If we kill killers, why not rape rapist?

[lawtonfogle]

Not making any comment on how we would do it, how we could make sure it is not cruel or unusual, or any such things. Only asking about the general idea as a whole?

We were just discussing something like this in philosophy, and the professor asked 'So rape rapist?'

So, why or why not?

 

[cantata]

A good reason not to kill killers, I think.

 

[Tomk80]

Well, I'm not in favor of killing killers in the first place. An eye for an eye makes the world blind. Although somewhere in my heart of hearts, I wouldn't mind at all if this would be one of the punishments.

 

[Sphere]

Not making any comment on how we would do it, how we could make sure it is not cruel or unusual, or any such things. Only asking about the general idea as a whole?

We were just discussing something like this in philosophy, and the professor asked 'So rape rapist?'

So, why or why not?

Too .. complicated. It would be much easier to just execute them.

If only the judicial system worked more efficiently.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Too .. complicated. It would be much easier to just execute them.

If only the judicial system worked more efficiently.

With or with out a chance to appeal?

 

[Verv]

Like many Christians I tend to be a bit anti-death penalty... Naturally, I do not really endorse cruel punishments for people.

I have gone back and forth on the death penalty for a while but I really think that at the end of the day we are accomplishing nothing when we simply execute someone.

Most of the cases that we would see meriting execution truly involve absolutely deranged psycho-killers. They operated off of very deep seated mental issues. Many psycho killers were even physically abused as kids...

As were many rapists and pedophiles. 60% of pedophiles were abused as children.

In a sense it is our job as the stable, sane humans (am I one of those? I hope...) to mete out just punishment.

I think part of the goal should also be rehabilitation.

Of course, many criminals can cough up sob stories and the likes and we should not lax our punishments to the point where they are worthless, but we need to consider that criminals are people, too, and have families themselves, and that their situation also exists that should be weighed.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Not making any comment on how we would do it, how we could make sure it is not cruel or unusual, or any such things. Only asking about the general idea as a whole?

We were just discussing something like this in philosophy, and the professor asked 'So rape rapist?'

So, why or why not?

Firstly, because an eye for an eye is a terrible and self-destructive code to live by. Secondly, because we shouldn't kill killers.

If we deem murder wrong, then what right to we have to do it ourselves?

 

[quatona]

Not making any comment on how we would do it, how we could make sure it is not cruel or unusual, or any such things. Only asking about the general idea as a whole?

We were just discussing something like this in philosophy, and the professor asked 'So rape rapist?'

So, why or why not?

I´m not for killing killers, hence the "rape rapists" slippery slope leaves me unimpressed.

 

[kdet]

Firstly, because an eye for an eye is a terrible and self-destructive code to live by. Secondly, because we shouldn't kill killers.

If we deem murder wrong, then what right to we have to do it ourselves?

It's not murder, it's justice and preservation of our society.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It's not murder, it's justice and preservation of our society.

Nevertheless, another human is dead at the end of the day. What is the difference between murder and the death penalty, besides the legality?

 

[colgraff]

Not making any comment on how we would do We were just discussing something like this in philosophy, and the professor asked 'So rape rapist?'

So, why or why not?

I am not in favor of the death penalty under any circumstances.

Using the death penalty is a punishment that cannot be taken back. At least with life in prison the person can be freed in the event of a mistake.

Given that the justice system has flaws and has made mistakes I would suggest non-lethal punishment.

 

[The Nihilist]

Has no one come down on the side of raping rapists? Fine, I'll be that guy. Let's do it, let's rape rapists. I mean, after that they have to wear an ankle bracelet, but otherwise, let them go. "Oh man, that sucked. No wonder those people all got so mad. I'm never doing that again." Also, we save money on prison.

 

[ParsonJefferson]

Not making any comment on how we would do it, how we could make sure it is not cruel or unusual, or any such things. Only asking about the general idea as a whole?

We were just discussing something like this in philosophy, and the professor asked 'So rape rapist?'

So, why or why not?

I think we should castrate rapists. Not in a vicious way, without anesthetic, but they should be castrated.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Has no one come down on the side of raping rapists? Fine, I'll be that guy. Let's do it, let's rape rapists. I mean, after that they have to wear an ankle bracelet, but otherwise, let them go. "Oh man, that sucked. No wonder those people all got so mad. I'm never doing that again." Also, we save money on prison.

To whom do we assign such a task? Should someone volunteer, we might worry about that person more than the criminal awaiting punishment.

 

[comana]

Who would do the punishment rape and how would this it serve to prevent future rapes from the convicted rapist?

 

[quatona]

To whom do we assign such a task? Should someone volunteer, we might worry about that person more than the criminal awaiting punishment.

This job would certainly be attractive to those who want to live upon their violent fantasies yet keep the idea they have the moral high ground.

 

[cantata]

It's not murder, it's justice

Retribution, you mean?

and preservation of our society.

How does it preserve our society more than life imprisonment?

 

[Tomk80]

Has no one come down on the side of raping rapists? Fine, I'll be that guy. Let's do it, let's rape rapists. I mean, after that they have to wear an ankle bracelet, but otherwise, let them go. "Oh man, that sucked. No wonder those people all got so mad. I'm never doing that again." Also, we save money on prison.

But rape is very rarely about sex and very often about power. Meaning that being raped will make the raper feel powerless, which he then will have to compensate by raping again. Also, quite a lot of sexual abusers have been sexually abused themselves, meaning that your argument of "that sucks, I won't do it to others" won't really hold.

For me, a punishment should have the primary goal of increasing the safety of society. Note that this disregards any feelings for retribution and perhaps closure that the victim or it's family might have. Not that I don't care about them, but I do not think that a punishment should have the satisfaction of those feelings as a goal.

This means that a punishments should do two things. First, it should try to reform the purpetrator. Second, if that fails or until that is done, it should remove the purpetrator from society. Raping the rapist would not help in that case.

Curiously, this reasoning leaves in death penalty. For some (rare) cases, for example psychopaths, I'm still not sure whether I'm in favor of the death penalty or not.

 

[Blackrend]

I say chemical castration would be a more appropriate method. Yes, this can be done (look it up on Wikipedia). I feel strongly that it should be administered for sex offenders, along with psychiatric evaluation/treatment. While not 100% effective, it's better than just throwing them in jail and leaving them to stew in their sick fantasies, and then be released so they can go out and prey on more women/children.

This is probably an unrealistic idea, but... hey, I still think it's better than putting them behind bars for a few years.

 

[MarcusHill]

Rape isn't about sex, it's about power. Castration won't prevent people who feel the need to demonstrate or enforce their power in a way that damages others from doing so - furthermore, as far as I know, castration doesn't generally result in an inability to maintain an erection, especially if one enlists the aid of pharmaceuticals. Castrated men, therefore, would still be physically capable of rape, and possibly feel more need to prove their "masculine power" after their "punishment". Similarly, raping them as a punishment merely reinforces the message that the state believes raping someone is a valid method of demonstrating your power over them.

In short, both raping and castrating rapists is liable to be counterproductive in preventing reoffending, and is useful only in a retributive model of criminal "justice", a model to which I don't subscribe. That's the main reason I also oppose the death penalty.