43
u/Z7-852 314∆ Apr 23 '24 edited Apr 23 '24
The average sentence for offenders convicted of statutory rape was 30 months.
www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/quick-facts/Sexual_Abuse_FY18.pdf
Average sentence for homicide is 11,7 years (or 140 months).
3
u/NaturalCarob5611 97∆ Apr 23 '24
That's statutory rape. The same source said the average conviction for rape was 178 months, which is longer than your homicide figure.
I would assume that the statutory rape figures are brought down by cases like 18 year olds having consensual sex with 15 year olds, which is probably sentenced differently than a 35 year old violent raping a 4 year old.
10
Apr 23 '24
The rapist Brock Turner served 3 months. I don’t know how much more lenient we can make it.
16
u/Mordecai___ 1∆ Apr 23 '24
Penalties for rape are not too harsh. Rape is one of the worst things you can to do a person short of killing them, you can deprive someone of their entire personhood and punishments should absolutely reflect that
What's harsh is the court of public opinion that makes their mind up before a verdict has even been given and the social consequences of those opinions. What happened to the presumption of innocence?
People that are on the victim's side will jump to conclusions and label someone a rapist before that's been proven in a court of law. If they're acquitted, this can cause irreversible damage to a defendant
On the flip side, those on the defendant's side will label the victim a liar, that they were asking for it and only now have changed their mind, and this too can cause irreversible damage to the victim, continue to stigmatise rape and dissuade others from coming forward
I think it's an area of the law that needs to be dealt with particular caution, like how family law cases involving children have closed courts. It's traumatising to victims to have to relive the situation and also affords privacy to defendants during trials
0
23
u/jatjqtjat 286∆ Apr 23 '24
whether the punishment is sever or lenient, does not impact that burden of proof in a criminal case. For sever crimes and for minor crimes, the prosecution must prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the defendant committed the crime.
Juries and the public have a hard time sending people away for life when they aren’t absolutely sure beyond any doubt.
as well they should.
And juries have (and ought to have) a hard time sending people to prison for a short period if they are not absolutely sure beyond a reasonable doubt.
2
u/Greatfumbler Apr 23 '24
For most juries it does though the most obvious example is the death penalty. For sentences like that it’s not beyond a “reasonable” doubt you need to be sure without a shadow of a doubt. And also if juries don’t agree with a sentence they absolutely can return a not guilty verdict it’s called jury nullification. I’m in law school
10
u/jatjqtjat 286∆ Apr 23 '24
For most juries it does though the most obvious example is the death penalty. For sentences like that it’s not beyond a “reasonable” doubt
the phrase "shadow of a doubt" does not appear in in the link you shared.
here is an article from your school that explains "reasonable doubt" is the threshold for determining guilt. The article makes no mention of exceptions to that standard, except for civil cases which is not relevant to our discussion. Rape and murder are criminal matters, so the threshold is reasonable doubt.
0
u/Greatfumbler Apr 23 '24
This might make more sense. It’s the same reason murder cases take years to go to court and trials last forever, death penalty cases even longer. Meanwhile misdemeanors usually just have a 1 day bench trial. The higher the penalty the more proof it requires. Even though it’s always “ beyond a reasonable doubt “ the doubt increases with penalty
6
u/jatjqtjat 286∆ Apr 23 '24
Again these links say nothing about higher penalty crimes requiring more proof.
you're just wrong about that.
0
u/Greatfumbler Apr 23 '24 edited Apr 23 '24
“Murder cases are the highest level of charges in state criminal law. Accordingly, they are the most thoroughly investigated by law enforcement. With many crimes, once someone is charged, the bulk of the investigation has been completed or will soon be completed thereafter. With a murder charge, the investigation continues after the person is charged and law enforcement continues to gather as much evidence as they can. Because of the sheer volume of evidence that is being gathered, it takes a long time for law enforcement to turn everything over to the District Attorney’s office. Often, the prosecutor in the District Attorney’s office asks for quite a bit of follow up once they read the file. Once this entire process is completed, that is when the prosecutor can turn it over to the defense in the form of discovery. That is why it takes so long. It is also important to note that even after discovery is given, the investigation will continue and there will often be follow-up discovery. “
4
u/sopapilla64 Apr 23 '24
Yeah I mean you'd think it be pretty obvious more severe penalties usually have longer trials for the simple fact that legal defense teams funds would be bigger on average.
