Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

sebster wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Okay, since you want to play it like this...

Rape IS a clear-cut case.
It's having sex with someone against their will.
Period. End of story. Is that too complicated or do you want me to draw you a picture with crayons?

I'm not sure how experienced you are, but I can tell you that there is a common dynamic where the man will try and talk the girl into having sex. Exactly where persuasion stops and intimidation begins is a very vague, subjective line, especially when one or both parties have been drinking. And that these cases make up the overwhelming majority of rapes.

As long as you keep pretending rape consists entirely of men in dark alleys with balaclavas and paedophilia you can keep pretending all rape is cut and dry. But in the real world its a very difficult, very subjective issue.

Except most of the cases where one party is drinking and makes a mistake, then cries rape afterwards--do you know what happens?
Amazingly enough:
It gets THROWN OUT. Because it becomes a he said/she said case. Unless there is evidence from other parties involved--there isn't much that they can do in these sorts of cases. Once again--because it's a he said/she said. Amazingly enough, courts are also starting to toss this down to civil suits in these kinds of cases because they happen so frequently because of dumbasses not realizing "maybe it's NOT such a great idea to sleep with this liquored up bimbo".

But hey. What do I know. I make a point to avoid situations where I might end up bringing home a bar skank who's been known to cry rape.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:Are we going to get into this argument again?

If a person was drugged, forcibly intoxicated, intimidated with threats of violence against themselves or loved ones--

Any acceptance is null and void, and should be considered coerced.

If one or both parties being drunk means any consent ... then just about 80% of sex is rape, with both parties raping each other.


There's also the issue that requiring express consent simply isn't practical. "Excuse me, do I have consent to place my hand on your inner thigh?" "Excuse me, do I have consent to place my hand under your shirt?"

Protip:
If you're not in a stable relationship and relying on someone to get drunk to get laid...

You will be accused of "rape" more than once. It's a common thing when a girl wakes up with a regrettable choice in partner.

So probably not a good idea for people to be killed via rape accusations.

If they're unfounded rape accusations?

Yeah, probably not a good idea.

But hey, crazy fact.

Most rapists don't just rape once.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

sebster wrote:I think we're getting away from the point here. What I'm saying is that what really matters is that people were killed in a drunk driving incident. Our priority should be on stopping such incidents in the future, and the extremity of the punishment has little to no effect on that. What will stop future deaths is changing the drinking culture and changing the revhead culture.

I think leveling more severe punishments for basic drunk driving could help to reduce accidents; especially for multiple offenses.

I agree that making the punishments very severe once something actually happens isn't going to be as helpful, though. The drivers usually aren't expecting to hit someone; they think they're exceptional, etc. So, in that regard, I don't think executing the footballer would really be a good idea.

Yeah, fair point on increased penalties for straight up drunk driving. I think we’re basically in agreement.

Kanluwen wrote:Except most of the cases where one party is drinking and makes a mistake, then cries rape afterwards--do you know what happens?
Amazingly enough:
It gets THROWN OUT. Because it becomes a he said/she said case. Unless there is evidence from other parties involved--there isn't much that they can do in these sorts of cases. Once again--because it's a he said/she said. Amazingly enough, courts are also starting to toss this down to civil suits in these kinds of cases because they happen so frequently because of dumbasses not realizing "maybe it's NOT such a great idea to sleep with this liquored up bimbo".

But hey. What do I know. I make a point to avoid situations where I might end up bringing home a bar skank who's been known to cry rape.

I was almost agreeing with until that last part, but then you had to go and imply that its about skanks crying rape. Never at all possible that a girl could actually be date raped.

Protip:
If you're not in a stable relationship and relying on someone to get drunk to get laid...

The hell? When you go out for dinner and a show, have a few in a bar afterwards then take a taxi home… you’re both drunk and you’re likely to end up having some fun. You’re not relying alcohol, but it’s a basic reality that you’re more likely to get some action when you’ve both been drinking.

Kanluwen wrote:If they're unfounded rape accusations?

Yeah, probably not a good idea.

But hey, crazy fact.

Most rapists don't just rape once.

Ok? Are we defending rape=dead, or am I mistaken?

*turns on flamethrower*

Well I suppose if the death penalty was good enough for Jesus of Nazareth it is good enough for or criminals.

*runs away*

Orkeosaurus wrote:By your logic, the death penalty should still be abolished, simply because of the possibility of it going wrong, regardless of how slim that possibility is, or what the possibility of the alternative going wrong is. Meanwhile, no other sentence is held to this standard; I just don't understand how death is so much different. Or maybe you're trying to say something else entirely, and I'm misunderstanding you.

