Rapists

[Jackalope]

Yes. People frequently believe contradictory things. This is hardly news.

CD is feeling especially snarky today. You should report him perhaps he'll get banned

I'm particularly snarky every day.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, they think it is justified to punish criminals, yet they fail to see they are drug dealing terrorists.

Uh-huh......but if I were you...I wouldn't turn that stone over. Glass houses and all that.

[TaraJo]

What should happen to rapists upon release? Depends on the individual. Release people when we feel comfortable that they won't re-offend, not after a set sentence has been fulfilled. That kinda goes for all criminals, not just rapists; I've never really liked putting the crime of rape up on a pedistal where it's so much worse than any other crime. I mean, you can recover from rape; you can't recover from murder.

[DeistPaladin]

I mean, you can recover from rape; you can't recover from murder.

I don't think it's about the recovery of the survivor of the attack but how sociopathic the perp is and therefore how dangerous that perp is to society. Prison time is not just designed to punish but also to prevent them from harming society.

There are many different scenarios under which murder might happen with a huge variety of motivations. This is why we punish pre-meditated murder differently than murder in the heat of the moment. A wife who shoots her faithless husband upon finding him in bed with another woman one day is generally treated differently than one who planned and poisoned her husband after taking out a big life insurance policy on him.

There are also extreme scenarios where I find murder understandable, though not entirely justified. I remember once seeing on the news a man who shot the alleged molester of his son. This murder was premeditated. Was the outraged father wrong for taking the law into his own hands? Yes. He should have had more faith in the system. Nonetheless, it's hard for me to consider him to be evil or dangerous to society. Psychological evaluation and treatment would be more appropriate than hard time in this case, in my opinion.

By contrast, there are no conditions under which I could consider rape to be either justifiable or understandable. Neither does it make much moral difference if the rape is pre-meditated or just happens in the moment. Rape is an inherently sociopathic crime while murder might not be.

Some murderers are serial but not all. By contrast, the repeat offender rate for rapists is quite high, last I checked. The repeat offender rate for child molesters is 100%. You do not rehabilitate a child molester. They will strike again if they are able.

It is for these reasons that I consider rapists to be more inherently dangerous to society and thus need to be put away for longer periods.

[TaraJo]

I mean, you can recover from rape; you can't recover from murder.

I don't think it's about the recovery of the survivor of the attack but how sociopathic the perp is and therefore how dangerous that perp is to society.

Are you arguing that murderers aren't less sociopathic than rapists or that murder is less dangerous to society than rape?

Prison time is not just designed to punish but also to prevent them from harming society.

I agree, mostly. I'd like to see some amount of rehabilitative efforts thrown in there with far less emphasis on punishment.

There are many different scenarios under which murder might happen with a huge variety of motivations. This is why we punish pre-meditated murder differently than murder in the heat of the moment. A wife who shoots her faithless husband upon finding him in bed with another woman one day is generally treated differently than one who planned and poisoned her husband after taking out a big life insurance policy on him.

I agree with this, too. There's a lot of gray area in there when it comes to murder and it's the reason a serial killer is going to get more time than someone who accidentally shoots someone while they're cleaning their gun. But the same goes for rape, too. There's a lot of gray area in rape, as much as we might not like to admit it, especially when drugs or alcohol are impairing the judgement of people involved. Statutory rape can certainly be a gray area as well, because, let's face it, we don't ask for photo ID of sexual partners before we get down and dirty and it's entirely possible for someone to lie about their age.

By contrast, there are no conditions under which I could consider rape to be either justifiable or understandable.

Justifiable? Maybe not. You don't rape in self defense or in defense of someone else. But understandable? I can understand it, somewhat. Many people can confuse the non-verbal cues we use for a lot of our communication and think someone is into it when they aren't.

Neither does it make much moral difference if the rape is pre-meditated or just happens in the moment. Rape is an inherently sociopathic crime while murder might not be.

