Yes, that is right because it is the law. True the mandatory minimums for crack cocaine compared to powdered cocaine is unfair and unjust and is very biased towards minorities, but that is the law and until the supreme court strikes it down or a new statue passes it will remain unchanged. I think you are creating a straw-man here, trying to equate substance usage and the incarceration time indirectly or directly to the punishment for rape. Second chance? Yes and No. Yes in the terms of a robber who burgles a bank and gets sentenced to prison and changes his ways theres but no to dylan roof who shot up nine blacks in the black church, or the black man who killed police officers both in baton rogue and dallas and no to serial rapists. Some crimes are beyond given people a second chance, that is only God who can do that. I believe European countries are too soft on violent crimes, Anders Behring Breivik the norway mass killer killed 77 people and was sentenced to 21 years in jail he was complaining that he needed a playstation 3 in prison as the playstation two he has does not give him access to new games. Guys like this should be executed quickly and not allowed to waste the tax payers money, redemption is beyond him on this earth, only God can grant that. Same way i feel about serial rapists.
[Discussion] Do You Support The Death Penalty For Rape?
- Thread starter Luther
- Start date
A strawman? You say capital punishment is just because it is the law, but that other laws such as mandatory minimums are unjust, even though they too are mandated by law. You can't have it both ways; either laws are inherently just, or we realize that they are not. By your argument chattel slavery was fine and dandy until it was illegalized, but you obviously do not believe so. Why would it be different with capital punishment? Let us discuss the ethics of the law, not just say "it is the law." That way lies the justifications used by authoritarian states and dictators.
Soft on crime? You'll excuse me if I will do everything in my power as a citizen to maintain the approach we have to justice in my country. You Americans - I know I'm generalizing here, but eh - always use hard power. It's the war on drugs, it's boots on the ground, it's harsher and harsher laws, it's mass surveillance, it's Donald Trump. How about, for once, you stop and look at what works. Being 'tough on crime' has brought you abhorrent per capita incarceration rates, low rehabilitation rates, high rates of first-time offenders becoming repeat offenders, and low rates of felons finding jobs and reintegrating into society. Even if you firmly believe that these people deserve harsh punishments, can you not look beyond this narrow sense of justice and see that you are creating your own enemy with this approach?
Whether common law or civil law as far as I know, judges always have an option to go for minimum or maximum sentence depending upon the circumstances and severity of the cases. People are acting as if including death sentence as an option among other penalties, means everyone will be put to death even without proof and regardless of circumstances case in the court.
If it's such a case I would like to know the country name and read some of it's laws to understand them better.
No because it's hypocrisy when people who would have killed another person or almost killed them, left them severely crippled and in a vegetable state or the like and do so over trivial issues or things like ego, plead that their own life deserves to be spared on the very grounds they valued little, when they were inflicting those injuries.
As I said : "Well in that case, yes you should be at least charged for attempted murder. And if it can be established that you had every intention to inflict such severe injuries more so if it was just to prove how manly you are, at least you yourself don't deserve to ask that question. Whether you get a death penalty or just a jail."
Read that again^. It has nothing to do with revenge.
Last edited:
I think it has everything to do with revenge. You don't think a murderer of an attempted murderer has the right to plead for his life? That sounds dangerously like 'an eye for an eye' to me. It sounds like an appeal to emotion, and, quite frankly, a dangerously slippery slope.
Good governance is about being able to see the big picture and in this I think it is absolutely paramount that the government does not sanction the murder of its own citizens under any circumstance. How can we claim to denounce murder if we practice it ourselves, however 'humanely' we dress it up? It is within the government's mandate to punish, but it must do so without stooping to the level of those it seeks to punish.
And I would thank you to stop with the "you don't understand" or "read it again" comments. They contribute nothing to the discussion.
Punk Hazard
Active member
Awards
It really is a case by case basis. Some people never fully recover from rape, while I know a person who wasn't fazed by it long-term. Most of the time though, it's a traumatic experience that continues to effect a person throughout their life. I simply see it as a matter of, if you disregard the quality of someone's life to such an extreme, then you have to sacrifice yours to do so. Can't do that, and then expect your life to be treated with the sanctity of quality of everyone else's.
I fundamentally disagree with the sentiment of 'solving' violent crime with government-sanctioned murder.
Some people never fully recover from depression, of PTDS, or abuse, or domestic violence, or countless other ailments that innocent people suffer arbitrarily. You say it's a case-by-case basis? Should the offender be punished more or less severely if his victim 'is not fazed by it long-term?' Let's use preventative action and rehabilitate the offenders that slip through the cracks. Let's cure the cause, not the symptoms. Capital punishment is not the answer; it wasn't in medieval times and it isn't now. The difference is that we now have the resources to rehabilitate the offender and help the victim. Let us use those resources, we're better than the alternative.
