I have a simple question. Which should result in a simple answer. Failure (at least for now) to answer with anything more than a number will result in your answer not making it through moderation. After, we see some simple direct answers, things will loosen up.
One simple question.
How many rapes should one person be allowed to commit before they are sentenced to serve prison time?
32 comments:
ONE and the punishment should be either life imprisonment or, better yet, execution.
Actually, I think I answered that wrong. It should be no rapes allowed but just one should have the extreme punishments.
1
The only caveat to this is the testimony of the victim. If the victim doesn't believe her assault is worthy of incarceration, that should weigh into the decision of whether or not such a sentence should be passed. I would submit that a dude raping a specific chick (I'm using the word "rape" in a less than specific manner) doesn't mean that dude is likely to rape anyone else.
Otherwise, 1 is enough for the hoosegow.
If they're convicted: ONE.
I think I originally answered in a way which doesn't accurately reflect my position, so allow me to answer again.
0. The answer is there should be no number of rapes allowed without prison time as a sentence. Without the caveat I offered in my first comment, upon conviction of a single rape, jail time must be imposed.
This is the most correct answer.
Given the fact that US criminal law is premised on punishing actions, not preventing crime, the only reasonably correct answer is one. However, zero would be preferable.
Again, this would seem to be the correct answer.
Dan got the answer correct, and followed directions, shocking.
I understand the potential confusion of the term "allowed". The reality is that, as noted above, US criminal code is premised on punishing crime rather than preventing crime. Given that, US criminal code does "allow" one rape before any punishment can be imposed.
I'm with Glenn in that rape should be punished as severely, if not more so, than any other crime. One rape should result in a minimum of life in prison, and preferably death.
Since we all agree that one is the maximum "allowed", let's move on to question number 2.
Is there ANY circumstance where someone commits 3 rapes, and serves zero jail time?
Again, yes or no only to start,
I'm not sure if you're asking if this has happened or would and circumstance allow it.
I think, if I remember correctly, a Musllm raped three young women and served no jail time because, as the excuse went, he didn't understand OUR culture.
I am fully consistent and insistent that a death sentence be reserved only for murder. I also am fully cognizant of the suffering one might have been forced to endure in a rape situation. A rape should be punished as severely as the details of the rape demands, assuming a minimum sentence for the least egregious scenario. A minimum needs to be established, and I would support something in the range of 20 years with no chance for parole. That can be hashed out, but whatever results is the minimum and all other aspects of the case results in additional time, with no ceiling. If the victim is killed or dies later due to injuries suffered, now it's a murder case and CP is appropriate.
It's hard enough to imagine a single rape being undeserving of jail time. But 3? Hell no.
I am also consistent in believing that the damage done by a rape is as bad or worse than that done by a murder, and that both should be punished with the harshest possible sentence.
In general, we now know that the vast majority of crime is committed by a small number of people and that removing that small number of people from society for as long as possible will significantly reduce crime.
I'm asking, theoretically, if there is any circumstance where 3 rapes with no jail time is acceptable in a civilized society.
We all seem to agree that one is the maximum before incarceration, so I'm curious if there is any circumstance in which multiple rapes with no jail time would be a reasonable outcome.
There have been multiple examples where Muslim immigrants (primarily Somali and Pakistani) have used the "He didn't understand that your culture finds rape unacceptable" defense successfully. Obviously the notion that a culture would find rape appropriate seems bizarre to us, but that does appear to be a valid defense in various jurisdictions.
Also it seems strange that folx like Dan would advocate for and defend immigration from cultures where rape is considered acceptable.
That's all off topic, but interesting.
Again, this would seem to be the correct answer.
Dan chose not to play by the guidelines established for the post, and had his irrelevant comment aborted.
Clearly he has issues with following rules and guidelines, and self control.
Strangely enough, he seemed to be demanding that I make assumptions about what his answer might have been, when he usually gets his panties in a wad when he thinks I've been making assumptions.
Art, in the O.T. God gave death as the punishment for rape, and I think with the horrible emotions and memories a raped victim would have to live with should definitely qualify the rapist for execution. Period. And it used to be that way in many western countries, including the USA.
Glenn.
Personally, I agree. However, I'd argue that the goals should be to remove the rapist from society and to provide a sense of justice to the victim. I can see how a lengthy prison sentence for first time rapists could serve the same purpose. Second offense should be automatic death penalty though.
