Is a woman justified in murdering her rapist?

[The Parkus Empire]

Note: this is an ethical question. This thread is not advocating illegal actions.

First off, we're talking about murder. As in, after, perhaps long after, the fact. My question is: do you think a woman is ethically justified in murdering her rapist as opposed to seeking justice from the legal system? For hypothetical purposes, we'll assume she'd get away with it (unless she does it after a trial, in which case, not likely).

In my opinion: yes, she very much is. First, if she brings the matter to court, it's going to humiliate her, which I don't think is at all fair. Going further, rape is nearly impossible to prove, because the burden is on her to prove that she didn't consent. This is all the more difficult if she's promiscuous, the parties in question were drinking, or if she even dresses attractively, since those factors will lead the jury to believe that it's more likely to be in her character to consent. If witnesses show she was just hanging out with the guy, that might be enough to destroy her chances--she can pretty much forget it if people saw her kissing the guy, let alone going home with him. And after all this, if the defendant isn't found guilty, it could ruin her standing. She'll be known as a bitch who falsely accused a guy of rape. And then what if he does get found guilty? What if he decides he wants revenge after he gets out?

Anyway, opinions?

[Georgizm]

Good question. Personally at this point I'd say go through the proper channels and if he's found not guilty (and she is absolutely, positively sure she's got the right man, because people can misremember even something like that as shown by Elizabeth Loftus) then go after him. If there's not enough evidence to even go to court with then by all means hunt him down.

I wouldn't call this a set in stone opinion though and I'd prefer to judge it on a more case by case basis.

[The Parkus Empire]

Good question. Personally at this point I'd say go through the proper channels and if he's found not guilty (and she is absolutely, positively sure she's got the right man, because people can misremember even something like that as shown by Elizabeth Loftus) then go after him. If there's not enough evidence to even go to court with then by all means hunt him down.

I wouldn't call this a set in stone opinion though and I'd prefer to judge it on a more case by case basis.

I mean she wouldn't get caught if she murdered him beforehand. If she did it after such a trial, she'd probably be the first suspect.

Edited the OP to reflect this dilemma.

[Genivaria]

Yes.
Is it ethical that one of her friends brutally tortures him to death, for hours on end, while pumping him full of adrenaline so he can't pass out from the pain, while I start working on his limbs with a buzzsaw?
I'd like to think so.

[1000 Cats]

I say she definitely is, but I'm also very critical of the justice system by and large. In my experience, it only serves to bust the "accidental" criminals and make the nation a buck, while the real dangerous bastards get off simply because they know how. I'm all for an individual taking justice into their own hands.

[Malynera]

Ethically murder is never acceptable.

[Trixiestan]

No, because I believe that murder is rarely (if ever) justified.

Yes.
Is it ethical that one of her friends brutally tortures him to death, for hours on end, while pumping him full of adrenaline so he can't pass out from the pain, while I start working on his limbs with a buzzsaw?
I'd like to think so.

Welp, the torture advocates popped up quickly. I suppose now we just have to wait for the people who think rapists should be raped.

[The Parkus Empire]

Yes.
Is it ethical that one of her friends brutally tortures him to death, for hours on end, while pumping him full of adrenaline so he can't pass out from the pain, while I start working on his limbs with a buzzsaw?
I'd like to think so.

Good God, I couldn't consider it remotely ethical to do that to anyone, though I could understand it under some circumstances, including rape.

[Georgizm]

I mean she wouldn't get caught if she murdered him beforehand. If she did it after such a trial, she'd probably be the first suspect.

Edited the OP to reflect this dilemma.

I just don't know then. Leaning towards yes for people who are subjected to some of the worst "kinds" (probably not the correct wording and I imagine someone will jump on me for it later in the thread but I don't know how else to explain) of rape and a strong no for some of the least harmful kinds (for those people who class drunken sex as rape, as related to your other thread Parkus).

[Genivaria]

No, because I believe that murder is rarely (if ever) justified.

Yes.
Is it ethical that one of her friends brutally tortures him to death, for hours on end, while pumping him full of adrenaline so he can't pass out from the pain, while I start working on his limbs with a buzzsaw?
I'd like to think so.

Welp, the torture advocates popped up quickly. I suppose now we just have to wait for the people who think rapists should be raped.

Only with a pineapple.

[Genivaria]

Yes.
Is it ethical that one of her friends brutally tortures him to death, for hours on end, while pumping him full of adrenaline so he can't pass out from the pain, while I start working on his limbs with a buzzsaw?
I'd like to think so.

Good God, I couldn't consider it remotely ethical to do that to anyone, though I could understand it under some circumstances, including rape.

Sry, I was trying to think up something extreme and the first thing I thought of was this one scene from Law Abiding Citizen.
Want a link?

[The Parkus Empire]

No, because I believe that murder is rarely (if ever) justified.

Would it perhaps be more ethical for her to tie him up and keep him in her basement for the rest of his life?

[Dagnia]

If she was certain he would do it again, especially to her and assuming calling the police was not an option because either they would not get to the rapist between rapes, or they were too corrupt, then absolutely. If she could call the police and the rapist was certain to be caught, tried and convicted, still maybe yes. I am not a Christian and according to my personal philosophy, revenge is a morally valid reason to do something.

[Genivaria]

No, because I believe that murder is rarely (if ever) justified.

