Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Don Opposes Capital Rape
Townhall.com ^ | April 19, 2013 | Mike Adams

Posted on 04/19/2013 5:12:44 AM PDT by Kaslin

Don is angry with me. He cannot understand why I support punishing rapists with death while simultaneously defending the rights of the unborn. He accuses me of applying double standards, promoting hypocrisy, and of being "inconsistent." But I am perfectly consistent in my beliefs. And, truth be known, so is Don.

The reason so many people are unfairly labeled as "inconsistent" is because the term "double standard" is applied in such a haphazard fashion. People are actually guilty of applying a double standard when they treat two identical things differently. On the other hand, they are not applying a double standard when they treat two different things differently. They are just applying common sense.

It’s pretty easy to see that I am not applying a double standard in opposing abortion and supporting the death penalty. An unborn child is not the same thing as a convicted murderer. In fact, no unborn child has ever committed murder. Forgive me for going out on a limb, here. But we are dealing with different things.

Of course, opposition to abortion and support of capital punishment is perfectly consistent with respect for innocent life. Abortion must be stopped because it takes an innocent life. Murderers must be stopped because they take innocent lives. And nothing deters like capital punishment. No executed man has ever become a recidivist.

Those liberals who claim the lack of a "general deterrence" effect of capital punishment are to be dismissed as smug hypocrites. General deterrence refers to the discouragement of would-be offenders – as opposed to those already convicted of crimes. Of course, general deterrence is not possible when the appellate process extends over a period of decades. The would-be killer is not deterred because he knows that punishment would not swiftly follow his offense. That is due to the almost endless appeals in capital cases. These endless appeals are caused by liberals who block any and all efforts to reform the process. Therefore, they lack the moral authority to protest the condition they have created.

Of course, my desire to extend the death penalty to cover first degree rape does not introduce inconsistency into my worldview. The convicted rapist is not an innocent human being. Additionally, I want to insure that if the victim becomes pregnant, she can kill someone in order to assuage the memory of the rape. Presently, too many people would prefer that she kill the innocent child. I would rather spare the innocent child and kill the guilty rapist. See how I keep coming back to a concern for saving innocent life? You may disagree with me. But at least I’m consistent.

Of course, Don thinks I’m crazy. And there's a reason for that. He likes having sex with a lot of women. In fact, besides smoking pot and bombing my Facebook page, there's nothing he enjoys more than "getting a little strange" - as he likes to say.

Don's sex life is relevant to the discussion because it is the only reason he supports unrestricted abortion. He has an otterbox to protect his iPhone. But he won't wear a condom to protect himself during sex. If the woman won't assume the responsibility he shirks, he must rely on abortion as a back-up plan. Otherwise there would be a lot of little Dons running around - and one less Don Juan hitting the bars looking for some "strange."

Of course, Don consistently employs the rape exception in abortion debates because the issue makes pro-lifers seem calloused towards women. He also uses the rape victims in debates so he can keep using women for sex after the debate is over. I always agree with him when he says a woman has a right to terminate a life in order to help assuage the painful memory of rape. We just disagree on which life should be terminated. Don thinks she should have a doctor kill the baby by dismemberment. I think she should have a prison doctor kill the rapist with a lethal injection - after a fair trial, of course.

Don fights back hard when I say rape should be a capital crime. But he's just being consistent. The more he sleeps around, the greater the likelihood he will be charged with rape. Therefore, it is in his best interest to promote leniency in the law of rape - the kind of leniency he is unwilling to extend to the unborn.

My friend Don says we can’t legislate morality. What he really means is that we shouldn't legislate morality because it would interfere with his sex life. His reasoning is strangely consistent. It is also consistently selfish.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: abortion; acultureoflife; deathpenalty; rape
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-69 next last
To: Mrs. Don-o
That's what you get when you buy fully into the whole "consenting adult" meme. Nothing someone consents to can possibly be wrong, because to admit that would be to admit that some sexual practices are objectively wrong, which is to say immoral.

And we can't have that, because it (to their minds) creates a slippery slope where their own personal perversion can be similarly questioned.

In case you're wondering, I have two daughters and am fully in favor of death penalty for "actual" rape. The only two problems are the idea of executing someone for actions that are wrong illegal only because of the POV of the "victim," and the possibility that capital punishment for rape provides an incentive to murder.

41 posted on 04/19/2013 8:36:52 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan; Tax-chick
I see what you're saying. We live in a very corrupt society.

One result is that "Natural Law" reasoning, once accessible and persuasive to anybody with a reasonable familiarity with human nature, now commonly fails, at least rhetorically, because both "reason" and "human nature" strike people as being either entirely fictitious, or impositions on their liberty.

42 posted on 04/19/2013 8:44:16 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (When you see a fork in the road, take it. - Yogi Berra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

Precisely. You just explained what I think way better than I said.


43 posted on 04/19/2013 8:44:42 AM PDT by EEGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan; Mrs. Don-o
illegal only because of the POV of the "victim,"

You could get the same result by saying that the decisive factor is the point-of-view of the perpetrator. He knows whether the actions he's performing are acceptable to their object.

That aside, I think you've made several very going points. Another problem with the "consenting adult" standard is that there is little rational basis for limiting "adult" to any particular age. Our current legal standard says that a person aged 15, for example, is "incapable" of consenting to sexual activity, but then says that the same person is capable, if the other party involved falls into certain categories. And all sorts of things are excused simply on the assumption that both parties got some physical enjoyment or emotional benefit from it.

Given the current environment, it's hard to see where a defensible line can be drawn short of "too young to talk" or "violent physical coercion."

