Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Penalties for rape

Rate this topic


Kevin

Recommended Posts

Considering rape as a greater form of violation than other kinds of assault is compelled deference. I'm overjoyed that many men are so horrified by the idea of these sorts of attacks on women, but this form of emotionalism is precisely the sort of consideration that does NOT belong in a court of law.

I don't mean that it should be considered different from other kinds of assault. I just think that it needs to be in the same category as assaults which result in debilitating, irreparable lifetime injuries. Because no matter the exceptional cases where a woman seemingly recovers or deals with it, that is in fact what rape does.

The logic that some people don't mind it so much, or others are capable of overcoming it is not valid, IMO, as a means of mitigating the crime. Reducto ad absurdum: assaulting and crippling a man, to the extent of confining him to a wheelchair for life might not be so bad if he was so lazy and depraved that he would never get off the couch anyway... or if he was so strong of character that he manages to build his upper body strength and live.

But those exceptional cases are not and should not be the consideration of the law. To do so would be a slap in the face to anyone who suffers such an injury; it is telling them, in effect, "oh, shut up and get over it you baby."

Also, the cases you mention, Jennifer, where women have psychological problems and so enjoy the rape should most emphatically not be used to mitigate the crime of rape. That would be like saying torture shouldn't be punished because there are masochists.

As emotional as I get on this issue (and believe me, it fills me with rage), I don't think what I say is emotionalism. Rapists are among the worst of criminals; equal in my mind to those capture, cripple, and torture their victims in dark basements... and deserving of equal punishment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As it is now, the difference between an assailant facing malicious wounding charges for shooting a person in the foot versus facing homicide charges for the same offense could be the fact that the victim in the later episode was taking blood thinning medication and bled out. The crimnal didn't know that in advance, but he should have known that he shouldn't be shooting anyone in the foot to begin with. I'm sorry I don't have a great deal of sympathy for him not being able to divine that result and possible punishment in advance, but again, he shouldn't be shooting people in the foot.

This is a good point, and I apologize for all the hypotheticals; it seems like the criterion for what should be considered a "directly evidenced" chain of events is one of those tricky issues that would require a real philosopher-of-law to hash out, kind of like "how long should my patent obtain".

Oh, and I'm pretty sure screwing up a left turn in such a manner as to cause an accident is a misdemeanor, since I actually did it once. Is that not a crime? I had to go to court for it.

Edited by JMeganSnow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mean that it should be considered different from other kinds of assault. I just think that it needs to be in the same category as assaults which result in debilitating, irreparable lifetime injuries. Because no matter the exceptional cases where a woman seemingly recovers or deals with it, that is in fact what rape does.

Women recovering from/dealing with rape are not exceptions and it's not a seeming. Where did you get that information from, crime dramas and feminist propaganda? In the case of a particularly nasty rape where the guy beat the sh*t out of her, okay, she's probably going to have some permanent problems, but all rapes are not equal any more than all assaults are equal.

The logic that some people don't mind it so much, or others are capable of overcoming it is not valid, IMO, as a means of mitigating the crime.
This is NOT what I said; I said that particular weakness or mental fragility on the part of the victim should not be considered as calling for a GREATER than normal punishment. In other words: no free lunch because you are a wuss. Frankly, I find it somewhat insulting that you assume women are, in fact, particularly weak and mentally fragile, but then I subscribe to the tough-as-nails ideal of femininity, which I invented myself because the demure-and-retiring thing just doesn't suit.

Most of the women I know did the same thing at some point in their lives, but then again, I work with women who cut up dead bodies and shove needles into fainthearted peoples' veins for a living. Maybe we're exceptional. But then again, when you remember that women WAY WAY outnumber men in healthcare jobs, you start to get a different picture on the subject.

Also, the cases you mention, Jennifer, where women have psychological problems and so enjoy the rape should most emphatically not be used to mitigate the crime of rape. That would be like saying torture shouldn't be punished because there are masochists.

I also didn't say they enjoyed the actual rape (that would just be WEIRD, plus how would that look in court? "Well, your honor, she was screaming for more at the time and now I just don't know what to think!"). I said that, after the fact, they viewed it as some kind of twisted status symbol . . . it's a demonstration of the fact that they weren't especially scarred by the experience. (Either that, or they were full of sh*t, from my experience with these women, either is equally likely.)

