviction rate is constantly tiny. This is an unbelievably fucking massive disastrous state of things, which really needs drastic action and won't get it anytime soon.

 

[kickassfrog]

This is another 'Rattling around in my brain' thing that I'm having trouble ignoring.

I have some rather hardcore views on rape, myself, and they tend to freak people out a bit.

Personally, I believe that, regardless of how the woman/man in question was dressed or acting, there is no such thing as 'asking to get raped', as it involves a certain willingness to partake in the action to be 'asking for it', in which case, it's no longer rape, but consensual intercourse.

My views on punishment are where things get hardcore, they also parallel my view on murderers/serial killers, as well as my parents views on such, though my opinion developed independently of theirs.

My views on the punishment of said criminals is thus: Death.

When one is willing to deliberately hunt down a victim that, in almost all cases of rape, is not physically capable of fighting back, and force themselves on them in a sexual, and more often than not, violent and brutal way, they are no longer a part of what we refer to as 'Humanity' because they have given up the most basic of all 'Human' traits, and that is the trait of self-control, our ability to keep a lid on much of our 'instincts'.

Not only this, but they have gone beyond a natural instinct to procreate, which all animals possess, and turned it into a deliberately violent act, perpetrated against another human, just to get a cheap, quick thrill out of it.

These people cannot be rehabilitated simply because they choose to be the way they are, and they should be removed from the population. At least that's my views on the subject.

So tell me, what are your views on Rape, male or female victim, and how severe to you believe the punishment should be for it?

You may have already heard about this, but there was one old woman in Australia whose granddaughter got raped, and she found the rapists and shot them right in the balls. Or cocks. Anyway, something got blown off with a handgun, and she didn't even get arrested, because half the city was praising her as an urban hero.

Anyway, they should get sent to prison and the other inmates are told to rape them, then they get sentenced to death.

EDIT: Maybe not death, but D-class sentences, as in http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/security-clearance-levels. Why waste resources killing them when you can use them as expendable resources to contain highly dangerous objects. Like a statue that kills people. Or that bloody lizard.

 

[Darius Brogan]

This is another 'Rattling around in my brain' thing that I'm having trouble ignoring.

I have some rather hardcore views on rape, myself, and they tend to freak people out a bit.

Snip

By all means, Godwin away, my friend. Now on with the show.

1) What can I say, I'm a kinky guy, lol.
2) I love agreements, they make things so much easier.
3) I'm not actually comparing the two, it more a case of 'They're horrible, depraved acts of violence' and my views on punishment are equal in term. It is not truly possible to recover from rape, because there will always be mental scarring, regardless of how brief the act was.
I also have a couple post floating around here already referring to 'Drunken sex romps'
4) I know rapists are human, completely. That's unchangeable. They've just given up the right to call themselves equal to other people, you know, the kind that can control themselves.
5) Refer to above point. If there's an urge to rape, it is suppressible. Young men have a natural urge to masturbate, yet they don't just whip it out in class and have a party... most of the time.
6) A drug addict can recover from being a drug addict because A) They realize they have a problem, or B) Someone holds an intervention.
Rapists usually have neither of these occur.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Of all the atrocities that humankind seems to delight in heaping upon itself, I believe rape is one of the ones that has absolutely no justification, and if I was ok with capital punishment in general, I'd be ok with rape being one of the (very) few things that merited it.

That being said, the evidence of guilt would have to be overwhelming.

This. Rape is up there with torture and murder for me. It is just...inhuman. But, yeah, I'd like convincing evidence before we issue the death penalty.

 

[Spencer Petersen]

Adding the capitol punishment to rape is a bad move. The capitol punishment is reserved for capitol crimes for very good reasons.

Example: You are a man who has just raped a woman and she is unconscious, she has seen your face and you know she could point you out in a line-up. You know that rape is punishable by death, and there isn't anything more severe than that, so you think "If I murder her I can cover up some of my tracks without increasing the severity of the sentence, I'm dead if I'm caught either way."

We need to keep that threshold clear as murder is the worst crime one can do, and if we equivocate the sentences of other crimes with the sentence for murder then we equivocate the severity of the deed. Why not kill the store clerk during the robbery if the punishment won't increase? Why not kill a person to cover up your fraud scheme if they both result in death? Why leave the victim alive after rape if rape is a death sentence as well?

 

[Gigano]

Well, barring the ideological and practical problems with death penalty itself, killing the rapist would seem almost inherently disproportionate.

The underlying principle of criminal sanctions - and regulation in general - is that it should be both necessary and proportional. While hardly impossible that some rapists are so incurably dangerous that they should be held for life, murdering them will seldom be a proportional response.

Only when the crime had inflicted such damage to the victim that it would be better off dead - i.e. where suicide is actually the rational and preferable alternative - would taking the life of the perpetrator be a reciprocal and proportional response. And as we do not - and should not - generally encourage rape victims to kill themselves rather than live on and achieve the joys their life may still hold[footnote]One might well argue that the "destroyed forever" approach is in fact harmful to rape victims, as everyone considering them broken and unable to recover and have a normal life might actually hinder such recovery. Some will undoubtedly be, but many others won't if given some constructive psychological support, professionally and from their community.[/footnote], or consider them doing so a positive thing that has overall lessened their suffering, then willfully inflicting death is, in the vast majority of instances, "worse" than rape, and hence disproportionate as a response even from the merciless eye-for-eye point of view.

That said, rape is of course one of the most serious crimes within criminal law, and committing it should bear a very lengthy prison sentence, as well as forced treatment where useful.

 

[Gypsy Ninja Pirate Zombie King]

someone get this man a Death note. no but seriously i total agree with you 100%.

 

[SpartanBlackman]

Nope. Honestly, killing rapists? Rape isn't even on my top 5 crimes someone can commit. And rape isn't even a crime that you can pin down 100% of the time. Girlfriends can call rape, people who regret it afterwards can say it is rape. I remember a story about a man and a woman who got drunk together, had consensual sex, and then because of short term memory loss, the woman called rape. The man was proven innocent, but is still stopped from getting ANY jobs, because of his record.
And if Rape deserves the Death penalty, what about the women who rape men? A lot more men get raped than you think, and that because of the fact that 99% of men would not admit that he got raped due to the mindset of today. Even in the media rape against men in trivialized. Like that boy who got pretty much raped by 3 girls and it was a prank, then later a boy "Pants'd" a girl and is now facing jail time and calls for death.
Rape is not the worst crime ever. People should not die for it. Rape shocks a woman for a time but they can recover, but there are worse crimes, such as Murder (kills someone) Drug Dealing(Destroying about 20 lives) Reckless driving (A constant danger to you+Everyone on the road) Purposely infecting someone (Like this idiot who single handedly started the AIDS epidemic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ga%C3%ABtan_Dugas) and all sorts of gang violence. Seriously, rape is bad, but it is not deserving of the death penalty. Few things are worth the death penalty, murder of more than one person, yes, but a single rape? No.

 

[JJMUG]

.

I agree its not like any was wrongfully accused then spent twenty two years in prison. I mean in not way has that ever happen. So waht would you guys do in the case of Anthony Capozzi a man who was wrongfull accused for 22 years of being the Bike Path Rapist just do horrendous things to him, then go oops my bad? Or just do the same terrible things to the Duke Lacrosse players?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bike_Path_Rapist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/forensics/4325774

 

[Sikachu]

The conviction rate is constantly tiny. This is an unbelievably fucking massive disastrous state of things, which really needs drastic action and won't get it anytime soon.

And what nature should this "drastic action" have? Dimished burdens of proof?

(edited wrongly attributed quote)

 

[TheIronRuler]

Nope. Honestly, killing rapists? Rape isn't even on my top 5 crimes someone can commit. And rape isn't even a crime that you can pin down 100% of the time. Girlfriends can call rape, people who regret it afterwards can say it is rape. I remember a story about a man and a woman who got drunk together, had consensual sex, and then because of short term memory loss, the woman called rape. The man was proven innocent, but is still stopped from getting ANY jobs, because of his record.
And if Rape deserves the Death penalty, what about the women who rape men? A lot more men get raped than you think, and that because of the fact that 99% of men would not admit that he got raped due to the mindset of today. Even in the media rape against men in trivialized. Like that boy who got pretty much raped by 3 girls and it was a prank, then later a boy "Pants'd" a girl and is now facing jail time and calls for death.
Rape is not the worst crime ever. People should not die for it. Rape shocks a woman for a time but they can recover, but there are worse crimes, such as Murder (kills someone) Drug Dealing(Destroying about 20 lives) Reckless driving (A constant danger to you+Everyone on the road) Purposely infecting someone (Like this idiot who single handedly started the AIDS epidemic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ga%C3%ABtan_Dugas) and all sorts of gang violence. Seriously, rape is bad, but it is not deserving of the death penalty. Few things are worth the death penalty, murder of more than one person, yes, but a single rape? No.