Here's the problem we are discussing. And the Muslims just keep getting away with it. After all, it's Islamic doctrine.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/12/minnesota_where_rape_is_easy.html
Glenn,
You stole my thunder here.
We now have Dan on record acknowledging that this guy should have been put away many crimes ago. Yet I suspect that Dan will come up with excuse after excuse as to why this particular rapist is somehow an exception.
While this is an excellent example, it's not the whole point.
The bigger point(s) is/are.
1. A judicial system both here and in Europe that enables criminals like this and keeps them on the streets to offend again and again.
2. Intentionally ignoring the fact that we could drop crime by @75% by simply incarcerating the tiny percentage of criminals who commit the vast majority of crimes.
3. The importing of a "culture" which looks at rape as an acceptable cultural norm, and refuses to assimilate or follow US/Euro laws on rape and other crimes. There was another case recently where an immigrant kidnapped and raped a 12 year old and his faith community supported leniency, and he got an insanely low sentence.
4. Related to #1, but beyond. A judicial system that believes that judges have powers far beyond what is allocated to them constitutionally and who are determined to impose their will regardless of legality.
You aren't wrong, and this case was the impetus for this post, but it goes far beyond this one miscarriage of justice.
I'm not saying I'm taking this seriously, but I've seen some people who make a reasonably good argument that Justine Diamond was shot by a Muslim cop because she reported a rape and he was trying to "protect" the rapist.
As horrible as living with a rape most certainly is, the key point to remember is the person is still living. Nothing is a harsh as being murdered. There is nothing worse than that. When speaking of CP versus life in prison, CP opponents suggest that life in prison is a worse punishment. But that's just rhetoric, not reality. For even a life sentence is that to which one can learn to acclimate and still have some semblance of a life.
The same is true for rape victims, as they can find professional help to guide them toward learning to cope (and they should be provided that help until the goal is met). Harsh sentences short of CP are appropriate, and if one thinks a life sentence is the only other appropriate penalty, I wouldn't expend much effort in arguing against it. F**k that guy. I definitely believe it's appropriate for those who rape kids, even though the death of child rapist wouldn't personally bother me. I would see it as most deserving, but I don't think we have that moral authority. God only allows CP for murderers.
To your second paragraph, I fully agree that focusing on regular offenders and exponentially upping their sentences so that they're off the streets is sound policy.
Seems to me that "ignorance of our laws" is no excuse which any sane judge should entertain as a legit defense for rapists. Leftist judges are known for insane rulings.
While CP was mandated by God for a host of offenses...such as two pervs indulging in perv sex with each other...I don't believe that this fact mitigates my position, given His judgement on murder far predates Mosaic law. Keep in mind, if CP for rape became law now, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.
I would never advocate for CP solely based on Scripture, noting that fact does demonstrate that CP for rape is not unreasonable.
I've know a couple rape victims who say it's a "living death" due to always remembering what was done to them. Entering a woman's body is extremely personal and if the woman was a virgin it's even worse. A pregnancy will give them an eternal symbol. No psychobabble person is going to talk them into forgetting that.
You would think that ignorance would never be an excuse. The reality is that culture isn't what is deterministic. If you choose to immigrate to someplace, the expectation should be that you subordinate the culture of your country of origin to that of the country you immigrate to. Beyond that, we're talking about simply obeying the law. It is clear given what we've seen recently (CDL, Immigration fraud, SSN fraud, massive fraud, kidnapping, rape, murder) that many immigrants are unwilling to meet the bare minimum of simply following the law.
What's worse, dying instantly or living decades with the trauma of having been raped? I'd argue that while it's different, that living for decades with that trauma could be arguably worse. The "hope" in life in prison is that the rapist gets a taste of his/her own medicine. It's a matter of degree, nothing more.
As it's all just a matter of opinion here, I'm content in arguing that the minimum sentence for a rapist is no less than 50 years, preferably life. Multiple convictions, death.
I'm with you on this. Death is one and done, rape is/can be a daily reminder.
"Afghan asylum seekers in Warwickshire England.
The lawyer blamed the attack on “cultural differences” and said his client “was not used to a society where women are free and deemed equal to men”."
When the excuse for rape is the above, offered in a UK court, the minimum punishment is immediate expulsion.
The thought that the country you choose to immigrate to (ignoring the existence of 50+ countries much more compatible culturally) must accommodate to your third world/Muslim culture is simply insane.
Post a Comment