Why Don Opposes Capital Rape

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.

I agree as to what constitutes rape. I am merely pointing out that rape is the only crime in which the consent or non-consent of the purported victim is (often) the only question at issue at trial. All agree intercourse occurred, the only question is whether she agreed to it.

So the only issue to be appropriately discussed in court is what was going on in her head at the time. Since she is the only person who can testify to this, they only question at issue in the whole trial is what she now says that POV was.

There is generally a tendency to accept a woman’s story of being raped, or at least there is more so now, as compared to the past. But (some) women do lie, as do some men. And some women are confused or delusional, as are some men.

In actual fact, in many cases of claimed rape, the whole trial boils down to who is more believable on the stand to the jury. The problem with this is that we have all known people who were exceptionally good liars, very believable while lying through their teeth. And most of us have known people who are nervous in tense situations, such as courtroom testimony and respond by acting in ways that make them less believable.

I just think it odd to determine guilt or innocence by who tells the better story. I find it very difficult to see how guilt beyond a reasonable doubt can be determined based solely on two conflicting sets of testimony.

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

I need to get far more graphic than I really care to here to describe it, but there is a characteristic injury that occurs only during rape.

A woman engaging in consensual intercourse (no matter how "rough" she likes it) positions her hips so as to accommodate the man. A woman being raped does not position herself in that manner. The difference in position causes injuries to the back wall and cervix that simply do not happen otherwise. This kind of injury is very distinctive to rape, and is the kind of injury documented during a rape examination when the victim goes to seek emergency medical treatment. This type of injury also is part of the reason why pregnancy rarely results from true rape. Yes, Akins was correct.

There will also be differences in external injuries between someone who likes S&M and someone trying to fight off an attacker. The person trying to fight off an attacker will have abrasions and bruising inconsistent with S&M play, and often has blood and bits of skin under her nails.

True rape is a violent act; no violent act occurs without leaving behind physical evidence.

Just repeating Paul’s advice (command?).

But to answer your question, NO.

That said, I am a firm supporter of capital punishment for forcible rape. “Date rape” is more questionable.

If she’s, say, in bed with the fellow, it gets to be more and more of a he-said, she-said problem. Without firm evidence other than her word, I’d have to let him go entirely.

Drugged, or drunk unconscious
=death. Drunk till tipsy. What the hell were you thinking, girl?

In rape, there is usually other evidence.

If a woman neglects to report it to the police before the evidence dissipates, she really has forfeited her chance to get justice, IMO.

Frankly, my opinion is that if a woman is in any doubt as to whether she was raped, or not, then she wasn't.

Seduction is not rape.

I agree with you, though, people are pretty stupid when they get on juries, or maybe nobody wants any but stupid people on juries.

If it comes down to he-said, she-said, the man always wins with me, purely on the reasonable doubt issue.

True rape is a violent act; no violent act occurs without leaving behind physical evidence.

Sorry, I find that really difficult to believe. I will not attempt to dispute your claims about the specific injuries associated with forcible rape.

I do have a question, though. If these injuries are prima facie evidence of rape, is the absence of such injuries equally considered evidence of consensual sex? If not, why not?

Not all rape is forcible, as women are often terrified or threatened into submitting, which is no less rape. For instance, a gun at the temple leaves no physical evidence. Or a threat to a child. In such circumstances, I find it difficult to imagine a women would not position herself so as to minimize the discomfort she's enduring, which would seem to make the characteristic injuries of forcible rape less likely or at least less severe.

There is a dirty little secret about rape charges. The Left makes a lot of play about the many men whom DNA evidence has "proven innocent" as a way of attacking our legal system.

What they seldom go into is that the considerable majority of such cases involve rape, for the obvious reason that usable DNA is most often available in a rape case.

This means that most of these men were exonerated by the evidence showing they did not have sex with the accuser. Which leads to the fairly obvious question of how many more men are in jail for false accusations of rape where the only question at issue is one of whether the sex was consensual and thus DNA cannot be used to prove their innocence.

Personally, I think men who engage in one night stands and similar behavior are comprehensively insane. They can be accused of rape at any moment, and their conviction or acquittal hinge entirely on a jury's opinion as to who tells the better story. And even if acquitted they are likely to be considered "really" guilty by many for the rest of their lives. As I say, insane.

The specific injuries I described occur regardless of whether a woman is threatened or physically subdued into submitting, or even if she is unconscious. In a forcible rape, she does not place herself in a receptive position, which is a major cause of injuries. Other physiological changes which normally occur during a consensual encounter do not happen during a rape, also contributing to rape injuries.

Rape can cause permanent infertility. Rape can kill. True forcible rape bears very little resemblance to the consensual act. The evidence amounts to quite a bit more than just “he said, she said.”

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.