Rape victim dies

[nacho]

Look, what I honestly believe is that in this particular scenario, each person should be given somewhere around 25 years in jail. I was using this method of punishment as an example of an alternative way of punishing people. It might seem "soft" in your eyes, and maybe it is, but it's a lot better than giving someone the death penalty, which is the main thing I am trying to argue against.

I would argue that they deserve 1/6th the punishment, since each of them basically only committed 1/6th of the act of the rape + murder of a person.

They deserve the standard punishment that any rapist + murderer gets, which is around 25 years in jail (but varies quite a bit). I don't see why this case should be treated any differently. People are just getting too emotional.

You contradicted yourself.

But, you're most likely a troll so there's no point in debating with you.

[Professor Polonsky]

Changing topic a little, rape is under-reported, under-prosecuted and even when it is prosecuted, the chances of it ending with a conviction are minute. Rape is one area, imo, in which punishments are too light - I think I read somewhere that the average sentence in Victoria is seven years. For a person who has just gone through the trauma of the rape to report the crime, knowing it will likely lead nowhere, and even if it does they will have to face their rapist in court, and recount the events... You can see why it is the most under-reported crime.

The question is whether there are any solutions to this issue. It's not an issue with the law, I'd regard Victorian law on the matter almost ideal and yet we still have this problem in our society.

[Biceps]

The question is whether there are any solutions to this issue. It's not an issue with the law, I'd regard Victorian law on the matter almost ideal and yet we still have this problem in our society.

It's really hard since most go unreported and a lot of people get away from it. Best solution would be deterrence, if not done through the death penalty, it should at least be achieved through a long prison sentence.

[Professor Polonsky]

I find it unlikely that increasing the punishment would necessarily provide for greater deterrence. People who rape do so with the knowledge that if they are convicted, they will serve quite a few years in jail and will forever be convicted rapists. I don't think they believe they will be convicted however, which is the main issue.

Specifically as for the death penalty, it has never been found it increases deterrence in any way, and only leads to the execution of innocent people. There are very few jurisdictions which regularly use this punishment.

[FlorianK]

Changing topic a little, rape is under-reported, under-prosecuted and even when it is prosecuted, the chances of it ending with a conviction are minute. Rape is one area, imo, in which punishments are too light - I think I read somewhere that the average sentence in Victoria is seven years. For a person who has just gone through the trauma of the rape to report the crime, knowing it will likely lead nowhere, and even if it does they will have to face their rapist in court, and recount the events... You can see why it is the most under-reported crime.

The question is whether there are any solutions to this issue. It's not an issue with the law, I'd regard Victorian law on the matter almost ideal and yet we still have this problem in our society.

The issue with increasing the punishment for rape is that, if the punishment for it is greater they are more scared of it hence they would do anything in order not to be cathed, which in turn mean that they are more likely to kill the victim after raping it.

[Special At Specialist]

You contradicted yourself.

I didn't contradict myself. I offered 2 valid options for punishments, then I stated that I prefer the 25 year option to the 1/6th option, but I would be happy with either of them.

But, you're most likely a troll so there's no point in debating with you.

So just because I have a different opinion to other people, that makes me a troll? I think that people who say stuff like "stupid rapists deserve to have their penis' cut off and fed to the crocodiles!" are the trolls, not me.

The issue with increasing the punishment for rape is that, if the punishment for it is greater they are more scared of it hence they would do anything in order not to be cathed, which in turn mean that they are more likely to kill the victim after raping it.

This is just what I was trying to say earlier.

[JellyDonut]

Divvying up punishments on a per head basis is not a valid option, like at all

[Special At Specialist]

Divvying up punishments on a per head basis is not a valid option, like at all

Well it seems I have a fan, quoting my magnificent words for the whole world to read 
But what is not valid about it? Like I said with the bank thief analogy, if 100 people steal $100,000 together, then they must pay back $1000 each, since each of them is responsible for 1% of the crime that was committed. The same logic can be applied to any crime: if a certain amount of damage is inflicted, then each perpetrator is responsible for a portion of the damage.

I'd hate for the guy just "standing around" to be punished unfairly

Well, that would complicate things quite a bit. I suppose you could list who is most responsible and least responsible for a rape, and hand out different jail sentences accordingly. For example, the one who brought everyone together, stalked the girl down and executed the initial attack would be more to blame than the rest of them, and thus he should receive a longer jail sentence.

But like I said many times before: the murder basically overrides the rape. If you rape and then murder someone, it becomes just a case of aggravated murder. And murder is easier to quantify than rape, since you don't have to worry about the whole "person X suffered more than person Y" issue, because all victims of murder suffer equally, so you can very easily do a "head count" and quantify it based on how many murders took place.

[Mr Keshy]

Well it seems I have a fan, quoting my magnificent words for the whole world to read 
But what is not valid about it? Like I said with the bank thief analogy, if 100 people steal $100,000 together, then they must pay back $1000 each, since each of them is responsible for 1% of the crime that was committed. The same logic can be applied to any crime: if a certain amount of damage is inflicted, then each perpetrator is responsible for a portion of the damage.

How could you possibly compare a bank job to a rape? I think it's very insensititive.


EDITED: The rest is unnecessary

[FlorianK]

Well it seems I have a fan, quoting my magnificent words for the whole world to read 
But what is not valid about it? Like I said with the bank thief analogy, if 100 people steal $100,000 together, then they must pay back $1000 each, since each of them is responsible for 1% of the crime that was committed. The same logic can be applied to any crime: if a certain amount of damage is inflicted, then each perpetrator is responsible for a portion of the damage.

