Differing degrees of rape?

[Jenny A]

---

If rape is an awful enough crime to deserve a lengthy prison sentence (and I think it is), then the law should (and is most places does) provide a lengthy sentence. You may think all rapes should be prosecuted to the fullest, but that will never happen because, whatever the law is, victims will to some extent determine how it is enforced. That is my point. And it's true of most crimes because the victim is usually necessary to prosecution.

Where we differ is in how we feel about the victim's decision not to prosecute. I think, as long as that decision is not made out of fear, that it's a good thing be it a fist fight, rape, stealing a package of gum, or embezzlement.

---

If a man has sex with a woman before getting permission and she decides it a good thing, the law has no business between them unless she's a child or not able to give consent for some other reason. I don't believe in victimless crimes, and a person who does not feel victimized, is not a victim in my view.

Except I don't think a rape where the victim enjoyed it is strictly victimless, nor is the concept of victimlessness as applied to this case strictly the same as that used to argue that a victimless act ought not be considered a crime.

1. It is not strictly victimless because it creates the impression that whether act of rape is a punishable crime is an probabilistic thing whose probability is decreased by the probability of the nonconsenting victim changing his/her mind. This victimizes nonconsenting victims who would never change their mind by increasing the chance they would be raped on the the gamble that They would change their minds.

2. The victimlessness here with respect to the fickle victim is the result of happenstance. A true victimless crime is where the victimlessness is not the result of happenstance, but can be confidently predicted before the act.

Sorry, but no. What you are arguing is that all woman who have sex without first giving permission should be required to testify against their assailant. Whether she feels she's been injured is her business and if she hasn't she shouldn't be required to anything.

We don't require everyone who's been shoved or punched to prosecute either. And we shouldn't. Doing so is like second rape.

And yes, some victims make bad choices. But grown-ups get to do that with regard to themselves.

Besides, I really have a hard time imagining this would be rapist saying to himself, "well there's a good chance she'll like it and me afterwords, so damn the risk of prison, I'll go for it."