Pain Paien

I definately agree that rape has varying degrees of severity, much as I think that murder does. I believe this is currently applied to some extent in American law; violent rapes will have assualt charges on top of the other charges.

Legally, that these men might not have seen the act as violent isn't an excuse, unless they're planning to plead insanity (I'm not sure how that works in a rape trial, so I can't really comment). I think that legally rape should have different consequences based on the particular act, with the worst cases of rape (that do not also result in murder) being punishable by death. I'm not sure how I feel about the practical application of the death penalty, so this is all purely hypothetical, that is to say; this is what I would wish if the death penalty was applied only in cases where the defendant was actually guilty.

Daleth

No, there aren't ever excuses. However considering the different "intents" (if I'm putting that right) that led to the crime, I think the judge should be allowed discretion within limits. I also agree with you that the sentences I hear sometimes are far too low.

There is a very good reason for keeping murder the only capital crime, or the crime with the harshest sentence if there is no death penalty. The reason is that above all else we want to protect the victim's life, and to the degree that sentences are supposed to have a deterent effect, if we make rape a capital crime and murder a capital crime this rapist now has nothing to lose and may have something to gain by killing the victim. He's only got one life to lose. So if we make the rape as harsh a penalty as murder, he might be more ready to cross that line. He, after all, might improve his chances by getting rid of the witness.

Beyond that, I am not qualified to determine a sentence, but I do often get the feeling that they are too low in rape cases and child sexual abuse cases. One thing, though... if there is any chance that these people are ever going to get out of prison, they should have to go through some sort of rehabilitation program. Just doing the time is not enough.

Pain Paien

I only agree with the "intent" sentiment to the extent that if the rapist didn't know his advances were unwanted, the sentence probably should be lighter. This would probably be a difficult thing to prove in court though. Beyond that, however, the laws should be in place for discouraging the action, not the particular mindsets that may sparked it (for instance, whether the rapist was interested in producing harm versus just wanting intercourse is irrelevant to me if he knew the person did not want it to occur).

I don't buy any of this. First of all, I would hazard that few if any rapists think about the consequences of their actions. I doubt any rapists weigh their options and then make a decision based on the most prudent course of action. For that reason, I question whether the punishment would really sway them at all.

Also, it's significant that the cases where rape should be punishable by death that I was referring to are the ones where the women are severely brutalized and/or left to die. In these cases, the life of the victim isn't a concern to the perpetrator.

As I don't believe that rape is a very calculated crime, I don't accept that any of the reasons you provided are significant.

I'm in agreement with you on all of this. I think it should either be made certain that these people will not commit the crime again, or they should be kept in prison where they can do no harm to the general public.

In this vein, does anyone think that a life sentence is too severe for cases where the rapist forced themself on a victim they knew to be unwilling (just for the sake of clarity, I'll exclude date rape, even though I think that can be just as bad)?

nermal

Bullshit most likely. If this was an ongoing practice, he undoubtedly had his wife's consent. I've begun sex with my wife many times while she was asleep, and invariably she wakes and enjoys it. Likewise she has similarly woken me. Many things go on in the context of a marriage which don't apply elsewhere.

Part of the problem with "rape" is that many don't even know what it is. The term has been redefined into a kind of meaningless in many circumstances. We now have "mini rapes" in which girls are "leered" at. In California, if I and my date get drunk and have sex, I've raped her.

For the purpose of this thread at least, rape should be limited only to violent acts.

Ed

Daleth

Intent is typically considered by courts, isn't it? There's a pretty distinct difference between the guy who rolls over onto a woman who he thinks has "implied consent" whether by marriage or by simply being in bed next to him and the guy who is literally a predator, though both are serious crimes against the woman's rights. Had the man in my situation continued after I woke up and clearly revoked whatever consent he thought had been implied, he'd have crossed that line. It doesn't seem that hard to prove, assuming the woman is a reliable witness. If she's lying in her testimony, now she's a criminal too. As for discouraging the action, yes, definitely, which is why I said judges or juries should have discretion within limits. A judge should NOT have the discretion to give a 30 day suspended sentence, whatever the circumstances. But within limits. In my state, there are 3 levels of rape charges (1st degree to 3rd degree) and the definitions of them seem sound and resonable. However for the worst (1st degree) the sentence is 6 - 25 years, and I don't find that harsh enough.

Then why on earth did you say " the laws should be in place for discouraging the action"? Just kidding, I know what you mean. I don't know to what extent penalties actually act as deterents in any crime. Yet when they do leave the victim alive, why do they do that? Why leave a witness? What are they thinking? Is it not possible that it's a line they don't want to cross? Are you so sure that they aren't thinking of the potential penalty that you're willing to risk women's lives on it? I'm not willing to do that unless we're mighty damn sure the extra penalty for murder is not preventing the deaths of some victims. I don't completely buy it either. But lives hang in the balance. If he just left the victim to possibly die, then add attempted murder or whatever other appropriate charge to it.

