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.
My point exactly.
Taking guilty life vs. taking innocent life. Could it be any more clear?
It doesn’t matter if he shouldn’t be convicted, because many times he is.
“We can’t let them dictate the rules.”
That’s easy to say when you won’t be the one murdered.
You and I just have differing opinions, there isn’t a “correct” answer to this.
Interesting discussion. You make some good points.
False conviction is a huge issue. There are innocent men in prison right now being ass raped by violent thugs who will not be punished for it, this is a travesty.
The same should be said about mass killings perpetrated by the obviously mentally ill.
It would have to be more than just one woman’s word. It couldn’t just be “date rape”. No more Nifonging of innocent men.
But a burglar breaks in and rapes a woman? some girl is snatched off the stree? Hang ‘im high!
Oh, and all women should be armed, IMO. Furthermore, while I in no sense endorse, “blaming the victim”, women could use a little common sense in where they go, and with whom.
This in no way is to say the rape is anyone’s responsibility bbut the rapist’s. It’s just that the fact that it isn’t her fault, doesn’t unrape her.
It used to be that to prove rape, you had to show "force" which meant not just lack of consent but convincing evidence that the rapist used violence.
Again thanks to the liberals feeling sorry for the guilty, "force" was reduced to "lack of consent", which means that all the cases of morning-after remorse began turning into rape accusations. Not that you didn't have some anyway, e.g. the Scottsboro trial, but that was not a problem of proof (there wasn't any) but extreme racial prejudice on the part of the community. Even so, Judge Horton stood against popular opinion and set aside the verdict (he lost his seat as a result, but what profiteth a man if he gain the whole world but lose his soul?)
But if rape were actually made a capital offense again, you would see the evidentiary standard change back to its original position. It would have to, because of the strictures surrounding the DP.
I'm not as concerned about the "eliminating witnesses" argument, as they do that now in convenience store robberies. An evil person who would violently rape is likely going to eliminate witnesses anyway.
I always turn the question back to my verbal opponent.
I ask why they are pro life for convicted murders, yet support the death penalty for innocent babies who have yet sinned and certainly have NOT committed a crime against others.
This isn't true. A woman can neither consent nor refuse to consent with her mind alone. If she says "No," or "Stop," or she screams "Get off me you son of a bitch", or she slaps, punches and struggles --- or if she is underage, mentally disabled, drugged or unconscious --- she did not legally consent, and the crime is rape.
Yes, as with any other crime, there could be a false accusation. But it's not just a say-so charge. The jury can be entrusted to evaluate a range of evidence and determine whether there are grounds to convict.
You’re missing my point.
There is no action by the rapist that in and of itself constitutes rape. There are a remarkable number of women who prefer “rough sex,” up to and including tying up, slapping, beating, etc. If the victim participates willingly, it’s not rape. If she does not participate freely, it is rape. There are probably not as many women into this as in the fantasies of their male opposite numbers, but they certainly do exist.
That’s why the crime of rape depends entirely on the POV of the “victim.”
(Scare quotes only because not all claims of victimization are valid. Many, probably the big majority, certainly are.)
There was just recently in CA a case of a young woman who recruited a guy via Craigslist to beat her up. She promised sex with her as the payment. She then claimed rape, and the obvious assumption is that the beaten-up woman with forensic evidence of recent intercourse was indeed raped. But of course she wasn’t. There was no difference in the actions of the (disgusting) man. The only difference was in her head.
“This in no way is to say the rape is anyone’s responsibility bbut the rapist’s. It’s just that the fact that it isn’t her fault, doesn’t unrape her.”
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Agreed, nothing excuses rape but if a young woman strolls into a bar with fifty chopped hogs parked outside and a sign over the door saying BORN LOSERS and she is half drunk and wearing a six inch skirt one might legitimately wonder what she has on her mind.
My thoughts on the Death Penalty-
No, putting someone to death does not bring their victims back to life or undo the evil they have committed. But I don’t think that is relevant at all to the subject. No one who supports the Death Penalty believes the person’s death will make everything alright. It is about Justice, not Vengeance. “Vengeance is Mine,” sayeth the Lord. Only God can exact vengeance upon a person’s soul. We can not.
But there is something we can do. We can say “With these actions you have forfeited your right to live amongst us and no length of incarceration will satisfy your debt. It is either too dangerous to allow you to live or your actions are so heinous that you no longer deserve to live out the remainder of your life.
