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

[Char-Nobyl]

I'm not painting Rape as a basic instinct, I'm painting procreation as a basic instinct. Rapists have chosen to not bother utilizing self control when it comes to their basic, sexual urges, and have turned them into a brutal, violent act of physical and mental pain.

No, you're still painting it as a basic instinct. When you say that rapists aren't utilizing "self control," you're saying that rape is what happens when you put yourself on autopilot when you get an erection.

And if that's the case, it's mental illness. If a person genuinely cannot control their most primal urges, there is something wrong with the part of their brains that lets them do that. Hell, that's why humans are able to form societies: because any collective will fail if its every individual rapes with every arousal, steals at every trace of envy, and kills after any feeling of anger.

I'm only for the death penalty when crimes such as Rape/Child molestation, or Murder are on the table. People like that are not fit to live with society, and they'd be nothing but a drain on the economy living in prison for the rest of their lives.

I've never really been fond of citing the economic benefits of killing someone, particularly in an era when we have things like 'The Innocence Project' exonerating numerous men who were put on Death Row for crimes they were then acquitted of.

As far as I see it, if keeping a hundred murderers alive but separated from society guarantees that no innocent men will ever be killed unjustly, it's worth the financial price.

I'm not actually over-estimating anything. I'm looking specifically FOR violent rapists, or rapists that drug their victims. I've got experience dealing with both examples, as well as child molestation, as they've all happened to people close to me.
The violent rape was just a couple months ago, by the way.
I'm not writing the law as anything at all, a drunken romp is just plain stupidity on both parts, and giving into demands for sex in exchange for not getting fired/ a promotion/ keeping something else a secret/ whatever, are not my focal point here. And if the 'drunken romp' was one guy deliberately GETTING a girl slammed so he could have sex with her, he's a low-life piece of shit that should be castrated anyways.

You're still assuming that our judicial system is flawless. It's not. Here, see for yourself [http://www.innocenceproject.org/]. If you think all rapists should be put to death, alright. From what you've said, I can see why you think that. But do not think for an instant that every single man in prison deserves to be there, and never think that killing an innocent man is worth revenge on a guilty one.

Now please stop assuming that I want the law to be changed. I'm just looking for people general opinion of violent rapists, and what their punishment should be. I'm NOT looking to enact a law making rape punishable by death!

If you say "this is how I think it should be," that means it's the way you want it but can't be arsed to try and make it that way. I'm responding not because I think you presently have the power to change the law, but because one day, you just might, and suddenly, it won't just be how you think things "should be." It'll become the way things are, and I don't want that to happen.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

Believe it or not, sometimes the state just don't know any better.

So we should never have law? That's a terrible idea. The state is composed of human beings, generally people that the public has somehow elected. What possible (positive) alternative could there be?

And these views are taken from professionals in their fields on what they have gathered from the subject, taken many years.
That is, summed up in Zeitgeist. It'll open your eyes.

I looked it up, because at the moment, that's easier than watching a full-length film to respond to a forum post.

From what I read, I learned that a fair portion of the film is dedicated to declaring that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated by the government. Normally, it'd be an ad hominem argument to invalidate the words of a single person based on one thing that they say, but the rule has exceptions. For instance, if the phrase suggests that said individual is paranoid and delusional (ie, thinking that 9/11 was carried out by the US), then any other far-reaching conspiracy that said individual advocates can also be called into question for its advocate being (you guessed it) paranoid and delusional.

Not to mention that, perhaps they cannot afford the time and money to completely change it for the, dare I say, better?

...what? A complete overhaul of everything? Want to know the problem with dismantling your house with the idea of rebuilding it, better than ever? At best, you'll end up with a house pretty much like the one you just took down. At worst, you'll have nothing but a pile of debris and, oh look, a storm is blowing in.

Going 'all in' on anything is a massive risk, and generally a very bad idea.

That's the thing, really. The criminal might not care about the moral issue, but he would care about the punishing consequence. However...
That is like slapping the hand of a kid that wants some coke. He'll learn that you don't want him to have any coke, but what he WON'T truly learn is WHY you don't want him to drink it in the first place, leaving the kid completely oblivious as to why it's wrong.

You being a bad parent isn't an example of the failure of modern law. A good parent is supposed to say why a child isn't supposed to do something. In this case, it'd be something like, "The caffeine will keep you awake" or "It'll your appetite before dinner" or something like that.

It's already been proven that saying "Do/don't do this because I say so" is not a good way to teach a lesson. The "Talk: They'll Listen" campaign that Phillip Morris put out in '99 is living proof of that. It encouraged parents to tell their kids not to smoke because they were kids, not because of the health risks attached to it. As a result, parents who followed the campaign actually increased the chances of their kids picking up smoking. And, considering it was a campaign created by a tobacco company, that might mean that it was phenomenal success.

Not really, but crime shouldn't need to happen in the first place. Why is that you and I (Assuming you work under the normal norms and etiquettes of societies standards, like I) can refrain from criminality when others in the same society can't?
And before you reply, no, it has nothing to do with intelligence... Hitler was a genius, and under his leadership, well... Some serious shit went down.
But the living conditions would have to be... Different... for said criminal, one way or another, that have led said criminal to criminality. It's not normal, and if said living conditions would never occur, than you could regulate and, eventually, stop crime altogether.

Then explain white collar crimes. Why do rich men steal when they clearly don't need to?

Regardless, you seem to think that every crime happens because a person is trying to 'get by in life' or some junk like that. Are crimes of passion going to stop because you magically whisked away poverty? Or are drug dealers suddenly going to learn to let rival dealers sell in the same area as them?

There's more to it than that, though.

Jesus Christ. That's the understatement of the year.

You may need to take the same advice I wished the OP to have, because I've found most of them to be, well, very much normal. Nothing on the outside differs very much, and striking a conversation is just as fulfilling there as anywhere else. They can't be forgiven for what they have done, but it could all had been avoided if more care was given them. And that is... Saddening.

Yeah, if only they hadn't missed that one day of class when the teacher told them that rape was a bad thing. /sarcasm

However, I'm not going to draw a big comb over them all and say a ridiculous minority of convicted rapists are simply 'good people who made one mistake'.

Uh-huh. See, you talk about how people commit crime because of societal pressures, etc. What societal pressure causes them to force themselves on another human being to pleasure themselves?

... Actually, I never remembered writing such a thing. You must had misinterpreted my message.
Or I wrote horribly bad. Well, I'm sure you can tell where, 'cause I sure can't.

I rephrased what you said, which was, "...a person that probably isn't bad, but that one act." In other words, a good person who made one mistake. It's really not hard to find. I even put it in bold in my previous post...which was the only other post I made on the subject.

Because, from that 'small' portion of people, there were zero to none rotten eggs.

First off, "zero to none" isn't a phrase. "Zero" and "none" mean the same thing.

It proves that criminality isn't something that simply exists.

Or it proves that your sample group was too small. Do you know how much of America's population is in prison? About 2.4 million people. There are approximately 310 million people in the united states. That's roughly 7.5% of the total population in incarceration.

