Leave a comment

trbulnt_spnstr January 5 2008, 14:05:03 UTC
I have consistently seen rape as a worse crime than murder. Murder is usually frequently done due to drug or gang involvement, (things that people can be rehabilitated from), or in the moment fury types of things, (seeing another person in bed with your partner). I think both of those things can be rehabilitated.

The recitivism rate for rapists, especially child rapists if I remember, is extremely high. It is also frequently planned. And there is no way to explain it, other than that people think they can get away with it. I read this book, "Why Men Hate Women", and the author said he thinks that most men, if they knew they wouldn't be punished or left for it, would rape women, either who they were dating or others, including step children and children. I have no clue what to do with that information other than agree that I think most men I've met would or have raped somebody so I have to agree with him.

That I suppose was tangential but to answer your question: Yes, I think child rapists, (who are not children themselves), should be killed, and if my kid were raped I'd probably do it myself and end up in jail for the rest of my life, feeling pretty damn satisfied.

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

trbulnt_spnstr January 5 2008, 22:58:28 UTC
My logic is as follows:

People who commit heinous crimes should not be allowed to continue to commit those heinous crimes.

Murderers are less likely to commit murder again, than rapists are to rape again.

I see rape of a child as an especially heinous crime.

There's something baffling about that logic? You don't have to agree with me, or like how I think, but it seems like it's a pretty simplistic logic that shouldn't baffle people.

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

trbulnt_spnstr January 6 2008, 13:02:06 UTC
"Life sentences would also prevent someone from committing those crimes again"

That's simply not true. My mom was a nurse in a maximum security prison and she almost got raped by one of the prisoners. Acting as though prisons are a self contained entity doesn't really make sense. People work in prisons. Other prisoners live in prisons.

I understand what you're saying but I don't see how what I've said shows excusing anybody of anything. I didn't say, "If someone murders somebody we should just let them walk back out on the street the day they've killed somebody!" I said I think that people can be rehabilitated when they are murderers, but I don't see that adults that rape children usually have the ability to be rehabilitated. I don't think that jail should be used to punish people.

Everything I've said is really difficult to understand because the entire context is bonkers. The questions the original poster asked don't make any sense and I had to take some of what she said and put it into some context. To me, as I said to someone else, the context ended up being:

Supposing you support the prison industrial complex, and suppose you are ok with capital punishment,should convicted child rapists be given the maximum punishment of capital punishment.

And my answer is: Yes. Most people who rape children are too perverse and sick to be helped.

I am aware in reality we can't know for sure who raped whom. I don't really see this question as a particularly realistic one though, and I am choosing not to treat it as such. Because in reality I don't support the prison industrial complex or capital punishment. But, as I also said, in reality, if I found out somebody I knew was a child rapist, (like say my brother confided it in me because he was very upset and didn't know what to do about it because he felt drawn to do it again and didn't want to), I'd tell him I think he should kill himself.

Now your comment about not thinking most men would rape somebody if they wouldn't get in trouble: The person who wrote the book was a man who's been a counselor for men with and without sexual offender records, and he said that every man he's ever worked with has said that they would have sex with a woman without their permission. He said there has never been anyone who would not do that that he's ever worked with. I'm not suggesting every man in the world DOES rape, but what I'm saying is that the author of this book found that every man he's ever spoken to would rape if they thought they could get away with it completely.

Reply

holzman January 6 2008, 15:40:14 UTC
The person who wrote the book was a man who's been a counselor for men with and without sexual offender records, and he said that every man he's ever worked with has said that they would have sex with a woman without their permission.

That's what we call a "skewed sample" in statistics, which may have some application to the population "men in his geographical region who see counselors" or "men who see counselors" but not to the population "men."

Reply

trbulnt_spnstr January 6 2008, 16:19:31 UTC
Yes, it is a skewed sample. However, from my experiences with men, it seems realistic. I'm not about to really argue my opinion that most men are capable of and would rape if there would be no negative effects. This is another example of something unrealistic because there are always some negative effects associated with rape. I do, however, think that almost all men would, if they could get away with it, rape.

Reply

lavendersparkle January 6 2008, 18:17:36 UTC
But surely if your logic is 'rapists should be killed because they are likley to rape again and it is reasonable to kill someone to prevent rape' and you also believe that most, if not all, men are capable of rape, shouldn't we just kill all the men rather than waiting for them to rape someone first?

Reply

trbulnt_spnstr January 6 2008, 20:42:37 UTC
Did you read all of the comments I wrote? I feel like you didn't. If you did, and this is still what you're getting, that's fine. I don't really care about it anymore.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up