Should rape carry a potential life sentence?

Guys who think the crime of rape is more like a common assault: if you were raped by a guy, think you would just get over it and forget about it?
 
Oh boy this is gonna get complicated quick.

Okay as best I can describe it. No I do not think rape should just be seen as exactly equal to assault. The psychological effect of the action cannot be treated as a non-issue and rape is, in general, more psychologically traumatic then mere assault. Is this true for everybody in every case? No but the law cannot be individually tailored to each specific case to that degree.

In the broader sense I am somewhat uncomfortable with how we, as a society, elevate sexual crimes to some level of "special evil" in all cases.
 
Thermal said:
Guys who think the crime of rape is more like a common assault: if you were raped by a guy, think you would just get over it and forget about it?
Click to expand...

It is worse than a simple punch or two, but a prolonged fight/assault is more comparable I think. I think the category of crimes is so broad, though, so it is not be the best comparison.

I think being raped by a man or a woman would have similar impact, and this impact is always worse for children.

I don't think people "just forget" about common assault, either. I was jumped by a group of teens when I just entered high school and beat beside a major road (no one stopped to help me). MY GF was there left untouched as well.
I haven't forgotten this at all, and although it isn't at the front of my mind at all times it severely screwed up my thinking for about 2-4 years. I carried a knife around and was in genuine fear that I would be attacked again.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Oh boy this is gonna get complicated quick.

Okay as best I can describe it. No I do not think rape should just be seen as exactly equal to assault. The psychological effect of the action cannot be treated as a non-issue and rape is, in general, more psychologically traumatic then mere assault. Is this true for everybody in every case? No but the law cannot be individually tailored to each specific case to that degree.

In the broader sense I am somewhat uncomfortable with how we, as a society, elevate sexual crimes to some level of "special evil" in all cases.
Click to expand...

This is basically my thinking on the topic, in case it's not clear from my posts.
 
SOdhner said:
Should rape carry a *potential* life sentence?

Mmmmm... yeah. Yeah I'm fine with that. I'd be more interested in a mandatory minimum, though. The part that bothers me most is people getting off with a slap on the wrist.
Click to expand...

This, for me.

I do think that the punishment should be proportionate to the crime, so someone who just gets another person blackout drunk and violates them isn't necessarily given a life sentence (as opposed to say, a serial rapist with several instances of rape), but a mandatory minimum for rape (as defined by federal law) should be established so we don't get travesties of justice like the Brock Turner case.
 
I would have to know a whole lot about the guy and what exactly happened to make that call one way or the other.
 
I hate quoting him because he's... horrible a lot of the times but in one of his stand up specials Bill Maher was talking about the accusations against Michael Jackson when he said:

"When I was a kid I was brutally beat up by two thugs, just repentantly punched in the face over and over. Now if I could go back and trade that for being gently masturbated under the table for a few minutes by a pop star... *shrugs*"

Now do I agree with him in some literal sense? No, not exactly. But questions, and this applies to a lot of things but we'll stick with sex crimes as the topic, are we doing victims any good by assuming certain events are automatically no only traumatizing but some special level of traumatizing.

Again is this some perfect science with no grey area? No of course. Humans are complicated and emotional reactions to trauma are complicated times complicated to a factor of complicated.

But the base question is not unreasonable to ask.
 
Sabrina said:
This, for me.

I do think that the punishment should be proportionate to the crime, so someone who just gets another person blackout drunk and violates them isn't necessarily given a life sentence (as opposed to say, a serial rapist with several instances of rape), but a mandatory minimum for rape (as defined by federal law) should be established so we don't get travesties of justice like the Brock Turner case.
Click to expand...

Thirded on that notion.
 
pharphis said:
It is worse than a simple punch or two, but a prolonged fight/assault is more comparable I think. I think the category of crimes is so broad, though, so it is not be the best comparison.

I think being raped by a man or a woman would have similar impact, and this impact is always worse for children.

I don't think people "just forget" about common assault, either. I was jumped by a group of teens when I just entered high school and beat beside a major road (no one stopped to help me). MY GF was there left untouched as well.
I haven't forgotten this at all, and although it isn't at the front of my mind at all times it severely screwed up my thinking for about 2-4 years. I carried a knife around and was in genuine fear that I would be attacked again.
Click to expand...