Now, let's compare that to the Amish...oh, wait. We can't. Because their system of 'justice' lets anyone get away with anything as long as they give an impressive apology before their peers. Virtually none of their crimes are reported in any formal way, and thus your "the Amish have no crime" is what the experts call "complete bullshit."

Criminality is a bi-product from horrible conditions, whereas the Amish had pristine conditions that nurtured their small community, and that, more or less, points and proves.
Of course, some cases may have demented people who are brain-damaged and have no actual connection towards sympathy for any other living being. But that's what happens when you mass-produce people like today, when, say, one at each 1.000.000 people have a similar effect.

Let's dwell on the Amish a bit more. There was a case in 2004 regarding an Amish girl, Mary Byler, who was raped. Oh, and it was an act committed by the male members of her immediate and extended family, including her two brothers and father. It also happened repeatedly over the course of a decade and a half. First, she turned to her mother for help. Her response? "If you truly don't want this to happen, it won't." Isn't that a great tidbit of knowledge? If you get gang-raped by your own family for 16 years, it's because you wanted it the whole time.

She couldn't seek outside help because the nearest town was 25 miles away. What finally drove her to flee for help was the fact that one of the brothers, who was younger than she was, twice raped a 6 year old child relative when he was 18, and the fact that friends she had outside the Amish community told her that she should tell the authorities. This had never occured to her because of the society she lived in.

And you know how the Amish punished the two brothers? One was forbidden from attending church for six weeks, and the other was forbidden from interacting with the community until he "improved his character." This was severe by Amish standards.

You know what? I don't need to talk about this anymore. If that hasn't dispelled your idea that the Amish have some sort of magical, crime-free utopia, then nothing will.

All humans have the potential for good, and probably are deep down, but when you have a society that won't care until you commit a crime...

That works off the toddler logic of "All attention is good attention."

And besides, do you know what society is made of? Other people. If you claim that all people are living saints and that it's just 'society' that makes them make do bad things, that's just delegating the responsibility of the sins of the few to everyone else, aka 'the people who actually didn't commit crimes.'

You may have a point there. Funny thing how I never claimed ANY OF THE SORT though, so I fail to see the relevance.
Otherwise you'll have to remind me. Sorry for being such a bother.

Look at the quote embedded above this one. It literally states that the only reason most people aren't 'good' is because "society...won't care until [they] commit a crime." Do you really forget what you said one post ago so quickly?

That's me, obviously failing to deliver a standing point of psychological pattern. Crime creates crime, and it's a horribly delivered paragraph by me, translated from Zeitgeist. You'll have to watch it in order to make any sense of it I'm afraid.

Actually, crime does not create crime. You'll be surprised to find out that criminals create crime. For next week's lesson, I'll be explaining how battlefields do not create wars, and corpses do not spawn maggots.

I mean it, however. How many actually do wonder about the criminal holding a gun at you, of HIS situation? He has a whole life-story behind him that have led up to that moment, as have yours. The sad difference is that he eventually came to that point. Why?

Yep. I know that full well. I also know that all the Freudian excuses on Earth won't matter if he shoots me/anyone I'm with. At that point, he could have a life story that would bring tears to the eyes of a jaded war veteran, and it won't matter in the slightest. As far as I'm concerned, his life was forfeit the moment he chose to threatened to end the lives of others in order to continue his own. This is especially true if I've got company with me.

Maybe he is forced due to the circumstances, and would regret that act until his dying day?

It's so great to know that he'll regret killing me. That'll make me feel so good...while I'm dead.

Or have his social experiences leaned him to think it's all right, so long as he can avoid the hammer? Or maybe he doesn't care about the hammer at all?
Could it had been prevented if he had another life?
In the first two, you'd have to ask him (Though that's bloody unlikely. After all, it's just to send him to jail, right? He did wrong, he needs to be shipped, nothing more about it.
... Please tell me you can see the sarcasm.)
But in the last... Most likely yes. If he'd been raised with a silver spoon in his mouth, he'd be a spoiled brat. Happy and annoying maybe, but he would never need to take up crime.
If he'd been raised in normal standards, he'd grow up like any normal Joe, most likely without the need of criminality.
Where did it go wrong for him?
Whoever asks that?
And maybe most importantly as a first question that needs to be dealt with, who cares?

You should consider his status more than just hauling him away with nothing else on mind but that he did wrong and needs punishment, following the system and so forth.

Oh, no need to worry about sending the police after him. He'll be dead already, mostly from threatening me and people close to me. Further introspection will probably make me remember that I probably saved a few other people he would've gone on to rob. So in the end, I'll be feeling pretty good about myself, and he'll be dead for trying to mug someone with a violent temper and a sharp knife.

The bullet never has to be manipulated to kill a person, and that's where I am going at.
The act doesn't ever, ever have to happen. Not ONCE.

Remind me again how I'm supposed to reform him. Is it after he's run off with my wallet? Or after he's robbed other people?

What about now? Did I do good?

Well, my respect for those who live in the lower echelons of society yet don't turn to crime has grown somewhat, though that was fairly high to begin with.

The ones that do, however, I've actually developed less pity for them. I don't support the death penalty because I think letting 10 guilty men live their lives in incarceration is worthwhile if it'll save 1 innocent man from execution. Inversely, if gutting one lowlife with a tragic life story who pulls a weapon on me will save the people who all have their own stories that he'd likely go on to do the same to, it's worthwhile.

I hope you won't find me rude on not replying to any incoming post, because this took perhaps half an hour to write, type, modify, etc.
And I can't perhaps get it more refined than this lump. There's nothing else for me to add, I think, dot dot dot...

No problem. I usually reply at my own leisure, and I don't expect more from anyone else. If it takes time, then it takes time.

 

[Darius Brogan]

I'm not painting Rape as a basic instinct, I'm painting procreation as a basic instinct. Rapists have chosen to not bother utilizing self control when it comes to their basic, sexual urges, and have turned them into a brutal, violent act of physical and mental pain.

No, you're still painting it as a basic instinct. When you say that rapists aren't utilizing "self control," you're saying that rape is what happens when you put yourself on autopilot when you get an erection.

And if that's the case, it's mental illness. If a person genuinely cannot control their most primal urges, there is something wrong with the part of their brains that lets them do that. Hell, that's why humans are able to form societies: because any collective will fail if its every individual rapes with every arousal, steals at every trace of envy, and kills after any feeling of anger.

I'm only for the death penalty when crimes such as Rape/Child molestation, or Murder are on the table. People like that are not fit to live with society, and they'd be nothing but a drain on the economy living in prison for the rest of their lives.

I've never really been fond of citing the economic benefits of killing someone, particularly in an era when we have things like 'The Innocence Project' exonerating numerous men who were put on Death Row for crimes they were then acquitted of.

As far as I see it, if keeping a hundred murderers alive but separated from society guarantees that no innocent men will ever be killed unjustly, it's worth the financial price.

I'm not actually over-estimating anything. I'm looking specifically FOR violent rapists, or rapists that drug their victims. I've got experience dealing with both examples, as well as child molestation, as they've all happened to people close to me.
The violent rape was just a couple months ago, by the way.
I'm not writing the law as anything at all, a drunken romp is just plain stupidity on both parts, and giving into demands for sex in exchange for not getting fired/ a promotion/ keeping something else a secret/ whatever, are not my focal point here. And if the 'drunken romp' was one guy deliberately GETTING a girl slammed so he could have sex with her, he's a low-life piece of shit that should be castrated anyways.