I think this is where our thought processes diverge. I think that killing someone is quite different from throwing them into jail for the rest of their lives. I just don't get this willingness to systematically murder innocents.
This feels like arguing whether the sky is blue or not.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I don't really know where you're going with the jury thing; I suppose I could see the death penalty being applied in extreme cases (i.e. framing someone, making it first degree murder), but I don't know that there's widespread support for killing people who have killed another by accident, especially one they're not at fault in.

As for the jury thing, I did mention it was an exaggeration. But even so, a system that first murders someone innocent and then turns around and says that it's not to blame, is not a good system. Again, I'm at loss as to how to argue this with someone who just seems to have a significantly different view of something of what I've always considered to be obvious. We may just have to agree to disagree on this.

sebster wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Except most of the cases where one party is drinking and makes a mistake, then cries rape afterwards--do you know what happens?
Amazingly enough:
It gets THROWN OUT. Because it becomes a he said/she said case. Unless there is evidence from other parties involved--there isn't much that they can do in these sorts of cases. Once again--because it's a he said/she said. Amazingly enough, courts are also starting to toss this down to civil suits in these kinds of cases because they happen so frequently because of dumbasses not realizing "maybe it's NOT such a great idea to sleep with this liquored up bimbo".

But hey. What do I know. I make a point to avoid situations where I might end up bringing home a bar skank who's been known to cry rape.

I was almost agreeing with until that last part, but then you had to go and imply that its about skanks crying rape. Never at all possible that a girl could actually be date raped.

You have to be mentally defective or something.
The MOST COMMON false rape allegations are--skanks crying rape. Gee. Whodathunkit. It's a popular blackmail tactic, it's a popular civil suit tactic, and it's becoming far too common in this day and age because of the fact it's too easy to play it up for all it's worth in the court of public opinion and get a big media frenzy going around a case. Duke Lacrosse=best example of that tactic.

Date rape is, again, something that can be investigated and found to be either unfounded accusations/trying to cover up sexual relations or an actual claim.

sebster wrote:

Protip:
If you're not in a stable relationship and relying on someone to get drunk to get laid...

The hell? When you go out for dinner and a show, have a few in a bar afterwards then take a taxi home… you’re both drunk and you’re likely to end up having some fun. You’re not relying alcohol, but it’s a basic reality that you’re more likely to get some action when you’ve both been drinking.

Then keep it in your damned pants, moron. It's not hard to ensure that you don't do something stupid while under the influence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:If they're unfounded rape accusations?

Yeah, probably not a good idea.

But hey, crazy fact.

Most rapists don't just rape once.

Ok? Are we defending rape=dead, or am I mistaken?

Be more specific. Are you asking if I'm saying that rape should be a death penalty offense?

In which case, yes it should. However, I see no issue with having a timeframe between the sentencing and the actual execution in rape cases. Like you and I discussed earlier here--it takes time to catch a false victim in their line of BS or to confirm it.

The serial rapist angle also allows for cases to be added on or removed with follow-up investigations.

Ahh, the death penalty. this conversation is a classic.

Here's what the death penalty isn't"

An effective deterrent. It has some deterrence value, but if it was a crazy liberal social program, it'd be castigated as ineffective.

Cheap or economical. Given the realities of US criminal procedure (which cant' change absent amending the constitution and/or shifting fundamentally our idea of justice) it's cheaper to keep them in prison than to execute, or at least comparable.

Necessary for the protection of the body politic. Life in prison w/o possiblity of parole eliminates the threat.

Fairly or evenly applied. Look at the stats of whose executed, and more tellingly, who they murdered, and the patterns reveal a deeply discriminatory trend. Young, ignorant, and minority perps who kill white women are vastly more likely to be executed for the same crime. This can be fixed, but as it currently stands it's not really just.

What is the death penalty?

A useful tool for prosectutors to get suspects to take plea deals.

A strong from of catharsis for victims and society in general.

A way of feeding some ancient idea of justice and/or honor.

I don't have a real moral problem with the Death Penalty, but I'm not naive enough to think it's a good social policy (in which the benefits outweigh the costs), as I simply don't value the need for revenge that highly. And you don't need to talk about the death penalty long before that emotion is revealed as the core behind it's support.

Kanluwen wrote:Then keep it in your damned pants, moron. It's not hard to ensure that you don't do something stupid while under the influence.

It won't let me though, moron... this is socially awkward...



It is also not hard to do a walking handstand, and to juggle as well, because we all know how to keep a clear head after a solid six pack right?

Kanluwen wrote:You have to be mentally defective or something.
The MOST COMMON false rape allegations are--skanks crying rape. Gee. Whodathunkit. It's a popular blackmail tactic, it's a popular civil suit tactic, and it's becoming far too common in this day and age because of the fact it's too easy to play it up for all it's worth in the court of public opinion and get a big media frenzy going around a case. Duke Lacrosse=best example of that tactic.

Date rape is, again, something that can be investigated and found to be either unfounded accusations/trying to cover up sexual relations or an actual claim.

