Do you disagree with me on any of these statements about rape, GS?

1. It would be good if all rapists were punished for their crimes. Ideally, any person who commits rape would be sentenced to an appropriate prison term, or some reasonable alternative punishment (eg a term in a residential psych facility).

2. It would be good if no innocent person ever got punished for a crime they did not commit. This includes not getting convicted for rape for what was, in fact, genuinely consensual sex, or even no sex at all.

3. Because human justice systems are imperfect, it is impossible to absolutely and perfectly do both 1 and 2. The best we can do is design our justice system to aim for an acceptably minimal level of either mistake.

4. Where the best balancing point between 1 and 2 is depends on one's exact priorities, and this is something reasonable people can disagree about. Only people who genuinely cannot agree with either 1 or 2 should be considered unreasonable on the subject.

Do you agree or disagree? Do you think there are any other statements on the subject that should be similarly universal? Any other thoughts?

9 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    8 months ago

    Sure. Do people really disagree with any of that? It's just there's always going to be a disagreement about individual cases.

    • ChemFlunky
      Lv 7
      8 months agoReport

      Some people... certainly seem to.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 8 months ago

    I dont really agree with #1.. i belive 'punishment' is counter productive... i think its better to either shoot them in the head if caught in the act or else they should make restitution and be registered monitored

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • Anonymous
    8 months ago

    I agree with 1-3.  

    The answer to four is that we should assume guilt when guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Anything less is not Justice.   

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • Elana
    Lv 7
    8 months ago

    Oh boy ... I already failed.

    1: Sort of. At least in the US, the punishment system is geared towards retribution and not really towards rehabilitation. The theory is that if you treat prisoners badly enough, they won't commit the crime again, but the reality is that they will be exposed to other like minded individuals and potentially be MORE likely to commit the crime again. If our prison systems were SUCCESSFULLY geared towards rehab, and we're being smart about the term "guilty", yeah, I guess I agree.

    Smart about "guilty"? Yeah, well, people commit crimes for all kinds of reasons. Most of these reasons do not (in society's mind) justify the criminal act, but as we learn more and more about how body chemistry effects the brain, this is going to become a squishier and squishier thing. The most obvious thing to point to here is women using menses to justify bad acts, but obviously hunger or trying to care for children has also been used as justification.

    I'm much more interested in making sure the crime doesn't happen again than making the victim feel better. Obviously the latter is important, but the former is inherently more important again because of the high potential of having to make future victims feel better.

    2: Inarguably true, despite Catherine Comins' comment to the contrary.

    3: Inarguably true. Perfection is inherently unobtainable. You can get close, but with respect to this issue ... we're NOWHERE near it.

    4: I guess I would say that people who cannot genuinely agree with either 1, 2

    *or 3* should be considered unreasonable on the subject. Somebody who thinks we currently live with the perfect justice system is (for whatever reason) confused.

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • 8 months ago

    why?

    i don't know.

    you sound pretty rational to me, which will make you as welcome here as a turd in a swimming pool.

    most folks around here are InCels and feminist trolls who enjoy triggering them.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • Foofa
    Lv 7
    8 months ago

    1. Um, yeah, punishing rape is important. 2. Yes, not condemning the innocent is always a good thing. 3. Sadly probably true. But also important to remember that far more real rapes go unpunished due to lack of evidence than do innocent people go to prison for rape. In a world where elected District Attorneys hate to lose cases there are a lot of legitimate victims who never see justice because the DA refuses to prosecute. 4. The current default position in the US is that it's better to let 100 real rapists off than to erroneously convict even one innocent person and this does bother some people.

    But it's also important to remember that almost every single case of an innocent person going to prison for rape is the result of plea bargaining. The most famous recent case being that of Brian Banks who was convinced by his own Public Defender to plead guilty because she didn't think a black man could possibly prevail in a US court (she herself was black). So minus all this pressure from overworked PDs to get their clients to plead out we'd likely have very few if any cases of innocent people being sent to prison for rape.

    • ...Show all comments
    • Sfancik
      Lv 6
      8 months agoReport

      Women and minorities typically bear the burdens of "acceptable mistake" regardless of what side of the equation they are on.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • $1.07 will solve the problem in Georgia. $0.50 for a little bit of gasoline and $0.50 for the disposable lighter. Then you gotta pay the sales tax.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 8 months ago

    I agree with #1 and #2. I would disagree with #3. I think perfection is probably impossible but the "goal" should always be to attain perfection. When you lower the aspiration from perfection to acceptable levels of failure, then those "acceptable or expected failures" inevitably begin to accrue on those least able to defend themselves from an injustice. Typically the historically discriminated against and/or disenfranchised. Women, minorities, and the financially challenged.

    The aim should be to get every case right. That's a lofty goal but every victim, perpetrator and wrongfully accused citizen deserves to have their case resolved correctly. I don't think any woman who has been raped, comes forward and sees her rapist go unpunished would be comforted knowing that her case falls within accepted rates of failure. Nor would the guy sent to prison for a crime he didn't commit.

    Given my problems with #3, I guess #4 is moot, but I think it's always dangerous when we defer judgment on specific issues and facts to general rules and guidelines for the sake of convenience and ultimately it feels like that's the real impetus behind adopting "acceptable levels of mistake".

    • ...Show all comments
    • Sfancik
      Lv 6
      8 months agoReport

      But fundamentally I think I agree. Maybe my issue is more with prioritizing the victim or the accused. In my perfect system scenario I guess the balance between 1 & 2 is equal and the correct determination is always reached. That would be my starting point.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • Dze
    Lv 7
    8 months ago

    I think anyone that is convicted of lets say 'rape of a stranger' should get automatic castration of the entire package .. the date rape types are hard to define for that you get to keep the package you just get the time ..

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.