I think life without the possibility is a fitting sentence in a lot of rape cases. Just plain "life" (which of course doesn't mean life) is a fitting penalty in a lot as well.

Daleth

You're right. I'm full of it.

I doubt it. He wasn't talking about his marriage. He was talking about a provision of marriage in general. His culture made it an assumption. It appeared to me that in the years she was in the states his wife became "westernized" and her attitudes about how she should be allowed to live no longer matched his. She divorced him. Probably not just for the sex thing, but a lot of his assumptions about her place in a marriage. He was that sort of guy. Not a wife beater, just a controller of women by culture.

Which is fine, because you've given each other consent. But that's not the sort of arrangement I meant. This was all up to him. He just believed a woman gave up her rights to her body when agreeing to marriage. You don't have to have a marriage to have an understanding like you describe, either. You just have to have that understanding and KNOW you have it. IOW, the "context of marriage" doesn't give you that right, your mutual consent does.

Calling a leer "mini rape" strikes me as insulting to victims of rape. Similarly calling what happened to me "attempted rape" seems insulting to someone who went through something like the attack Michelle described. (I mean it was such a big deal in my life that I had literally forgotten about it until I started typing about the other guy and his wife.) The getting drunk thing blurs the line. If you're drunk but she's sober and you have sex, has she committed sexual assault against you? I understand the reasons for those laws... you could be on a first date, never had sex before, and she'd never have consented had she not been incapacitated. But if you've been going out for 5 years and living together for 2, things look different. Also, if you're both incapacitated, who committed a crime against who? The guy simply by virtue of being male?

Not sure I agree. While we're posting all these rape statistics, we have to be aware of what those stats include. It does women a disservice to lead them to believe they've a 1 in 10 chance of having a madman jump out of the bushes at them and it does both sexes a disservice to not make sure they're aware of what rape is.

Pain Paien

I tried to get across that this is the distinction I was making. The important difference in my mind is between the rapist assuming consent and simply not caring (they continue even though it's clear their advance has been rebuffed). For me that's the critical issue: two people, one who intends to hurt and one who merely wants sexual gratification, but who both know that the sex is unwanted and continue anyway, are essentially the same for practical purposes in my view.

That's just the problem, that can't necessarily be assumed. Though it's almost certainly a rarity, there are some possible cases where the person accusing rape might lie. One possible scenario (though one that is probably extremely unlikely to occur in reality) is that a psychotherapist might induce hypnosis in the person (or do it during the course of normal therapy) and accidentally or intentionally modify or insert memories (apparently, and much to my dismay, memory tampering is not very difficult to achieve) and make the person believe they were raped when they were not. I don't know all of the reasons a person might lie about such a serious thing, but it is possible, and I'm sure it has happened in the past(the fictional account in To Kill a Mockingbird comes to mind as a possibility). Certainly criminal records and character witnesses can help, but neither of those are certain to be conclusive. Bottom line is, all else being equal, witness testimony alone just doesn't hold that much weight if it comes down to one person's word against another's.

I agree with you on all of this.

I'm certainly grateful you do, I wouldn't relish having to articulate this point to someone who was determined not to see my point (possibly for rhetorical effect, who knows). My thanks for your continued politeness and lucidity, it would have definately been a shame if you had left this thread as you suggested.

I think in cases where the victim is left alive (in cases of brutal rape) it's because it's a violent irrational act without any logical component whatsoever. It is my strong impression that they simply aren't thinking. Of course I'm not so full of myself that I think my opinion worth the lives of anyone: the issue is how can people be best protected. It is my position that ideally, with it clear in the eyes of the law that brutal rapes were punishable by death, rapists would be more likely to be removed from society (not necessarily even by death-if it was made clear rape was not to be tolerated, sentences might cease the tendency of being too lenient and releasing dangerous rapists back into the public). To be clear: I would not hold my position in light of strong evidence against it. When enacting a law legislaters should obviously not rely on my ignorance: they should base their conclusions on factual evidence, perhaps in the forms of studies. With issues as important as this, research is definately in order.

I think if extra charges were added to the charge, as opposed to the punishment being for the act as a whole, it might undermine the truth of the brutal nature of the rape. It should be abundantly clear that the violence and the rape are both just characteristics of the same thing, not separate issues.



I think I'm with you on this.

I think we also agree that, if the rapist is to be released eventually, rehabilitation is critical.

Daleth

Right. I think we're saying the same thing. It's the same action, regardless of intent. That was why I was hesitant about my use of the word "intent" above. I'm still not sure which word to use in place of it. But intent doesn't quite carry the meaning.

