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

[Continuity]

If it can be proven that she was too drunk to reason effectively, he should be punished for taking advantage of her, yes. It was not entirely his fault however, because, even when you're absolutely black-out hammered, you still have cognitive abilities enough to realize what's going on. (personal experience talking on this point)

Well this depends on exactly just how hammered we're talking, and believe me, however hammered you may have been its possible to get more hammered than that.
When completely drunk you loose most if not all ability to use higher brain function, the ability to speak, to look at an object, to form a coherent thought, to control your limbs, stand up or even avoid throwing up on yourself before passing out in a pool of vomit (optional). (personal experience talking on this point)

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

Yep, and the trouble is its incredibly difficult to defend yourself against a false accusation like that.

 

[Darius Brogan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

That is exactly NOT what I'm saying, actually. If the punishment doesn't change between rape and murder, yet they're more likely to get caught after committing both, they aren't likely going to do so.

Also, I'm not American, please don't assume so, it offends me greatly.

Yes, I'm aware that they don't always find the criminal. This wasn't a 'the law states' thread in the FIRST place anyways. I stated YOUR VIEWS, not 'you think the judicial system should work this way'.
Just because someone thinks that a rapist should be put to death because it's a stain on the gene-pool, doesn't mean they expect the law to suddenly conform to their wishes.

Also, in case you've been elsewhere since birth. Pedophilia is rape no matter HOW you coin it, because the victim is too young to understand what's going on, and it is therefore forced sex. Just because the victim is a child doesn't mean it's not rape. That's like saying you're not Irish if you don't have red hair and freckles.

As I said earlier, this is a 'your views' thread. If I'm ever lucky enough to catch a rapist attempting to/doing so/ or immediately following the act of rape, I'm going to blow them away. Plain and simple. That's my view on the subject.

 

[Sarah Frazier]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's why a harsher punishment should be reserved for repeat offenders. One drunk party with a girl who changed her mind later? I can see that happening. Having it happen every month starts to get a bit fishy. I'm all for giving the accused a chance or two to be proven innocent, but if the evidence is overwhelming and the victim doesn't have any motive to lie (or doesn't go bragging about how they got some poor SOB arrested for nothing) then there's not much that can be said otherwise until well after the fact.

 

[Darius Brogan]

If it can be proven that she was too drunk to reason effectively, he should be punished for taking advantage of her, yes. It was not entirely his fault however, because, even when you're absolutely black-out hammered, you still have cognitive abilities enough to realize what's going on. (personal experience talking on this point)

Well this depends on exactly just how hammered we're talking, and believe me, however hammered you may have been its possible to get more hammered than that.
When completely drunk you loose most if not all ability to use higher brain function, the ability to speak, to look at an object, to form a coherent thought, to control your limbs, stand up or even avoid throwing up on yourself before passing out in a pool of vomit (optional). (personal experience talking on this point)

Well... If you're not capable of standing up, looking at an object, and are passed out in a pool of vomit, you fall under the 'Forced sex' situation.

Also, I know how it feels to be falling down, floor-licking, passing out in your own vomit drunk, because I've done it before. Not a fun hangover, but I didn't rape anybody either, nor was I raped, and I was still capable of talking/functioning/otherwise not being raped WHILE I was that hammered, I was even still capable of picking up dropped beer-cans and finding the recycling.

I did, however talk with a heavy Russian accent... despite not being Russian... even a little bit.

 

[thePyro_13]

Rape is a horrific crime to have committed against you. Probably the worst possible thing to happen to a person other than death.

They deserve the harshest sentence available. However, I don't believe anyone deserves to die, as after they are dead they lose the opportunity to feel guilt for their actions, or apologise to their victims/family or once again become a productive member of society.

I oppose the death penalty on principle, and believe that no one should ever be subjected to what is essentially state murder, regardless of their crimes.

So I would not hand out the death penalty to rapists, and I'd even prefer is horrible characters such as Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden were spared from death. They should be locked away and otherwise punished in any other humane way for the longest sentence available, but not murdered.

It's important to keep in mind that criminals do not consider their sentence when deciding to commit a crime. So advocating the death penalty will not affect crime rates. The punishment should be based on rehabilitation or separation from reasonable society than vengeance.

 

[Thaluikhain]

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

Yep, and the trouble is its incredibly difficult to defend yourself against a false accusation like that.