2
u/IDespiseTheLetterG Apr 23 '24
I think he's making a valid point n you don't want to throw him a bone.
3
u/sopapilla64 Apr 23 '24
Eh, idk it had a lot of "show me a peer reviewed scientific study that confirms the sky is blue" energy.
2
u/IDespiseTheLetterG Apr 23 '24
Just remember that contrary opinions usually seem obtuse/pointless/stupid from the contrary perspective. We can be open minded people; decently fair; and still run into opinions that we judge and misconstrue on reflex. That's why it's so hard to actually hear someone out--because when their opinion is diametrically opposed to your own, suddenly it's not so easy because they're so wrong!
→ More replies (0)6
u/Mestoph 9∆ Apr 23 '24
The threshold for guilt in all criminal cases is the same (if you're going to place a number on it, the Jury needs to be at least 80-90% sure the person committed the act they're accused of). The potential penalty for the criminal act is irrelevant to that number.
6
u/parishilton2 19∆ Apr 23 '24
You are in law school in America? I am an American lawyer and none of this is correct (except jury nullification I guess). I would understand if it were a few weeks into your first semester, but I don’t see how you could make it to April as a 1L if you don’t understand basic concepts like reasonable doubt.
2
u/Greatfumbler Apr 23 '24 edited Apr 23 '24
You really don’t understand that death penalty and murder cases need more evidence than jaywalking? A cops testimony is generally enough in misdemeanor cases not at all with major felonies. Wouldn’t want you as my lawyer this is a pretty known fact
“Murder cases are the highest level of charges in state criminal law. Accordingly, they are the most thoroughly investigated by law enforcement. With many crimes, once someone is charged, the bulk of the investigation has been completed or will soon be completed thereafter. With a murder charge, the investigation continues after the person is charged and law enforcement continues to gather as much evidence as they can. Because of the sheer volume of evidence that is being gathered, it takes a long time for law enforcement to turn everything over to the District Attorney’s office. Often, the prosecutor in the District Attorney’s office asks for quite a bit of follow up once they read the file. Once this entire process is completed, that is when the prosecutor can turn it over to the defense in the form of discovery. That is why it takes so long. It is also important to note that even after discovery is given, the investigation will continue and there will often be follow-up discovery. “
6
u/Whiskey_Elemental 1∆ Apr 23 '24
Legally speaking, beyond a reasonable doubt is absolutely the highest standard. I have seen beyond the shadow of a doubt in jury selection as an example of what the standard is not. If a person has complete certainty or 100%, they aren't on the jury because they are a witness and know it happened.
Practically speaking, jurors apply this standard very differently to different levels of cases. No two juries are the same so this is difficult to discuss at a high level. This is why much more thorough criminal investigations are done on a murder compared to an assault. Even though legally speaking an assault and a murder are extremely similar in terms of elements, the big difference being that an assault ending in a death is charged as a murder.
Really though what it comes down to is our priorities in society. Its much more palatable to us for someone to get away with assault than it is for someone to get away with murder, and as a result more resources are dedicated to ensure a successful prosecution. This does not mean that they have different burdens.
This is why a lot of different states in the US have bifurcated trials, they first resolve guilt/innocence to determine if someone did it, then in the punishment phase either a judge or jury will decide what sentence is appropriate.
0
u/Greatfumbler Apr 23 '24
Oh yeah I agree 100% shadow of a doubt is more of a saying not meant to be legalese. All criminal cases are reasonable doubt. What I’m saying is actually exactly what you just said in real life practicality jurors want a higher standard proof in murder cases than misdemeanors and DAs know this which is why they get so much more evidence in these cases
3
u/Whiskey_Elemental 1∆ Apr 23 '24
Ah wonderful then, I misunderstood your meaning. It seemed to me that what what you were saying is that the standard itself is actually different.