That's certainly true. I can imagine situations in which a woman might lie to try to get a harsher penalty for the rapist and situations where she might lie to try to minimize the charges. (Not to mention making up the charges entirely, which happens.) Still, in a rape case, all you're ever going to have is the physical evidence and the woman's word (and rarely what other witnesses heard or saw). That's all the police and prosecutors have to go on now in NY when they decide between rape in the 1st, 2nd or 3rd degree. Was she drunk and incapable of giving consent or was he holding a knife to her throat? Unless he cut her or we find physical evidence to prove use of force, we've got her word. And her word is given a lot of weight.

Had Brighid not said to keep posting, I'd have left the thread. I'm just too squeamish about it. Embarrassing really. But yeah, my intent is only to have a conversation, not to push an agenda. Thank you. I'm glad I'm coming across as rational, whether we agree or not.

I tend to think that's true in a lot of cases, but I'm not sure it's always true. To add another perspective, I think it's quite likely in a lot of these cases that the woman is left alive purely because the rapist wants her to be alive to remember, to suffer, to know she's been possessed by him. This is in keeping with the "rape is about power" pathology. Really sick, but I'm betting really true.

I think we could accomplish the same with increasing penalties, including life without the possibility of parole. Of course I have the same doubts as you about how the death penalty is administered in the first place, so this may sway my judgement. But I do not like the idea of giving the state the power to take a person's life for anything short of that person having taken life themselves. It is somehow meaningful to me to keep murder separate, to keep that the worst crime that can be committed against another person. Making anything equal in the eyes of the law seems somehow wrong. Also what if it's brutal torture without rape? Is rape worse because of the sex involved? (Bearing in mind my relationship with holocaust survivors, this is a subject I'm far too intimate with.) This is not to say I don't want to kill these people, by the way. No sympathy involved whatsoever. I'm just talking distnctions under the law and what power should be given to the state to take human life.

Quite so. I wish everyone would give that sort of consideration when they're rushing to pass new laws. Some laws cause more harm than good. A lot of people don't want to look at what the costs might be.

I don't see it that way. It always has an impact on me when the news reporter is going through a litany of charges filed. I think charge after charge after charge would always have a bigger impact on me than a single word, because the word can't really convey the horrible details of the crime or distinguish it from less violent acts under the same heading. Somehow the number of charges makes the crime seem worse to me. Perhaps just a matter of different perceptions. Still, we can accomplish the same by reporting that the 1st degree rape charge carries a penalty up to life (or whatever) rather than the current 6 - 25. (Pardon my repetition. I just looked that sentence up in a law database, and I'm really disturbed by those numbers.)

Absolutely. What I'm imagining is the sentence of up to X years or until the prisoner passes this psychological test, whichever is later, so if he's not being actually rehabilitated he could continue to be held beyond the sentence. Fuzzy thinking... I don't know if this makes sense.

Now here's a question that I've seen people get torn to shreds over: If a rapist is himself raped in prison, are you likely to think he got what he deserved and now he knows how the other half lives, or do you think "nobody deserves to be raped, period."?

Daleth

In case anyone is still interested in the original topic of this thread a couple posters mentioned weapons like tasers and stun guns, so I did a bit of research on those topics.

A taser is a ranged weapon like a gun, but in the case of a taser the range is necessary, not just a good idea. 2 dart-like things are shot from it and distance is required so that the darts will have an opportunity to spread far enough apart from one another to make the electrical current effective. If you shoot someone with a taser point-blank, you're not going to get that effect. So this weapon is useless if he's already grabbed you. A taser is most effective at a range of 15 feet. That's really damned far away. So while a gun seems to me a bad choice for protecting against personal assault, a taser seems just as bad if not worse.

A stun gun takes about 5 seconds being held in contact with the attacker to be fully effective... 5 seconds through which he's struggling to get you to take the damned painful thing off of him. I don't believe I could hold an object in contact with the body of a man who's trying to stop me for a full 5 seconds. I don't guess most women could. That's a pretty long time considering that he's not just going to stand there and let you do it. That'd give him plenty chance to grab it and use it against me.

Both of these seem like good tools for law enforcement, but neither seems like a good way for a woman to protect herself from personal assault. If anyone is considering one of these weapons because they are non-lethal, make sure you get all the facts first. At any rate both are illegal in quite a few states, including mine.

nermal

The California law, AFAIK, can only be used to prosecute men who have had sex with drunk women. If both are drunk, no matter; he has raped her. If only he is drunk, and she entices him, oh, well.
Apparantly, the California legislature feels that women are somehow mentally deficient where alcohol is involved, but the men can handle it. Seems terribly sexist to me, and were I a woman, I'd take offence.

Quote:

Originally posted by Daleth Not sure I agree. While we're posting all these rape statistics, we have to be aware of what those stats include. It does women a disservice to lead them to believe they've a 1 in 10 chance of having a madman jump out of the bushes at them and it does both sexes a disservice to not make sure they're aware of what rape is.

Point is, the "marriage rape," or California "drunk rape," have zero likelyhood that a weapon will be used for self defense. Only in a forced sex situation, like violent rape or date rape will the rape victim feel an impetus to defend herself, possibly with deadly force.

Ed