I share your opinion.
Thank you for saving me the trouble to type it all down.
My friends' mother used the word 'rape' to get the police on her side and make her ex-husband get away from her (while they were married) and by doing so she managed to get the children indefinitely, with exorbitant amounts of child support. My friend knows that and hates his mother, but if he gets caught with his dad that can turn into damn kidnapping.... there's nothing he can do.
Because she can say 'rape' at any time. They had a 'healthy' relationship, or at least it seemed so, but she was planning this with her other friends.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

It's tricky, recently Ken Clarke, one of our politicians tried to make a point about different 'levels' of rape, and of course, being an MP, managed to turn what could have been a sensible point into verifiable tabloid bait by choosing his words with all the care of the 'word of the day' feature on dictionary.com, using terms like 'classic rape' and 'serious rape'. What he was TRYING to get across was that while, sure, there are the 'hide in an alley, knife to the throat' kind of rapists out there, too often it isn't black n white, it's not a simple guilty verdict, and there's too much complexity involved when the woman wakes up unsure if she gave consent.

While, sure it'd be great if we could just have every rapist shot at dawn, the problem is how do we make sure they're guilty in such cases as people who were drunk, high, emotional, etc?

Then of course you have the women who damage the case for victims thru false claims for petty revenge, knowing that the press love to print lots of information about an accused rapist, facts not mattering, knowing the guy's name will be destroyed for life with no evidence.

In the end, I still think that while there's no excuse for rape, there still should be some level of self preservation going on, in terms of not getting so drunk that you don't know who's bed you're in at the end of the night, as who can make a rational decision in that situation? By all means obliterate yourself with drink, but do it with friends who'll make sure you get home safely.

Note I'm not on the bandwagon of 'she was asking for it', simply stating that even putting the rape issue aside, people do need to take some responsibility for their own safety. There's evil and mental people out there, and I think many people would lay some blame at the victim if someone got hit by a car while drunkenly staggering around in the middle of the road at midnight.

It's always going to be near impossible to differentiate between 'He forced himself on me while I was too drunk to say no' and 'I woke up after getting off my face and don't remember saying yes' and 'I just don't like to admit that I had sex with him while drunk'.

I feel like I'm really coming down against the victim here, and I don't mean to, more that I see that there are different cases, and that it's all too easy to accuse a man falsely and see him ruined for nothing.

 

[Darius Brogan]

Adding the capitol punishment to rape is a bad move. The capitol punishment is reserved for capitol crimes for very good reasons.

Example: You are a man who has just raped a woman and she is unconscious, she has seen your face and you know she could point you out in a line-up. You know that rape is punishable by death, and there isn't anything more severe than that, so you think "If I murder her I can cover up some of my tracks without increasing the severity of the sentence, I'm dead if I'm caught either way."

We need to keep that threshold clear as murder is the worst crime one can do, and if we equivocate the sentences of other crimes with the sentence for murder then we equivocate the severity of the deed. Why not kill the store clerk during the robbery if the punishment won't increase? Why not kill a person to cover up your fraud scheme if they both result in death? Why leave the victim alive after rape if rape is a death sentence as well?

My views are simple: Fuck wasting my tax dollars feeding, clothing, and otherwise sustaining the life of the scum-bag that gets off on seeing women/men/whatever suffer because of what they're doing. It's that simple.

Honestly, if you're thinking 'Why leave them alive if the punishment is the same' you're not thinking clearly enough to note that even if you kill them, you die.
Besides that, no matter how well you cover up, there is irrefutable proof that you not only raped someone, but you THEN murdered them. Your sentence doesn't change at all, but the attitude of the other prisoners sure as hell does. Try yelling 'Goof' in a maximum security wing just after pushing a pedophile through the doors. He's a dead-man. Guaranteed.

Besides, the waiting lines on a death penalty can take decades, combine the other prisoners making the rapist/murderers life a living hell WITH the death penalty afterwards. That's some good punishment to me.

 

[Sarah Frazier]

Someone who commits such a horrible and vile act against another human isn't worth the life they're given.
However, I don't believe they deserve death either. In some cases, that's seen as a peaceful escape considering the means of execution nowadays.
No, being the deranged and jaded fuck that I am, and being cynical and thus seeing no possibility for one to be "rehabilitated" or even deserving of such opportunity, I say let them rot in a prison cell for the rest of their miserable life.