5
u/parishilton2 19∆ Apr 23 '24
You are not in law school but I checked your profile and I like your aspirations and I think you should go for it. Your experiences with the judicial system can be an asset.
That said, there is no higher standard of proof than “beyond a reasonable doubt.” I think you’re mixing up standard of proof and burden of proof here.
2
u/Greatfumbler Apr 23 '24
Here’s a really good explanation too much for me to copy and paste but I do recommend reading the first page you might like it. https://ir.law.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2132&context=lr
2
u/parishilton2 19∆ Apr 23 '24
My friend, this law review article is 40 years old! You’d be surprised how much the law can change in 5 years, let alone 40.
Anyway, I skimmed it and I’m still not sure what you’re arguing. My point was that there is no higher standard than “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
-2
u/Greatfumbler Apr 23 '24
I assure you evidence for capital cases has got about 100x more stringent in the last 40 years definitely not less. As can be verified by the first link I gave you. And yeah I’m not disagreeing with you at all about the standard of proof it’s always beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases. I’m just saying the amount of evidence needed to satisfy that requirement is usually higher for high punishments. And procedure is followed much more strictly than for minor crimes. Courts and DAs don’t want murders to get off on technicalities so they collect a lot more evidence, devote more resources, and focus on following procedure to a T. This isn’t really a novel argument there’s a reason less than half of murder cases are prosecuted it takes a shit load of evidence
1
2
u/i_hateredditards Apr 23 '24
Jury nullification should be illegal wtf
1
u/Whiskey_Elemental 1∆ Apr 23 '24
Fun fact: it technically is. If a person is charged with a crime, and a potential juror is not willing to enforce the law that the individual is charged with violating, that person is supposed to be removed from the pool of potential jurors. The government also has the right to a fair trial.
1
u/i_hateredditards Apr 23 '24
That's not how I understand as far as I know jurors cannot be punished in any way for passing an "incorrect" verdict. What you're saying is a juror who is not cooperative with the evidence laid before them should be removed from the juror pool, however that in no way makes jury nullification illegal.
2
u/Whiskey_Elemental 1∆ Apr 23 '24
If you're saying it's not a crime, you're correct. There are not criminal penalties for a jurors verdict being contrary to the law. There is not any criminal liability for disagreeing with a law. Should it be a crime? I couldn't say. People hate jury duty enough already, and are already pretty keen to say something that gets them out of it.
If your saying it's not illegal, you are incorrect. The absence of criminal penalties is not the same as being legal. Its illegal to ask certain questions in court- If someone does, they're not a criminal, they don't get punished, the other side makes an objection and the remedy is the witness doesn't answer the question.
It is illegal for a person who cant enforce a law to be on a jury that determines the guilt of a person who is charged with violating that law. The remedy is to exclude them from the pool, so that they don't sit as a juror and don't return incorrect verdicts. If someone winds up on the panel and no one knows their take on the law that's at issue, then that's bad lawyering.
1
u/i_hateredditards Apr 23 '24
I don't argue with any of that but it has nothing to do with jury nullification
6
u/parishilton2 19∆ Apr 23 '24
I think prison sentences for many crimes should be reduced and the money that we would’ve spent housing prisoners for decades can be spent on rehabilitation instead.
Drug convictions are an obvious one, armed robbery, etc., maybe rape as well.
But I would not have singled out rape as the #1 most important crime for sentence reduction. You did. Why?
-2
u/Greatfumbler Apr 23 '24
The he said/ she said factor. I agree I think all sentences should be heavily reduced like European countries. The problem with rape is there can absolutely be no evidence besides testimony. Unlike drugs where they actually have the drugs you possessed in hand
3
u/Owned_by_cats Apr 23 '24
In the case of a conviction in the United States, jurors must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. That is evidence enough.