Yeah, but you're treating the difference between false rape claims and actual date rape as self evident. Turns out you actually need courts to figure those things out.

Then keep it in your damned pants, moron. It's not hard to ensure that you don't do something stupid while under the influence.

So you're saying at this point you wouldn't sleep with your partner if either of you had been drinking... That's not a particularly practical line approach.

Relapse wrote:I understand the concern of executing an innocent man, but how much more common is it that a paroled murderer kills someone else after they get out?
It could be an interesting statistic to look into.

It would also be interesting to see how many paroled murderers have become upstanding members of society after their release.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A moderator said:

I notice a couple of guys in this thread whose posting style has gone into the personal attack zone.

You know who, and you know it's against the rules.

When discussing an emotive issue such as rape and the death penalty, it is very important to look at facts not just opinions.

Kilkrazy wrote:A moderator said:

I notice a couple of guys in this thread whose posting style has gone into the personal attack zone.

You know who, and you know it's against the rules.

When discussing an emotive issue such as rape and the death penalty, it is very important to look at facts not just opinions.

I think one of those people was me? I apologize for not calling him a pile of bananas, in regards to his comment towards sebster.

...o...k...

Rape IS a clear-cut case.
It's having sex with someone against their will.
Period. End of story. Is that too complicated or do you want me to draw you a picture with crayons?

Then keep it in your damned pants, moron. It's not hard to ensure that you don't do something stupid while under the influence.

You have to be mentally defective or something

@Kanluwen - If you can't be right, at least be polite.

If you can do this with crayons though... I would like to see it anyway .

glory wrote:I think this is where our thought processes diverge. I think that killing someone is quite different from throwing them into jail for the rest of their lives. I just don't get this willingness to systematically murder innocents.
This feels like arguing whether the sky is blue or not.

As for the jury thing, I did mention it was an exaggeration. But even so, a system that first murders someone innocent and then turns around and says that it's not to blame, is not a good system. Again, I'm at loss as to how to argue this with someone who just seems to have a significantly different view of something of what I've always considered to be obvious. We may just have to agree to disagree on this.

Well... if you really think there's such a huge difference between living the rest of your life locked in a cage and dying may be we will have to agree to disagree. They both seems rather similar to me.

I guess it's a system of values though. Was the North justified in killing Southerners during the U.S. Civil War to end slavery? I would say they were.

Polonius wrote:I don't have a real moral problem with the Death Penalty, but I'm not naive enough to think it's a good social policy (in which the benefits outweigh the costs), as I simply don't value the need for revenge that highly.

That's about where I stand; in it's current incarnation (in the United States) it's not too useful. I'd keep the possibility for it open, should it become more cost-effective/applied more objectively.

One thing I'm still interested in is the number of innocent/likely innocent executions versus innocent/likely innocent imprisonment. As others have noted, there seems to be an emotional reaction to the death penalty that might be influencing it unduly, but there's also a more in-depth (and expensive) appeals process, so I'm wondering how they balance out.

I do like revenge, but as I said above, I don't think prison is a great place to be either.

Albatross wrote:@Kanluwen

morons here stating that rape shouldn't be a death penalty offense

You sound a little hysterical here - climb down from your high-horse. My point was that rape cases are not cut-and-dried, and not as easy to detect as 'Murder by Blunt Object To The Head', for example . You've just spent a page arguing the same point in a roundabout way.

found something on thejusticecenter.org:

The United States now stands alone with countries such as Cuba, China, Egypt,
and Saudi Arabia in authorizing the death penalty for non-homicide rape.

As you can see, America is in sparkling company.... So, what you're saying is that the rest of the world is WRONG on this issue, and that you, China (which also executes tax-evaders), Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Cuba are RIGHT?


And you say I'M a moron?

ZOMG! You insulteded me!

Grow a thicker skin.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:You have to be mentally defective or something.
The MOST COMMON false rape allegations are--skanks crying rape. Gee. Whodathunkit. It's a popular blackmail tactic, it's a popular civil suit tactic, and it's becoming far too common in this day and age because of the fact it's too easy to play it up for all it's worth in the court of public opinion and get a big media frenzy going around a case. Duke Lacrosse=best example of that tactic.

Date rape is, again, something that can be investigated and found to be either unfounded accusations/trying to cover up sexual relations or an actual claim.

Yeah, but you're treating the difference between false rape claims and actual date rape as self evident. Turns out you actually need courts to figure those things out.

Then keep it in your damned pants, moron. It's not hard to ensure that you don't do something stupid while under the influence.

So you're saying at this point you wouldn't sleep with your partner if either of you had been drinking... That's not a particularly practical line approach.

No, it's not a practical line approach. But that's how I've been living my adult life, so far.

And in regards to the false rape claims/date rape:

Have I said that it needs to be accusation, trial, execution with no stops for investigating?

