Rape punishment

Rape.  We all hate it.  What should the punishment be?

I support the death penalty for people who have been proven guilty of rape.

The death penalty for it seems too harsh.  I would say 2 payments of a $1.25 million fine with the rape victim getting one of those payments.  This way, the rape victim actually benefits from something that harmed them.  I thought on Debate island, you were against the death penalty for murder.  Unless your views on that changed, your an abolitionist for murder, but you support the death penalty for rape?  It seems to me like murder is worse then rape and should therefore receive a worse punishment, even though they are both horrible crimes.

bump.

After a little private time with the inmates, sentence them to Mexico :)

That would be bad for Mexico and doesn't help the rape victim out much.

Tell them to send back payments, or else they can be put to work stateside.

If they can't afford it, the rapist should be a state slave until they pay it off.  They also should get castrated so their kids don't suffer slavery.

How do you define "rape"? Is there a single one-size-fits-all definition, for which a single uniform standard of punishment can be applied?

For example, there's the common law definition of rape, which precludes the mere possibility that a biological female could commit the act (a nonsensical definition but one which remains in the law books today). Similarly there's the definition of rape which requires penetration, which in many cases would let the rapist off the hook altogether simply based on the details of how the crime was perpetrated, and which similarly assumes that a woman cannot commit rape. There was an infamous case in Alaska recently in which a judge couldn't convict a rapist because the way that the act was carried out did not meet the state's definition of penetration as per their criminal code.

There's statutory rape, which may involve consent by both parties in some cases (though for legal purposes it is always so assumed that the minor cannot consent). If it was a 20 year old guy and a 17 year old girl, would you slap a million dollar fine on him? Turn him into a slave until he could pay up?

There's situations where a man initiates a sexual act with a woman, in which she does not refuse but for which she did not express verbal consent. Many on the Left want this definition to be a thing (so, basically, 100% of married men would be in prison as violent sex offenders).

There are categories of sexual assault which do not fall under so severe a definition as rape (such as simple inappropriate touching). Million dollar fine?

Jeff Bezos has a net worth of something like 50 billion dollars. So does that mean he can simply pay a fine for rape each time and then get let off the hook, and effectively get away with it the first 40,000 times?

Rape is not a man/ woman thing. Rape is sexual contact without consent. Women or men can do that to females or males. Some of which is not violent. If you need a 10 year old to be female and the assailant male and violent you have an issue of your own. 

The thing that makes me nervous is false accusations of rape.

I imagine it happens a lot when people get drunk and do things they regret.

Imagine if it was declared that all sex outside of marriage is rape, and we stoned rapists to death, removed their sex organs, etc.... That would really make things a lot easier, eh?

Maybe not, but maybe people would think twice about even trying.

 

The problem with rape is that things get more confusing in a post "sexually liberated" society. 

This depends greatly on our goal here. Do we intend to prevent rape? Do we intend to dispense justice? Do we intend to make rapists suffer? To comfort and treat the mental and physical wounds of the victims? Some combination of the above?

Our stated goal would perforce help determine our course of action 

I think if all penetration rape ought to be punished with 2 payments of a $1.25 million fine and castration would help do all of those things.  The rape victim would get one of these payments.  It would prevent future rape if the # of females reporting their rape skyrockets, it dispenses justice, it makes the rapist suffer and it gives the rape victim compensation for the pain that she endured.

The idea of defining rape in such a way that a spouse would be able to force themselves on their partners with no prosecution for rape is monstrous in my opinion. Your law does not protect an entire group of people that deserve to be able to say no.

You have also not rigorously defined marriage but if you did I feel you would probably be a religious rather than a legal distinction. Am I incorrect about this?

Also also I cannot condone the punishment of concenting adults doing whatever they like so long as they are not hurting anyone else (particularly not in the barbaric fashion you have suggested).

You have essentially just called for the forcible neutering or execution of almost every adult member of the human race. 

Do you not find that idea horrifying?

There is a logical breakdown here that I feel beholden to point out Mopac.

Anything that simply is love would not want your plan to be carried out. Ergo if God is love then God wants you to not tear off people's naughty bits just for having a little roll in the hay.

Since you dislike debate that isn't what this is. This is just a few observations about your proclamation.

You have not answered my question at all.

Allow me to simplify it

What is our goal?

What is the punishment supposed to do? 

I am not asking what the punishment should be. We have not gotten that far.

"statutory rape" in the form that you mention doesn't make any sense. That is only the age of the party that can't consent should matter. If they can't consent, whomever has unmarried intercourse with a minor should be charged with a crime.

The main goal should be helping the rape victim in a way that ordinary taxpayers don't suffer from.

Then clearly punishment should not be our main focus. 

My joke is obviously extreme, but if they know the rape victim, it makes some sense that they should have to learn their lesson before being  allowed in the same jurisdiction.

Some punishment is necessary, like the $2.5 million fine that the rapist would have to pay.  This is because the rape victim gets half of this to improve her situation.  The current punishment in some states is a joke, like 1 year in prison (https://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/jud/rpt/2003-R-0376.htm).

Are you referencing this 

When you say

If so then in addition to being "obviously extreme" it is also needlessly (and arguably unfairly) critical of Mexico.

I have a feeling however that you meant to address this to @Alec

I wasn't arguing it should be decriminalized. But should a 20-17 relationship carry the same penalty as a violent rape?

You are getting ahead of me again. I have not asked what the punishment should be. We have not gotten that far yet.

You say that our main focus should be helping victims. You have also said that some punishment is necessary. Therefore either you intend the punishment to directly benefit the victim or you have other goals in mind.

Before moving forward do we have tangential goals and if so what are they?

Yeah, obviously its not the same to seduce someone as it is to intoxicate them. It would be inappropriate to treat statutory rape as a violent crime. I was pointing out that only "17" should matter really in determining whether a crime has been committed, not whether one of the parties is a legal adult.

I have 2 goals that I can think of.  The main one is to help rape victims out without infringing on the rights of the taxpayer.  The 2nd one is to provide deterrence for rapists to not commit rape.  This is why I favor castration as part of the punishment.

Castration.

Without infringing on the rights of the taxpayer. What exactly does that mean? Surely an efficacious legal systems is one of the things that we are paying for as taxpayers. 

If the rape victim gets restitution, then the rapist should pay for it.  Not the taxpayer.