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

[orangeban]

Hmm, I disagree that no rapists and murderers can be rehabilitated. Take the case of the murderer, what if it was a passion thing? You find a bloke cheating on wife and go mental and stab him? Surely that is someone who is rehabilitateable (99% certain that isn't a word)?
I believe that most criminals aren't bad people, just people who got in bad situations. Rehabilitation should always be tried.

 

[TheScientificIssole]

What's up with all the rape talk this month? Seriously?
OT: Wheaton's rule("Don't be a dick") yet again saves the day and prevents me from writing a paragraph

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.

They may get killed in prison or in turn, raped. Especially Pedophiles in prison are in lots of danger, because many prisoners have children that are very dear to them.

 

[Sigma Van Lockheart]

Of all the crimes the one I hate most is that of rape as it will completely destroy someone?s life. Which is why I think it is only just to do the same to the rapist. They should lose everything their hour their car even there bank account. They should then be marked so that everyone knows what they did and it should follow them to the grave it would also make it harder for them to get a job. I am also for them being killed but working them to death would better in my opinion.

 

[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?

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.

You can't make the claim that drastic action is needed in the absence of some indication of the form that action might take. To do so is to merely expell hot air.

As for there being comparatively little interest, in the UK we have politicians trying to score points on these issues more or less once an election cycle, each party seeking to be tougher on rape than the previous, each lamenting the low conviction rates. What happens when they throw it over to the Law Commission for consultation? The lawyers decide that preserving the concept of presumed innocence is rather more valuable than allowing politicians to score points with members of the public who refuse to think the issue through. There simply is not a way to increase effective prosecution where police and prosecutors are acting in good faith (which admittedly is frequently not the case with the police - some room for positive reform here) without lowering the bar for what constitutes a claim being 'proved'. I for one am completely unwilling to countenance such a suggestion, as it flies in the face of the most fundamental precepts of our criminal law.

 

[Jewrean]

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.

Prison cells have television, internet, food choices, sex and further rape... unless it's a super-max prison with nothing but a padded cell I say put them to death. Where do you think so many of the peoples taxes go? Into prisons!

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well that's all neat in a black ans white world, but the real world is not that.
If someone was falsely accused and killed your system would suddenly be the ultimate cockup.

There are alot of gray areas surrounding rape especially when people get intoxicated and the consent is ever so iffy, not to mention someone were to pull the rape card out of spite.

 

[Darius Brogan]

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 I'd say five to ten years.

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.

First and second degree are a deliberate removal of self control, and therefore fall under my 'Death Penalty' Second degree is definitively less violent, but has more than enough potential to become violent if the other party is unwilling to submit, also, about half of what's in 'second degree' would fall under your definition of 'third degree'.
Third and fourth would basically fall under 'soliciting' or 'drunken romp', neither of which I'm referring to here.

 

[erztez]

Not unless there's a full HD video of the act, with both faces clearly visible and 20 witnesses with no connections to either the victim or the attacker.

Yeah, I'm THAT jaded about this.
I've had a good friend accused of rape, and the poor bastard spent TWO YEARS defending himself against a woman he NEVER EVEN SLEPT WITH.

 

[Darius Brogan]

Alright boys and girls, it is 4AM and I'm going to bed. Keep your opinions coming and don't be afraid to debate your views, because that's what I started this thread for.

What's the point of the internet if not for holding a good debate? Seriously.

I would, however, like things to be kept more-or-less insult free (to the parties commenting, insult rapists all you want)

 

[Continuity]

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?

The simple problem is the burden of proof, you can perhaps prove that intercourse took place with forensics but baring witnesses (unlikely) it just one persons word against another's... pretty shaky grounds for a death sentence.
However in clear cut cases where rape has been established beyond all doubt I would advocate a lengthy custodial sentence... "beyond all doubt" is going to come up in few cases though, maybe if the attack was caught on CCTV or something like that.