Er...not really, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty, which tends to be very difficult even if you are.

Statistically, a man has much less chance of being convicted of rape based on a false accusation than he has of being raped himself.

I'm not sure how reassured by that you should be, though.

 

[Sarah Frazier]

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

It's probably a crippling thing to have to go through. Not only the stress of going through the legal system that may already be decided against you, but also having that mark on your record of having been tried, even if the judge said Not Guilty. If you then apply for something like a job and the person does a history check, they will see that mark and 9 times out of 10 expect the worst.

It's something that lingers, as you've seen by all the links to cases where people were accused and later proven to be innocent. If it was something big enough, you'll end up being an example even when you just want to go back to a more normal way of life.

 

[iLikeHippos]

...

No. No, you should not kill, or even punish another person for doing wrongful, heinous acts. What will that accomplish?
...That sounds kind of awful to any person with a 'normal' mindset, but read on please.

With society today, you may find that you are obligated to certain laws, but not morals. This creates a certain odd paradox, because if you do not have any good morals, you probably won't care much about the law to begin with. The punishments are just an annoying flick on the ear for the once-kid who grew up in a harsh environment, learning that stealing is within their right, murder so too, etc. etc , with or without resentment.
The people who commit crimes in general have struck with problems in their lives that have had them slide away from the norm of societies views.
Have you never spoken with a person who have committed rape? If so, please do. You may be wishing death upon a person that probably isn't bad, but that one act. Most criminals aren't God-damn monsters, including rapists, but they do need help to change their ways.


A fine example of a peaceful society, as for one, are the Amish. If you look up their records, you may find NEAR TO NONE criminal acts like rape, murder, theft. etc. committed. And if you know the Amish and their ways, you can probably figure out just why.
It proves that all people are good, they just need to be guided correctly.

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...
The bi-product is, sure as hell, breaking the law from the very people exposed to damaging events.
Hell, did you know the majority of those bullying were once bullied by someone?
I myself was bullied once and, sure enough, I did some of my own once I moved to another school.

I feel I am horrible at writing this out, however. So, watch 'Zeitgeist' if you truly wish to know what I am attempting to convey. (It has a chapter about psychological studies related to criminal behavior)
But, in short, the ACT OF RAPE is evil, and is probably what you actually hate, rather than the living, breathing organisms that don't differ so much from anyone else.
At least, I sure hope so.

Please point out anything that seems 'odd' if it interests and/or confuses, because there's so much to this, I've but written a fraction of the entire message that I want to deliver, in uneven chunks.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

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

Hoo-boy. I'm hesitant to see where this leads.

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.

...oh. That's pretty reasonable, actually. Not sure where the 'hardcore' thing comes into-

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.

-ah. There it is.

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'.

Well, I've got a problem with that, though not for the reason you might think. My issue is that you seem to be painting rape as some sort of basic instinct that we humans constantly hold in check. Because it's not: it's a criminal act that, like most others, has a certain set of prerequisites before it can actually be carried out. It's not something that you get halfway through before smacking your forehead and exclaiming, "Ah, sorry about that. Reflex. I wasn't paying much attention."

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.

...then how is it still some sort of bestial instinct? It's either an intentional, malevolent act, or it's the urge all males have to fight off whenever they get an erection.

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.

That's a rather strange view of crime. By that logic, the only people who should ever be let out of jail (or escape execution) are people who accidentally commit crimes, because pretty much every criminal act that doesn't feature the word 'negligent' involves a choice to do so.

EDIT: PLEASE NOTE, I'm talking about entirely lucid, forced sex against the other persons will, not 'Drunken, regrettable romps', not 'sexual bargaining', RAPE! OR situations where one party drugs the other and then forces sex. (Both have happened to people close to me)

Right, here's the problem: you seem to overestimate how many rapes are the black-and-white, clear-cut cases you make them out to be. You're writing the law as if every accused rapist is Buffalo Bill, and as if every instance of rape results in the police cornering a guy still pounding away at a battered woman.

Let's look at murder for a moment: by and large, homicide cases have a dead body attached to them. There is literally no reasonable reason to doubt that a corpse with the appropriate wounds was murdered. As a result, the case is a matter of finding the perpetrator of a crime that most certainly happened, and then sorting out motive, opportunity, etc.

