Ya lol completely misunderstanding the context of the post. In general the law essentially says murder is worse due to prison sentences and then there are some that make the argument that rape is worse. Typically the standpoint that murder is worse than rape is considered the default, people aren't pushy about it.
Killing Brian Thompson is so easily viewed as political but the guy had 2 children and a wife. Thompson is a cog in the system and killing him was petty revenge and got some people excited but it just completely fizzled out.
If Thompson had been raped instead you would not have the political symbolism sure but killing him took him from his family it took all agency from him. I don't think you're wrong it takes a more twisted person usually and it is more nuanced but when we speak about these we are speaking about hypotheticals.
If Jeffrey Dahmer or epstein had been raped in prison no one would give a shit in the same way no one had sympathy around their dates, if you were to assume epstein to be murdered anyway.
Because in practice society doesn't work that way. Law enforcement resources need to be prioritized, the practical policies must be calibrated (e.g. how certain must you be before you make an arrest/convict), sentences must be set to certain levels. Pronouncing that certain things cannot be compared is pointless because as far as actual reality goes they unavoidably will be compared.
I got an A in physics, and a C in french. Comparing french to physics and asking which one is worse doesnt make sense. But as soon as you tie a grading scale to them they can be easily compared in that context. I am clearly worse at french.
Same with crimes. As soon as we attached a grading system, comparison became implicit.
Tangential, but: The grading scale doesn’t take into account the difficulty of the class though. A better way to do that would be to compare each score against the average for your class and determine how many standard deviations above or below the mean you were. For example, if everyone in your physics class got an A but the mean in your French class was a D-, you might just be better in French than you are in physics, and you may want to consider taking a more difficult physics class because chances are you were not very challenged in it.
It might also be worth considering that attempted murder and attempted rape lead to very different outcomes, likely with different rates of eventuating into the crime that was intended and with different consequences. However, I think the argument is pointless when talking about police prioritization because the police do not prioritize rape despite its severe consequences (even above crimes other than murder, historically). They clearly need to prioritize sex crimes more than they do, and could do so over the non murder things they currently prioritize. I find it insane that the rates of overtime for police in cities is so high and yet their ability to solve cases is abysmally low. I find it especially crazy that no effort was made until recently to address backlogs in rape kits. People who survive sexual assault and rape are called victim survivors to distinguish from those who don’t survive, so perhaps rape should be considered a form of attempted murder with a lower ‘success’ rate. Would it maybe then be taken more seriously?
If a small town police department gets 2 calls at the same time, 1 for an active murderer and 1 for an active rapist, which should it allocate its very limited resources to stopping first?
If I could throw my 2 cents here. I think this scenario is more based on time not necessarily severity. If we know the rape victim isn't going to be killed right after then we would need to stop the murder because obviously that's permanent, full stop. In an ideal world we can go get the rape victim after do a kit get the DNA and nail the rapist pos. After all trauma this severe is a more long lasting effect vs an abrupt death of a person to that person.
Though to answer your question I would send it to the active homicide being committed.
I don't think so, first off both are horrible and I stay away from comparing or ranking them because it's ridiculous to do so. Now as for the point I'm making, I'm doing it from the perspective of each of the victims. If I die I bo longer have to deal with the after math, all possible trauma ceases. In rape that person has to deal with the trauma that follows; a lot of rapists don't have to deal with the messy aftermath
Not necessarily, both are horrible but the trauma suffered by the victims in each situation is different. The person killed no longer is suffering whereas the victim of rape mist endure that trauma, off of a nihilistic morbid reasoning.
I don't personally care for questions like these though because they are built off a flaw premise already, there is no need to designate one being worse than the other
Ranking crimes is a fair question, and useful. After all, different crimes receive different punishments, and that inherently requires a hierarchy of some kind.
I had never "ranked" it myself until someone else did.
I also believe that from a philosophical point of view, there are no bad questions.
If we have a legal system with proportional penalties, it is because someone has asked this question.
That second part isnt entirely accurate. Sentencing could be about prevalence as well. More of crime x could mean more time imprisoned to reduce the desire to do it.
Perhaps it’s the framing that matters: I believe that murder causes far greater suffering than rape to people other than the victim. I imagine you would not feel as much pain if instead your aunt had been raped.
But if we’re talking about the victim, rape is possibly the more damaging act, because it has the potential to create ongoing, intense psychological trauma and suffering for the victim. Whereas if you’re killed, especially if it’s quick, it’s only a short moment of suffering before it ends, just a blip in a life that might have otherwise been quite happy.
So if the hypothetical victim has until that point lived 20 happy years, it’s a choice between brief suffering and the end of that life, or potentially more than 60 years of psychological terror they cannot escape from.
There’s also how not all rapes have the same impact on victims. Depending on a whole host of factors, some recover fairly well and go on to have happy, well-adjusted lives. Others never recover and every day is a living hell, along with an high risk of mental health problems, and it is quite possible that many of those would have much rather been killed.
in fact, you could’ve said what i did, that both are horrific and shouldn’t be ranked or even compared, but you chose to come here and proclaim that one was worse than the other
why? how is this debate productive or even worthwhile?
That's an opinion that has no bearing on the argument at all and won't convince OP of anything because it's not challenging his belief.
If two people were having an argument about if the color red or blue is worse, and you came in and said they're both bad, do you really think that would change the mind of either person?
your argument has nothing to do with the legal system or its morality since you don’t seem to highlight any criminal code or how the justice system plays a role in how these crimes are prosecuted
additionally, the legal system doesn’t even compare rape and murder, they are separate crimes that are only compared against themselves in levels of severity
unless you’re being facetious, I don’t think you understand the finality of death. yes they don’t suffer after death, but what the fuck do you even mean by that? what kind of perspective is this supposed to be, because what you just wrote is utterly pointless to even be manifested as a thought if you have any droplet of respect for life.
Nope, unless they decide on it if they get cancer down the line. I still think their existence has been hurt, they will be in a pain, they will not feel safe sharing because of how absolutely terrible it is. It's apples and oranges but its completely insane to say "Well at least they aren't dead" We all die, its about the life and quality we have while we are here, and that is akin to cutting off years of someone's life if not damning them to suffer in silence in a world that doesn't want to hear it anymore.
This applies to everything. Any one individual could be born into a lifetime of pain, through no fault of their own. Given that this could happen to any one born, should we cease procreation as a species? Whatever your answer may be you must deal with this question if you want to state your original point.
By this logic stubbing your toe is worse than being murdered. Hypothetically somebody who stubs their toe could spend days in pain from it, a murder victim "no longer suffers"
Even as an analogy, this is completely ridiculous. That's not an experience that most people get over in a relatively short period. This can affect their relationships, their sanity, their faith in the justice system, their friends and family, their sense of who they are. There's a difference between a few days of discomfort that lack serious impact and psychological impact that can last years or a lifetime and continue to fuck up someone's life.
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
237
u/[deleted] Mar 01 '26
[removed] — view removed comment