Yes, a beating can be rough on the psyche, too, no question. But a woman being raped by a man is very comparable to a man being raped by a man. Would you put such an attack on yourself in the same category as a bad beating, or might that kind of trauma screw your head up for life? I'm inclined to think it would be the latter, and would put rapes in their own class of crime for the added level of long term damage.
 
Last edited:
I think it varies too much. If I was raped as a child I think it would be worse than a group beating, but if I was raped as an adult probably not as bad.

That's just me, though. I don't really apply some special status to sex crimes in my head unless applied to children because it harms children much more than anyone else. It tends to screw up their idea of intimacy entirely and who/what to trust.
 
I think it causes related but different issues in adults. Adult victims I suspect would be more afraid of intimacy, whereas children haven't even learned what intimacy IS in any kind of proper sense (most people learn in their teens to some extent). So these children have only even experienced sex/intimacy/relationships as victims of abuse, whereas with adults they most likely have at least had a normal relationship before their abuse.

Additionally I think child abuse is usually involves more grooming and long-term abuse whereas for adults it's probably a one-time thing.

Just generalities, of course.
I'd have to dig it up, but iirc the majority of rapists were abused as children (by their parents)
 
SOdhner said:
Should rape carry a *potential* life sentence?

Mmmmm... yeah. Yeah I'm fine with that. I'd be more interested in a mandatory minimum, though. The part that bothers me most is people getting off with a slap on the wrist.
Click to expand...

Sabrina said:
This, for me.

I do think that the punishment should be proportionate to the crime, so someone who just gets another person blackout drunk and violates them isn't necessarily given a life sentence (as opposed to say, a serial rapist with several instances of rape), but a mandatory minimum for rape (as defined by federal law) should be established so we don't get travesties of justice like the Brock Turner case.
Click to expand...

kellyb said:
Thirded on that notion.
Click to expand...
To be clear: you would all rather that we get life in prison for theft of a $50 watch for a whole lot of people than an extremely rare Brock Turner by taking away all discretion of the judge (which is exactly what they're there for) and instilling mandatory minimums which cannot distinguish the details from one another because "it feels better."
 
I like to think we can all see a grey area between "6 months for rape" and "Taking away the Judge's discretion."
 
JoeMorgue said:
I like to think we can all see a grey area between "6 months for rape" and "Taking away the Judge's discretion."
Click to expand...
Not for those who want "mandatory minimums" which is by definition taking away the judge's discretion.
 
The Norseman said:
To be clear: you would all rather that we get life in prison for theft of a $50 watch for a whole lot of people than an extremely rare Brock Turner by taking away all discretion of the judge (which is exactly what they're there for) and instilling mandatory minimums which cannot distinguish the details from one another because "it feels better."
Click to expand...

Huh?
 
The Norseman said:
Not for those who want "mandatory minimums" which is by definition taking away the judge's discretion.
Click to expand...

"Judge's Discretion" does not necessary mean "Judge can literally do anything."

Judge's Discretion is why we have mandatory minimums and maximums instead of just... one single sentence to be used in every single case of that particular law being broken.

It gives the Judge a range to work with so he can adjust things based on the situation but he can't make adjustments widely outside the scope of what the society sees as appropriate/fair/reasonable.
 
The Norseman said:
Not for those who want "mandatory minimums" which is by definition taking away the judge's discretion.
Click to expand...

What is a situation where a judge can make the reasonable call that even one week is too severe for a rape conviction?
 
JoeMorgue said:
"Judge's Discretion" does not necessary mean "Judge can literally do anything."

Judge's Discretion is why we have mandatory minimums and maximums instead of just... one single sentence to be used in every single case of that particular law being broken.

It gives the Judge a range to work with so he can adjust things based on the situation but he can't make adjustments widely outside the scope of what the society sees as appropriate/fair/reasonable.
Click to expand...
It doesn't actually seem you understand what mandatory minimums means.

Mandatory minimums take away a judges discretion of what the sentence should be for a particular crime, taking into consideration a variety of variables. Mandatory minimums are set up by the legislature imposed on the judges and are not able to take into consideration variables which could and do affect what the final sentence should be.
 
kellyb said:
Huh?
Click to expand...

It seems that you want many many many people to be overly jailed — usually for life — for petty crimes but run afoul of things like 3 strikes and mandatory minimums just to try and prevent an incredibly rare case such as Brock Turner.

I wish to clarify that you are willing to crush the many in the hopes of catching the one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom