Should Rape be Punishable by Death?

[Seangoli]

My personal opinion is that they, and other dangerous criminals, shouldn't be executed, but rather put to work in conditions that will ensure they make up the cost for their upkeep. As far as I am concerned, the rapist gave up his/her human rights when they committed their evil crime(s).

---

One does not give up rights due to actions against another citizen, as rights do not protect one person from another, but rather the citizen from the state. This is an argument given many times, and reveals a complete lack of understanding of what one's rights actually means.

To be blunt, one does not have the right to be protected against from another person. A person committing a crime against another, or being accused of said crime, is not violating one's rights. Rights are purely and solely protections from the state that are granted to its citizens. The only people who are capable of violating the rights of another are those who are acting as agents of the state.

Equally, the justice system is neither about vengeance nor is it perfect. Revoking one's rights based on accusation, or even conviction, violates the integrity of the system in its entirety. It opens the door for further rights to be violated against an every growing class of people. Rights are either immutable or nonexistent. You don't get to pick and choose which are granted to whom and when. Even the worst offenders have these rights, as violating them invariably means that a precedent is set for the arbitrary revocation of rights granted to all other

Something tells me you wouldn't be saying that if you or someone close to you had been raped.

I believe he is a "that which cannot be named", and as such should be ignored and not fed.

[Hirota]

I cannot see how someone expressing their support for executing sociopathic rapists is "a remorseless and inherent danger to vast swathes of society".

He didn't say that - he said sociopaths. Period. Read the post.

Also, you don't seem to have championed your own cause by forwarding a counter-argument.

Absence of a counter argument is irrelevant. Maybe I don't have the time to write a full response?

I don't need to champion my cause.

[MERIZoC]

So if I dump your tea into the harbor as an act of protest, I should be killed? Seems harsh.

The Boston Tea Party was an act of criminal damage, like if Greenpeace boarded a Russian oil rig.
It's not terrorism.

The Battle of Lexington and Concord could be spun as terrorism, had the revolutionaries lost.

Under some definitions of the word (though not ones I agree with), the BTP could have been considered terrorism. The point of that was to illustrate the absurdity of punishments for "terrorism".

[Anglo-California]

Death should be punishable by rape.

[Themiclesia]

Nothing should be punished by death, for it does no good spiritual or material to the society.

[MERIZoC]

Death should be punishable by rape.

Anglo confirmed necrophile.

[Anglo-California]

Death should be punishable by rape.

Anglo confirmed necrophile.

Wait a minute...

[Ostroeuropa]

Death should be punishable by rape.

It's kind of funny that this isn't the most objectionable suggestion in the thread.
Poes law in action. (I know you're joking. That's whats funny.)

[Natapoc]

Death is such an easy way out for the criminal.

Removal of the genitals alongside with life in prison should do.

Such an astoundingly large percent of people, when asked reply like this that I'm surprised it is not the law.

This seems to always be the first reaction before reason settles in and we decide that state imposed body mutilation is undesirable in any sane criminal justice system.

[Sarigen]

The famous case that is high lighted in Canada, when we talk about the death penalty, is that of a fifteen year old male accused and found guilty of rape and murder. Luckily for him, the death penalty was abolished shortly before his execution, and he then spent years in jail.

When DNA evidence began being used , he appealed, and was of course proven innocent.

This is of course why the death penalty cannot be ethical, because the penalty carries the cost of innocent lives.

[Blakullar]

One does not give up rights due to actions against another citizen, as rights do not protect one person from another, but rather the citizen from the state. This is an argument given many times, and reveals a complete lack of understanding of what one's rights actually means.

To be blunt, one does not have the right to be protected against from another person. A person committing a crime against another, or being accused of said crime, is not violating one's rights. Rights are purely and solely protections from the state that are granted to its citizens. The only people who are capable of violating the rights of another are those who are acting as agents of the state.

Equally, the justice system is neither about vengeance nor is it perfect. Revoking one's rights based on accusation, or even conviction, violates the integrity of the system in its entirety. It opens the door for further rights to be violated against an every growing class of people. Rights are either immutable or nonexistent. You don't get to pick and choose which are granted to whom and when. Even the worst offenders have these rights, as violating them invariably means that a precedent is set for the arbitrary revocation of rights granted to all others.

I can buy into the argument that refraining from harming another citizen is more of an obligation rather than a proper right, and will concede that I should probably have worded my own argument better. I nonetheless beg to differ with your hypothesis of a slippery-slope, if only on the basis that if a government does engage in arbitrary revocation of rights it would be immediately outcast by the wider world and may even face a popular rebellion from within.