Now, compare that to rape: often times, the only thing distinguishing rape from consensual sex is the 'victim' saying that it was rape. The former is generally exactly the same as the latter, save for the obvious fact that it's done against the victim's will. In a murder trial, the prosecution makes the case that the defendant committed the crime, while the defendant makes the case that he did not. In a rape trial, the prosecution's job is unchanged, but the defense makes the case that the crime didn't happen. It's entirely possible that there was intercourse between the two parties, but the simple nature of sex means that they were the only two around to witness the deed, and if the victim wasn't beaten to a bloody pulp (read: in most cases) then it's a case of the defendant's word against the victim's, with each side trying to question the other's integrity.

In short, you're demanding a death sentence be carried out for a crime that 1) has already been specifically decided does not warrant the death sentence (in the US, anyway) and 2) is rarely ever the cut-and-dry scenario that you assume it is.

 

[Pojo-san]

I actually have a few friends that were raped. Two are male and three are female. Of all of their stories, the saddest one would be from a friend that is younger than me. She had sex for the first time, but it was bothering her for some reason. She went into detail about what happened. After she told me her story, I then realized that she had been drugged and raped by a guy she trusted. The reason why it's really sad (besides the fact he stole her first) is because she did not understand what had happened to her. Her parents never talked to her about sex and rape. She knew nothing, and I was the one who had to explain to her what happened. The worst part of it is that she told me what happened almost a month after it had happened, so there is nothing she can do about it.

Rape is one of the worst crimes a person could do to another human. I don't like how the word "rape" gets thrown around in gaming communities like in World of Warcraft, Call of Duty, or Halo. I find that highly insensitive, and I think it should be taken out of our most commonly used vocabulary. I can hear some of you now saying, "Well, that's not a really big deal because it's just a figure of speech. We don't really mean it." All I can say to you people is this: when you know people how were raped like I do, know their stories, to sit there with them crying on your shoulder while you are trying to comfort them, and knowing that every time you mention that word you see them freeze up and see that very same fear in their eyes from when that traumatic experience happen them, come back and tell me what you think. Come back and tell me that it's not a big a deal.

As for punishment, they will have to do one of two things, depending on what state they live in, if it happens in the United States. If they are being prosecuted in a state that does execution, they will have two options on how they will be executed; this abides by the United States Humanities law which states that any person who is one death row is allowed a choice on how they die as given to them by the state. Example, in Texas you can choose between lethal injection and the electric chair; California you can choose either Lethal injection or the gas chamber; in Utah you can request the fire squad or lethal injection. People who are charged with rape can not choose lethal injection. They must choose between the alternate choice that is given to them by the state or the choice that is my punishment. I actually scared a teacher with this idea. What you do is lie the person underneath a wooden rod that is about 2 inches thick in diameter with a crank one end that turns the wooden rod. What you then do is cut the person's abdomen open and cut the intestines off from where it meets the stomach. You then nail that end onto one end of the rod and slowly start turning the rod. The intestines will start to wrap around the wooden rod. When you reach the end of the intestines you then push or pull, depending on the direction you are going in, hard to rip the end of the intestines from the rectum, thus have them wrapped around the wooden rod completely. It's a very slow and humiliating death, and you are alive and conscious while it's happening. With this method, you get to watch your intestines being pulled out slowly from your body. It's an old technique used by the Greeks to set certain people as an example to the rest of the populace of any revolting village as way of saying, "You do not mess with us or else you will die this way." Anyone who acted out got executed this way.

For those states that do not have the death penalty, the charged rapist must serve at least 60 years for every person they have raped, and have something pulled from "Inglorious Basterds" done to them. They must also have the word "Rapist" carved into their foreheads. That way they will never forget and everyone else will know what they have done. If they try to get plastic surgery done, they will be out of luck because all plastic surgery offices will have access to a government database that has all listed offenders with name, address, SS, a photo of the person, and other information like that. If said person was wrongly accused, the state must pay for plastic surgery to correct the scarring and they will be removed from the database.

I know these methods may seen extreme and unorthodox, but I have no tolerance for rapists. In fact, I believe they deserve much worse than what I mentioned. They should be removed from society.

 

[Spencer Petersen]

That is exactly NOT what I'm saying, actually. If the punishment doesn't change between rape and murder, yet they're more likely to get caught after committing both, they aren't likely going to do so.