Would it perhaps be more ethical for her to tie him up and keep him in her basement for the rest of his life?

......maybe

[Georgizm]

No, because I believe that murder is rarely (if ever) justified.

Would it perhaps be more ethical for her to tie him up and keep him in her basement for the rest of his life?

Would she really want to come face to face with her rapist everyday?

[Darqastan]

And then what if he does get found guilty? What if he decides he wants revenge after he gets out?

Simple. The death sentence should be passed on rapists (proven rapists).

[Schwabenreich]

I believe she is. If someone has made such a slight against you, as to forcefully take something you're not willing to give, you're in a moral position to revenge yourself and claim your honor. Considering this isn't some actual material possession and is something more psychologically significant, I can see carrying out murder on your attacker as a fair response.

I say this for a man or woman. I do think there should be some moderation though. For example, I'm not encouraging prolonged torture. I would encourage a quick death but not consider a little sadism a disqualifier. I am not saying this is an eye for an eye either. I don't think rape and murder are equal.

Murder, in this situation I would say is preferable then letting any nation's justice system handle this for, well mostly the reasons you describe. However, I don't see how changes could be made to law to improve this, because I don't see this as an area that can be correctly handled by law. Its hard to prove a man raped a women, or a women was raped by a man, unless of course there is decent evidence or a surplus of unbiased witnesses this is one of those areas where its word against word. Also, heres the kicker, I hear theres some potential for rape amongst prisoners in jail, for all we know the rapist might get their comeuppance during their imprisonment.

[Georgizm]

And then what if he does get found guilty? What if he decides he wants revenge after he gets out?

Simple. The death sentence should be passed on rapists (proven rapists).

Mmm, not a fan of the death penalty but I think you make a good point in that ideally there wouldn't be an 'after he gets out'.

[Fionnuala_Saoirse]

No although I can understand the reasoning involved if one were to do so.

[Corporations and Companies]

If she did not 'encourage' him and drugs/alcohol are not involved then yes - often rapists tend to be repeat offenders so she's just doing other women (and society in general) a huge favour.

[The Parkus Empire]

I mean she wouldn't get caught if she murdered him beforehand. If she did it after such a trial, she'd probably be the first suspect.

Edited the OP to reflect this dilemma.

I just don't know then. Leaning towards yes for people who are subjected to some of the worst "kinds" (probably not the correct wording and I imagine someone will jump on me for it later in the thread but I don't know how else to explain) of rape and a strong no for some of the least harmful kinds (for those people who class drunken sex as rape, as related to your other thread Parkus).

Well I don't consider inebriation automatic rape (as I've pointed out, a drunk guy hiring a prostitute hardly equates to him being robbed and raped), and it seemed you don't either, so that probably shouldn't fact into your judgement.

For those of you who care to debate this, there's already a thread on it: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=136067

Now, reflecting on the idea of your post,--"lesser" rape and such,--one could argue that rape should come in degrees, like murder (raping a rapist with a broomstick out of revenge, anyone?), but I'd just as soon not go there, as rape is one of the very few things I prefer to stay black & white on.

[Schwabenreich]

Simple. The death sentence should be passed on rapists (proven rapists).

Mmm, not a fan of the death penalty but I think you make a good point in that ideally there wouldn't be an 'after he gets out'.

Eh, its not fair if the sentence was bullshit (that proven thing really can't be applied to every court scenario, lawyers, jury bias and shakey evidence can all be factors). Also, it really should be at the victim's discretion considering you know, maybe they don't want their attacker to die. If he(or she) gets out, their status as a sex offender can cause him some degree of grief in, well, atleast the western nations. Maybe the victim thinks thats appropriate punishment.

[The Parkus Empire]

Good God, I couldn't consider it remotely ethical to do that to anyone, though I could understand it under some circumstances, including rape.

Sry, I was trying to think up something extreme and the first thing I thought of was this one scene from Law Abiding Citizen.
Want a link?

No. Thanks.

[Georgizm]

Well I don't consider inebriation automatic rape (as I've pointed out, a drunk guy hiring a prostitute hardly equates to him being robbed and raped), and it seemed you don't either, so that probably shouldn't fact into your judgement.

No, I don't, but if she considers him to be her rapist and suffers a degree of mental harm from it then I think it could still be somewhat relevant.

Now, reflecting on the idea of your post,--"lesser" rape and such,--one could argue that rape should come in degrees, like murder (raping a rapist with a broomstick out of revenge, anyone?), but I'd just as soon not go there, as rape is one of the very few things I prefer to stay black & white on.

I'd actually say it's more a case of rape and "greater" rather than lesser rape... but yes I suppose keeping it black and white is for the best. Any degrees/other factors can always be reflected in sentencing rather than in actual classification.

[The Parkus Empire]

And then what if he does get found guilty? What if he decides he wants revenge after he gets out?

Simple. The death sentence should be passed on rapists (proven rapists).

I don't think so, since the death sentence is far more expensive than life in prison, and the only way to cheapen it (cutting down on appeals) would cost a lot more innocent lives. I also think this would make victims far less likely to bring up their case in court (believe it or not, causing the death of someone does bother a lot people, even if that someone raped them). It would also make prosecuting the cases a helluva lot more difficult.

I'm not opposed the death penalty for rapists in principle, though.