Should a rapist be punished more if he takes her virginity?

In your view, is this more connected to them being a child, specifically, or them still possessing "innocence" and virginity (not having previous sexual experiences)?

 

it's due to a child's innocents and the rapist is stealing that - this seems like a weird question for you to even be asking?

 

Then you're saying you don't really care.
We could switch the system to punishing the rapist more for taking a female's virginity than specifically punishing him more because the victim was a child, and you wouldn't care.

 

Power difference. Many statutory rape laws also include mentally challenged individuals who have limited capacity to CONSENT

We keep going back to that word eh? Katz - well it is the core of the issue - CONSENT. Does not matter if the person is married, a hooker, a virgin or even just drunk - if they Connor give explicit consent it is rape under the law

 

Which sounds similar to the concept of virginity.

(We could even talk about the old concept of "carnal knowledge", which was once used as a term in law)

 

Huh? How does power difference matter? A raped female is still being raped.

It's obvious she was overpowered, regardless of her age.

Maybe you have lost track of what we are discussing.

 

Then it should not matter if the girl is under a certain age.

Right?

 

nope, I am fine with giving both rapists lwop, but in my mind raping a child, the disabled, or the elderly is worse of the worse

 

I was just trying to get you to examine, in your mind and subconscious, why you believe one of them is worse.

Then compare those reasons to the thesis of this thread.

 

not worth running that through the mind in such detail, it is what it is, most of us just know that

raping a child, the disabled, or the elderly is worst of the worst

 

Maybe you recognize that there does exist more reason to punish a rapist more if the victim's virginity has been stolen.

 

I think both should get lwop, people that rape others should never be allowed to run free in society ever again

but, I think raping a child, the disabled, or the elderly is worst of the worst

 

Wait, why do you think it's worse if a disabled or elderly person gets raped??

The woman was still overpowered and had no control, either way, even if she was not handicapped or elderly.

 

because it just is, do you not think so?

your question is like asking which is worse, running over a person by accident or running over them cause you're drunk - both are bad, but one is worse

 

Well, that's often not what happens. So there is still reason to punish the rapist more if her virginity has been stolen.

 

yeah, bad things happen that I disagree with all the time - I can only say what I believe should happen

both should get lwop, but raping a child, the disabled, or the elderly is worst of the worst

 

Personally, I can not see how it is so.

(Personally, if I were the judge, I might be a little inclined to give the rapist LESS punishment if the victim were an elderly person)

 

why would you give a rapist less time for raping the elderly, that makes no sense

 

Well, what I want to get you to agree with is, actually, not that the rapist should, theoretically, be punished more or less than another rapist who steals a girl's virginity, but rather that it would be a better thing than the status quo to have a law that says that a rapist who steals the victim's virginity should get extra prison time.

Why would you give a rapist more time for raping the elderly?

I actually could explain the reasons to you, but it would take this discussion off topic.
The elderly person has most of their life already behind them and it is not going to affect them as much, or will not traumatize them for as long (before they die). Most of their best years are already behind them.

 

I disagree, a victim should not have to prove her virginity to the court

are you reading what I write, I said I would give them both lwop, that is the max punishment for both

I said : "both should get lwop, but raping a child, the disabled, or the elderly is worst of the worst"


a child, the disabled, or the elderly are less able to defend themselves in many cases, thus the making the crime even worse

 

It makes a difference in the eyes of the law

This is why age difference comes into account. A 50 year old having sex with a 14 year old would be considered rape even if he/she stood up in court and professed love. Because the power differential is very significant it is acknowledged that that can skew consent

https://njdc.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/AgeGapProvisions.pdf

https://www.thehfirm.com/blog/how-d...-offender-and-victim-affect-sex-crime-charges

 

Well, that's a separate issue. If you are opposed to this concept based on how it would be determined and proved.

I suggested there are some indirect ways the court could get some idea about whether she may likely have been a virgin. Like family background, church attendance, etc.
If she claimed to be a virgin but the defense was able to bring forth a witness who said that he had slept with her before, that would take away from her credibility, might even result in a "not guilty" verdict.

Or maybe we could just automatically believe her answers when she is asked about this issue? (After all, many people are in favor of automatically believing her when she says she has been raped)

 

I do not care, that is just trying to drag the victim through the mud, why would we do that?

 

Aren't there some ways to address this issue that would not drag the victim through the mud?

Maybe, perhaps, the victim could be given the option if she wanted the rapist to be sentenced to extra time in prison for taking her virginity?
It would be completely optional for her.

 

give them lwop and be done with it, easy peasy