44 posted on 04/19/2013 9:15:11 AM PDT by Tax-chick ("I think amnesty is deader than a Chechen bomber." ~ LS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: EEGator
Precisely. You just explained what I think way better than I said

Only to folks in Loma Linda. You were perfectly clear, any reasonable person would immediately have made the same inference. I just used more words to say the same thing.

45 posted on 04/19/2013 9:22:21 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (Doing the same thing and expecting different results is called software engineering.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: EEGator

The violent ones do.


46 posted on 04/19/2013 10:15:56 AM PDT by AnAmericanMother (Ministrix of ye Chasse, TTGS Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
You make a good point concerning multiple witnesses.

In this state, any accusation of rape requires corroboration, and so far as I know it always has. Nobody can be convicted of rape on the woman's word alone.

47 posted on 04/19/2013 10:19:35 AM PDT by AnAmericanMother (Ministrix of ye Chasse, TTGS Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: EEGator
Women never file false charges. /s

Guys never lie. /s

48 posted on 04/19/2013 6:57:40 PM PDT by Alaska Wolf (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf

What side does society side on...without evidence?


49 posted on 04/19/2013 8:04:11 PM PDT by EEGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf

This is in regards to the death penalty for rape. Are you okay with the death penalty for he said / she said?

I personally of a buddy who had sex with a chick who felt slighted later, should he die if the jury finds him guilty?


50 posted on 04/19/2013 8:10:51 PM PDT by EEGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: EEGator
What side does society side on...without evidence?

We have trials where evidence is presented, don't we?

51 posted on 04/19/2013 8:31:47 PM PDT by Alaska Wolf (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: EEGator
Are you okay with the death penalty for he said / she said?

When has the death penalty been imposed in the case of he said/ she said?

52 posted on 04/19/2013 8:33:24 PM PDT by Alaska Wolf (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei

“Robbery used to be a capital crime. Until jurists started noticing that robbery victims inevitably turned up dead or disappeared without a trace.”

Several years ago a study was made on Wash. DC crime sentences. Average time served for Armed Robbery was 5.5 years. Average time served for Murder was 7.5 years.

Even a DC educated convenience store robber can do that math.

“Get rid of the witness. Much less chance of getting caught. If I do get caught it will only add 2 years to my sentence.”

Your argument does not hold water.


53 posted on 04/20/2013 5:41:11 AM PDT by BwanaNdege ("To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize"- Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I’ll never be comfortable with giving the government power over life and death.


54 posted on 04/20/2013 5:44:47 AM PDT by Straight Vermonter (Posting from deep behind the Maple Curtain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
"Natural Law" reasoning, once accessible and persuasive to anybody with a reasonable familiarity with human nature, now commonly fails, at least rhetorically, because both "reason" and "human nature" strike people as being either entirely fictitious, or impositions on their liberty.

Wonderfully said.

55 posted on 04/20/2013 5:47:44 AM PDT by Straight Vermonter (Posting from deep behind the Maple Curtain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: BwanaNdege
Your argument does not hold water.

I think it does - the penalty for murder should be death. Texas executes less than 1 person for every 100 homicides, and it's reputed to be draconian in its penal measures. China executes 1 person for every 2 homicides, and its homicide rate per capita is 1/4 of ours. It has four times our population, but roughly the same number of homicides per year.

56 posted on 04/20/2013 5:48:26 AM PDT by Zhang Fei (Let us pray that peace be now restored to the world and that God will preserve it always.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine
Capital punishment shouldn’t be allowed based on someone testimony. All it takes is for one woman to sleep with a guy and cry rape and he’s DEAD?

In "legitimate" (aka bona fide) rape, there is quite a bit of physical evidence. I cannot get technical about the specific damage caused by forced rape, but it is very characteristic. Plus, in addition to the injuries to the genitalia, the victim often has other injuries consistent with being overpowered.

A woman who gets drunk, sleeps with a guy, and then claims rape because she would never had become physical with him had she remained sober does not have those injuries. A woman who is raped while under the influence of a "date rape" drug (e.g. Rohypnol) will have the genital injuries.

A true rape does leave objective forensic evidence.

57 posted on 04/20/2013 10:02:33 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
I agree. Also it should be noted that it is the only crime that exists only in the mind of the victim, since all of the activities that might result in physical evidence are engaged in by some consensually.

A legitimate (bona fide) rape leaves physical evidence that is not generated during consensual intercourse. When a woman's reproductive organs are physically damaged, that is fairly strong corroboration of her claim of being raped.

58 posted on 04/20/2013 10:05:38 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

Shades of Akins.

There are quite a number of women who enjoy highly vigorous intercourse. And even quite a few who are into being on the receiving end of the whips and chains bit.

I sincerely doubt there is any physical evidence method to distinguish between such activities indulged in consensually, and those where participation was forced.

Also, the instrument (ahem) used to damage the female’s reproductive organs is not (usually) a 2x4. I suspect it’s difficult for a rapist to do all that much damage without damaging himself in the process.


59 posted on 04/20/2013 10:19:59 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
There was no difference in the actions of the (disgusting) man. The only difference was in her head

Can't buy that. If a man proceeds with sex against the consent of the woman, if she is saying no, or actively resisting him, or even not actively resisting him due to the fact that he has threatened force, then that is rape. Claiming rape after consensual sex doesn't make it rape, of course. the difference between consensual "rough sex" and rape exists in reality, not just in the mind of the woman. The rapist might confuse the two, but only as a defense for what it had done.

60 posted on 04/20/2013 10:28:27 AM PDT by chesley (Vast deserts of political ignorance makes liberalism possible - James Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-69 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson