Oh, yeah, I get it. She has served her time apparently. If someone had raped my daughter and confronted me like that...well, it likely would have been worse for him.
Random Crime Stories...
- Thread starter Husky_Khan
- Start date
SoliFortissimi
Well-known member
Only because the law didn't do it for her.
He was convicted and in prison. The law did what it's supposed to. The one day release thing I don't particularly like but it's well within the power of the government to allow.
And yet, the only way I'd feel that what she did was wrong is if it came out that she lied and he actually tried to apologize to her or something like that. To be frank, people like that should be kept in prison anyway. It's laughable that he served less than a decade.
SoliFortissimi
Well-known member
What the law should have done was to execute him in less than an year after his conviction.
Ah, I see. The rapist should be punished more than the murderer. Well, I can already see we aren't going to agree on anything.
Last edited:
SoliFortissimi
Well-known member
No, no, I also want murder to be punished by execution.....but I don't consider this to be murder. It's the duty of all citizens to do their best to destroy enemies of the public.
Skallagrim
Well-known member
To the surprise of none, I'd argue that the matter must be approached in terms of ethics, not in terms of legal constructions.
Let me preface all further considerations by clarifying that I consider legal positivism to be vile, dangerous bunk. What the law says is essentially meaningless, because laws can be good or bad to any arbitrary extent. So we must set aside the law, and ask instead what is right.
This brings the key question into focus: what is the right consequence to be visited upon rapists? If you feel that putting them in jail for a few years and then giving them back their freedom is right, then it stands to reason that you believe the matter settled thereafter. It is generally held as a matter of universal principe that once the proper consequence (or punishment, if you will) has been visited upon the guilty, they are thereafter freed of their burden. We do not punish twice for the same crime.
But this does presuppose that the consequence was the right consequence. If that was not imposed, then justice has not yet been served. And if justice has not yet been served, then it remains to be served. This is indeed, we may argue, then the moral duty of all upstanding citizens. Failure to enact justice is in effect willing servitude to the whims of injustice.
So what is the right consequence that should be imposed upon a rapist?
Perhaps some might disagree, but my own view has long been that the only right consequence for rape is death. For one reason, it is logically impossible to claim any innate rights that you would deny to others. Therefore, if you are willing to so grievously violate another, then you thereby abrogate your own right not to be violated. That is to say: if you rape someone, and you elude formal justice (meaning: if you escape the noose), it should thereafter -- for the rest of your days -- be allowed for anyone to kill you at any time, with no legal consequences. In other words: if you act as a dangerous beast to other humans, you should be put down like a dangerous beast.
More practically, rapists show themselves to be so inherently dangerous to others, and so callously disrespectful of the fundamental rights of others, that they cannot be safely allowed to ever walk free again. Theoretically, this would also render a life-long prison sentence as a viable consequence. However, as we know well, there are always misguided activists trying to get violent convicts freed somehow. In many countries in Western Europe, actual life-long sentences have in fact been outlawed because they were found "inhumane".
For this reason, the only true way to ensure that a rapist is never freed is to kill the rapist as soon as possible after final conviction by the highest applicable court. Preferably within the hour.
As such, I conclude that justice has horribly failed in the case that has been cited here. Not because someone killed a rapist, but because he hadn't been killed in the first place. And furthermore, justice failed twice over, because the person enacting justice was thereafter punished for doing so. When in reality, she did nothing categorically wrong-- and in fact did something fundamentally right.
When a rapist is killed, the world becomes a better place.
Let me preface all further considerations by clarifying that I consider legal positivism to be vile, dangerous bunk. What the law says is essentially meaningless, because laws can be good or bad to any arbitrary extent. So we must set aside the law, and ask instead what is right.
This brings the key question into focus: what is the right consequence to be visited upon rapists? If you feel that putting them in jail for a few years and then giving them back their freedom is right, then it stands to reason that you believe the matter settled thereafter. It is generally held as a matter of universal principe that once the proper consequence (or punishment, if you will) has been visited upon the guilty, they are thereafter freed of their burden. We do not punish twice for the same crime.
But this does presuppose that the consequence was the right consequence. If that was not imposed, then justice has not yet been served. And if justice has not yet been served, then it remains to be served. This is indeed, we may argue, then the moral duty of all upstanding citizens. Failure to enact justice is in effect willing servitude to the whims of injustice.
So what is the right consequence that should be imposed upon a rapist?
Perhaps some might disagree, but my own view has long been that the only right consequence for rape is death. For one reason, it is logically impossible to claim any innate rights that you would deny to others. Therefore, if you are willing to so grievously violate another, then you thereby abrogate your own right not to be violated. That is to say: if you rape someone, and you elude formal justice (meaning: if you escape the noose), it should thereafter -- for the rest of your days -- be allowed for anyone to kill you at any time, with no legal consequences. In other words: if you act as a dangerous beast to other humans, you should be put down like a dangerous beast.
More practically, rapists show themselves to be so inherently dangerous to others, and so callously disrespectful of the fundamental rights of others, that they cannot be safely allowed to ever walk free again. Theoretically, this would also render a life-long prison sentence as a viable consequence. However, as we know well, there are always misguided activists trying to get violent convicts freed somehow. In many countries in Western Europe, actual life-long sentences have in fact been outlawed because they were found "inhumane".
For this reason, the only true way to ensure that a rapist is never freed is to kill the rapist as soon as possible after final conviction by the highest applicable court. Preferably within the hour.