Really? You're more comfortable with someone who had a temporary lapse of judgement than you are with someone who planned out a crime for maybe months in advance? I don't feel that way at all.

Some murderers are serial but not all. By contrast, the repeat offender rate for rapists is quite high, last I checked. The repeat offender rate for child molesters is 100%. You do not rehabilitate a child molester. They will strike again if they are able.

Correct. However, in the original post that was being asked about, we weren't talking about a specific kind of rape, we were talking about rape in general. If anything, this only strengthens my case that there's gray area with rape and some rape, like child rape, is worse than others.

But even in cases of child rape there can be gray areas. There are places where it's a crime for a 19 year old to have sex with a 17 year old (by the way, this is something that regularly gets used by homophobic parents against the partners of their gay children). I mentioned lieing about your age earlier. Perhaps we could eliminate the gray area by saying all pre-teen rape is terrible, and I'd probably agree with that.

But even then, murdering a child still strikes me as worse than raping one. I don't like either, though.

[DeistPaladin]

Are you arguing that murderers aren't less sociopathic than rapists or that murder is less dangerous to society than rape?

That rapists are more sociopathic and more often repeat offenders and therefore more dangerous to society.

I agree, mostly. I'd like to see some amount of rehabilitative efforts thrown in there with far less emphasis on punishment.

Sure but that's another issue and the topic of specific better strategies for rehabilitation is one I'm not qualified to discuss. I'm advocating longer sentences more for the purpose of keeping them away from society.

There's a lot of gray area in rape, as much as we might not like to admit it, especially when drugs or alcohol are impairing the judgement of people involved.

This is true and something I wasn't thinking of. I assume you refer to the target drinking or using drugs and not the perp, right?

If the target is incapacitated or incoherent, they clearly aren't able to give consent and I would agree they need to be protected by the law. Rape isn't determined by the "no" but the absence of a "yes". The problem it's hard to come up with an objective blood/alcohol measure of when that line is crossed. Some people are knocked out with only a few drinks where others have a higher tolerance.

Some may feel, my wife included, that lesser degrees of intoxication should also remove the ability to give consent. By this, I mean still able to walk about, speak clearly, etc but their judgment is impaired. Though this may not be a popular opinion, I find this logic to be faulty on two counts.

First, I find it inconsistent that if such a person decides to get behind the wheel of a car and drive, they are held responsible for their choices. You can't use a defense of "oh, sorry, I was drunk and not in my right mind". Yet if they have sex that they wouldn't normally have if they were sober, they're not responsible for this choice and it should be considered forced upon them? Why are they responsible for one choice and not another?

Second, not all sex involves the man seducing the woman. Sometimes women will aggressively take the lead and jump his bones. Additionally, some people, myself included, are "mellow drunks" who don't give off noticeable signs of intoxication in their behavior. Do we push her away and ask for a Breathalyzer test first?

Some state laws are so severe that ANY alcohol in the system renders one incapable of giving consent. One of my favorite seduction rituals, once the time is right in a relationship, is to invite my romantic interest over to my place and cook him or her a meal. Typically, a glass of wine is served, if he or she chooses to partake. Assuming that glass of wine wasn't completely metabolized by the time we get to the bedroom, does that make it rape? That seems pretty extreme to me.

One other concern with drugs and alcohol are drugs designed as "rape drugs". They render a target incoherent and vulnerable to the power of suggestion. This is obviously rape and treated as such by the law.

Statutory rape can certainly be a gray area as well, because, let's face it, we don't ask for photo ID of sexual partners before we get down and dirty and it's entirely possible for someone to lie about their age.

Agreed and also a point I hadn't considered. Of course, statutory rape is treated differently than 1st or 2nd degree rape.

Many people can confuse the non-verbal cues we use for a lot of our communication and think someone is into it when they aren't.

That's true. In my dating experience, I've had plenty of misunderstandings on a wide variety of subjects, ranging from whether there were any "commitments" made to what the future prospects were. Sometimes our partners make the assumption that what they want is also what we want (see wishful thinking, confirmation bias and psychological projection). However, when it comes to sex, I should think any misunderstandings would be made clear before the full blown act itself.

Really? You're more comfortable with someone who had a temporary lapse of judgement than you are with someone who planned out a crime for maybe months in advance?

When it comes to rape, yes.

Speaking personally, I was in a situation once making love to my then girlfriend. Apparently, something she ate earlier that night had made her ill. Right in the middle of sex, and by that I mean as we were going at it, she said she needed to stop. And so I ended it there. My dick wasn't happy about it but we stopped right then. ...we both needed to use the bathroom for different reasons...

So when I hear some rape defendant whining about how she was leading him on and he just couldn't control his passions, I don't want to hear about it. If I can stop in the middle of sex on her request, it proves to me that men can stop before they even start to have sex if she says to.

If anything, this only strengthens my case that there's gray area with rape and some rape, like child rape, is worse than others.

To be clear, pedophilia is something that needs a life sentence because we're starting to suspect it's a sexual orientation, not just a predatory behavior. This means it can't be cured and the perp can't be rehabilitated. Hence, they need to be locked up forever.

But even in cases of child rape there can be gray areas. There are places where it's a crime for a 19 year old to have sex with a 17 year old

That's not pedophilia. Child rape concerns a prepubescent victim.

But yes, the 19/17 year old couple, that's a situation that should not be prosecuted. I've sometimes thought a caveat should be in the law where if the age difference is less than four years, it doesn't count as statutory rape.

[TaraJo]

There's a lot of gray area in rape, as much as we might not like to admit it, especially when drugs or alcohol are impairing the judgement of people involved.

This is true and something I wasn't thinking of. I assume you refer to the target drinking or using drugs and not the perp, right?

Maybe a little of both. It would be fair to say that if "the perp" has their judgement impaired, they might rape when they otherwise wouldn't have. I'm not saying that should allow someone to get away with it scott free, but I do think the impact alcohol has should be taken into consideration when deciding how to handle this person.

If the target is incapacitated or incoherent, they clearly aren't able to give consent and I would agree they need to be protected by the law. Rape isn't determined by the "no" but the absence of a "yes". The problem it's hard to come up with an objective blood/alcohol measure of when that line is crossed. Some people are knocked out with only a few drinks where others have a higher tolerance.

Agreed, this, again, is a bit of a gray area. I acknowledge that it can be easy to rape someone who is intoxicated and even easy to do it without their saying 'no,' but I also don't want to say that any intoxication turns sex into rape. That would automatically turn it into rape when people hook up at singles bars or at college parties or stuff like that. It's a bit too wide a brush for my tastes.

Statutory rape can certainly be a gray area as well, because, let's face it, we don't ask for photo ID of sexual partners before we get down and dirty and it's entirely possible for someone to lie about their age.

Agreed and also a point I hadn't considered. Of course, statutory rape is treated differently than 1st or 2nd degree rape.

Even in the case of statutory rape, though, there are shades of gray. It's one thing for, say, the 19 year old to have sex with a 17 year old partner. It's another for a 40-something year old to seduce a naive 14 year old. I've honestly never been that crazy about age-of-consent laws, though, because they can be so arbitrary. A family member of mine had down syndrome and was never going to age, psychologically, past say 10 years old. Yet when she was in her early thirties, she was raped. Problem was, she consented and was past the age of consent so she wasn't able to prosecute, but she was hurt as much as most victims would be.

Really? You're more comfortable with someone who had a temporary lapse of judgement than you are with someone who planned out a crime for maybe months in advance?

When it comes to rape, yes.

I can't say I feel the same way. A momentar lapse of judgement is something that can be remedied with better self control (which is also true of many other crimes). If you had time to plan things out over a length of time, you already had time to consider and tell yourself what you're doing is wrong. It takes a certain amount of malice or sociopathy to contiue doing something like that when you know it's wrong.

If anything, this only strengthens my case that there's gray area with rape and some rape, like child rape, is worse than others.

To be clear, pedophilia is something that needs a life sentence because we're starting to suspect it's a sexual orientation, not just a predatory behavior. This means it can't be cured and the perp can't be rehabilitated. Hence, they need to be locked up forever.

I could somewhat agree to that. I just don't much like the idea of giving someone a life sentence because of something that's beyond their control. I'd love if we could find a way to release them, or give them some kind of freedom, but still know they aren't going to victimize anymore children.

But even in cases of child rape there can be gray areas. There are places where it's a crime for a 19 year old to have sex with a 17 year old

That's not pedophilia. Child rape concerns a prepubescent victim.

But yes, the 19/17 year old couple, that's a situation that should not be prosecuted. I've sometimes thought a caveat should be in the law where if the age difference is less than four years, it doesn't count as statutory rape.

That wouldn't be a bad idea. But then you'd wind up with people who are four years and one month apart who argue that they should be able to have sex with each other and it would be hard to argue that they're any less able to consent than parties that are just a month closer in age. Hell, my boyfriend and I have a larger divide between our birthdays; that isn't rape, is it?

[Little lunch]

I think if I was a rapist and the rape sentence was as bad or worse then the murder charge, then I would seriously consider murdering the people I rape.

[DeistPaladin]

Maybe a little of both. It would be fair to say that if "the perp" has their judgement impaired, they might rape when they otherwise wouldn't have. I'm not saying that should allow someone to get away with it scott free, but I do think the impact alcohol has should be taken into consideration when deciding how to handle this person.

Well, that gets back to what I said about how we treat alcohol and drugs regarding other decisions. If you choose to drink or do drugs and then later decide to get behind the wheel of a car, having an accident you normally wouldn't have, or simply get caught driving while intoxicated, you're held fully responsible for your choices with no consideration of your state of intoxication.

Personally, I think that's how it ought to be. If you choose to partake in drugs or alcohol, you choose to be responsible for the things you subsequently do while in that state, right mind or no.

Agreed, this, again, is a bit of a gray area. I acknowledge that it can be easy to rape someone who is intoxicated and even easy to do it without their saying 'no,' but I also don't want to say that any intoxication turns sex into rape. That would automatically turn it into rape when people hook up at singles bars or at college parties or stuff like that. It's a bit too wide a brush for my tastes.

Largely I think this would be academic, anyway. I've mentioned elsewhere, four different women have confided in me they are rape survivors of violent attacks and sadly none of them pressed charges. It's an under-reported crime. I can't imagine women would be inclined to go through the ordeal of pressing charges for the fact that she agreed to have sex while mildly intoxicated and then later had morning-after regrets. I only hear about technicalities being pursued when homophobic parents find out their 17 year old had sex with their 19 year old same gender partner.

---

I think if I was a rapist and the rape sentence was as bad or worse then the murder charge, then I would seriously consider murdering the people I rape.

Even though the two would carry their own punishment? Say, to use round numbers, if both were punished by a 20 year sentence, is a 40 year sentence not worse than 20?

[TaraJo]

I think if I was a rapist and the rape sentence was as bad or worse then the murder charge, then I would seriously consider murdering the people I rape.

Even though the two would carry their own punishment? Say, to use round numbers, if both were punished by a 20 year sentence, is a 40 year sentence not worse than 20?

But it would certainly give the rapist incentive to murder and erase any evidence that the rape happened, especially if the penalty for rape is worse than the penalty for murder.

Which is entirely possible under some of the circumstances you've described. You've said child rape should be a life sentence, but if murder is only a 20 year sentence and you don't have to worry about a murder victim going to the police to report the crime, I can see someone taking their chances with a murder charge and them mutiliating the body so much that it's impossible to find evidence of rape. And I kinda don't like the idea of a justice system giving someone incentive for murder, y'know.