That's the thing though, they may think that killing the victim may cover up their deeds, especially if the victim knew them personally. A person would be more inclined to think about the worst case scenario that the victim will turn them in and they will get the needle for it rather than the off chance that the person wont be believed or the case will fall through. You are right in saying the police may take it more seriously, but the thoughts going through a wanted criminal's mind isn't necessarily how the police will handle the situation, but what will happen if they get caught and what can implicate them to the crime.

Also, I'm not American, please don't assume so, it offends me greatly.

I assumed this thread was related to the thread about the Idahoan congressman's quote on preparing for rape and how its like having a spare tire as well as how rape is punished in the context of American law. I didn't mean to offend. The part about protection over punishment is from Blackstone's formulation (better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer), which has generally been accepted as the standard of assumed guilt in most free countries.

Yes, I'm aware that they don't always find the criminal. This wasn't a 'the law states' thread in the FIRST place anyways. I stated YOUR VIEWS, not 'you think the judicial system should work this way'.
Just because someone thinks that a rapist should be put to death because it's a stain on the gene-pool, doesn't mean they expect the law to suddenly conform to their wishes.

The law should generally reflect the will of the people, and if an overwhelming majority of regular people and law-makers believe that rapists should be put to death the law will change to allow it. I don't hold it against you for having these views, I just think there is some discussion to be had here.

And the sad part about the rapists in the gene pool is its one of those evolutionary backfires where the nymphomaniacs naturally reproduce more due to their inherent nymphomania. We can throw all the rapists in the world in jail but by the time they are actively raping, but chances are they have already passed on their genes by then. Its a lost cause unless we can develop a minority report/1984 method of thought-crime.

Also, in case you've been elsewhere since birth. Pedophilia is rape no matter HOW you coin it, because the victim is too young to understand what's going on, and it is therefore forced sex. Just because the victim is a child doesn't mean it's not rape. That's like saying you're not Irish if you don't have red hair and freckles.

I'm not saying rape of children isn't rape. However to say that all pedophiles are guilty of raping children is a gross simplification. Pedophilia is just a psychological state where one has an unhealthy sexual infatuation with pre-pubescent children. Yes its disgusting, yes its wrong, but I'm sure there are pedophiles who live their entire lives without ever committing direct sexual crimes against children. I just think you got the definition of pedophile wrong, although in the legal context you generally aren't marked as a pedophile until you have committed a crime, but even then I doubt we should treat spying on children or owning child pornography in the same field as active rape of children.

As I said earlier, this is a 'your views' thread. If I'm ever lucky enough to catch a rapist attempting to/doing so/ or immediately following the act of rape, I'm going to blow them away. Plain and simple. That's my view on the subject.

I guess now we are delving into the subject of vigilante justice, which is a whole new can of worms. I'm not trying to spit on your beliefs, I'm just trying to have a discussion on a forum about how we should treat rape as a crime, to hopefully learn from each-other. I hold no ill will for you.

Bottom Line: If we punish rape and rape-murder in the same manner, we are essentially saying they are the same on the scale of morality, which is simply not true. I'm positive every rape survivor is at least happy to have survived the ordeal, and saying that the law doesn't care if they were or were not killed is an insult to them.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

...

No. No, you should not kill, or even punish another person for doing wrongful, heinous acts. What will that accomplish?
...That sounds kind of awful to any person with a 'normal' mindset, but read on please.

...Good Christ. Unless you turn this around like a champ over the next paragraph or two, you're going on record as being opposed to the entire legal and judiciary system.

With society today, you may find that you are obligated to certain laws, but not morals. This creates a certain odd paradox, because if you do not have any good morals, you probably won't care much about the law to begin with. The punishments are just an annoying flick on the ear for the once-kid who grew up in a harsh environment, learning that stealing is within their right, murder so too, etc. etc , with or without resentment.

Except for, you know, the punishments that the law would dole out. Even sociopaths restrain themselves because they can acknowledge that they're going to get the hammer dropped on them if they according to their lackluster moral code instead of the law.

The people who commit crimes in general have struck with problems in their lives that have had them slide away from the norm of societies views.

So in other words, breaking the law is okay as long as you have a Freudian excuse?

Have you never spoken with a person who have committed rape? If so, please do. You may be wishing death upon a person that probably isn't bad, but that one act. Most criminals aren't God-damn monsters, including rapists, but they do need help to change their ways.