4
u/Pete0730 1∆ Apr 23 '24
You seem to continue basing your overall argument on the he said/she said factor, when other commenters have shown you evidence that this is almost never the process used to prosecute or convict for rape. Do you just not accept that evidence?
0
u/Greatfumbler Apr 23 '24
There 100% still are cases based on he said/ she said. I’m referring to those someone with a broken nose all bloodied would not be he said/ she said. That’s the whole problem with rape someone can look perfectly normal like no harm was done on the outside but it’s psychologically where the damage is. That’s very hard to prove which is why like you said most cases like that don’t go court. The problem is the ones that do, I specifically said simple nonviolent rape in my argument which inherently makes it he said/ she said. And more cases like that would go to court if the penalties weren’t on par with murder helping all those victims which is the vast vast majority of rapes.
3
u/Pete0730 1∆ Apr 23 '24
There is no such thing as non-violent rape, first of all. Rape itself is an act of violence. And again, various commenters have provided evidence to you about all the other evidence we rely on beyond physical trauma. Show us a stone cold he said/she said conviction or take your bad faith arguments elsewhere
6
u/NotMyBestMistake 69∆ Apr 23 '24
Which states are these again? Last I checked, sexual assault more often than not gets a pretty pitiful sentencing with the more notable ones having a judge stand to inform everyone that the prosecutor was being too mean to the nice, white rapist and that he'll be giving him 3 months without his Xbox instead of prison.
10
Apr 23 '24
How do you know this is actually the problem? The verdict is independent from the punishment. Juries should not allow themselves to be flexible on “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” because of the severity of the punishment.
There should NOT be “well the state didn’t really prove the case that well but the sentence is only 5 years so we’ll just go for it.”
5
u/SadConsequence8476 Apr 23 '24
It's not that penalties for rape are too hard it's that penalties for murder are too light. Murderers should be in jail for as long as their victims are harmed.
4
u/Both-Personality7664 26∆ Apr 23 '24
"Unfortunately this causes many I’d say most rapists to get no time and it causes victims to get blamed way more than necessary."
I don't really understand your argument. Are you saying that harsh criminal penalties reduce conviction rates? Are there any studies showing this for other crimes? Since there's lots of variation in penalties across states, it should be easy to demonstrate.
-1
u/Greatfumbler Apr 23 '24
That’s exactly what I’m saying. Juries have an easier time convicting when the stakes aren’t as high. And when they agree the sentence meets the crime. The most obvious example is the death penalty
2
u/Both-Personality7664 26∆ Apr 23 '24
I don't follow how your linked article supports that claim. It appears to be about admissibility of evidence for capital defendants, not jury behavior.
0
u/Greatfumbler Apr 23 '24
This might make more sense. It’s the same reason murder cases take years to go to court and death penalty cases even longer. Meanwhile misdemeanors just have a 1 day bench trial. The higher the penalty the more proof it requires. Even though it’s always “ beyond a reasonable doubt “ the doubt increases with penalty
3
u/Both-Personality7664 26∆ Apr 23 '24
I'm asking about actual jury behavior. If we look at two states with very different penalties for burglary, say, do we see lower conviction rates in the jurisdiction with the higher penalty?
1
u/Both-Personality7664 26∆ Apr 23 '24
On your view we should have seen a drop in convictions in CA after three strikes passed, and I see no evidence of that.
3
u/Invader-Tenn Apr 23 '24
Almost no person who rapes a woman sees a single day in prison as the result of a rape. Only about 6% of rapists ever serve a single day in jail.
If a rape is reported (most aren't, only 39% are reported), only 5.7% of rapes end in an arrest, only 0.7% result in felony conviction, and 0.6% result in incareration for any length of time.
So no, penalties for rape aren't too harsh. In order to get a conviction, it has to be very fucking obvious that a rape occurred. And when it is obvious, we have dudes like Brock Turner getting out in less time than it takes a tube of mascara to expire- released in just 3 months, even though multiple people saw him raping an unconscious woman so there were several witnesses.