Rapists are among the worst of criminals; equal in my mind to those capture, cripple, and torture their victims in dark basements... and deserving of equal punishment.

ALL rapists? Under ALL circumstances? Baloney. Doesn't "date" rape account for something like 90% of all rape cases? (I don't remember the exact number, it might be closer to 75%, I know it's a lot more than half.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Women recovering from/dealing with rape are not exceptions and it's not a seeming. Where did you get that information from, crime dramas and feminist propaganda?

Talking to rape victims, and no I will not go into more detail as they wouldn't appreciate it. I'm not saying people can't recover from it or are weak. I'm saying that they suffer a permanent injury; they will be burdened with the memory of the rape for the rest of their lives. Overcoming it only means that they don't call it to memory so often... it doesn't mean that they have forgotten it, or can un-rape themselves. It's a permanent trauma, even for someone who fully recovers. This doesn't even include the PTSD, just the horrible memory of the rape itself.

In the case of a particularly nasty rape where the guy beat the sh*t out of her, okay, she's probably going to have some permanent problems, but all rapes are not equal any more than all assaults are equal.

Oh, I very much agree. I was speaking only of the minimum that the crime of rape is. It is, at minimum, equivalent to torture. It can get worse, even.

This is NOT what I said; I said that particular weakness or mental fragility on the part of the victim should not be considered as calling for a GREATER than normal punishment.

I think we differ on what the normal reaction to rape is.

But those exceptional cases are not and should not be the consideration of the law. To do so would be a slap in the face to anyone who suffers such an injury; it is telling them, in effect, "oh, shut up and get over it you baby."

In other words: no free lunch because you are a wuss.

Lamentably, I think your attitude is precisely what I surmised.

Frankly, I find it somewhat insulting that you assume women are, in fact, particularly weak and mentally fragile
Don't confuse my evaluation of the crime as a disgusting, debilitating assault, with an idea that women are weak. I don't think the women are weak, I think the crime is that injurious.

I said that, after the fact, they viewed it as some kind of twisted status symbol . . . it's a demonstration of the fact that they weren't especially scarred by the experience. (Either that, or they were full of sh*t, from my experience with these women, either is equally likely.)

Either way, twisted people shouldn't be the standard by which injury is judged.

Doesn't "date" rape account for something like 90% of all rape cases? (I don't remember the exact number, it might be closer to 75%, I know it's a lot more than half.)

I don't think date rape is any less of a crime or less injurious, unless you're talking about made-up-femicrimes which are not-in-fact-rape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and I'm pretty sure screwing up a left turn in such a manner as to cause an accident is a misdemeanor, since I actually did it once. Is that not a crime? I had to go to court for it.

Well, in my state it's a traffic infraction, which is less than a misdemeanor. While it is a violation of the law, I don't really consider it a crime. I can't see calling you a criminal just because you messed up a left turn. :) Aside from that, it was not your intent to initiate force in violation of someone's rights when you did that was it?

I would like to add that I think this section regarding "justice" in OPAR (pgs. 282-283) seems consistent with my position regarding "parity".

This brings us to justice in the realm of action, which consists in "granting to each man that which he deserves." To "deserve," states the Oxford English Dictionary, is to <opar_283> "become worthy of recompense (i.e., reward or punishment), according to the good or ill of character or conduct." A reward is a value given to a man in payment for his virtue or achievement; it is a positive such as praise, friendship, a sum of money, or a special prerogative. A punishment is a disvalue inflicted in payment for vice or fault; it is a negative such as condemnation, the withholding of friendship or even outright ostracism, or the loss of money or prerogative, including (in criminal cases) the loss of freedom or of life itself. The recompense appropriate in content and scale to a particular case must be determined contextually, by reference to the nature and merits of the case. The principle, however, is the same in all cases: justice in action consists in requiting the positive (the good) in men with a positive and the negative with a negative. This is the truth behind the rule "An eye for an eye" (although that formulation addresses only justice to the evil). It is the truth symbolized by the scale in the hands of the statue of justice, the scale whose trays balance equal weights. One weight represents cause, the other, effect; one, a man's behavior, the other, payment appropriate to it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to add that I think this section regarding "justice" in OPAR (pgs. 282-283) seems consistent with my position regarding "parity".

