[wordjitsu]

Originally Posted by AlphaQup

From an emotional standpoint and having a daughter of my own, I think the death penalty in case of rape would be the right thing to do.

Rationally, it only gives rapist an incentive to kill their victims after the rape to remove any potential eye witness testimonies.

Yep... good observation.

[chardog]

death penalty for rape is ridiculous.

imagine death penalty for types of rape such as date rape, statutory rape, or spousal rape...

even legit punch-you-in-the-face-break-your-nose-rape-you-raw type of rape doesnt deserve the death penalty.

[BadassHo]

maybe you need to be raped to see how bad it is.

[Hog-train]

I vote castration.

[Mr. Omoplata]

Originally Posted by Hog-train

I vote castration.

And I vote that every government regulatory division such as congress, the supreme court and the presidency, should only be allowed to do actual law making/adjusting only 3 times a year.

That way they can stop magnifying every little thing to the point of ridiculous interpretations and focus on issues that really matter; the type of issues that come 1, 2 or at the very least, 3 times a year!

Originally Posted by BadassHo

maybe you need to be raped to see how bad it is.

You can't rape the willing.

[AlphaQup]

Originally Posted by Revolution

Interesting: I actually wrote a paper on this in law school. I advocated the death penalty for crimes of forcible rape, and I advocated the overturning of Coker v. Georgia.

But doesn't this send the message to rapist that they better murder their rape victims? It would be far easier to convict a rapist with an eye witness testimony (victim) than to convict a murderer without an eye witness testimony. And if the consequences (death penalty) are the same, what is the incentive for a rapist not to murder their victim?

Ethically, I agree with the death penalty for rapist. But will our attempt to regulate society simply put the (rape) victims at a higher risk?

[Jin-Roh]

The death penalty should only ever be used in cases of murder. Otherwise, it cannot be ethically justified.

Rape happens more often and many, many people are wrongfully accused of it. Plus, kids can be smarter than you think, and a vengeful kid could frame somebody easily. It has happened before.

[Rhythmic]

I really can't see how there are people for this.

So it is just fine to put a man to death because he had drunken sex with some woman who later decided it made her too much of a slut and regretted it and decided to call it rape?

No, We can even leave the regretted part out. There have been plenty of times where two people get drunk. Have sex. Woman can barly remember that night and the man gets charged with rape as he cries that she was consenting that night?

I've know somebody who barely missed a rape charge back in highschool because some girl didn't want to get in trouble when her parents found out she was having sex.


Look, A lot of rape cases a lot of the times come down to a he said she said. Could you guys be on a jury and really send a man to death based on her word? Serious, Most rape cases are not the "drag a random girl into the bushes, beat the fuck out of her and rape her" kind. Most end up being "we were drunk he took advantage of my drunkeness"
How many people are really willing to send a man to death where the thing in the case is "I was drunk too drunk to remember" and the guy saying "she wanted it and even told me fuck her harder"


This is going to end up having the reverse effect I would think. Less rape cases are going to end up getting any convictions. Maybe I just have more faith in people that they really wouldn't send somebody to die based on he said/she said evidence.

[demo3051]

Originally Posted by Rhythmic

I really can't see how there are people for this.

So it is just fine to put a man to death because he had drunken sex with some woman who later decided it made her too much of a slut and regretted it and decided to call it rape?

No, We can even leave the regretted part out. There have been plenty of times where two people get drunk. Have sex. Woman can barly remember that night and the man gets charged with rape as he cries that she was consenting that night?

I've know somebody who barely missed a rape charge back in highschool because some girl didn't want to get in trouble when her parents found out she was having sex.


Look, A lot of rape cases a lot of the times come down to a he said she said. Could you guys be on a jury and really send a man to death based on her word? Serious, Most rape cases are not the "drag a random girl into the bushes, beat the fuck out of her and rape her" kind. Most end up being "we were drunk he took advantage of my drunkeness"
How many people are really willing to send a man to death where the thing in the case is "I was drunk too drunk to remember" and the guy saying "she wanted it and even told me fuck her harder"


This is going to end up having the reverse effect I would think. Less rape cases are going to end up getting any convictions. Maybe I just have more faith in people that they really wouldn't send somebody to die based on he said/she said evidence.

I'm glad that this thread is focusing on date rape and statutory rape. What jury is going to give the death penalty to a date rape or statutory rape offender. Obviously none of you are. I certainly wouldn't. That whole argument is bogus. What the law has to be contemplating is forceable rape. As in murder cases, the jury (and the judge) has discretion about sentencing.

Suppose you have evidence that a 30 yr repeat sex offender who just broke out of prison while serving a life sentence violently and brutally raped a 10 year old girl and knifepoint. What are you going to do, give him a life sentence... he already has that. A law like this allows judges and juries discretion. There is a huge gap in the level of violence and degree of culpability between the rape I just described and the ones you guys are describing. You are building straw men.

If you have a serious contention that in the example above the person should not get the death penalty, fine. There are many rational arguments to be made for that. Arguing that people could be given the death penalty for a he said she said rape or statutory rape is absurd.

[brackis1]

Originally Posted by demo3051

I'm glad that this thread is focusing on date rape and statutory rape. What jury is going to give the death penalty to a date rape or statutory rape offender. Obviously none of you are. I certainly wouldn't. That whole argument is bogus. What the law has to be contemplating is forceable rape. As in murder cases, the jury (and the judge) has discretion about sentencing.

Suppose you have evidence that a 30 yr repeat sex offender who just broke out of prison while serving a life sentence violently and brutally raped a 10 year old girl and knifepoint. What are you going to do, give him a life sentence... he already has that. A law like this allows judges and juries discretion. There is a huge gap in the level of violence and degree of culpability between the rape I just described and the ones you guys are describing. You are building straw men.

If you have a serious contention that in the example above the person should not get the death penalty, fine. There are many rational arguments to be made for that. Arguing that people could be given the death penalty for a he said she said rape or statutory rape is absurd.

The law is not about raising the severity of punishment for a given type of crime to meet or exceed the overtly aggravating incident.

The deterrant effect is not there. Forcible and heinous rape severe enough to warrant killing the person by the state is going to be a rape of extreme sexual deviance that occurred outside of rational decisions or fear of the criminal consequences. Thus these extreme rapists would continue to offend, and you'd see a bunch of overly expensive and time consuming capital punishment cases instead of a bunch of 40-60 year convictions which cost the state much less.