Here's the thing: murder can be an act of passion. Anyone can end up potentially killing someone else with a pair of scissors or something. Rape...not so much a 'spur of the moment' crime. And I find it laughable that you can think anything more than a ridiculous minority of convicted rapists are simply "good people who made one mistake."

A fine example of a peaceful society, as for one, are the Amish. If you look up their records, you may find NEAR TO NONE criminal acts like rape, murder, theft. etc. committed. And if you know the Amish and their ways, you can probably figure out just why.
It proves that all people are good, they just need to be guided correctly.

...what? How did you take a small, small portion of the American population and use it to state, "Therefore, evil people don't exist"? I could do the exact opposite by citing, say, the Stanford prison study as reason to believe that humans are fundamentally corrupt.

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.'

Hell, did you know the majority of those bullying were once bullied by someone?
I myself was bullied once and, sure enough, I did some of my own once I moved to another school.

Again with the Freudian excuses. How do you justify the deeds of murderers, then? Somehow I doubt that most of them became murderers only because they themselves were once murdered.

But, in short, the ACT OF RAPE is evil, and is probably what you actually hate, rather than the living, breathing organisms that don't differ so much from anyone else.
At least, I sure hope so.

Great. There are two delightfully insulting implications in that sentence. The first is that you assume victims of a crime misinterpreted their own feelings about the person who committed the crime against them. That's like hating a bullet instead of the person who intentionally shot you. And the second implication is that law-abiding citizens aren't the way they are because of any sort of moral fiber or strength of character, but because they just didn't have a sad childhood.

Also the 'love the sinner, hate the sin' thing only really works when said sin isn't all that severe.

Please point out anything that seems 'odd' if it interests and/or confuses, because there's so much to this, I've but written a fraction of the entire message that I want to deliver, in uneven chunks.

Surprisingly, I think you got your message across quite clearly. The only issue was that said message was more flawed than a gritty anti-hero played by a sentient conflict diamond.

 

[Hagi]

Long long post incoming. Feel free to skip if not interested in reading it. I believe some things require long posts though.

My views are basically as follows:

When it comes to criminals there's, imho, roughly 3 kinds:

- The stupid: Moral compass working and pointing in the right direction, just too stupid to realize that their actions are going against it in the long-term. They're not actively out to hurt people and base their actions on their short-term effects, which are often minor, failing to realize the long-term effects. What harm is stealing a laptop if the victim will likely get it back from insurance and it greatly improves your situation on the short-term? These people should be fined and given community service penalties as well as information on why their actions are wrong. Repeat offenders should be given increased penalties but it should be determined if their moral compass is really working, if not then they fall into the sick category.
- The sick: Moral compass simply isn't working. They never received the moral and ethical education you and I received from our parents and environment. They're not mentally mature. Their brains are underdeveloped, they did not receive the moral and ethical stimulation they should have. They're neither children nor full adults. A normal functional brain has a working moral compass. Their brains do not. They're sick. These people need to be isolated, treated and educated. Lock them up not as punishment but for the benefit of themselves and society as a whole. Treat and educate them and release them only once a psychiatrist has determined their moral compass is well enough to face society and then monitor them for an extended period to ensure that they're now in possession of a mature and functional brain with moral compass.
- The evil: Moral compass is working but pointing in the wrong direction. These people corrupt and pervert our morals and values of what is good and just. Their goal is to undermine a moral and just society. They follow an amoral ideology and seek to spread it to others. They brand their crimes as good, moral and just. These are the Hitlers and Bin Ladens. Isolate them completely from society, release them only on overwhelming evidence of a good and just morality.

The basis of what I consider moral, good and just is the universal declaration of human rights.

I think most rapists fall into the second category. The moral compass of these people isn't working as it should and I believe a healthy adult has a working moral compass. So if a working moral compass is missing then that person is not a healthy adult. I believe most rapists aren't evil. They're sick. They're mentally immature. They're 'morally ill' (physically ill = failing of normal physiology and mentally ill = failing of normal mental faculties so morally ill = failing of normal morality).

I believe every human being, no matter what, deserves treatment when they're sick. And while a physical sickness isn't comparable to a mental sickness they're both still sicknesses, same goes for moral sickness. It shouldn't be compared to a mental sickness, that's not what it is. But I believe it's a sickness nonetheless and as such should be treated whenever encountered.