No. In fact, I've stated NUMEROUS times that it takes TIME for proof to come forward. It's one of the biggest downfalls of the system right now, because yes--there ARE a lot of false rape convictions. DNA evidence is starting to help a lot in clearing those up, but that still does not mean that it shouldn't be a death penalty offense once the crime is actually proved.

Ahtman wrote:*turns on flamethrower*

Well I suppose if the death penalty was good enough for Jesus of Nazareth it is good enough for or criminals.

*runs away*

Well played sir.

ZOMG! You insulteded me!

Grow a thicker skin.

Converse like an adult, it's not too much to ask, man....
Someone had made the point that the death-penalty should apply to all rape cases - my point was that there are shades of grey in cases such as these, too many to make the DP viable in EVERY case. You seem to share this opinion, so I'm not sure why you decided to burst into flames and insult a bunch of people. If you disagree with someone, you should still try to be mature about it. Now, I would never support the DP for rape - but that's beside the point.

Rape is almost never about sexual desire, it is about exerting power over the victim.

Regardless of the lifestyle choices a person has made, we are all protected by the same laws and should be treated equaly.

I recently had a heated discussion with my house mate about a prostitute who was raped, she felt that it wasn't possible to rape a prostitute and that at worst all the attacker should be charged with was non payment for services rendered.

She failed to understand that the justice system in the UK is not interested in the individual, niether is it interested in wether or not the accused comited the crime. All the courts are interested in is seeing that the procedure is followed correctly, to the courts the outcome is irrelevant because if the Police and the CPS have done their job properly then the acccused will always be the person who comited the alledged offence and therefor will always be found guilty and punished.

I went on to ask her how she would feel if a friend or family member was raped by someone the Police had not previously charged because all their prior attacks were against prostitutes and therefor not considered to be rape, just agrevated theft. She didn't have an answer for that.

Rape can be very difficult to prove or disprove, that is why there are so few prosecutions and convictions. Many cases never make it to court as the victims are to scared or embarassed to come forward or give evidence. There are also a huge amount of variables to take into account, especialy where alcohol and drugs are involved.

Whilst I am an advocate for the re-introduction of the death penalty, I do not believe it should be used lightly, and only when guilt has been proved not only beyond reasonable doubt but also with overwhelming evidence.

Serial rapists I feel should be executed, as should first time rapists who carry out a violent sexual assualt. However someone who took advantage of a person whilst drunk or otherwise incapacitated needs closer consideration. As always every case is different so therefor every case should be judged individualy.

Kanluwen wrote:
Be more specific. Are you asking if I'm saying that rape should be a death penalty offense?

Yes.

Kanluwen wrote:
In which case, yes it should. However, I see no issue with having a timeframe between the sentencing and the actual execution in rape cases. Like you and I discussed earlier here--it takes time to catch a false victim in their line of BS or to confirm it.

The serial rapist angle also allows for cases to be added on or removed with follow-up investigations.

That would involve massive changes to criminal law.

dogma wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
Be more specific. Are you asking if I'm saying that rape should be a death penalty offense?

Yes.

Kanluwen wrote:
In which case, yes it should. However, I see no issue with having a timeframe between the sentencing and the actual execution in rape cases. Like you and I discussed earlier here--it takes time to catch a false victim in their line of BS or to confirm it.

The serial rapist angle also allows for cases to be added on or removed with follow-up investigations.

That would involve massive changes to criminal law.

Is change really such a bad thing though?

In this instance, yes.

You're essentially rescinding the right to a timely trial.

How so?

I said that the rapist's file should remain open, with the possibility of adding on additional rapes if they come to light. I also said that the authorities need to actually start watching the victim over time, rather than just rushing a prosecution because it's convenient.

Kanluwen wrote:How so?

This part.

Kanluwen wrote:
I also said that the authorities need to actually start watching the victim over time, rather than just rushing a prosecution because it's convenient.

I don't see the problem...

So what if it takes a decent amount of time for the case to reach a conclusion?

It's a far better way to operate than having to payout after clearing someone through appeals.

Indefinite limbo while waiting for prosecution leads to sentencing without conviction.

@squilverine - Pretty much agreed with everything in your last post. Did you watch 'The Force' last night? Documentary on 4 about a specialist rape squad. Seemed to draw the conclusion that there are a lot of grey areas when it comes to detecting rape. There were 15,000 rapes reported in the UK last year, but less than 1000 convictions.
Food for thought...

dogma wrote:Indefinite limbo while waiting for prosecution leads to sentencing without conviction.

We both can agree that justice needs to be done, rape is a difficult crime to prove(reliably), and that there's no real easy way to deal with it.

Right?

Let's call it quits and tackle the real issue.

Why the hell they let a bunch of convicted life sentencees out in my backyard