You want parity? Can you ensure that the rapist spends the rest of his life haunted and tortured by a trauma? Never able to quite wash himself clean of it? That he feels violated to the very core of his being? That he is assaulted by disturbing memories from his subconscious of his body being violated every time certain subjects are mentioned to remind him? That no matter how much he can build up the strength to resist them, he will never forget the gross and miserable details of what happened to him?

If you can find a way to do that to them, then you might have parity.

That is, of course, only one part of what would be needed for justice. But it would be a start.

[edit: please don't take offense. As I said, this subject makes me furious]

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talking to rape victims, and no I will not go into more detail as they wouldn't appreciate it. I'm not saying people can't recover from it or are weak. I'm saying that they suffer a permanent injury; they will be burdened with the memory of the rape for the rest of their lives.

Yeah, so? People that are in a car crash or natural disaster are burdened with the memory of THAT for the rest of their lives, too. A bad memory is not, in and of itself, an ongoing trauma. Rape victims are not excused from taking responsibility for their own reactions any more than I'm excused from it because I had to deal with my family for 18 years. Let's have a realistic assessment of how much damage is done by rape, as opposed to the damage done to themselves by women that voluntarily launch themselves off the emotional cliff. It reminds me of a lady I once heard say that she hated being called a "breast cancer survivor" as if the most important fact about her was that she once had breast cancer.

If some disaster, natural or man-made, happens to you, you do what's necessary to rectify the situation and then you move on, knowing that disasters are just stupid accidents and evil people are to be fought, not given in to. I would be disgusted with myself if I let some son of a bitch imagine he could make himself the center of my life just by forcing sex on me, and I would take great pride and pleasure in having the least reaction I could possibly manage. Why? It's my way of spitting on him in utter contempt, and I think it's a policy more women (and men) ought to adopt.

(I'm going to be out of town for the next few days, so don't be surprised if I don't reply.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jennifer,

I applaud your attitude of how such crimes need to be dealt with by their victims. Anything that spits at those animals is a-ok in my book. However:

A bad memory is not, in and of itself, an ongoing trauma.

No, but a bad memory of a rape is. And no matter how well one deals with it, it is there, unable to be removed, in every disgusting detail. This is regardless of how well one deals with it.

Again, it's great to be strong against these things. But that does not, and must not, mitigate the seriousness of the crime. Rewarding the criminal for the victim's virtue in dealing with it would be perverse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inspector, what do you mean by 'trauma' and 'traumatic'? If the victim moves past the psychological damage and gets on with her life (as she should) then I see little reason to call it an ongoing trauma simply because the memory is still there. Now, I've never been raped, but I do have other bad memories that surface once in a while that no longer cause me pain- I would have called them traumatic at the time, but they are not traumatic now. And what if she was drugged beforehand? The memory of the actual rape wouldn't be there, or it would at least be muted. Still a traumatic memory?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those of you talking about restitution, I offer for your consideration the following excerpt from Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-2280:

A sentencing court may order the defendant to make restitution for the actual physical injury or property damage or loss sustained by the victim as a direct result of the offense for which the defendant has been convicted.

A couple of things to note here for your discussion. First, it requires actual injury, so it's going to vary by victim. Second, the loss suffered must be a direct result. What that means, I do not know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fail to see how my theoretical attacker getting the same amount of time as the attacker of an especially fragile woman constitutes punishing ME for MY virtue. Will I whine about 5-6 years of prison time and sex-offender registry for the guy? (Keep in mind I'm not factoring in exceptional long-term physical damage to yours truly.) No--especially since I may have already gotten a chance to jam my ball-point pen into his eyeball as far as it will go. If I'm in a vindictive mood I might be amused by the fact that he will probably be repeatedly sodomized by his fellow inmates.