Also consider that if a government gives civil and political liberties to the population, then the population must exercise these liberties in a responsible manner, at least out of moral obligation. If somebody - in this case, a sociopathic rapist - abuses these liberties and harms another person, then surely for the betterment of all of society these liberties - up to and including human rights - must be taken away as a punitive measure. Compare the rapist to an unruly child in a playground with a toy sword. If the child starts striking other children out of malice with said sword, then the sword should be taken away to prevent further injury and the child be separated from everyone else, lest the miscreant find another tool with which to attack their peers.

[Themiclesia]

The famous case that is high lighted in Canada, when we talk about the death penalty, is that of a fifteen year old male accused and found guilty of rape and murder. Luckily for him, the death penalty was abolished shortly before his execution, and he then spent years in jail.

When DNA evidence began being used , he appealed, and was of course proven innocent.

This is of course why the death penalty cannot be ethical, because the penalty carries the cost of innocent lives.

I thought the common law post-19th Century mandated that none under the age of 18 be subject to capital punishment. Interesting.

[Gravlen]

I like how no one gives a shit about my personal experience of the issue. You guys are admirable.

This thread isn't about you.

Very few rape charges are ever brought to court in comparison to how many rapes actually occur

And you can't be brought to court when you did nothing. As was demonstrated with my case.

Yes, you can. The fact that you "did nothing" may only become apparent during the trial, or after you've been (wrongfully) convicted, or after you're dead... or never.

[Gravlen]

There are so many other, more creative punishments than death - in many of which death is often coincidental.

But even without any official effort of the sort, sex offenders generally tend to have a miserable life in prison, often being raped themselves among other abuses.

Where I live, the criminal tradition inherited from the Soviet underworld deems rape a dishonourable deed - if a man cannot get a woman without resorting to violence, then he's no man at all and doesn't deserve to be treated like one, hence automatically becoming a punk. Though this rule applies only to street rapes, where the attacker assaults a random woman, sex offenders are generally looked upon with disgust by other criminals.

Hence, simply imprisoning rapists in conditions that facilitate their abuse and rape would make a decent punishment in itself.

I don't understand why you want to reward rapists with the continued ability to rape, this time with impunity. Why do you think that's a punishment?

[The Sons of Adam]

It's a proven fact that many rape victims carry the scars of their assault for the remainder of their lives Source 1, that rape victims are often targeted by demographic Source 2, and it is an act of domination and not sexual aggression or depravity Source 3. Since this individual has taken it upon themselves to assault others for their own profit, should they be punished by death?

I myself am a bit biases, as a rape victim myself. However, don't let that dissuade you. The majority of the population, statistically, has never been raped. Is it fair to sentence someone to death for committing a non-fatal; but sometimes lifelong afflicted, crime?

Castrate them instead, I suppose?

[Seangoli]

I can buy into the argument that refraining from harming another citizen is more of an obligation rather than a proper right, and will concede that I should probably have worded my own argument better. I nonetheless beg to differ with your hypothesis of a slippery-slope, if only on the basis that if a government does engage in arbitrary revocation of rights it would be immediately outcast by the wider world and may even face a popular rebellion from within.

]

The state should never arbitrarily revoke one's fundamental rights, [b]especially/b] through the coercion of international or even domestic forces. Mob mentality is the entire reason rights are protected in the first place. Giving into mob mentality is nothing more than witch hunting and stake burning. The state protects the minority from the majority, even if the minority class in this case are those convicted of a crime. Fundamental rights and protections are afforded to all citizens, and are by their very nature, irrevocable. To revoke one set of rights from on group both encourages and allows the revocation of another set of rights from another.

You would not be so keen if the rights revoked were at the detriment to you, even if it were popular with the world at large or the domestic populace. In fact, the state should be heavily vested in maintaining order and protecting the rights of others, regardless of what the majority populace believes. As I stated, revoking the rights of one class, regardless of what class they may be, sets the precedent for revocation of rights from other classes. Doubly so if done through popular demand. It has happened in the past, and there is no reason it wouldn't happen in the future.

Also consider that if a government gives civil and political liberties to the population, then the population must exercise these liberties in a responsible manner, at least out of moral obligation. If somebody - in this case, a sociopathic rapist - abuses these liberties and harms another person, then surely for the betterment of all of society these liberties - up to and including human rights - must be taken away as a punitive measure. Compare the rapist to an unruly child in a playground with a toy sword. If the child starts striking other children out of malice with said sword, then the sword should be taken away to prevent further injury and the child be separated from everyone else, lest the miscreant find another tool with which to attack their peers.

Liberties are not rights, and as such are revocable. Equally, human rights are not liberties. Rights, by definition, are irrevocable protections given to the people to protect them from the state and from the mob mentalities. Witch hunts are anti thetical to civilized justice systems. You implicitly support mob justice and witch hunts, through wanting the state to disregard fundamental rights afforded to the accused and convicted. Mob justice, mind you, is often blind and unruly.