You're still assuming that our judicial system is flawless. It's not. Here, see for yourself [http://www.innocenceproject.org/]. If you think all rapists should be put to death, alright. From what you've said, I can see why you think that. But do not think for an instant that every single man in prison deserves to be there, and never think that killing an innocent man is worth revenge on a guilty one.

Now please stop assuming that I want the law to be changed. I'm just looking for people general opinion of violent rapists, and what their punishment should be. I'm NOT looking to enact a law making rape punishable by death!

If you say "this is how I think it should be," that means it's the way you want it but can't be arsed to try and make it that way. I'm responding not because I think you presently have the power to change the law, but because one day, you just might, and suddenly, it won't just be how you think things "should be." It'll become the way things are, and I don't want that to happen.

1) It's not mental illness if they CHOOSE to ignore their self control. If they CAN'T, it's mental.

2) I can understand your view on this point, so I'm not going to argue it.

3) I'm not assuming the judicial system is flawless, I'm not assuming ANYTHING. I'm just saying that a rapist should be killed. A RAPIST. Somebody that has already been PROVEN, beyond a shadow of a doubt to have RAPED somebody.
I don't think every man in prison deserves to be there, I've also got experience with wrongful conviction, so I DON'T think that killing an innocent man is worth ANYTHING.
I've already stated that I'm targeting DEFINITIVE RAPISTS. Like the guy that raped my best friends ex-girlfriend in April. HE should be put to death, because HE HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE A RAPIST.
Judicial system aside, because that's NOT what I started this thread for, I'm spouting my opinions, nothing more. If a man has been proven to be a rapist, he should be put to death, but ONLY if he's been proven to be a rapist.
4)Of course I think rapist should be put to death. There is NO worse crime than raping someone.
I'm just being realistic about the fact that I don't have the power to change it.
I also don't know the law well enough to facilitate the implementation of a law making rape punishable by death in the event I DO have the power to change it. I, therefore, am doing nothing but inquire as to peoples opinions.

When put in plain English, it goes lime this: If a man RAPES a woman (Or vice versa), do you think they should be put to death?
It doesn't go like this: If a man is SUSPECTED of raping a woman, but the evidence, while strongly against him, isn't completely definitive, should he be put to death?

I'm not going for 'THIS guy was proven innocent' or 'What if he didn't do it'. I'm talking about nothing more than a man raping a woman, definitively. NO middle ground. There was never any mention about the legal tie-ups of our poorly functional judicial system. It was simply a question of a personal opinion.

 

[Jewrean]

Oh and last time I checked, putting someone to death costs more tax dollars than keeping a person in prison for their entire life.

Not if you do it like we did it in medieval times... Just take them out back and shoot them in the head. They lost their humanity in the first place by committing the crime, so why should we be humane back when ending their life? Clean and simple. No remorse. No taxes wasted.

But yes, the current system is expensive and retarded.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

1) It's not mental illness if they CHOOSE to ignore their self control. If they CAN'T, it's mental.

You don't "choose' to ignore self control." It isn't something that you can switch on and off like a light. It's something you have, and you either have it or you don't.

3) I'm not assuming the judicial system is flawless, I'm not assuming ANYTHING. I'm just saying that a rapist should be killed. A RAPIST. Somebody that has already been PROVEN, beyond a shadow of a doubt to have RAPED somebody.

Funny thing, though: literally any conviction in a court of law is supposed to be proven beyond any doubt. That's why defense attorneys refer to 'reasonable doubt,' and why a conviction can only be made if a dozen people unanimously believe that the defendant is guilty. If even one person on the jury doesn't think he did it, he gets let off. It doesn't close the case in the same way an acquittal would, but it still means he won't be sentenced to any sort of punishment.

In other words, those innocent men I mentioned earlier? They were supposedly proven to have been guilty "beyond a shadow of a doubt." And you can't have it both ways, either. You either allow for the chance of innocent men being put to death, or you don't put anyone to death. You can't make exceptions by saying, "Oh, it's okay to execute this guy because I'm really sure that he did it."

I don't think every man in prison deserves to be there, I've also got experience with wrongful conviction, so I DON'T think that killing an innocent man is worth ANYTHING.

Then you can't advocate the death penalty in a system that has been proven numerous times to be imperfect. Or at least you can't without being a hypocrite.

I've already stated that I'm targeting DEFINITIVE RAPISTS. Like the guy that raped my best friends ex-girlfriend in April. HE should be put to death, because HE HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE A RAPIST.

Harold Buntin [http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Harold_Buntin.php] and Charles Chatman [http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Charles_Chatman.php] were both also "proven to be [rapists]" by a court of law. And guess what? It was then discovered that they weren't. But instead of Buntin and Chatman being released after this discovery, you'd see them both killed.

The best part? I picked two random names off of this list [http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/Browse-Profiles.php], and it just happened that they were both "convicted" rapists before DNA evidence exonerated them. Take a look at the list, and you'll find that rape is represented on it far higher than most other crimes.

Judicial system aside, because that's NOT what I started this thread for, I'm spouting my opinions, nothing more. If a man has been proven to be a rapist, he should be put to death, but ONLY if he's been proven to be a rapist.

Read my lips: no man is in prison unless he has been "proven" to be guilty. The problem isn't that we throw people in jail if we're "sorta sure" that they were guilty. The problem is that we can still be completely sure of something even when it isn't true.

4)Of course I think rapist should be put to death. There is NO worse crime than raping someone.

Right...I'm still gonna stick with stuff like 'murder' being worse than rape, in part because short of being Christ Himself, no murder victim is going to recover from being murdered.

I'm just being realistic about the fact that I don't have the power to change it.
I also don't know the law well enough to facilitate the implementation of a law making rape punishable by death in the event I DO have the power to change it. I, therefore, am doing nothing but inquire as to peoples opinions.

Well, yeah. It was pretty clear that you weren't a student of law from the whole "shadow of a doubt" thing.

When put in plain English, it goes lime this: If a man RAPES a woman (Or vice versa), do you think they should be put to death?
It doesn't go like this: If a man is SUSPECTED of raping a woman, but the evidence, while strongly against him, isn't completely definitive, should he be put to death?

I'm not going for 'THIS guy was proven innocent' or 'What if he didn't do it'. I'm talking about nothing more than a man raping a woman, definitively. NO middle ground. There was never any mention about the legal tie-ups of our poorly functional judicial system. It was simply a question of a personal opinion.

The ironic thing is that you're right. There is no middle ground, but not the way you think. You're using the same mentality as the people who say that they don't support torture...except if it's guaranteed to save a lot of people, or a family member or something like that.

No one (in their right mind) has ever proposed that torture be used as a replacement for the handshake, and no one has ever (again, in their right mind) thought that the death penalty should be used "just in case the guy really did do it." There are no special cases, no exceptions to the rule: you can either support the death penalty and accept that it will catch innocent men, or you can be against the death penalty completely.

You even said outright that a friend of yours was raped. That's practically the smoking gun: you want revenge under the guise of justice, but you want do it while pretending it won't inevitably cause harm to innocents. Sorry, mate, but that's a textbook case of trying to have your cake and eat it.

 

[Darius Brogan]

1) It's not mental illness if they CHOOSE to ignore their self control. If they CAN'T, it's mental.

You don't "choose' to ignore self control." It isn't something that you can switch on and off like a light. It's something you have, and you either have it or you don't.

3) I'm not assuming the judicial system is flawless, I'm not assuming ANYTHING. I'm just saying that a rapist should be killed. A RAPIST. Somebody that has already been PROVEN, beyond a shadow of a doubt to have RAPED somebody.

Funny thing, though: literally any conviction in a court of law is supposed to be proven beyond any doubt. That's why defense attorneys refer to 'reasonable doubt,' and why a conviction can only be made if a dozen people unanimously believe that the defendant is guilty. If even one person on the jury doesn't think he did it, he gets let off. It doesn't close the case in the same way an acquittal would, but it still means he won't be sentenced to any sort of punishment.

In other words, those innocent men I mentioned earlier? They were supposedly proven to have been guilty "beyond a shadow of a doubt." And you can't have it both ways, either. You either allow for the chance of innocent men being put to death, or you don't put anyone to death. You can't make exceptions by saying, "Oh, it's okay to execute this guy because I'm really sure that he did it."

I don't think every man in prison deserves to be there, I've also got experience with wrongful conviction, so I DON'T think that killing an innocent man is worth ANYTHING.

Then you can't advocate the death penalty in a system that has been proven numerous times to be imperfect. Or at least you can't without being a hypocrite.

I've already stated that I'm targeting DEFINITIVE RAPISTS. Like the guy that raped my best friends ex-girlfriend in April. HE should be put to death, because HE HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE A RAPIST.

Harold Buntin [http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Harold_Buntin.php] and Charles Chatman [http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Charles_Chatman.php] were both also "proven to be [rapists]" by a court of law. And guess what? It was then discovered that they weren't. But instead of Buntin and Chatman being released after this discovery, you'd see them both killed.

The best part? I picked two random names off of this list [http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/Browse-Profiles.php], and it just happened that they were both "convicted" rapists before DNA evidence exonerated them. Take a look at the list, and you'll find that rape is represented on it far higher than most other crimes.

Judicial system aside, because that's NOT what I started this thread for, I'm spouting my opinions, nothing more. If a man has been proven to be a rapist, he should be put to death, but ONLY if he's been proven to be a rapist.

Read my lips: no man is in prison unless he has been "proven" to be guilty. The problem isn't that we throw people in jail if we're "sorta sure" that they were guilty. The problem is that we can still be completely sure of something even when it isn't true.

4)Of course I think rapist should be put to death. There is NO worse crime than raping someone.

Right...I'm still gonna stick with stuff like 'murder' being worse than rape, in part because short of being Christ Himself, no murder victim is going to recover from being murdered.

I'm just being realistic about the fact that I don't have the power to change it.
I also don't know the law well enough to facilitate the implementation of a law making rape punishable by death in the event I DO have the power to change it. I, therefore, am doing nothing but inquire as to peoples opinions.

Well, yeah. It was pretty clear that you weren't a student of law from the whole "shadow of a doubt" thing.

When put in plain English, it goes lime this: If a man RAPES a woman (Or vice versa), do you think they should be put to death?
It doesn't go like this: If a man is SUSPECTED of raping a woman, but the evidence, while strongly against him, isn't completely definitive, should he be put to death?

I'm not going for 'THIS guy was proven innocent' or 'What if he didn't do it'. I'm talking about nothing more than a man raping a woman, definitively. NO middle ground. There was never any mention about the legal tie-ups of our poorly functional judicial system. It was simply a question of a personal opinion.

The ironic thing is that you're right. There is no middle ground, but not the way you think. You're using the same mentality as the people who say that they don't support torture...except if it's guaranteed to save a lot of people, or a family member or something like that.

No one (in their right mind) has ever proposed that torture be used as a replacement for the handshake, and no one has ever (again, in their right mind) thought that the death penalty should be used "just in case the guy really did do it." There are no special cases, no exceptions to the rule: you can either support the death penalty and accept that it will catch innocent men, or you can be against the death penalty completely.

You even said outright that a friend of yours was raped. That's practically the smoking gun: you want revenge under the guise of justice, but you want do it while pretending it won't inevitably cause harm to innocents. Sorry, mate, but that's a textbook case of trying to have your cake and eat it.

1) If I choose to go outside a beat somebodies head in, despite the fact that I know it's wrong, I just ignored my self control. Self control is just that SELF control. It's not some magical built-in good switch that controls what you do.

2)I've said far too many times now that the judicial system doesn't play any significant part in this thread. It is nothing but OPINIONS. I'm not interested in bullshit arguments about the legal system, because I'm Just. Asking. Opinions.

The way you're phrasing your quotes is more like this: Do you like apples Yes/No? Well, it all depends on how well the apple can make itself taste, and if it's ever done anything bad in it's life. Maybe it's really a Granny-Smith that's just pretending to be a Red-Delicious.
It's simple question of opinion, not a fucking legal debate.

3) Once again, Opinions. Nothing more. I don't give a shit about the current capabilities of the legal system in proving a man guilty/innocent because the opinions I'm working off of here are 'In the event that it WAS POSSIBLE TO TELL IF THEY'RE GUILTY WITHOUT A SHADOW OF A DOUBT'. In other words, the perfect legal system. I KNOW it's not possible right now, and probably won't be until we can read minds. I don't CARE about what the repercussions would be on THIS system, because I'm not trying to base my opinions at ALL in fact. They're opinions for a reason.

4)Refer to above point.

5)Also refer to point #3

6)It's not possible to recover from murder, true. But being murdered doesn't leave you with physical, mental, and emotional scarring that could tear your brain to pieces.
Once you're murdered, you're dead. You cannot re-live the incident ten thousand times a day. You cannot question yourself for being able to stop it or not. You're dead.
Being raped is the closest you can get to literally destroying your soul, because it covers all three bases. Physical, mental, emotional.

7) Once again. Point #3. Read it.

8) I don't advocate the death penalty for EVERY crime, so you're comparing it to something to black and white it's scary?
Being a petty thief won't get you the death sentence, stealing a car, won't either, nor will assault, unless the assaulted dies as a result of your actions. There are a great many minimalist crimes out there. Rape is not one of them, nor is murder. You die for them. That's my OPINION.

Also, I don't want 'revenge' on the man that raped my friends ex, I want him dead, because he's a rapist. I've had this opinion since LOOOOONG before I met my friend OR his ex. The 'guise of justice' doesn't mean anything to me, and don't assume it does.

One more thing. If I have cake, I'm GOING to eat it, that's just how it works.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

1) If I choose to go outside a beat somebodies head in, despite the fact that I know it's wrong, I just ignored my self control. Self control is just that SELF control. It's not some magical built-in good switch that controls what you do.

Actually...yeah, it is. That's why whenever you get a random urge to do something that you shouldn't, it generally doesn't take a conscious effort on your part not to do it. It comes naturally.

