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

Sorry, that's not going to happen. Look at what currently happens in many places.

 

were talking about what should happen

 

Are you willing to talk about what should happen, when what you really think should happen is not going to happen?

More realistic second best options.

 

maybe your title is wrong then

what is your concern, that those rapists that do not rape children get too little time compared to those that do? not sure if I understand what your concern is?

 

I don't have to have a concern. (Except for justice and better law) I'm just saying one is worse than the other, so one should get a longer prison sentence than the other.

I'm not making any specific argument in this thread about how much time rapists should be sentenced to. That is a different argument. People could debate that and have different opinions about that.

I'm just saying, it seems like it might be a good idea to use virginity as factor.

They already use age of the victim (whether they are a minor) as a factor in many places. Including in many socially progressive places that have relatively low maximum sentences.

 

I disagree, forcing the victim to prove her virginity would take us in the wrong direction

but let's say you got that, how much time would be subtracted from the rapists sentence if the victim could not prove her virginity

 

It would be optional to her. She doesn't have to prove it. Only if she comes from a background where the issue of virginity is very important to her and she believes the rapist should get more punishment.

Why do you have to view it that way? Why not ask how much time would be added to the rapist's sentence?

The typical sentences for rape in many places are rather low. 4 years in Sweden. 9 years in Germany. California has a maximum 8 year sentence, so long as the victim is not a minor. In South Africa, a typical sentence for rape (real rape) can be as low as 2 or 3 years.

 

Well I guess if you believe, then the magic comes from within.... Amirite? Make your own truth, as it were. Someone once said that the main problem with some folks is that they know so much that just isn't true.

 

I fail to grok what "progressives" have to do with it, other than their desire and propensity to allow violent criminals to walk. Violent criminals should be incarcerated until it can be verified that they no longer pose a violent threat to peaceable society. Any recidivism should be met with LWOP. Very simple. The victims virginity status is not a factor.

 

yeah, but if she doesn't, the rapist gets less time? why?

how would she "prove" it

 

you are right, the magic comes from within, there is no God.... we agree again

 

I take a hard line view on violent crime. I think every violent criminal should be incarcerated until it can be verified that they no longer present a violent threat to peaceable society. That could be a single day, or that could be forever. It is entirely up to him. Any violent recidivism should be met with immediate LWOP.

I think the age and virginity of the victim factor more into restitution than punishment. If I understand your argument, you are saying a child who is raped and loses her virginity actually suffers more damages (from a legal sense) than a promiscuous adult who is similarly raped. The child victim would be, therefore, entitled to a greater restitution than the adult. In my opinion, then, the rapist should get the same prison time in either criminal case, but would be exposed to more damages in the civil case that involved the child.

 

Statistics on any of that?

Because women are second class citizens and are "rated" on their perceived "value" and sex workers are seen less "valuable" than the people you are calling "ordinary women". I would bet the farm you've met several sex workers and didn't even know it. Sex workers ARE ordinary women.

None of that is true. Not one drop of it.

This is just the same old "value system" that currently exists. Further, do you know how rape victims are treated in the US? Are you in the US? If you are, we aren't all that kind to rape victims of either sex.

Several months ago you stated yourself that the men that were raped by priests as little boys deserved because they eventually received settlements.

So, if we're going to talk about who and who does not deserve to be sexually violated, why does your hypothetical have any consideration for a female's virginity or married women that has only had sex with her husband? What makes these people a higher "value" than little boys being exploited by priests and nuns?

Are you now stating that you are a spokesperson for female rape victims?

Do you know the statistics for rape victims reporting their assaults?

Do you know the statistics for how many of the reported ones result in a police report?

Do you know the statistics for how many of those are investigated?

Do you know the statistics for how many of those lead to arrests?

Do you know the statistics for how many of those lead to conviction?

Do you know the statistics for how many of those are released for "good behavior" before there sentence is complete?

Since you're speaking for them, surely you know the answer to all these questions.

Why is this sexual assault any more situated for prosecution than any other sexual assault?

 

I would still be interested to know what supports your belief that republicans prefer a list in lieu of incarceration for child rapists, because I've never heard of such a concept.

 

How exactly is that supposed to work if the attacker is female, since you acknowledged that such a thing is possible.

Also out of curiosity, what is your solution if the person who was convicted was later found to never have done it? Say the victim finally admits to making it up or being forced to tell lies (it has happened), or they later find the real perpetrator?

 

Would you lose any sleep if a child rapist got less time than one who raped an adult woman?

 

Since they put the elderly in there as well, that pretty much boshes your whole theory, at least as far as they are concerned. Not many elderly out there with their virginity intact.

 

So devil's advocate time, why isn't that power differential in play across the board? If a 50 yo and a 14 yo is too large a range, then why isn't 70 and 24, which is a even bigger differential?

 

The hell!?!? How does victim having sex before make them any less raped by someone who forced sex upon them? You are seriously into rape apologist territory here. The fact that the rapist didn't take the female's virginity in no way changes that he raped her. Which part of this is not getting through to you?

 

You have absolutely no clue how a rape affects a victim do you?

 

because one is an adult, the other a child

that said, a 70-year-old dating a 24-year-old is sick, but legal

 

Granted, but you are citing a power differential, and I am trying to understand why a larger age gap is not as much of a differential. Simply saying because they are an adult is pointing to an abstract or at least something vague.

 

parents get it, it's not vague at all

 

The part where you have the audacity to claim that everyone is equal. WTH is wrong with you?

His posting history shows that he believes white people are superior to other people so, naturally, it follows that raping a white woman is a "bigger" crime than raping someone of a different race. As a police officer, I escorted a rape victim to the ER. She was black and a white nurse asked "Why would anybody rape a black woman?". If medical first responders aren't trained to not retraumatize sexual assault victims there is no reason to expect the average person to respond better than that.

Further, his posting shows that he said he would not have sex with a black woman because he doesn't want to get any stds. STDs are color-blind but he's not and he wants all of us on board with agreeing some women "are more valuable" than others based on their weird societal heirarchies.

/smdh

 

I read an article last week in which Musk's dad announced that he just had his second child with his step-daughter. Of course, they are not biologically related but the optics are awful. He continued his idiocy basically saying that our only purpose in life is to procreate.

I wanted to start a thread on it but I couldn't find the original article to link.

It's "legal" but...disgusting.