The Great Second Hokage
Active member
Me- it would make you a hypocrite to ask mercy on humanitarian ground for yourself after your own utter disregard for them while inflicting the injuries. And that you should at least be tried for attempted murder whether you get jail or death penalty doesn't matter.
You- It's eye for an eye . slippery slope blah blah..
Was I prescribing/demanding any particular sentence or how you should be treated- no. I said your example sucked and regardless of the punishment prevailing in your country the question coming out of the accused himself would be hypocritical.
That renders your points irrelevant. Nothing more to say.
About rest of your argument here and there though:
You know that " one size fits all tag" - it says that but pretty often you will findthat it's not a good fit. Same is the law with such solutions. Not everyone gets rehabilitated nor every country can afford to keep trying it for years and years.
That indeed would be medieval and stupid since they would be be even more of a burden on the society. If they are not dangerous enough go for rehabilitate, if they are too vicious and it's a serious risk to let them back in society ever, get it over with instead of the cycle. If you are really going to keep them in the jail for forever that may work but it's a costly business and more often than not - they will be out soon enough.
What I have learned is that most rapist practically spend little time in jail if at all. And with so many support groups worrying over rights of the rapists rather than victim, people think of so lightly that they call it a 'mere sexual encounter' and take it for granted that almost all of them lying or were sluts (thus they lose right over their own body and become public property). Victims end up carrying more stigma than the perpetrator.
Last edited:
It would be medieval and stupid to repay in kind, so why is escalating the punishment not? Or do you believe death as not escalating the punishment? Would it be a softer punishment then?
Why is it that people support the rights of the rapist? Previous neglect? Could you give examples of this circumstance where the rapist is given more rights than the victim?
Also could you explain how victims have a bigger stigma than rapists?
There is a case to be made for the accused being hypocritical, but my point was, of course, that the judiciary should offer mercy of their own accord.
You'd know that if you read my post. Your example really sucks.
Often find that it's not a good fit? I disagree, but certainly not everyone gets rehabilitated, especially if you simply expect them to automatically become good citizens while you treat them like dirt. Say what you want for justice, but that approach gets few, if any, good results.
And let's not talk about countries not being able to afford incarcerating their citizens instead of killing them. Unless you're in Somalia that is simply an outright lie.
ComplexCity
Banned
Once again read before you post. I'm not comparing rape to bullying although they both can be considered criminal
So you feel as though children, who are still immature in the mind and realized that they made a mistake should be put to death. Glad to know that you support killing children. This logic is already retarded because of said scenario
So let's say two people get into a fight, I'll just say person 1 and person 2. Person 1 is the aggressor and purposely messes with Person 2. Person 1 continues to harass person 2 and let's say person 1 walks up to person 2 and smacks them in the face. Person 2 punches person 1 across the jaw, knocking him backwards and makes person 1 hit his neck in an ordinary position. Now person 2 is paralyzed for life. According to you logic, person 2 should be put to death right?
This is no different from what I stated. You simply just took my statement and turned it around in the form of a question. We're all human that's why. What gives people the right to determine who lives and who dies? When people can do things indirectly to ruin other peoples lives?
Typical SJW, can't answer a question when it challenges his logic
Last edited:
I didn't give any example of my own. I used the one you gave.
And funny- so now their failure to rehabilitate too is responsibility of others? Have you ever studied even a single case of psychology of criminals involved in such crimes? And actually how long they spend in jail if at all and how soon they are back on the street?
ComplexCity
Banned
Don't some criminals who are in jail realize they were wrong for the crime(s) they committed and try to turn their life around when they come out?
What are you talking about? Rehabilitation requires serious effort from both parties, but there is a very low rate of rehabilitation in, for example, American facilities because they treat their inmates pretty badly there, especially in county jails.
And that depends very much on the country we're talking about, of course. The length of the sentence, the conditions of the jails, the help and opportunities afforded to the inmates, etc. These things all depend on what country we're talking about.
You talk like rapists serve no time at all. I don't know about India, but rape is not just 'frowned upon' here in Denmark, nor in the rest of the West generally, I would say.
The psychology? Are you going to just paint offenders with broad strokes? It seems ignorant to assume that these offenders, violent or sexual, have similar psyches.
American prisons shouldn't really be considered rehabilitative. American prisons are based on the old school logic of locking the criminals away from society and nothing else. Only many, many years later did it try rehabilitation again and even now there is extremely low funding. Penitentiaries were also tried in the early years but were considered too expensive and cut.