To partly put it in computer terms:
A physical sickness would be comparable to the failing of a power supply, keyboard, monitor or other external hardware. A mental sickness would be comparable to the failing of a processor, video card, motherboard or other internal hardware. A moral sickness would be comparable to the failing of an operating system, driver, program or other software. Do note: this is a flawed comparison and shouldn't be viewed too deeply, but it's the best I could think of. It demonstrates how the sicknesses are related and connected but not comparable to each other.

While I'd consider most rapists sick I believe there's also rapists who are genuinely evil. These are the ones that believe that believe that raping is somehow a good and just thing and attempt to corrupt others into believing the same. A rapist who genuinely believes the victim deserved it, that the act was morally good and just and seeks to spread this belief to others is evil and should be locked up for life.

To, again, put it in a flawed computer comparison that shouldn't be looked into too deeply:
A sick criminal is like a bugged piece of software. It can, with effort, still be mostly fixed so as to be usable. It will likely never be completely fixed but can be made into a state where it provides a benefit, even if minor.
An evil criminal is like a virus. No workable amount of effort is likely to change it into a beneficial state and if not isolated it will corrupt other software.

This also demonstrates the main difference between the two. Bugs are bad, but the software containing them is only bad while the bugs remain. Viruses are simply bad in and of themselves.

Sick criminals are bad. But only while they remain sick. Evil criminals are bad in and of themselves.

EDIT: just to clarify, I don't think there's any rapists at all that fall into the first category. If you rape someone then something is seriously wrong with your moral compass.

 

[Brandon237]

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.

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'.

Who are you and how did you clone me?

In a previous thread about using psychopathic criminals as medical test subjects / dangerous labourers et cetera I got attacked many times for such views.

By this point you have probably figured out that I agree with you.
Although I think it is better to use them for something than to just kill them, as said, testing, highly dangerous work, stuff that needs doing but no innocent person should have to do.

As for views on rape, only truly sick people ever will commit it, so long as they are proven beyond a shadow of doubt to have committed the crime, use them for whatever you need to, they deserve any suffering that they will get in repaying their debt to the community and to the victim.

I am friends with a girl who was raped by her mother's boyfriend, she nearly committed suicide. The aftermath of it is not pretty and the criminals deserve no mercy, they ruin lives, they get their lives ruined.

 

[Julianking93]

snip

This was something I started thinking about after. Yeah, there are those cases in which one party is falsely accusing the other for a crime that is either out of context or under circumstances that just somewhat qualify as a sexual crime, that most certainly shouldn't warrant the death penalty.

But as for real rape offenses, I still think death is too good for them. I don't expect a rapist to go to a white collar prison with all the fixin's he needs to be set for life. Maximum security in solitary, or better yet, with the most brutal fucks you can get without any possibility of parole would be ideal for people who commit such horrible things on people.

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!

I'm hoping for the latter unless the death is as painful as possible.

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

 

[Darius Brogan]

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

Hoo-boy. I'm hesitant to see where this leads.

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.

...oh. That's pretty reasonable, actually. Not sure where the 'hardcore' thing comes into-

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.

-ah. There it is.

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'.

Well, I've got a problem with that, though not for the reason you might think. My issue is that you seem to be painting rape as some sort of basic instinct that we humans constantly hold in check. Because it's not: it's a criminal act that, like most others, has a certain set of prerequisites before it can actually be carried out. It's not something that you get halfway through before smacking your forehead and exclaiming, "Ah, sorry about that. Reflex. I wasn't paying much attention."

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.

...then how is it still some sort of bestial instinct? It's either an intentional, malevolent act, or it's the urge all males have to fight off whenever they get an erection.

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.

That's a rather strange view of crime. By that logic, the only people who should ever be let out of jail (or escape execution) are people who accidentally commit crimes, because pretty much every criminal act that doesn't feature the word 'negligent' involves a choice to do so.

EDIT: PLEASE NOTE, I'm talking about entirely lucid, forced sex against the other persons will, not 'Drunken, regrettable romps', not 'sexual bargaining', RAPE! OR situations where one party drugs the other and then forces sex. (Both have happened to people close to me)

Right, here's the problem: you seem to overestimate how many rapes are the black-and-white, clear-cut cases you make them out to be. You're writing the law as if every accused rapist is Buffalo Bill, and as if every instance of rape results in the police cornering a guy still pounding away at a battered woman.