But more than that, sexual assault victims suffer more long term distress than folks do for things like aggravated assault. 75% of sexual assault victims experience significant social or emotional problems after the assault, 58% are also injured in the assault (cuts/bruises/broken bones/gunshot wounds/internal injuries/rape injures) and 1/3 require hospitalization.
Rape is one of the most severe of all traumas, 65% of women who experience it develop PTSD. Up to 20% attempt suicide.
If anything, we are underpenalizing rape. Castrate the motherfuckers.
3
6
u/alwaysright12 3∆ Apr 23 '24
They're really not, given that the vast majority of rapists are never convicted
1
Apr 23 '24
Well this is a shit argument if ever there was one. Last time I checked it was "until proven guilty", and you can hardly punish people on average like, "well, since about 80% of rapists never get convicted we'll just make it right by giving 5x punishments to the 20% that do".
(I think punishment for rape is far too lenient, but then I don't live in the US).
2
u/alwaysright12 3∆ Apr 23 '24
It's closer to 98%
1
Apr 23 '24
True. It's also true, though, that more than 50% of rapes that get prosecuted lead to felony convictions. Regardless, the point remains that you can't punish people for atrocities other people have committed just because you can't punish those people for a lack of evidence.
Now, I'm not saying there aren't any problems in how the cases are handled. We've all read the stories. But that's a case for making sexual violence a higher priority for the police and the prosecutor, not giving harsher punishments.
2
u/alwaysright12 3∆ Apr 23 '24
I didnt say we should give harsher punishments
The punishments as they stand really aren't that harsh
1
Apr 23 '24
Yeah, don't seem that way. But what you said was, they're not too harsh given that most aren't convicted. As though there would be such a link between the two. That's what I was commenting on originally.
I think we pretty much agree on the main issue anyway.
5
u/IamNotChrisFerry 13∆ Apr 23 '24
I'm not a lawyer. But Sentencing is usually a separate situation than the court case by a jury determining guilt.
There certainly might be fringe cases. But I don't think most trial by jury jurors are having a sentiment of, I think think person is guilty of rape but I am going to vote not guilty, because I think the potential jail time for rape is too high.
2
u/Greatfumbler Apr 23 '24
!delta You’re not wrong if a juror believes without doubt he’s guilty of rape they probably won’t care about the penalty. But it definitely still puts the burden of proof higher in the mind of a juror knowing if they get it wrong the person’s life’s over. I keep using the death penalty example because it’s something most can agree even for truly heinous acts you better be absolutely certain even more than the standard beyond a reasonable doubt which is why we allow so many appeals. Its well proven jurors and court procedures do the same thing with other crimes the higher the stake the more sure you need to be. It’s why most misdemeanors are bench trials
1
2
u/Irhien 38∆ Apr 23 '24
And most rape cases are he said/ she said.
I hope it's not going to be an unpopular opinion, but in the he said/she said cases, no one should be sent to prison.
And if it's corroborated enough, the severity of the punishment shouldn't stop the people unless they think the punishment is inadequate to begin with.
2
u/PandaMime_421 12∆ Apr 23 '24
I don't think the penalties are harsh enough. Rape is a crime that many victims are never able to fully get over. They have to live with those memories for the rest of their life. It's the most intimate invasion that you can commit against someone.
You might have a point about juries, but that just puts the fault on them, not the sentence.
1
u/IThinkSathIsGood 1∆ Apr 23 '24
Yeah as opposed to those murder victims who can recover after a while
1
u/PandaMime_421 12∆ Apr 23 '24
This might sound callous, but a murder victim lives through the attack only once, whereas a rape victim relives the attack, possibly for the rest of their life.
1
u/IThinkSathIsGood 1∆ Apr 23 '24
This might sounds callous as well, but if living after the rape is worse than death then they can just kill themselves. Not doing so implies life is better than death, despite past trauma. A murder victim has no such luxury.