Sorry if I come across as completely insane, but this is a sensitive subject with me as well.

Leaving them in a jail cell drains the economy and takes up space for other criminals.

My first thought is "Cut away the genitals and they won't be as much of a threat when they realize it doesn't work" but rape isn't always about the sexual act. It's about dominating someone, making them helpless and breaking their will. Even without working organs, the rapist can just use tools for the same effect.

Of course not every accusation of RAPE is legitimate. Sometimes the person was just drunk and consenting at the time, then sobered up and felt violated later. What should happen to the 'guilty' party who may have been drunk too and just as out of control?

Having a flat-out death penalty is a bit excessive for those cases where there wasn't enough evidence to prove innocence or guilt, or both people weren't in any condition to think rationally. For repeat offenders, though? Go for it. They've had their chance/s to learn some control and failed. They could have looked for help, but either didn't bother or it isn't working. If the rapist can't see what's wrong, then they shouldn't be allowed to keep hurting people.

As an aside: Yes people can physically recover from being raped, but sometimes the act was so brutal that it leaves mental/emotional scarring that lasts for years. Some victims never recover from it, and not from a lack of trying.

 

[JJMUG]

Someone who commits such a horrible and vile act against another human isn't worth the life they're given.
However, I don't believe they deserve death either. In some cases, that's seen as a peaceful escape considering the means of execution nowadays.
No, being the deranged and jaded fuck that I am, and being cynical and thus seeing no possibility for one to be "rehabilitated" or even deserving of such opportunity, I say let them rot in a prison cell for the rest of their miserable life.

Sorry if I come across as completely insane, but this is a sensitive subject with me as well.

Leaving them in a jail cell drains the economy and takes up space for other criminals.

My first thought is "Cut away the genitals and they won't be as much of a threat when they realize it doesn't work" but rape isn't always about the sexual act. It's about dominating someone, making them helpless and breaking their will. Even without working organs, the rapist can just use tools for the same effect.

Of course not every accusation of RAPE is legitimate. Sometimes the person was just drunk and consenting at the time, then sobered up and felt violated later. What should happen to the 'guilty' party who may have been drunk too and just as out of control?

Having a flat-out death penalty is a bit excessive for those cases where there wasn't enough evidence to prove innocence or guilt, or both people weren't in any condition to think rationally. For repeat offenders, though? Go for it. They've had their chance/s to learn some control and failed. They could have looked for help, but either didn't bother or it isn't working. If the rapist can't see what's wrong, then they shouldn't be allowed to keep hurting people.

As an aside: Yes people can physically recover from being raped, but sometimes the act was so brutal that it leaves mental/emotional scarring that lasts for years. Some victims never recover from it, and not from a lack of trying.

Sometimes that person was wrongfully accused then convicted then sat in a jail cell for 22 year of his life.

 

[phelan511]

My opinion on rape is simple. If you force yourself on someone, be it male or female, you are below the class of human. You're a goddamned animal and you deserve nothing less than to be put down. No man could honestly call himself a man if you have to resort to violence or drugs to incapacitate the other party that way you can satisfy your own sexual desires. Same goes with women, I know I know its a rare occurrence but lets face it we've all heard of women that rape men. If you have to resort to violent or incapacitating tactics to get your sexual desires fulfilled then you have no rights in my mind. You're a sick, twisted animal and you deserve nothing more than death.

 

[Thaluikhain]

The conviction rate is constantly tiny. This is an unbelievably fucking massive disastrous state of things, which really needs drastic action and won't get it anytime soon.

And what nature should this "drastic action" have? Dimished burdens of proof?

I've no idea what the solution would be, but so far there's comparatively little interest even in acknowledging the problem and looking for a solution, when weighed against exciting things like, say, drugs and gang warfare.

Personally, I'd say that there's no point suggesting solutions until a good hard look is taken at the problem, with the promise of substantial resources and/or legal reforms based on the results.

 

[Darius Brogan]

It's tricky, recently Ken Clarke, one of our politicians tried to make a point about different 'levels' of rape, and of course, being an MP, managed to turn what could have been a sensible point into verifiable tabloid bait by choosing his words with all the care of the 'word of the day' feature on dictionary.com, using terms like 'classic rape' and 'serious rape'. What he was TRYING to get across was that while, sure, there are the 'hide in an alley, knife to the throat' kind of rapists out there, too often it isn't black n white, it's not a simple guilty verdict, and there's too much complexity involved when the woman wakes up unsure if she gave consent.

