If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Rapists
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
What punishment do you think rapists should get?
I think from now on they should get life..simple as that.
I think from now on they should get life..simple as that.
0
Comments
I think everyone deserves a second chance, but if the abuse this chance, then they should get life - including rapists. It wouldn't be fair to no punish a rapist for instance, as the life of the victim will be badly affected. If they repeat the crime, they know exactly what they are doing and probably won't change.
As a point of imformation, of course rape is about penetration. It wouldn't be rape otherwise. At the risk of getting another rub on the knuckles, if a group of wilding youths grabbed a female jogger and pulled her into a secluded place with the premeditated intention of tweaking her nipples, that would be sexual molestation, certainly, but not rape. In practise, if a woman is attacked, but no penetration takes place, that's considered to be attempted rape. We don't assume that an assailant intends not to go the distance because yes, rape, or the threat of rape, is about control, and penetration is the ultimate expression of control over a woman. I think some men would use other implements if they couldn't perform normally, for whatever the reason. I also think that if we lived in a country (run by the BNP, say?) where castration, or even chemical castration, were an option, we'd have a lot of other stuff to worry about.
The sexual gratification is little more than a side-issue, power dynamics, and the violent control that comes with it, is more often than not why a man becomes a rapist- having an orgasm because of it is the icing on the rapists' cake, as it were. As I said, that is why it isnt just young pretty things who get raped, there is a long history of old women being raped, by teenagers on more than one occasion; that cannot be about sexual gratification, so it must about the thrill of power.
Suggesting rapists wuith no dick will not reoffend is as ridiculous as saying a wife-beater with no hands wont find other ways of dominating his wife or partner.
no, why should they?
i wouldn't mind being a judge myself.
Rape is the sort of disaster that destroys people's lives, in more ways than anyone who hasnt been raped could possibly imagine, which Im sure many people on this site in particular could confirm.
I feel very strongly about rape having a life sentance attached to it.
Some people believe that prison is about rehabilitation, but for things like rape and peadophilia in particular, I dont think that anyone can become 'fully rehabilitated'. Possibly in 0.5% of cases, but on a whole, I dont believe this could happen.
I think that even though these people will more than likely not be rehabilitated in prison, and therefore sure to not commit the same crime again, if they are inside they are at least away from the 'innocent' public and are in a place where, theoretically, they can not harm anyone any more than they already have.
Because the less rape the better in my eyes. Lock them away and slice their fucking dicks off. And then let them bleed. But save them before they die so that they themselves can suffer the sickening torment of being raped, and waking up every morning wandering when it was going to happen again.
I wanna be a judge, with my own tv show!
Judge Judy
I think it should be life whether it was a child or not. Are you trying to say that someone my age is less important, and will be less effected by a rape, than a 9 year old would?
Judge Vicky
why do you think murder is worse? Do you not think it is the worst traumatic position for a woman (or man) to have to go through their lives suffering with this situation that has been thrown upon them? I think they are both at the same level to be honest, and I believe it should be life for both of them.
Murders often do get life, it all depends on the circumstances.
It is not a question of 'which crime is the most evil'. I personally consider racially-motivated assaults to be every bit as repugnant as rape or murder.
Some rapists deserve the full wrath of the law, and those who are repeat offenders and likely to re-offend should simply be locked away until there are guarantees they won't do it again. If it takes all their lives, so be it.
But every case is different. Suppose a couple go to bed in a drunken frenzy, and in the middle of the sex act the woman changes her mind and asks her partner to withdraw. The man instead continues until he climaxes. This is a disgusting act and of course he should be punished, but could anyone seriously suggest he should receive the same punishment as a serial rapist who snatches women off the streets, beats them up and violates them?
I would say that a child would be more affected yes.
They don't deserve that. They need to be put to death... their scum.
I still think we cant be the judge of what is worse, what about people that have killed themsleves after being raped, cos they cant go on, and they wish they were murdered when it happend? Theres arguments on either side, which still leeds me to believe they are different crimes in their own right and theres no way you can say either is better or worse.
I agree with that. The circumstances of the crime and the offender need to be taken into account when sentencing. Can information of previous convictions be given in court yet? That should be crucial in the case of rape.
And everyone is talking like it's just women who get raped...
It would fly in the face of the most basic premise of English law- that you are innocent until proven guilty. Just because you ahve raped, say, 100 women in the past does not mean that in a particular case you have done (though it would make it more likely admittedly); the alleged attacker is entitled to the benefit of the doubt as to what happened. All past convictions would do is skew the jury, in that they would read proof into very circumstantial evidence, jeaopardising the whole legal system.
Past convictions should not be taken into account, as they are as irrelevant as a womans sexual history- the attacker must be found guilty on the facts only, not on hearsay, probability and conjecture. Past convictions are taken into account at sentencing, as they should be.
Its just a shame that certain posters get all their politics out of The Sun. No two cases are alike, and it has been proven time and time again that mandatory sentences are ridiculous and unworkable. Judges are not political for a reason.
Judges are hard working individuals, and have 30+ years of law experience. People who criticise them no nothing of the law or how it works- real people would mess the entire judicial system up. I wish people would realise that there is no place for sympathy or emotion in the judicial system- the purpose is punishment and rehabilitation, justice not revenge.
The masses are asses in many cases (would you let the old duffers who demand executions and punishment beatings anywhere near a courtroom? and if you would youre an idiot), and even if they are not they do not have the legal experience to do a judges work properly. Most judges work is reading case law, interpreting the past to decide the present, something most "common people" wouldnt be able to read two paragraphs of.
But youd know that, wouldnt you?