Serial rapist may only serve 9 years

[Timsup2nothin]

Alrighty then! You apparently are motivated by the law. My bad.

 

[Farm Boy]

I've been called worse. Deservedly so.

Can't imagine.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Can't imagine.

As I recall, you don't have to imagine...you yourself have called me worse...deservedly so.

 

[Farm Boy]

Didn't inhale.

 

[Commodore]

Really? If that is the point of the justice system to simply rehabilitate, then why have jail at all?

Well I'm all for using jail for its original purpose, which was as just a place to hold the criminal until you can get around to giving him/her their real punishment.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Upon reflection, that was tacky even by my low standards. In my defense, I do think it is important that when someone sounds the 'arm yourselves against the rapist behind every bush' alarm someone else point out that there are negative consequences that come along with that...and that if you examine the real probability you may well think the protection is more danger than the risk it is supposed to secure you against. I apologize to anyone who was genuinely offended by how I went about it.

 

[JollyRoger]

Really? If that is the point of the justice system to simply rehabilitate, then why have jail at all?

You can rehabilitate at the same time you are punishing, getting retribution, and providing specific and general deterrence.

 

[caketastydelish]

If you give someone 20 years or life in prison for rape, that sort of prevents you from being able to hand out appropriate sentences for things like murder and mass murder. 20 consecutive life sentences.. okay.. great.. Doesn't work for me.

I mean, I don't mean to make light of rape of all things, and I'm not, but I think 20 years is crazily excessive. I mean, we send people who have committed fraud in the millions or billions.. well, they usually don't get charged with anything, but if they were, what do they get.. 5-8 years max? 2 years house arrest?

And I realize it's often impossible to compare crime A to crime B, and maybe I'm not at all familiar with the American judicial system, but .. yeah. How are any of these people supposed to rehabilitate back into society? Are we saying that we never expect them to? Heck, murderers get more of a chance than that.

I would put those billionares that stole our money to a firesquad. I'd shoot every one of them myself (if it were legal to do so) given the chance. Rapists cause far less collective damage on their own than an billionaire that has cheated his way to the top and his lots of people working for him barely making ends meet.

On the other hand there has to be *some* real punishment for rape beyond a slap on the wrist.
In this case since he's (apparently, don't know the details) raped a bunch of women, I'd agree a minimum of 20 years would be appropriate, preferably more like 30.



And yeah, it seems laughable to give rapists *more* than murderers. On the other hand I think murderers should be executed on the spot (which we don't), with rapists getting more like 10 years per offense. But with this guy being a *repeat* rapist it seems particularly troubling. That he has no intention of changing his ways, and this wasn't just a drunken one-time thing.

 

[Sommerswerd]

You can rehabilitate at the same time you are punishing, getting retribution, and providing specific and general deterrence.

You forgot my favourite... incapacitation, which IMNSHO is the best theory of punishment.

Rehabilitation is hit or miss. Retribution is arguably immoral (though I admit probably has a stabilizing effect on society). Deterrence requires awareness of the penalty and expectation of being caught, which is very rare for offenders... deterrence-through-community-norms is more effective, but a separate subject.

If incapacitation isn't warranted then just fine them and be done with it. That way they are benefitting society rather than draining resources.

That he has no intention of changing his ways, and this wasn't just a drunken one-time thing.

I don't even buy into the "but I was drunk" excuse. If somebody has committed 4 rapes and every time his defense is "but I was drunk" I would say that society wants him incarcerated on a pure incapacitation theory

 

[Narz]

Chemically castrate the bastard & no parole ever for sexual crimes.

It's sickening that an innocent drug dealer can get more time than rapists.

 

[warpus]

In this case since he's (apparently, don't know the details) raped a bunch of women, I'd agree a minimum of 20 years would be appropriate, preferably more like 30.

Yeah in this case the punishment doesn't seem to be overly severe, imo. I was directing my comment at "one-time" rapists.

 

[caketastydelish]

I don't even buy into the "but I was drunk" excuse. If somebody has committed 4 rapes and every time his defense is "but I was drunk" I would say that society wants him incarcerated on a pure incapacitation theory

I said one time. If he raped 4 times, I don't care what his excuse was.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I said one time. If he raped 4 times, I don't care what his excuse was.