Let's look at murder for a moment: by and large, homicide cases have a dead body attached to them. There is literally no reasonable reason to doubt that a corpse with the appropriate wounds was murdered. As a result, the case is a matter of finding the perpetrator of a crime that most certainly happened, and then sorting out motive, opportunity, etc.

Now, compare that to rape: often times, the only thing distinguishing rape from consensual sex is the 'victim' saying that it was rape. The former is generally exactly the same as the latter, save for the obvious fact that it's done against the victim's will. In a murder trial, the prosecution makes the case that the defendant committed the crime, while the defendant makes the case that he did not. In a rape trial, the prosecution's job is unchanged, but the defense makes the case that the crime didn't happen. It's entirely possible that there was intercourse between the two parties, but the simple nature of sex means that they were the only two around to witness the deed, and if the victim wasn't beaten to a bloody pulp (read: in most cases) then it's a case of the defendant's word against the victim's, with each side trying to question the other's integrity.

In short, you're demanding a death sentence be carried out for a crime that 1) has already been specifically decided does not warrant the death sentence (in the US, anyway) and 2) is rarely ever the cut-and-dry scenario that you assume it is.

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.

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'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.

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!

 

[Darius Brogan]

Snipped us off here. That's too long a quote

I guess now we are delving into the subject of vigilante justice, which is a whole new can of worms. I'm not trying to spit on your beliefs, I'm just trying to have a discussion on a forum about how we should treat rape as a crime, to hopefully learn from each-other. I hold no ill will for you.

Bottom Line: If we punish rape and rape-murder in the same manner, we are essentially saying they are the same on the scale of morality, which is simply not true. I'm positive every rape survivor is at least happy to have survived the ordeal, and saying that the law doesn't care if they were or were not killed is an insult to them.

I suppose it would be a vigilante justice thing if I was actively seeking out rapists and whatnot, but I just said I'm going to kill the rapist IF I'm ever lucky come across one before/during/ or after the act. I think of it something like scraping barnacles off the bottom of a boat.

Besides, the rapist may have passed on their genes a hundred times before they were caught, but if they're dead, they can't to it anymore.
I'm also working off the 'He's raped a child, therefore he's a pedophile' kinda thing. there's a difference between owning child pornography, and the will to perpetrate such an act. They both qualify as pedophiles, but on different levels.

 

[Darius Brogan]

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.

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'.

Who are you and how did you clone me?

In a previous thread about using psychopathic criminals as medical test subjects / dangerous labourers et cetera I got attacked many times for such views.

By this point you have probably figured out that I agree with you.
Although I think it is better to use them for something than to just kill them, as said, testing, highly dangerous work, stuff that needs doing but no innocent person should have to do.

As for views on rape, only truly sick people ever will commit it, so long as they are proven beyond a shadow of doubt to have committed the crime, use them for whatever you need to, they deserve any suffering that they will get in repaying their debt to the community and to the victim.

I am friends with a girl who was raped by her mother's boyfriend, she nearly committed suicide. The aftermath of it is not pretty and the criminals deserve no mercy, they ruin lives, they get their lives ruined.

It's good to see someone with very similar views as myself.

In the last three years, a close friend of my Mothers was drugged, then raped by her boss, she now has a child from that.

My little step sister was molested by her mothers boyfriend, she's been having recurring nightmares for two years.
And my best friends ex was raped by her roommate, that was only a couple months ago.

These people have given up their humanity, and whatever punishment they're getting now is certainly not extreme enough.
Many think that murder is worse than rape, I usually ask them this: When you're dead, can you re-live the act an infinite amount of times? Repeating over and over in your head how powerless you were? how you couldn't do anything to prevent it?

No, I don't think so. Rape is the absolute worst of all crimes, and the criminal should be punished accordingly. Though I rather like your medical experiment idea, especially if it's really painful, like bone marrow removal.

 

[iLikeHippos]

...

No. No, you should not kill, or even punish another person for doing wrongful, heinous acts. What will that accomplish?
...That sounds kind of awful to any person with a 'normal' mindset, but read on please.

...Good Christ. Unless you turn this around like a champ over the next paragraph or two, you're going on record as being opposed to the entire legal and judiciary system.

