Death penalty for rapists?

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
You guys are out of your mind.

It would be so easy to accuse someone of rape, for whatever crazy reason someone might have. I'm no legal expert by any means, but it seems that it'd be too easy for an innocent person to be found guilty.

how many innocent rapists have ever gone to jail though? i havent ever read of such a case. I would propose that there are certain circumstances for punishment, it wouldn't be so cut and dry. The point is that jail time means completely nothing to these scum bags, especially when these rapist/molesters only end up doing a couple years of ACTUAL jail time, then they get out and repeat their offenses and more times than not, they are worse offenders than before and this kind of thing happens all the time.
 
I've heard of a case where someone was falsly convicted of a rape he didn't commit and spent 20 or so year in prison and was exonerated via DNA testing so innocent people have been wrongfully convicted of crimes including rape. I have also heard of severall cases where say an ex-girlfriend falsly files a rape claim to get back at her ex and then they are convicted only to find out severall year later that the alleged victim was lying. I do say if there is absolutley no doubt than a man has commited rape (like he recorded it on film or something) then death is a perfectly appropriate punnishment.
 
I've heard of a case where someone was falsly convicted of a rape he didn't commit and spent 20 or so year in prison and was exonerated via DNA testing so innocent people have been wrongfully convicted of crimes including rape. I have also heard of severall cases where say an ex-girlfriend falsly files a rape claim to get back at her ex and then they are convicted only to find out severall year later that the alleged victim was lying. I do say if there is absolutley no doubt than a man has commited rape (like he recorded it on film or something) then death is a perfectly appropriate punnishment.
Very well said, friend.
 
It doesn't, and I'd like to think you're smart enough to know what I said...

If all you guys would like to live in a country with penalties like that move to Saudi Arabia. Personally I like being in a civilized society.

I think we're just discussing what a rapist actually deserves as punishment for committing so atrocious a crime. Not so much about how a society would go about achieving that level of justice. The actual logistics of convicting without error is a job for legal science, specifically, discerning objective criteria for determining guilt without the shadow of a doubt.

My point is that the severity of the punishment should be irrelevant in the conviction process. Doing time or paying fine as an innocent is just as possible an outcome and should not ever happen. It's obviously not as bad as dying for a crime you did not commit, but the issue shouldn't be the sentence; it should be the objectivity of the conviction.

That said, I don't think that a society can call itself civilized if it permits murderers, pederasts and rapists to escape the fate that justice demands. A society that does not give criminals their due is culpable for the crimes they commit.
 
I think we're just discussing what a rapist actually deserves as punishment for committing so atrocious a crime. Not so much about how a society would go about achieving that level of justice. The actual logistics of convicting without error is a job for legal science, specifically, discerning objective criteria for determining guilt without the shadow of a doubt.

My point is that the severity of the punishment should be irrelevant in the conviction process. Doing time or paying fine as an innocent is just as possible an outcome and should not ever happen. It's obviously not as bad as dying for a crime you did not commit, but the issue shouldn't be the sentence; it should be the objectivity of the conviction.

That said, I don't think that a society can call itself civilized if it permits murderers, pederasts and rapists to escape the fate that justice demands. A society that does not give criminals their due is culpable for the crimes they commit.


:lecture:lecture:lecture

heres a follow up to the article that started this thread: https://www.sphere.com/2009/10/30/c...009/10/30/cries-for-help-not-always-answered/

looks like there could be 10 people involved, and an additional 10 that stood around and did nothing. I do slightly agree that maybe the people who were watching were scared to intervene against 10 people, but if they did cheer for the violence, then theres a good chance they will be prosecuted as well, since the bastards actually took pics of the crime, but never reported anything............
 
You guys are out of your mind.

It would be so easy to accuse someone of rape, for whatever crazy reason someone might have. I'm no legal expert by any means, but it seems that it'd be too easy for an innocent person to be found guilty.

Innocent people can be accused of murder too. That doesn't mean that those found guilty shouldn't receive the death penalty.
 
Innocent people can be accused of murder too. That doesn't mean that those found guilty shouldn't receive the death penalty.

Innocent people have not only been accused, but actually found guilty for murder. I think that's a valid argument against the death penalty.

Besides, I'm not convinced that the death penalty (and certainly not torture!) has ever proven to be an effective deterrant of crime levels. Show me the studies/examples that prove otherwise.
 
Last edited:
I think we're just discussing what a rapist actually deserves as punishment for committing so atrocious a crime. Not so much about how a society would go about achieving that level of justice. The actual logistics of convicting without error is a job for legal science, specifically, discerning objective criteria for determining guilt without the shadow of a doubt.

My point is that the severity of the punishment should be irrelevant in the conviction process. Doing time or paying fine as an innocent is just as possible an outcome and should not ever happen. It's obviously not as bad as dying for a crime you did not commit, but the issue shouldn't be the sentence; it should be the objectivity of the conviction.