The only person being "punished" by this policy of making the punishment fit the crime is that hysterical twit that gives all women a bad name. You know the one . . . the "lady" who thinks a photo of a naked man is sexual "harrassment". I'm embarrassed to belong to the same GENDER as these people.

I continue to contend that being mentally tough is not an exceptional virtue; it's something you develop as you mature. If we're living in a society in which mental toughness is exceptional, we need to question the nature of the society.

My recommendations for determining punishment in the case of rape are these, and I think they pretty much cover ANY kind of physical assault:

1. What was the intent of the attacker? (meaning, was the assault pre-meditated, etc. etc.)

2. What degree of physical injury did the victim sustain? (And, as a corrolary, you have to ask about such things as whether the victim carried out any self-defense measures.)

A couple of things to note here for your discussion. First, it requires actual injury, so it's going to vary by victim. Second, the loss suffered must be a direct result. What that means, I do not know.

Well, probably that you are entitled to extra damages if you contract AIDS, but not if you wind up with cervical cancer some time down the road?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My recommendations for determining punishment in the case of rape are these, and I think they pretty much cover ANY kind of physical assault:

1. What was the intent of the attacker? (meaning, was the assault pre-meditated, etc. etc.)

2. What degree of physical injury did the victim sustain? (And, as a corollary, you have to ask about such things as whether the victim carried out any self-defense measures.)

Other than intent and outcome, I think another element in determining punishment ought to be the reasonably expected outcomes that could follow from the criminal's actions, even if they actually did not follow.

On the other hand, this might be better addressed by separate categories of crimes, such as "Attempted Rape", "Attempted Murder", etc., which should have ranges of punishments based on the nature of the attempt.

To those who think "Statutory Rape" (I know that's what it's called in India) ought not to be a crime, consider this analogy: a kidnapper entices a 5 year old away with candy. Is that a crime, or should the law say that the parents can't complain, because the kid went willingly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something to consider about attempts. The only possible (i.e. I don't necessarily think it's valid or invalid) rationale I see for punishing attempts is deterrence. If you are guilty only of attempted something, you by definition did not cause any harm. Whoa, Matt! Really? Check out a couple examples.

With an attempted rape, you don't commit the rape, so there's no harm on that front. But didn't you scare the girl? Probably. And thus you're probably guilty of a completed assault. There's no harm from the attempted rape, but there is from the completed assault.

Think about a property crime, though. You could probably be convicted of attempted burglary without committing any completed crime. I'd guess in most jurisdictions it would be enough for attempted burglary to buy the tools and drive up to the person's house, but never actually set foot on their property (i.e. never complete the crime of trespassing). So what's the rationale for liability for attempt there? Have you caused any harm? I sure don't see it. It has to be deterrence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deterrence sounds good to me. Imagine a guy shoots at me, but a sniper shoots the gun out of his hand at the last moment and I'm saved. I want this guy put away for almost as long as if the shot actually got me, because he'll probably do it again and will be successful next time around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are guilty only of attempted something, you by definition did not cause any harm. Whoa, Matt! Really?

Actually, I'm not so sure about that. Consider this; In my state the attempt alone IS the assault and the contact is the "battery". Merely swinging a punch at someone without contact constitutes an assault (legally) not an attempted assault.

Suppose for a moment a complete stranger approaches you and starts flailing his arms around you punching swinging, etc. but he never hits you. In fact, perhaps he never even intends to hit you. But he continues to do this following you around such that you have to repeated avoid his physical activity. Has he actually caused no harm? Well, it's true that he may not have actually damaged you in a bodily sense, which can also be true of someone who does connect with a punch. However, the "harm" he has caused is that he has now restricted your ability to move freely and continue on with your life without the possibility of being struck even if he doesn't intend to hit you. The harm he has caused you is that he has violated your right to be free from an initiation of physical force such that you can pursue your life.

As such, punishing him does not necessarily have to be justified by an attempt at deterence but rather by the fact that he actually has caused you harm, that he has violated your rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As such, punishing him does not necessarily have to be justified by an attempt at deterrence but rather by the fact that he actually has caused you harm, that he has violated your rights.
Yes, it would depend on the exact details. However, if the facts fit, then, in principle, deterrence is a legitimate reason to put someone in jail.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...