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

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

With society today, you may find that you are obligated to certain laws, but not morals. This creates a certain odd paradox, because if you do not have any good morals, you probably won't care much about the law to begin with. The punishments are just an annoying flick on the ear for the once-kid who grew up in a harsh environment, learning that stealing is within their right, murder so too, etc. etc , with or without resentment.

Except for, you know, the punishments that the law would dole out. Even sociopaths restrain themselves because they can acknowledge that they're going to get the hammer dropped on them if they according to their lackluster moral code instead of the law.

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.
... I realize you can't really compare coke to, say, murder, theft. etc. but I am trying to convey a point here.

Anyways, all it ever motivates is that he has to look whenever you're around, than he can drink coke whenever he pleases.
If he's caught, well, shit for him. But he'll do it again, assuredly.

The people who commit crimes in general have struck with problems in their lives that have had them slide away from the norm of societies views.

So in other words, breaking the law is okay as long as you have a Freudian excuse?

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.
There's more to it than that, though.

Have you never spoken with a person who have committed rape? If so, please do. You may be wishing death upon a person that probably isn't bad, but that one act. Most criminals aren't God-damn monsters, including rapists, but they do need help to change their ways.

Here's the thing: murder can be an act of passion. Anyone can end up potentially killing someone else with a pair of scissors or something. Rape...not so much a 'spur of the moment' crime. And I find it laughable that you can think anything more than a ridiculous minority of convicted rapists are simply "good people who made one mistake."

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.
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'.
... 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.

A fine example of a peaceful society, as for one, are the Amish. If you look up their records, you may find NEAR TO NONE criminal acts like rape, murder, theft. etc. committed. And if you know the Amish and their ways, you can probably figure out just why.
It proves that all people are good, they just need to be guided correctly.

...what? How did you take a small, small portion of the American population and use it to state, "Therefore, evil people don't exist"? I could do the exact opposite by citing, say, the Stanford prison study as reason to believe that humans are fundamentally corrupt.

Because, from that 'small' portion of people, there were zero to none rotten eggs. It proves that criminality isn't something that simply exists.
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.

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.

Hell, did you know the majority of those bullying were once bullied by someone?
I myself was bullied once and, sure enough, I did some of my own once I moved to another school.

Again with the Freudian excuses. How do you justify the deeds of murderers, then? Somehow I doubt that most of them became murderers only because they themselves were once murdered.

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.

But, in short, the ACT OF RAPE is evil, and is probably what you actually hate, rather than the living, breathing organisms that don't differ so much from anyone else.
At least, I sure hope so.

Great. There are two delightfully insulting implications in that sentence. The first is that you assume victims of a crime misinterpreted their own feelings about the person who committed the crime against them. That's like hating a bullet instead of the person who intentionally shot you. And the second implication is that law-abiding citizens aren't the way they are because of any sort of moral fiber or strength of character, but because they just didn't have a sad childhood.

Also the 'love the sinner, hate the sin' thing only really works when said sin isn't all that severe.

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

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.

Please point out anything that seems 'odd' if it interests and/or confuses, because there's so much to this, I've but written a fraction of the entire message that I want to deliver, in uneven chunks.

Surprisingly, I think you got your message across quite clearly. The only issue was that said message was more flawed than a gritty anti-hero played by a sentient conflict diamond.

What about now? Did I do good?
But seriously, watch Zeitgeist.

Maybe it sounds like I have a fuckin' crush on the movie, but it is the origins of whence all this information came from, and the movie makes sense if anything. More-so than this post.

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...
Also, if you get some sort of bad vibe from this, than it's a mistake on my part. It is supposed to make perfect sense to everyone, as does the... *cough*documentary movie*cough*

 

[JJMUG]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's why a harsher punishment should be reserved for repeat offenders. One drunk party with a girl who changed her mind later? I can see that happening. Having it happen every month starts to get a bit fishy. I'm all for giving the accused a chance or two to be proven innocent, but if the evidence is overwhelming and the victim doesn't have any motive to lie (or doesn't go bragging about how they got some poor SOB arrested for nothing) then there's not much that can be said otherwise until well after the fact.

I was talking about the man original accused of being the Bike Path Rapist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bike_Path_Rapist
It is not the same as being accused at a party where everyone got drunk.