While, sure it'd be great if we could just have every rapist shot at dawn, the problem is how do we make sure they're guilty in such cases as people who were drunk, high, emotional, etc?

Then of course you have the women who damage the case for victims thru false claims for petty revenge, knowing that the press love to print lots of information about an accused rapist, facts not mattering, knowing the guy's name will be destroyed for life with no evidence.

In the end, I still think that while there's no excuse for rape, there still should be some level of self preservation going on, in terms of not getting so drunk that you don't know who's bed you're in at the end of the night, as who can make a rational decision in that situation? By all means obliterate yourself with drink, but do it with friends who'll make sure you get home safely.

Note I'm not on the bandwagon of 'she was asking for it', simply stating that even putting the rape issue aside, people do need to take some responsibility for their own safety. There's evil and mental people out there, and I think many people would lay some blame at the victim if someone got hit by a car while drunkenly staggering around in the middle of the road at midnight.

It's always going to be near impossible to differentiate between 'He forced himself on me while I was too drunk to say no' and 'I woke up after getting off my face and don't remember saying yes' and 'I just don't like to admit that I had sex with him while drunk'.

I feel like I'm really coming down against the victim here, and I don't mean to, more that I see that there are different cases, and that it's all too easy to accuse a man falsely and see him ruined for nothing.

I've noted several times already that the situations I'm referring to are Non-Drunk or otherwise mentally incapacitated persons being forced to have sex against their will.

Yeah, there are 'knife to the throat, back-alley' rapes, and they fall under my situations, but if the victim was lucid and forced to have sex (Or under the effects of a Ruffie, which are very noticeable, by the way, as you have NO memory at all of the previous night or three), it doesn't MATTER who did it, father, brother, best friend, ect... Those who willingly remove their self-control, even once, can, and most likely will, do it again. I believe that those people should be removed from society.

 

[Araksardet]

I think we need to divide rape up the way we divide murder up - but in four degrees, not three. First degree rape would be where the victim and the rapist are fully aware of what's happening, and the victim is clearly opposed to the idea but can do nothing to stop it (prototypical rape in Grand Central Park at midnight sort of thing; also, rape of minors by their parents or other family members; rape of wives by husbands; etc). Violent rape, basically. Life without parole, medical experiments and forced labor for these f***ers.

Second degree rape would be "I'll fire you if you don't suck me off" situations - i.e. no physical, violent coercion, but a clear threat nevertheless. This includes threats of violence to others, demanding sex as a bribe, offering to exchange sex for a promotion or raise, etc. Abuse of power, essentially. Second degree rape would also cover situations in which a lucid rapist drugs a victim or gets them drunk. I'd say fifteen to twenty years' hard labor.

Third degree rape would cover things such as sex obtained via gratuitous lying (I'll give you money to get through college; I'll hire you as a porn-star if you let me tape us screwing; johns running away from their prostitutes; etc.), in other words, situations where the rapist has no actual authority or power over the victim but purports to confer some concrete, tangible benefit to the victim for sex and then fails to deliver, either out of malice or because there was no possibility of providing that aid in the first place. Ten to fifteen for these ones.

Fourth degree rape would be rape where rapist (and possibly victim) is under the influence of substances or has otherwise medically impaired thought processes (especially if there is reason to believe the rapist's intoxication took place first, or at the same time as the victim's), but where the rapist ought to have known that sex was unwanted. This kind of thing happens unfortunately often in our culture, and intoxication does mitigate some responsibility, so this is a difficult case and probably needs lighter sentencing.

Some caveats - first, evidence needs to be very clear. If there are to be character examinations, then have them be of both the plaintiff and the defendant, not just the plaintiff. Yes, women can lie about being raped, but men can also be misogynistic jerks. Second, situations where a woman had sex with a guy and then decides she wished she hadn't aren't rape.

Third, situations where a guy (or girl!) lies about things in general - like claiming he's a doctor, rather than the waiter he really is; or failing to disclose that he has casual sex with someone else regularly - aren't rape. No tangible benefits lied about. We need to be careful, or we'd end up on a slippery slope where it's a rape-defining lie if a woman says her favorite color is green and you agree just to get in her pants.

Fourth, statutory rape laws are often just ridiculous. Where I live, the age limit is 14, which makes way more sense than 18 - though 15 or 16 is acceptable, in a pinch. Come on.