As such, I conclude that justice has horribly failed in the case that has been cited here. Not because someone killed a rapist, but because he hadn't been killed in the first place. And furthermore, justice failed twice over, because the person enacting justice was thereafter punished for doing so. When in reality, she did nothing categorically wrong-- and in fact did something fundamentally right.
When a rapist is killed, the world becomes a better place.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
I'm a fair bit more merciful than you.
First rape offense, 20 years in prison.
Second rape offense, castration and another 20 years.
Third rape offense, if they're so determined after castration, is death.
If someone commits multiple offenses before they're caught and tried? They can get all three at once on conviction of multiple counts.
Skallagrim
Well-known member
Better than what we have now, to be sure.
Yet-- mercy for the wicked is cruelty for their victims. After all, the very fact that you have a careful strategem for repeat offenders implies that you know very well that there will be repeat offenders. (And indeed, rapists do tend to offend repeatedly.)
How could I possibly look the victim of a repeat offender in the eye and say "we caught him before, but we let him out again"?
I couldn't bear that, because the victim is innocent and couldn't possibly deserve that. But I can bear killing a rapist, because a rapist is guilty, and therefore does deserve that.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
20 years is a long time for someone to cool their heels in prison. IIRC, recidivism rates for sexual offenders is between 30-70%, depending on the type of offense, and most rapists are late teens to early twenties, young men at peak testosterone levels. They won't be anywhere near that anymore once they're out again.
If this policy were implemented, and the recidivism rate for rapists was on the high end of that, I'd be amenable to making it even harsher.
Part of the reason the first conviction is relatively 'soft,' is because there are knock-on effects to going to instant death sentence, things that incentivize a single offense to turn into a spree of brutal crime as the criminal no longer has anything to lose.
And the issues with the consequences of false accusations.
Skallagrim
Well-known member
My counterpoint is that if my policy were implemented, recidivism would be at low end for certain. Towards zero. Which is where I want it, and I'll never settle for an inferior goal. It may not be attainable to get them all, some will always get away, but we can strive, and achieve great triumphs.
On the other hand, contrary to what the lefties generally claim, powerful examples discourage misbehaviour. Many terrible acts are committed because the worst scum can be relatively sure that they'll get away with it-- and will be punished lightly if caught.
If we have regular public executions of the worst criminals, it'll send a message to those who might otherwise follow in their footsteps.
Not to mention the fact that if you take would-be recidivists out right away, no further police effort will have to be allocated to them in the future, which allows you to instead put that effort into catching other criminals.
That's another problem. I actually think it's all exactly the wrong way around right now. Because of modest punishments, brutal criminals have relatively free reign, and things get worse. The response is to implement all sorts of terrible ideas, like (as is happening in several European countries) reversing the burden of proof when it comes to accusations of sexual assault. ("Believe the women" is the twisted expression, I believe.)
I'm entirely opposed to that. There must be solid standards of evidence, always. It should never be so perilously easy to convict the innocent, and in fact, it should be quite hard to convict anyone. Because that's where the great danger of injustice in that direction lies. (I also think that prosecutors or cops who knowingly withhold evidence and thereby cause false convictions should get an automatic death penalty whenever it is revealed. No immunity what-so-ever. This, too, precisely to strongly discourage that kind of behaviour.)
But if the appropriate standards are respected, and someone is found guilty of a truly heinous crime, beyond a reasonable doubt, by the highest relevant court---
Then hang 'em high.
Yeah except the punishment is disproportionate, removing an arm is more proportionate and it's a powerful example and lasts much longer. Execution is just a one and one done, people will forget about it in a couple of years.
Whereas the armless leper will serve as a living reminder for decades.
And it's a punishment that can easily be scaled up, you can remove the other arm, or the legs.
SoliFortissimi
Well-known member
No, mutilation is just barbaric.
Burning the Rapist Alive Could've Been Avoided by Not Having the Rapist Out of Jail on "Leave" or some shit and interacting with the family of the victim he raped.
Why not impale them in most humanitarian way possible? on blunt stakes,for example !
Jokes aside - i read about 3 approach to rapist in old Poland - they could be hanged,castrated,lost eys,hand,or...go free to rape if they were rich,important and had private army.
Lol as opposed to outright killing someone?
At least in the case of mutilation you can somewhat take it back if you're wrong, by providing top of the line prosthetics and enough money to live in luxury for the rest of their lives. You can't exactly compensate someone for a wrongful conviction if they're dead.
I'm also categorically against the death penalty because it robs the guilty of any chance to repent for their crimes and find God. And because the person that plays the role of executioner has to take on the moral harm of taking another life.
SoliFortissimi
Well-known member
Yes.
Nope, locking people up for 20+ years or killing them is far more barbaric. I don't give a shit if it makes you feel icky but it's a much better punishment both for the criminal and society.
Prison is wasteful and expensive, and I don't know if someone's told you this before but killing people is wrong. The moral harm incurred by the society condemning a person to death, as well as the person who is designated to serve as executioner is too great.
In the case of rape it'd be far more expedient to just remove a leg, it's a proportionate punishment that also makes it much harder for the criminal to reoffend. And it's severe enough to serve as a deterrent for others.
Moreover I think the criminal would also prefer to lose a leg or two, rather than spend a huge portion of his life behind bars or being executed.
TL;DR
Stop being such an ableist pig, losing an arm or a leg isn't the end of the fucking world. But it is quick and expedient, and it does severely reduce your chances of succesfully repeating your crime.