2)I've said far too many times now that the judicial system doesn't play any significant part in this thread. It is nothing but OPINIONS. I'm not interested in bullshit arguments about the legal system, because I'm Just. Asking. Opinions.

Then it's too bad that you picked a topic that requires that you take the legal system into consideration. If you don't, you're admitting that your opinions have absolutely no basis in reality. Other opinion in that vein are, "I think war should stop because people die in it" and "I don't think we should have starvation anymore because people need food to live."

The way you're phrasing your quotes is more like this: Do you like apples Yes/No? Well, it all depends on how well the apple can make itself taste, and if it's ever done anything bad in it's life. Maybe it's really a Granny-Smith that's just pretending to be a Red-Delicious.
It's simple question of opinion, not a fucking legal debate.

Or perhaps I just live in a world (read: the real world) where most sane approaches to life don't involve answering any question with a Yes/No response. Yes and No are extreme opinions in virtually any situation more complex than "Do you want to order pizza?" or something like that.

3) Once again, Opinions. Nothing more. I don't give a shit about the current capabilities of the legal system in proving a man guilty/innocent because the opinions I'm working off of here are 'In the event that it WAS POSSIBLE TO TELL IF THEY'RE GUILTY WITHOUT A SHADOW OF A DOUBT'. In other words, the perfect legal system. I KNOW it's not possible right now, and probably won't be until we can read minds. I don't CARE about what the repercussions would be on THIS system,

So in other words, this is the juvenile revenge fantasy?

because I'm not trying to base my opinions at ALL in fact. They're opinions for a reason.

...what? So now opinions are magically excluded from needing factual basis? Sorry to break it to you, but there are a lot of contemporary issues that stem directly from one side simply having 'an opinion' that doesn't have anything to back it up. That's basically why gay marriage is still an issue in the states.

6)It's not possible to recover from murder, true. But being murdered doesn't leave you with physical, mental, and emotional scarring that could tear your brain to pieces. Once you're murdered, you're dead. You cannot re-live the incident ten thousand times a day. You cannot question yourself for being able to stop it or not. You're dead.

What about rape victims who don't experience the lifelong waking nightmare that you describe? What about the ones that go on to continue to function in life because, you know, they're still alive? Did they just not get raped the right way? Because apparently they're supposed to be left as soulless husks after their plight.

And you're raising the rather unfortunate implication that rape victims that sustained particularly bad trauma are somehow better off dead.

Being raped is the closest you can get to literally destroying your soul, because it covers all three bases. Physical, mental, emotional.

One would think that 'death' would be the closest thing to "literally destroying [the] soul." You no longer live (physical), you no longer think (mental), and you no longer feel (emotional). Rape can cause damage across all three, but death ends all of them.

8) I don't advocate the death penalty for EVERY crime, so you're comparing it to something to black and white it's scary?
Being a petty thief won't get you the death sentence, stealing a car, won't either, nor will assault, unless the assaulted dies as a result of your actions. There are a great many minimalist crimes out there. Rape is not one of them, nor is murder. You die for them. That's my OPINION.

Strangely enough, I hold the same thing in this situation as I do when arguing with racists/bigots: hiding behind "It's just my opinion" won't work in the real world, and it won't work here, either.

Also, I don't want 'revenge' on the man that raped my friends ex, I want him dead, because he's a rapist.

*eyeroll* Yeah, and I don't want to 'rob' that bank, I just want all the money inside that belongs to other people.

You want someone killed for a crime that the law dictates is not punishable by death. You want revenge. Why so touchy about the word 'revenge,' anyway? I thought this was all just your "opinion" and therefore beyond criticism. You don't need to reword something that's supposedly infallible...unless your "opinion" isn't as immune to logic as you claim it is.

I've had this opinion since LOOOOONG before I met my friend OR his ex. The 'guise of justice' doesn't mean anything to me, and don't assume it does.

Then what is it? You claim that it's somehow not revenge, and now you're outright stating that it's in no way a just action? I'm pretty sure it's either one or the other, unless you're now abandoning all pretenses of not being an aspiring despot.

 

[Darius Brogan]

Snip

First things first, if it's my opinion, and nothing else, why do you feel the need to criticize it?

Self control isn't magical at all, I can choose whether or not I listen to it, and so can every human being out there. I get sudden and often immediate urges to go to the store and buy a shitload of snacks, but do I? Sometimes. Meaning that I can choose whether or not I act on my urges, making self-control something that can be overlooked.

I'm basing my definition of opinion on the simple fact that opinions in general are grounded in fantasy-land. All opinions are, and you'd be God if you didn't have a single opinion that wasn't even slightly strange. My opinions on the punishment for rape are opinions, because I know definitively that they're not legally feasible. The rate of wrongful convictions in this world is monolithic and, frankly, depressing.

The reason I started this thread was to find others opinions on the punishment of rapists, plain and simple. Evidently though, it it beyond the majority of people to have an opinion ready, and they therefore hide behind the judicial system saying that a mere thought is impossible.

I live in the real world as well, which is why I think. I know Y/N answers are rarely how things should work in the real world, however, a thought isn't based in reality, it's based in the infinite data-stream of consciousness. You seem to be forgetting the simple fact that humanity runs on Y/N answers, illogical though they may be.

I would have to be A) A juvenile, and B) Out for revenge to make it a juvenile revenge fantasy. I'm neither. I'm also not 'touchy' about revenge, I'm just not out for it.
My belief is that rapists should be put to death. Simple as that.
I'm well aware that it's not feasible, which is why I'm keeping it locked up in my brain, as opposed to going out and murdering everybody convicted of rape.

Opinions only need a factual basis if the holder of said opinion plans to implement it. I do not because I'm, as stated earlier, well aware that it's not legally or logically feasible. My simple belief is that rapists, not those thought to be rapists, actual rapists, should be put to death.
I already know of the legal hoop-la that would follow something like that, which is why it's called an opinion: It is my thoughts on the subject at hand.
If it was my opinion that every child above the age of nine should get a free unicorn and an espresso every time they went to the park, that's my opinion: Factual? hardly, but it technically IS an opinion.

Death only ends the soul if you see yourself as an Atheist would, and Atheists don't believe in a soul anyways, so that point is moot. Death releases the soul, Rape does not, anyone with even the most basic of religious practices could tell you that.

Yes I want someone killed for a crime not punishable by death. Is it realistic to want? No, because the judicial system is incapable of proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that one is guilty without a direct confession, which is why I'm not petitioning the country to instate a law making rape punishable by death.

Quit messing with my words, it's making you seem more and more weak-minded every time you do. The 'guise of justice' implies that I'm hiding behind false justice to suit my own ends. I'm not.
Rape is a crime, yes? Making it unjust. The current punishment is jail-time. I believe that it should be death. There! Was that so hard? No, I didn't think so.
It may not be possible to implement a law stating that rape is a capitol offense, because of how poorly structured our legal system is, but it will remain my opinion that rapists should be put to death until the day I die.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

First things first, if it's my opinion, and nothing else, why do you feel the need to criticize it?

Oh, so now I need a reason for stating my opinion? Why does mine need a concrete foundation while yours gets to float above such concepts as 'logic' and 'reality'?