[Scomagia]

It's a proven fact that many rape victims carry the scars of their assault for the remainder of their lives Source 1, that rape victims are often targeted by demographic Source 2, and it is an act of domination and not sexual aggression or depravity Source 3. Since this individual has taken it upon themselves to assault others for their own profit, should they be punished by death?

I myself am a bit biases, as a rape victim myself. However, don't let that dissuade you. The majority of the population, statistically, has never been raped. Is it fair to sentence someone to death for committing a non-fatal; but sometimes lifelong afflicted, crime?

Castrate them instead, I suppose?

Only if you're okay with castrating innocent people.

[Alexanda]

Yes.
People who rape are evil- nothing more, and nothing less. Victims often carry their scars for the rest of their lives; many are emotionally destroyed, and live in the shadow of the assault. Such people must be kept of the streets, and ought to be punished; an injection of poison or a bullet through the head would be sufficient.

[Gravlen]

Incidentally, we should consider conviction rates.
Already they are pretty low for rape.
I suspect they'd drop further if you introduced this as juries get less willing to convict.

And beyond even that, what about reporting rates?
Much as the victims desire justice, I don't think it's too out there to propose that many would hold back specifically because they don't want to be indirectly responsible for someones death.

This is (unfortunately) true, especially in close relationships. A child might just want the parent to stop having sex with them, but still love the parent too much to file a report if it would be certain that the outcome would be an execution. The same may often be true with regards to partners or friends...

[Imperializt Russia]

The Boston Tea Party was an act of criminal damage, like if Greenpeace boarded a Russian oil rig.
It's not terrorism.

The Battle of Lexington and Concord could be spun as terrorism, had the revolutionaries lost.

Under some definitions of the word (though not ones I agree with), the BTP could have been considered terrorism. The point of that was to illustrate the absurdity of punishments for "terrorism".

Well, given the response of the Empire, that's probably what it was considered as.

Of course, it's important to not get caught up in the buzzword "terrorism" (too late, western democracies) and instead recognise "terrorism" as a framework, structure or motive from which terrorist acts, of greatly varying severity, impact and malice, are conducted.
Such acts should be punished under an appropriate assessment of its severity, impact and malice.

Long story short, the BTP, if it occurred today, would probably be handled much less harshly than, say, bombing the imperial fleet in harbour.

[Gravlen]

Yes.
People who rape are evil- nothing more, and nothing less. Victims often carry their scars for the rest of their lives; many are emotionally destroyed, and live in the shadow of the assault. Such people must be kept of the streets, and ought to be punished; an injection of poison or a bullet through the head would be sufficient.

Do you feel the same concerning other forms of assault too?

[Imperializt Russia]

Incidentally, we should consider conviction rates.
Already they are pretty low for rape.
I suspect they'd drop further if you introduced this as juries get less willing to convict.

And beyond even that, what about reporting rates?
Much as the victims desire justice, I don't think it's too out there to propose that many would hold back specifically because they don't want to be indirectly responsible for someones death.

This is (unfortunately) true, especially in close relationships. A child might just want the parent to stop having sex with them, but still love the parent too much to file a report if it would be certain that the outcome would be an execution. The same may often be true with regards to partners or friends...

Reporting rates in close relationships are low enough already.

[Scomagia]

Yes.
People who rape are evil- nothing more, and nothing less. Victims often carry their scars for the rest of their lives; many are emotionally destroyed, and live in the shadow of the assault. Such people must be kept of the streets, and ought to be punished; an injection of poison or a bullet through the head would be sufficient.

So you believe that satisfying your blood-lust is worth killing innocent people and an increase in rapists murdering their victims.

[Natapoc]

Yes.
People who rape are evil- nothing more, and nothing less. Victims often carry their scars for the rest of their lives; many are emotionally destroyed, and live in the shadow of the assault. Such people must be kept of the streets, and ought to be punished; an injection of poison or a bullet through the head would be sufficient.

So you believe that satisfying your blood-lust is worth killing innocent people and an increase in rapists murdering their victims.

Along the same lines, why does it matter to you if they are innocent or not? If you knew for sure someone was guilty would you be more likely to support the death penalty?

If you could be absolutely certain that no innocent person would be executed would you change your position?

[Imperializt Russia]

So you believe that satisfying your blood-lust is worth killing innocent people and an increase in rapists murdering their victims.

Along the same lines, why does it matter to you if they are innocent or not? If you knew for sure someone was guilty would you be more likely to support the death penalty?

If you could be absolutely certain that no innocent person would be executed would you change your position?

Potentially.
I still wouldn't believe it right.