 

[Lord Kloo]

Rape is only a terrible crime, or is considered this way by most humans on Earth.. However 600,000+ people a year say differently and commit a rape or two.. Now I know some of this number do not think its right but still do it anyway but the matter of death as punishment stands to leave hundreds of thousands of families without the father, or parents without children, sisters without brothers ect.
I know the deterrent of death would be there but there stands the fact that it would decimate sections of society, it would be similar to killing all the petty criminals in the UK.
My other arguement is just that only 2% of rapes are convicted. This represents the Western Judiciary's best attempts to cull rapes and punish the perpetrators. For a death punishment to work as a deterrent you need to improve conviction rates, which isn't going to happen unless we begin to read minds..

However I assume you want to have death as a punishment, just to hit back and feel better as your primal instincts have been fulfilled. If you could see the collateral damage caused by executing what would be in excess of even the Chinese's capital punishment program then you would think again.
What should be done with them, well rapists have an obsessive attitude towards having power, rape gives them this, people will always develop this and death will not help us combat it, if we try to rehabilitate them then we can learn for the future and perhaps begin to prevent rapes..

 

[TheFinalFantasyWolf]

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.

I agree, however I think the maximum penalty should be life in jail, rather than death. Most rapists are usually considered low-life's by their fellow prisoners. (They themselves get treated like garbage and in some situations, raped in prison) I think a lifetime of dealing with a community that wants to kill and torture you constantly, is a much more satisfying punishment.

 

[Thaluikhain]

You can't make the claim that drastic action is needed in the absence of some indication of the form that action might take. To do so is to merely expell hot air.

As for there being comparatively little interest, in the UK we have politicians trying to score points on these issues more or less once an election cycle, each party seeking to be tougher on rape than the previous, each lamenting the low conviction rates. What happens when they throw it over to the Law Commission for consultation? The lawyers decide that preserving the concept of presumed innocence is rather more valuable than allowing politicians to score points with members of the public who refuse to think the issue through. There simply is not a way to increase effective prosecution where police and prosecutors are acting in good faith (which admittedly is frequently not the case with the police - some room for positive reform here) without lowering the bar for what constitutes a claim being 'proved'. I for one am completely unwilling to countenance such a suggestion, as it flies in the face of the most fundamental precepts of our criminal law.

Well, the usual action proposed for any criminal issue is giving it a higher priority when resources are to be allocated.

And, yes, politically expedient stunts are rather different to positive action. I don't like the idea of reducing the burden of proof, but Britain only has something like a 6.5% conviction rate for rape. I suspect people's gender will have a big impact on which of these two things they consider worse.

As an aside, is what the victim was wearing still admissable as evidence for consent or not in the UK?

 

[Darius Brogan]

Oh great another thread about rape in which people pretend to rationalize their emotions in order give it the look of a valid argument. Emotionalizing in any way shouldn't come in any way near of the a decent judiciary power and is basically the reason why the American justice is one of the irrational and injustice systems of the western world. Good job guys, keep on going.

If you don't intend to comment about the thread, please Fuck Off.

I was not initially 'pretending to rationalize my emotions' when I posted this thread, I was working OFF OF THEM.
Rapists know full well what they are doing, know full well that it is a horrible thing to do, and yet they do it anyways. These pieces of filth should be removed from the gene pool.

If you had bothered to read the title of this thread, you would have noted 'View on rape, and the punishment/lack thereof of the perpetrator' there is nothing in there about the judicial system, it is about the general view of rapists, by more-or-less the common people, and how we believe they should be handled.
We're not likely going to start a petition for the 'institution of the death penalty' for rapists because, on the whole, there is far too much of a grey area that would require the re-writing of quite a lot of the legal system.

The situations I was initially referring to, however, have no grey area. Those situations are: The perpetrator forcing him/herself onto the victim in a more often than not, violent way, and the perpetrator intentionally drugging the victim so that they cannot fight back. I have experience with both of these scenarios, and therefore I wish to get the general opinion of the, generally speaking, fine posters here at the Escapist.

