Skip to comments.Why Don Opposes Capital Rape
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.
Its 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 Im consistent.
Of course, Don thinks Im 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 cant 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.
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.
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.
Precisely. You just explained what I think way better than I said.
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."
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.
The violent ones do.
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.
Guys never lie. /s
What side does society side on...without evidence?
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?
We have trials where evidence is presented, don't we?
When has the death penalty been imposed in the case of he said/ she said?
“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.
I’ll never be comfortable with giving the government power over life and death.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.