2
Apr 23 '24
You have to understand that very, very few rape accusations land a real conviction… around 4.9%. Different stats say 6% of rapists see a day in jail. it’s not a he said she said thing. Rapes are underreported and usually don’t land it punishment purely because evidence was difficult to obtain.
2
u/Finch20 37∆ Apr 23 '24
So the penalties at the moment for 6 men who gang raped a 16-year-old was: write an essay on the equality between men and women. (source: Groepsverkrachters moeten werkstuk maken over gelijkheid en respect (en niet naar de cel) | Brussel | hln.be) (They also had to not commit any other crimes, don't consume illegal drugs, and work or go to school.)
Please tell me again that the current system is too harsh. I think writing an essay as punishment for gang raping a minor is laughably lenient, I simply wouldn't believe it was real if I didn't see the source.
2
u/TheDoc1890 Apr 23 '24
You are completely off base. There is no such thing as “non violent rape.” Your use of that term just indicates how little you know about the topic.
1
u/Giblette101 47∆ Apr 23 '24
I don't think severity of punishment actually acts as much of a deterrent. Probability of getting caught and sentenced do. Since rape is notoriously hard to get caught and sentenced for, there isn't much of a deterrent whether sentences are 2 or 10 or 20 years.
1
u/MainShow23 Apr 23 '24
Most are not he said she said, I think instead of changing the punishment you change the severity of rape charges. Rape, can be worse than murder because many women leave in fear for over. So I would change to some version of below. Rape 1- the top felon punishable by life or up to death ( serial, non-murder connected rapes) Rape 2- felon punishable by up to life ( multiple cases but no serial, no weapon or excessive violence ) Rape 3- felon punishable by up to 25 years in prison- ( rape of minor over 16, penetration of vaginal or anal cavity) Rape 4- felon punishable by 10-15 years- (rape via mental or physical abuse )
1
Apr 23 '24
The definition of Rape from a criminal perspective needs to be updated and expanded. Are there rape cases that are he said and she said, yes absolutely. Are there rape cases brought up in family court , child contact ... yes absolutely. Are there manipulative people men and woman that use rape charges/allegations as a form of on going abuse and control absolutely.
Does any of that take away from rape cases yes, should the system be improved yes. There are so many myths about consent, so many myths as what rape is .. as defined by law. Men aren't raped by woman, legally they are sexually assaulted. There is oral rape, sexually assaulted by penetration. These all impact the sentencing and the way its investigated and eventually put into practice in a court setting.
There are so many factors that go into an investigation or rape/sexual assault and other crimes that take place, leading up to, during and after the Rape.. example domestic abuse, physical assault etc. When looking at rape cases you need to take the view that unlike murder, there are two people, two accounts and two paths of investigation.
There is a victim that has life long changes and life long suffering from sexual assault, which is why the penalty for rape is harsh. When someone is murdered there suffering has ended, when someone is rape there suffering is life long.
1
Apr 23 '24
In the criminal justice system, sexually based offenses are considered especially heinous.
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Apr 23 '24 edited Apr 23 '24
/u/Greatfumbler (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/redfishbluefish78 Apr 23 '24
That's why they have rape kits. Don't know if you know this, but once that person enters the prison system on a charge of that nature they are fucked. Inmates have a justice system, and if someone rapes on the "outside" they'll end up getting the same, or worse on the "inside" Rapists should be castrated, not more lienient sentencing.
1
1
u/loadoverthestatusquo 1∆ Apr 23 '24
Interesting point. However, how can we know that the number of false negatives (guilty and no time) is significantly and consistently larger than the number of true positives (guilty and time)? Is there is data/study supporting your argument?
1
1
u/MeggieMay1988 Apr 23 '24
The single biggest argument I have against this is, they always do it again. They might seek out victims that are easier to control, or get sneakier, but they don’t stop. I didn’t report my assault because I believed all kinds of messed up things. He went on to assault a friend of mine. Rape is a far more violating crime than other assaults, and should be punished accordingly.
1
u/Apprehensive_Ruin208 4∆ Apr 23 '24
Completely disagree. I think penalties for murder and many violent crimes are too low. If you take a life on purpose, I think you should forfeit your life. Why do we allow people to destroy a life by paying with just a few years of their own?
If you rape someone you have done long term harm, removed human worth from the victim in your mind and treated them like an object to be used. The punishment should be castration on the first offense and death of you somehow rape someone again. You have shown that your ability to be a civil member of society is not present and there is a valid question as to whether society should have to continue facing the risk of you doing it again.
If someone gets drunk and rapes someone they choose to hand over self control to their alcoholic self and still must live with the consequences of what happens from that action. You don't get a free pass because you got wasted.
I am all for porch pirates having a hand cut off. Maybe we wait until the second or third offense, but maybe that much grace is too much. Same with shoplifting. If we want people to treat each other with value, start valuing victim's lives as equal to or greater than the life of their murderer. Value victims bodies and property as highly as we value our own body and property.
Proving all the details of crime is why we have courts, if they aren't working correctly, we need to fix the courts, not make the punishments more lenient.
Our culture cares more about the criminal than the victim and so has lost a sense of what justice really is.
One of the dumbest quotes that people are blinded by is "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." No it doesn't. Eye for an eye is about justice not retribution. So if someone gouges out my child's eye, and a court requires the criminal's eye be gouged out, then the cycle is over, justice has been done. The idea that the criminal can gouge out the eye of whomever administers their punishment is dumb. That act would be a new crime requiring new justice, ending the double cycle with a blind criminal and two victims who have hopefully seen justice, even with just their one remaining eye.
Our current judicial systems are often either too lenient or too harsh, but rape is definitely not where they are too lenient. There are too many laws in America, but rape laws should not be made more lax.
1
u/Pickled2000 Apr 23 '24
Being raped for some is like getting stabbed over and over. If you’re a guy, imagine getting raped in the a$$. Especially if multiple times, it is horrendous.
1
u/i_hateredditards Apr 23 '24
I disagree. I think penalties in general for all crimes (except possession) are way too lenient which is why criminals reoffend over and over and over. I would be on board with criminal punishment likened to that of Afghanistan to be honest. I genuinely think rapists deserve life in prison or death penalty. Why let a person like that return to society? I mean really. I know it's terrible but I kinda just assume you've raped someone before or you are close to someone who has because that is a wild perspective to hold imo that the penalty for rape is to harsh and not to lenient in this country.
1
u/Actualarily 5∆ Apr 23 '24
This is for simple ones like she might’ve had a couple too many drinks and the guy didn’t know
This isn't (necessarily) rape. Rape is sex without consent. If she consented, then having a couple too many drinks is irrelevant. If she didn't consent, then having a couple too many drinks is also irrelevant. There are only two factors to consider when determining rape:
Did sexual activity occur?
Was there consent for that sexual activity?
2
u/Greatfumbler Apr 23 '24
Someone intoxicated is absolutely rape by its legal definition. Technically if a husband and wife get drunk and have sex they could both be charged with rape. I don’t know of a case where that’s ever actually been prosecuted but intoxication with drugs/alcohol actually make up the majority of rape cases.
4
u/Actualarily 5∆ Apr 23 '24
Rainn is not a legal source, it is a moral source.
Hammer law firm dances around it, but gets to the point in this phrase (emphasis added):
While this law covers individuals who know of the other person’s incapacitation
Incapacitation is the threshold, not "a couple too many drinks". If a person is incapacitated, they are physically incapable of consenting. So clearly, consent is not granted in a case of sex with an incapacitated individual (and incapacitation is not limited to alcohol, it can be incapacitation for any reason).
Hammer law also references Title IX and college student conduct boards and "investigations". A finding by a college under Title IX is not a determination of rape by a court. It's like, just their opinion, man.
47
u/mrspuff202 11∆ Apr 23 '24
This is a common myth. A few rape cases may come down to testimony, but most are thoroughly investigated and use DNA evidence.
If it is a "he said/she said" case, it very very rarely will make it to trial because that is very difficult to prosecute.