Point taken, but even if that is true in theory, it unfortunately does happen and should be taken into consideration.

To be quite honest, I'm not entirely sure I'm against capital punishment in all circumstances, but I do believe the punishment should fit the crime. Even going by the old Biblical "eye for an eye" rule, the death penalty for rape isn't appropriate. As much as this particular crime (and others) bothers me, and part of me would love to see the perpetrators torn limb by limb, to succumb to that raw emotion means I would lose a part of myself, and become more like them - essentially, I would lose part of what makes me a "civilized" person and not being ruled by my animal emotions.

I don't know, maybe that's not as well thought out/expressed as it could have been, but I hope I got my point across.
 
Innocent people have not only been accused, but actually found guilty for murder. I think that's a valid argument against the death penalty.

Besides, I'm not convinced that the death penalty (and certainly not torture!) has ever proven to be an effective deterrant of crime levels. Show me the studies/examples that prove otherwise.

if you dont think we should ever consider torture or death, then what else is there? What SHOULD be done then? Its very obvious that what the justice system does now is not effective. Something needs to be done to make sure people who get let out of jail early for horrible crimes, dont do it again..........why should they be let out to begin with? These people are some of the most selfish, violent people, if they choose to hurt our society instead of help it, why should we give them a 2nd chance?
 
The death penalty might not end the crime but it would deter some, and it would most certainly prevent those guilty from ever doing it again. And with regard to rape the Bible states the "eye for an eye" rule doesn't apply; Deuteronomy 22 states its perfectly lawful for the rapist to be put to death.
 
Last edited:
The death penalty might not end the crime but it would deter some, and it would most certainly prevent those guilty from ever doing it again. And with regard to rape the Bible states the "eye for an eye" rule doesn't apply; Deuteronomy 22 states its perfectly lawful for the rapist to be put to death.
Exactly. It wouldn't stop the crime but I'd bet the percentage of rape drops.
 
if you dont think we should ever consider torture or death, then what else is there? What SHOULD be done then? Its very obvious that what the justice system does now is not effective. Something needs to be done to make sure people who get let out of jail early for horrible crimes, dont do it again..........why should they be let out to begin with? These people are some of the most selfish, violent people, if they choose to hurt our society instead of help it, why should we give them a 2nd chance?

While it certainly isn't perfect, the justice system as it is is pretty effective for most. The onus isn't just on the justice system anyway. Effectively deterring crime requires a lot more study. Social, economic and psychological reasons should all be taken into account. If one day we are able to fully understand that, we may be able to all but eliminate the root causes of violent crime with time. However, we won't be able to do that if we reinstate medieval methods of punishment, which has never proven to be the perfect solution anyway.
 
The death penalty might not end the crime but it would deter some, and it would most certainly prevent those guilty from ever doing it again. And with regard to rape the Bible states the "eye for an eye" rule doesn't apply; Deuteronomy 22 states its perfectly lawful for the rapist to be put to death.

That's a big maybe. Do you really think people who commit rape are thinking about the consequences? Probably not, in about 99% of the cases. These are people who are absolutely overcome by lustful and violent emotion, and they'll worry about what happens to them after they're done.

And as for the Bible, I was only using that particular line as an example, and certainly not one of literal truth. We all know the various books in the Bible contradict themselves left and right, and you can be put to death for any number of silly reasons.
 
Your opinions on leniency toward rapists and the validity of the Bible are far from universal DPrime, though duly noted. I don't see any reason to continue the discussion in a forum such as this. See you in the Joe section! :duff
 
I certainly have mixed feelings about this. I am in complete agreement that someone who rapes another person deserves to die. It is that simple. So in that context, I am all for it.

The complication comes with actually executing the punishment. I do not want to believe that I can end up dead for a rape I did not commit. And if any of you have been watching the news for the last 10 years or so, there are roughly 250 inmates that have been exonerated by DNA testing for everything from assault to rape to murder, around 15 of which were on death row. Some of these people served upwards of 20 years in prison for crimes that they did not commit.

Imagine, if there were that many saved in ten years...how many died before that.

If guilt or innocence can be determined perfectly, kill the guilty. If not, don't, because I don't want innocent people being killed.
 
There is a glaring lack of female contribution to this thread.

I'll say that the chance that an innocent would die is sufficient to not employ the death penalty. I would never trust a non-objective justice system with my life.

Still, rapists deserve to die, or lose appendages at the least.

The point of punishment for a crime is not primarily deterrence; it's punishment. So the deterrence argument doesn't hold water.
 
There is a glaring lack of female contribution to this thread. I'll say that the chance that an innocent would die is sufficient to not employ the death penalty. I would never trust a non-objective justice system with my life. Still, rapists deserve to die, or lose appendages at the least. The point of punishment for a crime is not primarily deterrence; it's punishment. So the deterrence argument doesn't hold water.
:lol :lol :lol :lol
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top