Why do you feel that being drunk excuses you at all? If it is something along the lines of "not in their right mind" then wouldn't that be equally true whether it was the 1st time or the 10th? If it is more like "well I get drunk sometimes" or "we all get drunk sometimes" then I would say, maybe, but do we all rape sometimes?

 

[caketastydelish]

Why do you feel that being drunk excuses you at all? If it is something along the lines of "not in their right mind" then wouldn't that be equally true whether it was the 1st time or the 10th? If it is more like "well I get drunk sometimes" or "we all get drunk sometimes" then I would say, maybe, but do we all rape sometimes?

Now you're taking my original quote and dissecting it out of context.

I originally said "one-time drunken" versus "repeat offender."

There's a difference between someone that raped once (and only once) versus someone like him whose done it several times. And even for the *one time* that they raped (supposing they only did it once) they should still be punished for it. All I was saying is repeat offenders should not have the same punishment as one-time offenders.

But goddamn, all you can do is dissect my comments to make me look like some rape apologist. I am done with you.

 

[Farm Boy]

Why do you feel that being drunk excuses you at all? If it is something along the lines of "not in their right mind" then wouldn't that be equally true whether it was the 1st time or the 10th? If it is more like "well I get drunk sometimes" or "we all get drunk sometimes" then I would say, maybe, but do we all rape sometimes?

I'd say that if impaired decision making and impaired ability to consent is in itself adequate as a definition of rape should intercourse occur, absent the mitigating factor of retroactively granted consent, I think a whole damned lot of everybody, both genders, rapes sometimes.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I'd say that if impaired decision making and impaired ability to consent is in itself adequate as a definition of rape should intercourse occur, absent the mitigating factor of retroactively granted consent, I think a whole damned lot of everybody, both genders, rapes sometimes.

Reasonable response as usual. I will have to think a little about that, but it sounds good.

But goddamn, all you can do is dissect my comments to make me look like some rape apologist. I am done with you.

I hope you are joking cause' Im not accusing you of anything, just asking you about your thought process.

 

[Farm Boy]

Reasonable response as usual.

I think it was El Mac's reasoning, originally, so yes. Fundamentally sound. At least the retroactively granted consent is something I'm pretty sure came from him. The rest might be odious goo from me. I don't remember.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I said one time. If he raped 4 times, I don't care what his excuse was.

Why would you care what the excuse was the first time? There is NEVER an acceptable excuse. I don't care about the "alcohol isn't illegal" or "boys will be boys" or "she was asking for it" or even "Valka, you're just old-fashioned, get with the current times" crap I've heard so many times over the past 11 years that I've been posting online (not saying all that comes from this site, but just pointing out the incredible number of excuses I've been handed over the years).

 

[caketastydelish]

Why would you care what the excuse was the first time? There is NEVER an acceptable excuse. I don't care about the "alcohol isn't illegal" or "boys will be boys" or "she was asking for it" or even "Valka, you're just old-fashioned, get with the current times" crap I've heard so many times over the past 11 years that I've been posting online (not saying all that comes from this site, but just pointing out the incredible number of excuses I've been handed over the years).

Jesus christ, what is with you people? When did I say "if he rapes one time, it's acceptable"? I never said anything about "acceptable excuse". The only thing "old fashioned" going on here is some people living in the pre-historic times where they're illiterate and can't actually read what other people are saying.

I said: The punishment for raping once should not be the same as the punishment for raping multiple times.

That doesn't mean no punishment at all for one rape. In fact, if you read what I actually said (instead of putting words in my mouth, as usual) you'd see that I said 10 years for one single rape, which is far harsher than the law actually is, with multiple rapes being a minimum of 30 years. You people are absurd with your false accusations against me.

I wonder why you all jump at me when I actually agree with you, I suppose I was "asking for it".

 

[Farm Boy]

If anything, I'm far closer to saying ''rape is frequently deemed fine'' than you have been.

Actually, for clarity's sake: I think society frequently deems rape fine. And were I to argue against the practice of 'it's ok rape'' I'd be considered vastly too conservative on the issue of sex. I might even get wary looks about somehow shaming women for being liberated sexually.