But to answer your question, it's because A) you posted it on a public forum, making it fair game, and B) it reeks of all things illogical. It's 'A' that lets me criticize it, and it's 'B' that motivates me to do so.

Self control isn't magical at all, I can choose whether or not I listen to it, and so can every human being out there. I get sudden and often immediate urges to go to the store and buy a shitload of snacks, but do I? Sometimes. Meaning that I can choose whether or not I act on my urges, making self-control something that can be overlooked.

Yeah, because self-control is just a single number that determines whether or not you do anything. The urge that causes you to tune out a conversation or buy lots of snacks is totally just as powerful as the one that compels you to assault and rape a woman.

If someone 'overlooks' their better judgment and buys $40 worth of Fritos, how is that somehow comparable to seeing a pretty woman and 'overlooking' your better judgment by raping her? There are not equal numbers of pros and cons for both scenarios, and I like to think that most people have more reservations about rape than they do about snack food binges.

I'm basing my definition of opinion on the simple fact that opinions in general are grounded in fantasy-land. All opinions are, and you'd be God if you didn't have a single opinion that wasn't even slightly strange. My opinions on the punishment for rape are opinions, because I know definitively that they're not legally feasible. The rate of wrongful convictions in this world is monolithic and, frankly, depressing.

You genuinely think that all opinions are pulled from the ether? No rhyme or reason to them at all? There are reasons behind every opinion. The issue is whether or not those reasons are justified.

The reason I started this thread was to find others opinions on the punishment of rapists, plain and simple. Evidently though, it it beyond the majority of people to have an opinion ready, and they therefore hide behind the judicial system saying that a mere thought is impossible.

lulz, of course. Because what I've been saying has 'facts' behind it, it must not be an opinion! Genius!

Here's an opinion, then: there's more holes in your opinion than a wheel of Swiss cheese after being targeted by a 1920s mob hit.

I live in the real world as well, which is why I think. I know Y/N answers are rarely how things should work in the real world, however, a thought isn't based in reality, it's based in the infinite data-stream of consciousness. You seem to be forgetting the simple fact that humanity runs on Y/N answers, illogical though they may be.

Yeah, because our "consciousness" totally isn't affected by the world around us. Yep. Not linked to that at all. Because it's some sort of magical, separate part of the brain, right? Just sorta floating free from all the other parts that actually work based on how we physically see the world?

I would have to be A) A juvenile, and B) Out for revenge to make it a juvenile revenge fantasy. I'm neither.

Juvenile, adjective: of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or suitable or intended for young persons.

In other words, a synonym for 'immature.' So yeah: you can be juvenile without being underage. And not knowing something that simple doesn't speak well of your supposed adulthood.

I'm also not 'touchy' about revenge, I'm just not out for it.

Not out for revenge, hm? You probably ought to not mention the whole "my friend's ex was raped" when you're advocating for all rapists to be put to death. When you have a traumatic event that can clearly be linked to an extreme opinion, everyone who isn't an idiot will connect the dots.

My belief is that rapists should be put to death. Simple as that.
I'm well aware that it's not feasible, which is why I'm keeping it locked up in my brain, as opposed to going out and murdering everybody convicted of rape.

Or, say, posting it on the internet for all to see.

Oh wait. I forgot for a second that a public forum isn't "in [your] brain."

Opinions only need a factual basis if the holder of said opinion plans to implement it. I do not because I'm, as stated earlier, well aware that it's not legally or logically feasible. My simple belief is that rapists, not those thought to be rapists, actual rapists, should be put to death.
I already know of the legal hoop-la that would follow something like that, which is why it's called an opinion: It is my thoughts on the subject at hand.
If it was my opinion that every child above the age of nine should get a free unicorn and an espresso every time they went to the park, that's my opinion: Factual? hardly, but it technically IS an opinion.

Or if they plan to voice them in public and not catch criticism for them.

Death only ends the soul if you see yourself as an Atheist would, and Atheists don't believe in a soul anyways, so that point is moot. Death releases the soul, Rape does not, anyone with even the most basic of religious practices could tell you that.

So, just to reiterate, if a rape victim is better off dead only if they're religious? Glad you elaborated on that for me. Suddenly the practice of 'washing the shame' (families killing rape victims within their family) makes sense.

Yes I want someone killed for a crime not punishable by death. Is it realistic to want? No, because the judicial system is incapable of proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that one is guilty without a direct confession, which is why I'm not petitioning the country to instate a law making rape punishable by death.

Strange thing about that: people seeking retribution for a crime beyond what the law stipulates (also known as 'revenge') have the tendency to blame a flawed justice system for not doing what they want.

Quit messing with my words, it's making you seem more and more weak-minded every time you do. The 'guise of justice' implies that I'm hiding behind false justice to suit my own ends. I'm not.

Mhm. Suuuuuure. As opposed to the "I don't need 'reality' or 'facts' to tell me how to think and speak" stance you've taken. I'm totally the "weak-minded" one in this equation.

It may not be possible to implement a law stating that rape is a capitol offense,

Funny thing, that: it was a capitol offense in a good few states for a long time. Then it was struck down specifically because it wasn't a punishment suitable for the crime. In other words, your policy was already implemented and then struck down for being wrong.

because of how poorly structured our legal system is, but it will remain my opinion that rapists should be put to death until the day I die.

Ah, again, blaming the justice system for not punishing crime to your liking. I guess that makes you kinda like the Punisher...except on the internet, and without the appeal of the actual Punisher.

 

[Darius Brogan]

Snip

Believe it or not, there's a difference between an opinion, and outright criticism. I have no real problem with either, I just wanted to point out that there is a difference.

Self control is just one number that governs the reactions. The strength of the reaction has nothing to do with the pros and cons of the decision being made.
Self control is a definitive, and conscious choice that can go one way or the other. When the self proclaimed 'school bully' tried to pull me into a fight in grade 9, I chose to not fight him, despite the fact that every fiber of my being was telling me to punch the presumptuous little fuck in the throat.
That is exercising my self control. That is also an example of self control in which extreme violence played a part, and didn't end with extreme violence.
A rapist is just somebody that ignores their self control and goes with what they want to do, which is ruin the life of another human being.

No, opinions are not pulled from the ether, they are, however, often logically incorrect, regardless of the facts that spawned them, such as mine. I already understand perfectly well that it's not logical to sentence rapists to death in real life, because the court system cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that every single suspect is a rapist. It is my opinion that, were it possible to root out true rapists, they should be put to death.
What part of this conversation are you overlooking? I've already admitted that it's not logically feasible, yet you seem to be dead-set on proving something I already know.

My opinion would only have holes in it if I expected it to be feasible. I do not, which is why I'm not saying I want to change the legal system outright. I believe Rapists should be put to death, yes, but am I doing anything about it? No, because I'm aware that it's not logical. You just love trying to point out non-existent hole in logic, don't you?

You must be like... four or something... and I commend you on such an advanced vocabulary for a young-one, however, you continue to miss my point, and twist words. Thoughts are not a physical manifestation of anything. They're not REAL, in the technical sense and,therefore, they're based in consciousness. Thoughts are changed by the world around us, they evolve depending on the circumstances, and they are formed through experience. They are not an object.

Congratulations, you can quote definitions, you get a gold star. I understand quite well, what you were talking about, I was under the impression you thought you were smart enough to extrapolate.

No, I'm not out for revenge. If you had bothered to read my previous comments at all before quoting in an attempt to make me look stupid, I've already said that I've held this opinion since long before anyone I know was raped. As in years before.

Once again, extrapolation. I'm not actively trying to change the legal system. I, therefore, am keeping it locked up in my brain. As anyone could tell you, the opinion of one person, told over the internet doesn't mean much to those in charge.

I never said I was planning to avoid criticism, which is why I voiced my opinion in the first place, because I don't really care about it.

Ah, your ability to manipulate the written word would astound me if you were any good at it.
Rape victims are not really better off dead, but many of them believe that they would be. Religious or not. I brought the religious aspect into the conversation because though I, personally, am not, I'm well aware of the beliefs of many religions. Those religions make up almost the entire population of the planet and therefore, they believe in the soul. Simple.

Err... 'seeking retribution' implies just that, Seeking Retribution. I'm not. I'm not out to change the legal system, I'm not out for vigilante justice, I'm not Batman.
As stated earlier, I'm just voicing an opinion that is logically flawed when placed in the same context as the legal system. That's all.

It's more of a 'logically improbable' stance that I've taken, as opposed to an 'I don't need reality' stance. My opinion would be illogical if I was actively trying to impose it on others, in an attempt to change the legal system, which I'm not. SO yes, you're the weak-minded one for attempting to manipulate my words to suit your own ends.

It wasn't struck down for 'being wrong' it was struck down for being illogical compared to the ability of the legal system to imprison the right suspect. Were it possible to actually prove that the suspect did indeed rape the victim, it would still be a capitol offense. The last time I checked, 'Wrong' and 'Illogical' weren't exactly synonymous with one another.. in any way.

I suppose that could be 'blaming' the legal system but, in reality, I just know that the legal system is imperfect.
Besides, if I remember correctly, the Punisher was a vigilante, you know, running around actually murdering people, criminals though they be.
While I'm of the opinion that a rapist should be put to death, I'm also, as stated MANY times before, well aware that it is illogical because of our inability to definitively prove that the current 'suspect' is indeed the real rapist.

It is for this reason that I'm not running around trying to change the legal system, because I know that, at the moment, its current set-up is better suited to deal with rapists. In the event that the man was wrongfully convicted, at least he's not dead.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

Believe it or not, there's a difference between an opinion, and outright criticism. I have no real problem with either, I just wanted to point out that there is a difference.

And that difference would be...? From how vaguely you described what determines what is or isn't an 'opinion,' I don't see how you could possibly make exclusions from it now.

Self control is just one number that governs the reactions. The strength of the reaction has nothing to do with the pros and cons of the decision being made.
Self control is a definitive, and conscious choice that can go one way or the other. When the self proclaimed 'school bully' tried to pull me into a fight in grade 9, I chose to not fight him, despite the fact that every fiber of my being was telling me to punch the presumptuous little fuck in the throat.
That is exercising my self control. That is also an example of self control in which extreme violence played a part, and didn't end with extreme violence.

And there were literally no other reasons for choosing not to fight? He wasn't, say, bigger, stronger, something like that? You didn't fear the repercussions of getting into a fight in school? It was 100%, no outside factors, your decision? I call bullshit.

A rapist is just somebody that ignores their self control and goes with what they want to do,

Glad to know that every male is a barely-restrained rapist. I prefer to think that there's more than a vague, nonphysical mental inhibitor that prevents men from launching into a rape-frenzy whenever they feel aroused.

which is ruin the life of another human being.

*sigh* Yeah, I'm sure that's exactly their intention. Just like a bank robber plans to shoot a security guard, and stealing millions of dollars is just a side effect.

No, opinions are not pulled from the ether, they are, however, often logically incorrect, regardless of the facts that spawned them, such as mine. I already understand perfectly well that it's not logical to sentence rapists to death in real life, because the court system cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that every single suspect is a rapist. It is my opinion that, were it possible to root out true rapists, they should be put to death.
What part of this conversation are you overlooking? I've already admitted that it's not logically feasible, yet you seem to be dead-set on proving something I already know.

I don't object to it being your opinion. But...

My opinion would only have holes in it if I expected it to be feasible.

...I object to this. The idea that opinions can only be criticized if they're on the verge of being put into law or something. If a politician admits to being a racist, I'm not going to vote for him regardless of how he claims it won't affect his policies.

It's even worse if you just leave particularly caustic opinions alone to fester. What happens when you're actually of age? Every head of state or political power was once a callow youth, and that's why parents are supposed to make sure their kids don't grow up as sociopaths.

I do not, which is why I'm not saying I want to change the legal system outright. I believe Rapists should be put to death, yes, but am I doing anything about it? No, because I'm aware that it's not logical. You just love trying to point out non-existent hole in logic, don't you?

Ah. Of course. "You can't prove me wrong because I am wrong! Hah!"

You must be like... four or something... and I commend you on such an advanced vocabulary for a young-one, however, you continue to miss my point, and twist words. Thoughts are not a physical manifestation of anything. They're not REAL, in the technical sense and,therefore, they're based in consciousness. Thoughts are changed by the world around us, they evolve depending on the circumstances, and they are formed through experience. They are not an object.

...erm...what? I didn't claim that they were "objects." I said that they were affected by the world around us. Thoughts are based in reality, unless you're cripplingly insane.

Congratulations, you can quote definitions, you get a gold star. I understand quite well, what you were talking about, I was under the impression you thought you were smart enough to extrapolate.

Oh, really? You knew what I meant? I'm not sure what's worse, then: you not knowing the primary definition of 'juvenile,' or thinking that "I can't be juvenile because I'm not a child" is a clever comeback. That's like countering someone calling you a piece of shit by sneering that you're not made of digested food. That'll show 'im.

No, I'm not out for revenge. If you had bothered to read my previous comments at all before quoting in an attempt to make me look stupid, I've already said that I've held this opinion since long before anyone I know was raped. As in years before.

Mhm. There's a word for that: anecdotal evidence. If your only evidence for claiming to be something is that you said you were that something...you can see why that doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

Once again, extrapolation. I'm not actively trying to change the legal system. I, therefore, am keeping it locked up in my brain. As anyone could tell you, the opinion of one person, told over the internet doesn't mean much to those in charge.

Oh, I gotcha. I was under the influence that keeping something "locked up in [your] brain" entailed, you know, keeping it in your head and nowhere else. But I guess it actually means "posting it on the largest information network in history, but not specifically saying it to anyone with political or judicial power."

I never said I was planning to avoid criticism, which is why I voiced my opinion in the first place, because I don't really care about it.

Then...why are you replying? If you genuinely did not care, you'd have no urge to try and counter my criticism.

Ah, your ability to manipulate the written word would astound me if you were any good at it.
Rape victims are not really better off dead, but many of them believe that they would be.

So, again, people who aren't dead think that they'd be better off dead. Obviously as a less severe example, a lifelong homeowner probably doesn't know what he's talking about when he says that he'd be much better off homeless because he wouldn't need to pay mortgage, property tax, etc.

Err... 'seeking retribution' implies just that, Seeking Retribution. I'm not. I'm not out to change the legal system, I'm not out for vigilante justice, I'm not Batman.
As stated earlier, I'm just voicing an opinion that is logically flawed when placed in the same context as the legal system. That's all.

*facepalm* And it doesn't disturb you at all to have such an extreme, illogical opinion sitting in the back of your mind, festering like an open wound? When most people have something like that, the solution isn't to just assume that you'll never be called upon to make a decision that would bring that opinion to bear. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that that's a recipe for disaster.

It's more of a 'logically improbable' stance that I've taken, as opposed to an 'I don't need reality' stance. My opinion would be illogical if I was actively trying to impose it on others, in an attempt to change the legal system, which I'm not. SO yes, you're the weak-minded one for attempting to manipulate my words to suit your own ends.

How is it only illogical if you're attempting to implement it? I would hope that most opinions are give a logic review before they're being considered for practice.

It wasn't struck down for 'being wrong' it was struck down for being illogical compared to the ability of the legal system to imprison the right suspect. Were it possible to actually prove that the suspect did indeed rape the victim, it would still be a capitol offense. The last time I checked, 'Wrong' and 'Illogical' weren't exactly synonymous with one another.. in any way.

Oh-ho, here we go. Let's roll with this.

Right then, Coker v. Georgia: the ultimate ruling was that the death penalty was considered 'cruel and unusual punishment' as punishment for convictions of rape, under the Eighth Amendment. It had nothing to do with the court's inability to convict with complete certainty. In fact, the man on trial (Coker) was pretty much a perfect example of an unequivocally guilty man, and the kind that your philosophy would point to for its rationale.

 

[Darius Brogan]

snip

I'm too busy right now for a full reply, but I promise to get back to you tonight.

I will answer this, however: I'm replying because, living where I do, it's not possible to get into a good debate, so I cherish them when they actually happen.

Edit: Call me petty if you wish, but I do enjoy a good debate.

 

[Darius Brogan]

Snip

Alrighty, on with the show.
1) The difference is this: An opinion is ones thoughts and views on the subject at hand, whilst criticism is just picking apart and poking fun at ones views, with no real opinion entering into it, unless you count the drive to insult others an opinion.

2) Actually no, there were no major outside factors involved in my choosing not to fight Justin: He was twenty pounds lighter than me, three inches shorter, practiced no formal style of fighting, and we were standing on the corner outside my house at the time, well after school hours. I chose not to fight Justin because there was no reason to. No loss, no gain, no nothing.

3) Not every male is a barely restrained rapist, but every human being has urges that require the use of self control. Every Human Being.
Rapists choose to ignore their self control, and do what they feel like doing, which is rape somebody, because the don't control their sexual urges in the slightest. They go out, hunt someone down, and rape them. There are a variety of mentalities involved in the process, but self-control is ALWAYS a factor that they choose to ignore.

4) Ruining somebodies life is the side-effect, genius. Rape is their goal, and the life of another is just one of those things they don't take into account, because they don't care. Rapists do what RAPISTS want to do, without concern for anybody else, because nobody else matters to them.

5) You're not understanding what it is that I'm trying to get across here. So I'll try to explain it better: I have no illusions that my opinion is logically sound, it's just my opinion. I understand quite well that the death sentence is not feasible in the case of rape, so I'm not trying to actually TELL people that they should agree with me.
If I was actively trying to make people see things from my point of view, my opinion would be RIDDLED with holes; such as having to completely re-tool crime scene investigative methods, making them perfect, so that wrongful conviction wouldn't be a problem. This is not possible.
I put my opinion up, simply because asking for an others opinion without giving your own is incredibly poor manners, not because I want others to say 'well, that's fine. Rapists should be put to death'
my simple belief, is that Rapists are not fit to be a part of society if they cannot, or do not, control themselves. Nor do they seek help a great majority of the time. They revel in what they do, and they're not willing to change.

6) Point five should explain this as well. Technically it is what you're saying here, but that's not why I said it.

7) Thoughts are affected by reality, but they're at the mercy of whatever the holder of said thought views as true. You can be completely sane, and still hold thoughts and views with very little basis on anything real. Take a look at most major religion: They view their, and only their God/Gods, as the True God/Gods, yet none of them have any corporeal evidence to support their theories. The most common answer I've ever gotten out of a devoutly religious person is "God works in mysterious ways". This has even less than no real basis in fact, but it's still technically an opinion.

8) Uh huh. As previously mentioned, I'm well aware of what you were talking about, I was just under the impression that you thought you were smart enough to extrapolate from my comment, given that you were trying to do so from the very first time you quoted me.
In any case, I'm deeply apologetic for not painting it in black and white for you. Lemme try again, with a little more words-worth of explanation. "For it to be a juvenile revenge fantasy, I would have to A) Hold much of the thoughts, opinions, and mind-set of a Juvenile, and B) I would have to be out to kill every suspected rapist just because they were suspected of being a rapist.

9) There is absolutely no correlation between my comment and anecdotal evidence.
I've held the opinion that rapists should be put to death, since many years before any of my friends, acquaintances, ect... were raped, meaning that my views on the punishment of rapists have not been changed at all by the fact that they were raped, because I already held the belief that they should be put to death.
Also, 'Anecdotal Evidence' is two words, and is therefore a term, not a word.

10) Once again, it's more like 'Not actively trying to color the opinions of anyone by telling them that my view is correct, whilst their own is not'. I'm not out to change anybodies views, nor am I out to change the legal system, I'm just putting my opinion up because I feel that it's not right to ask an others opinion without first putting your own up for review.

11) Actually, your last quote of this particular topic stated that I believed that they would be better off dead, which I do not. Many rape victims get over some of their trauma, but many more still believe that they would have been better off if the rapist had killed them.

12) I know good and well that I will never be called upon to make a decision based off of my own, admittedly extreme opinion. Why? Because the only situations in which I would ever have the authority to make my opinion matter, would be if I was ever A) In a position of political power, which I'm never, ever going to strive for, or B) Called upon for Jury duty. In which case, I would be turned down because of my opinion. I know this as a matter of fact, by the way.

13) It would be illogical if I was trying to impose my opinion on others, given that I'm already well aware of the fact that my opinion isn't logically, or legally, feasible. Refer to point five, if you're confused.

14) Actually, the ultimate ruling is that the Death Penalty was excessive when compared to the crime, not cruel and unusual.
Coker had already been convicted of two previous rapes, as well as murder, amongst other charges. The court had been taking into account the outside influences of various states quietly moving away from the death penalty for rape cases, and this is what tipped their decision.
I believe Officer Wiggum, from the Simpsons, said it best: "Halt! In the name of American squeamishness!"
Citizens these days can't seem to grasp that there are horrible people out there, that don't care how many others they hurt, or how often they're imprisoned and, therefore, the people believe the death penalty is too much. I do not.
Repeat offenders like Coker cannot be rehabilitated simply because they do not want to be, and this is why I believe they should be put to death.

Also, just as a point of interest, I believe that Coker was sentenced to death anyways.