And so, we cast you out of this world and send you on to the next. This will satisfy your debt to society but only God can decide upon your debt to Him. When you stand before Him, He will pass judgment upon you. May God have mercy on your everlasting soul.”
As to the Sixth Commandment, “Thou shalt not kill,” I believe the KJV is a slight mistranslation. The correct translation would have been, “Thou shalt not murder,” where murder is the taking of innocent life. It is not murder to kill in legitimate self-defense, to kill in battle, or to kill the wicked.
One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. -- Deuteronomy 19:15
Multiple witnesses were a requirement in the Mosaic Law and, IIUC, there are instances of our [common] law built on it: the Public Notary, for instance, is one. It would be surprising if this feature were utterly absent from our criminal law.
The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. -- Deuteronomy 19:18-19
This is the Mosaic Laws punishment for false accusations: the punishment for the crime would be inflicted on the accuser. Thus, in the case of rape, the accuser would be put to death as rape is a capital offense under the Mosaic Law.
"Whoever is convicted of speaking false witness shall be flung from the Tarpeian Rock." -- Roman Tables of the Law, VIII, #23
Here you see that the penalty of false witness, which must include patently false allegations, was death.
There are numerous cases where the woman admits filing false charges later. You okay with killing innocent men just to set an example?
Such are a disgrace and stain upon our society, often doing worse than mere death to a man by utterly ruining him in reputation and standing in society and in the law.
The guys from Duke were publicly destroyed, even though they did nothing. What punishment did that lying whore get?
Another problem is hiding the identity of the victim. This allows the accused to be dragged through the mud without anyone knowing anything about the accuser.
I don’t think a high percentage of rapes end in murder. Correct me if I am wrong.
This is correct, though not n entirelya bad mistranslation as one definition of 'kill' was [and still is] indeed 'murder' -- and probably shifted connotative meanings in the multiple centuries since the KJV.
But there is something we can do. We can say “With these actions you have forfeited your right to live amongst us and no length of incarceration will satisfy your debt. It is either too dangerous to allow you to live or your actions are so heinous that you no longer deserve to live out the remainder of your life.
And so, we cast you out of this world and send you on to the next. This will satisfy your debt to society but only God can decide upon your debt to Him. When you stand before Him, He will pass judgment upon you. May God have mercy on your everlasting soul.”
I like how you put this, it sums up my own thoughts well.
This I know; it is a perfect illustration of my contempt of such perjuring women.
What punishment did that lying whore get?
What she did get and what she should have gotten are two different things, sadly.
Much of our legal system has been compromised because of politics, which one could define as "excuses to commit or rationalize injustice."
Another problem is hiding the identity of the victim. This allows the accused to be dragged through the mud without anyone knowing anything about the accuser.
This is a blatant violation of the 6th Amendment.
Sounds like we’re on the same page.
I remember reading about a case in SC I think, where a man (I use the word loosely) was on trial for a truly horrible rape-assault which was all recorded on video from beginning to end. I will not tell you the details: it debases the mind to entertain the images. Think, "Really bad".
Well, he was acquitted. Turns out there were several videos of this same "man" doing those same sick stuff to this "woman" on several occasions; and the existence of multiple videos was successfully used in his defense, in that they established his story, that the "woman" liked the abuse,consented to the abuse, actually arranged for the videos for their later viewing enjoyment, and therefore "no harm, no foul".
I was shocked. What he had done to the woman was objectively harmful (she required medical treatment in the aftermath) and if she "consented" to it, it must be that she was out of her right mind and thus not capable of consent. No rational person would consent.
And I still think the view that consent or lack thereof is what determines whether something is a criminal offense, is sorely deficient. Germany had a case a few years back where a man consented on video to be stabbed through the heart and eaten (yes, cannibalized) and the legal system was all confused as to whether there might be something wrong with that.
We ought to recognize that there actions which are objectively abusive whether there is consent or not. What those actions are, would be good subject for a debate. How applied, will be determined by legislators. Individual cases might be murky, but that's what juries are for.
Things which are objectively harmful are to be proscribed. That's why you can't sell your baby, your willing wife, or both your kidneys.
A large fraction of rapists know the victim or are even related, and a large number of rapes are actually unreported. But you make sense. The pragmatic problem with the death penalty for rape is that it gives the rapist much more incentive to kill his victim. Pretty much the same problem with draconian, measures like a life sentence. I favor harsh punishment for rape, short of life, in order to protect the lives of rape victims.
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.