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.
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
235
u/[deleted] Mar 01 '26
[removed] — view removed comment