Anywho, if you're done being a presumptuous, self-righteous asshole, please leave.

 

[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.

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?

The simple problem is the burden of proof, you can perhaps prove that intercourse took place with forensics but baring witnesses (unlikely) it just one persons word against another's... pretty shaky grounds for a death sentence.
However in clear cut cases where rape has been established beyond all doubt I would advocate a lengthy custodial sentence... "beyond all doubt" is going to come up in few cases though, maybe if the attack was caught on CCTV or something like that.

Please note my Edit of the Original Post. I've desperately gotta get some sleep. 4AM's hard on a person.

 

[Sikachu]

You can't make the claim that drastic action is needed in the absence of some indication of the form that action might take. To do so is to merely expell hot air.

As for there being comparatively little interest, in the UK we have politicians trying to score points on these issues more or less once an election cycle, each party seeking to be tougher on rape than the previous, each lamenting the low conviction rates. What happens when they throw it over to the Law Commission for consultation? The lawyers decide that preserving the concept of presumed innocence is rather more valuable than allowing politicians to score points with members of the public who refuse to think the issue through. There simply is not a way to increase effective prosecution where police and prosecutors are acting in good faith (which admittedly is frequently not the case with the police - some room for positive reform here) without lowering the bar for what constitutes a claim being 'proved'. I for one am completely unwilling to countenance such a suggestion, as it flies in the face of the most fundamental precepts of our criminal law.

Well, the usual action proposed for any criminal issue is giving it a higher priority when resources are to be allocated.

And, yes, politically expedient stunts are rather different to positive action. I don't like the idea of reducing the burden of proof, but Britain only has something like a 6.5% conviction rate for rape. I suspect people's gender will have a big impact on which of these two things they consider worse.

As an aside, is what the victim was wearing still admissable as evidence for consent or not in the UK?

It isn't so much people's gender that will impact on their thoughts on which they consider worse, but rather their intelligence. Anyone who thinks that merely being accused of rape should diminish your right to be presumed innocent in the absence of proof otherwise simply isn't firing enough of their neurons.

Responding to your aside, of course it is. It's not particularly valuable or strong evidence, and I've yet to see a case that turned on the point of the alleged victim's clothing, but it isn't exactly outside the realms of reasonableness to consider the course of the interaction as a whole. If you jump down my throat about how outrageous this situation is in the absence of evidence of specific examples where allowing such evidence hints at manifest injustice (as it is actually practised and not merely by your conjecture) I will proceed to ignore your comments and not respond to them again. Ground your comments in evidence or at least facts about the process and you'll find me a receptive audience.

 

[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?

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.

So you are saying that's its OK to provide rapists with an incentive to kill their victims victims so long as the rapist gets increased punishment? I thought the US legal system is about protecting the innocent over punishing the guilty? Oh, and the part about irrefutable evidence, you do know that sometimes they don't actually find who is responsible for a crime? Victim testimony can be crucial to help find killers, and you can't give witness testimony if you are dead, so murder might seem like a good idea to cover your tracks if you just raped someone and are panicking over the reprecussions. Also, being a rapist isn't exactly the kind of thing you get killed on a cellblock for, as I'm assuming that the people who rape others in prison were probably jailed because of rape. Murder isn't exactly too evil there either. Pedophilia is bad but I didn't know this debate was about pedophilia.

Its the same reason why judges will usually offer a slightly lessened sentence for people who admit guilt or give testimony to help catch accomplices. They always want there to be an incentive to not impede investigation, so they leave room in the punishment to provide that incentive. Imagine if fleeing from the police didn't add any punishment, you would see a lot more people running over minor things.

 

[Vault101]

a worrying thing though is how easy it is to acuse a man of rape, and for a vengeful women to abuse societys hatred for it

I mean I cant imagine how horrible it would be to be accused of such a thing