BF2S Forums Why is rape worse than attempted murder?

JohnG@lt wrote:

mikkel wrote:

24 years for rape is absurd. This was a particularly terrible, disgusting case of it, but 24 years? No way. The notion that rape should be punished harder than attempting to take another person's life is ridiculous as well. People should be arguing for attempted murder carrying the same sentence as murder in the first degree, not that it should be comparable to rape.

Knee-jerk, mob mentality legislation. Same as for paedophilia. Most of the sociopaths favouring it would be just as happy to see the convicted killed right away. Hooray for civilisation.

You do understand that throughout human history that rape has been a capital offense, yes? 24 years is a light sentence. Guess you'll have to dream of getting laid another way.

Yes. Throughout history, mankind has also orchestrated other wonderful things, such as burning alleged witches, slaughtering people for heresy, decapitating thieves, and hanging dissidents. Your argument is a compelling one.

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

mikkel wrote:

24 years for rape is absurd. This was a particularly terrible, disgusting case of it, but 24 years? No way. The notion that rape should be punished harder than attempting to take another person's life is ridiculous as well. People should be arguing for attempted murder carrying the same sentence as murder in the first degree, not that it should be comparable to rape.

Knee-jerk, mob mentality legislation. Same as for paedophilia. Most of the sociopaths favouring it would be just as happy to see the convicted killed right away. Hooray for civilisation.

you're right
let's just give them 5 years and a medal of fucking freedom too
can't seem uncivilized can we

The false dichotomy; a hallmark of Debate and Serious Talk.

rape >> attempted murder

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

mikkel what do you suggest we do with these sorts of people?

They should be imprisoned, obviously, but sentencing anyone to 24 years in prison for rape is preposterous. A more sane approach, in my opinion, would be an eight to ten year sentencing for the rape charge. I struggle to find a rational argument for the current theme of filling up prisons to capacity, to the point of turning down convicts for incarceration, simply to keep inmates stagnating in underfunded environments so conducive to criminal indoctrination that many of them end up more criminal than they were when they entered the system.

I find it difficult to believe that the prospect of spending 24 years in jail would deter anything beyond a fraction of the criminals willing to carry out crimes punishable by imprisonment for ten years. I also cannot imagine that anything more than an insignificant portion of the people who fail to be dissuaded from repeating their crimes after ten years would reach a point of dissuasion at any point in their future.

I am of the opinion that sentences of this length do vastly more harm to society by overpopulating prisons and negatively affecting inmates on shorter terms, than what would be done were the sentences to be halved.

Macbeth, would you rather I raped you or tried to murder you and failed?

It was a package deal, buy the rape and child abuse, get incest free!

JohnG@lt wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

mikkel what do you suggest we do with these sorts of people?

They should be imprisoned, obviously, but sentencing anyone to 24 years in prison for rape is preposterous. A more sane approach, in my opinion, would be an eight to ten year sentencing for the rape charge. I struggle to find a rational argument for the current theme of filling up prisons to capacity, to the point of turning down convicts for incarceration, simply to keep inmates stagnating in underfunded environments so conducive to criminal indoctrination that many of them end up more criminal than they were when they entered the system.

I find it difficult to believe that the prospect of spending 24 years in jail would deter anything beyond a fraction of the criminals willing to carry out crimes punishable by imprisonment for ten years. I also cannot imagine that anything more than an insignificant portion of the people who fail to be dissuaded from repeating their crimes after ten years would reach a point of dissuasion at any point in their future.

I am of the opinion that sentences of this length do vastly more harm to society by overpopulating prisons and negatively affecting inmates on shorter terms, than what would be done were the sentences to be halved.

You should convince them not to commit crimes then you wouldn't have overpopulated prisons. Have you gone to low income areas yourself to try to show people the right path? Have you adopted high risk kids and raised them in your own home to help them break the cycle?

What precisely are you trying to say here?

JohnG@lt wrote:

I personally think the punishments fit the crime quite well. It's also quite simple. If you aren't planning on committing the crime you really shouldn't be bothered that some jackass that did is going to spend the next 24 years of his life in jail. The punishment is supposed to act as a deterrent against people committing those crimes in the future.

I addressed this in the post that you're replying to.

NantanCochise wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

mikkel what do you suggest we do with these sorts of people?

They should be imprisoned, obviously, but sentencing anyone to 24 years in prison for rape is preposterous. A more sane approach, in my opinion, would be an eight to ten year sentencing for the rape charge. I struggle to find a rational argument for the current theme of filling up prisons to capacity, to the point of turning down convicts for incarceration, simply to keep inmates stagnating in underfunded environments so conducive to criminal indoctrination that many of them end up more criminal than they were when they entered the system.

I find it difficult to believe that the prospect of spending 24 years in jail would deter anything beyond a fraction of the criminals willing to carry out crimes punishable by imprisonment for ten years. I also cannot imagine that anything more than an insignificant portion of the people who fail to be dissuaded from repeating their crimes after ten years would reach a point of dissuasion at any point in their future.

I am of the opinion that sentences of this length do vastly more harm to society by overpopulating prisons and negatively affecting inmates on shorter terms, than what would be done were the sentences to be halved.

What are you talking about? The guy got 24 years for raping his 10 year old son-in-law. Did you take into consideration the fact that it was a child that was raped and what is legally considered an incestuous relationship. 24 years too harsh??? Its a 20 year average sentance for child abuse, plus 4 for attempted murder (5 years being the minimum sentance), seems to me he already got a year off.

Why are you making an argument against my opinion of shortening sentences by pointing out that it would conflict with the sentencing guidelines that I disagree with?

Last edited by mikkel (2009-09-25 10:57:38)

TrueMusou wrote:

I hope this girl does somehow learn to cope and live a decent life...but the odds are stacked up against her.

Oh really.  Oprah Winfrey, Teri Hatcher, Anne Heche, Casper Van Dien, Goldie Hawn...

Reciprocity wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

TrueMusou wrote:

I hope this girl does somehow learn to cope and live a decent life...but the odds are stacked up against her.

Oh really.  Oprah Winfrey, Teri Hatcher, Anne Heche, Casper Van Dien, Goldie Hawn...

yes, a few celebrities outweigh millions of prostitutes, drug addicts, homeless, convicts, and abusers.  not that all the dregs of society were abused or raped, but there is a strong statistical correlation between childhood abuse and the above metioned social maladies.

But better to end your life after such a traumatic event?