Sorry dear NotSpecial At Specialist, but the same 'logic' can not be applied and your analogy is just not working in here. In your bank story each of them actually only stole $1000 and not $100,000,  but in the case of the indigent girl every single guy sticked his penis in here, so every person raped her.
How can somebody be so heartless as you? Your thoughts are just pathetic.
I hope for you that no person that you care for reads your posts, because I am sure they'll turn away from you.

[Professor Polonsky]

Punishment needs to have a rationale. In a rape case, possible rationale include deterrence, societal protection, retribution and rehabilitation. You can't justify a lower sentence for a crime committed with other people under any of those rationale.

Rape is rape, so the deterrence needs to be just as high. The offender is just as dangerous to society. Rehabilitation is not going to take any less time. And their act is just as wrong (I have my issues with retributive justice, but that's a different topic).

[Holmes]

http://www.theage.com.au/world/pleas-for-help-ignored-after-rape-20130105-2ca0g.html

For 25 minutes, they lay by the road naked and crying for help. Passing drivers slowed down, looked at them, but did not stop.

The attackers then threw the couple out of the bus into the cold night and tried to run over them, he said. ''We didn't have clothes. We kept waiting for someone to come and help us. I waved my hand at all the passing vehicles. Auto-rickshaws, cars and bikes on the road slowed down, looked at us but didn't stop to help.''

Then one onlooker called the police. ''The police finally came but they kept arguing among themselves and could not decide which police station this case belonged to,'' the man said. ''We kept pleading to them: 'Get us an ambulance. Give us clothes to wear.' About 20 onlookers stood there and were watching us. Finally someone tore off a bedcover and gave it to me to cover her.''

But no ambulance came. The police did not even pick the woman up, he said. ''I picked her up and put her inside the Jeep. Maybe the police did not want to soil their hands with all the blood,'' he recalled. They did not arrive at a hospital until more than two hours after the incident.

At the hospital, the man said he sat on the floor, shivering, and repeatedly asked for a blanket. Finally, a cleaning boy gave him a piece of cloth.

Quoted from http://www.theage.com.au/world/pleas-for-help-ignored-after-rape-20130105-2ca0g.html

This is absolutely shocking. What you would have done if you were part of the onlooking crowd? It seems shocking that the police apparently displayed apathy towards the two victims when they were clearly in need of help, and instead debated about jurisdiction. WHY? Who cares about effing police jurisdiction, WHERE IS YOUR HUMANITY? Time was of the essence here. It seems like this was another cruel case in which the Bystander effect occured, in which

The probability of help has often appeared to be inversely related to the number of bystanders; in other words, the greater the number of bystanders, the less likely it is that any one of them will help. The mere presence of other bystanders greatly decreases intervention.

The heavy protesting that took place in Dehli may have involved some of the people who were initially part of the same crowd of onlookers and did not help. But as well as a lack of social responsibility, the slow actions of the police really shock me. I sincerely hope that this will help to change attitudes in India and instill a sense social responsibility in a larger number of people.

[Biceps]

Rape is rape, so the deterrence needs to be just as high. The offender is just as dangerous to society. Rehabilitation is not going to take any less time. And their act is just as wrong (I have my issues with retributive justice, but that's a different topic).

Retributive justice is a lot more satisfying to the victim and the victim's family than any other punishment. It also makes the victim's family less likely to go for revenge themselves.

[ninwa]

Well it seems I have a fan, quoting my magnificent words for the whole world to read 
But what is not valid about it? Like I said with the bank thief analogy, if 100 people steal $100,000 together, then they must pay back $1000 each, since each of them is responsible for 1% of the crime that was committed. The same logic can be applied to any crime: if a certain amount of damage is inflicted, then each perpetrator is responsible for a portion of the damage.

That's because they stole $1,000 each. No, you cannot apply that same logic to any crime because most crimes cannot be divvied up like that. For example, there's no such thing as committing 1/10ths of a rape. There is ATTEMPTED rape, and there is ACTUAL rape, and that is it.

Well, that would complicate things quite a bit. I suppose you could list who is most responsible and least responsible for a rape, and hand out different jail sentences accordingly. For example, the one who brought everyone together, stalked the girl down and executed the initial attack would be more to blame than the rest of them, and thus he should receive a longer jail sentence.

Sure, but in this case ALL OF THEM RAPED THE GIRL. I really cannot fathom how it is you cannot understand this.

But like I said many times before: the murder basically overrides the rape. If you rape and then murder someone, it becomes just a case of aggravated murder. And murder is easier to quantify than rape, since you don't have to worry about the whole "person X suffered more than person Y" issue, because all victims of murder suffer equally, so you can very easily do a "head count" and quantify it based on how many murders took place.

What the fuck is aggravated murder?

NO, if you rape then murder someone you will be charged for both the rape AND the murder. You don't magically get off on everything you did before the murder just because the person is dead. Also I honestly have no idea what you are saying here. Murder is not a simpler charge to prosecute compared to rape.

[MJRomeo81]

Like I said with the bank thief analogy, if 100 people steal $100,000 together, then they must pay back $1000 each, since each of them is responsible for 1% of the crime that was committed. The same logic can be applied to any crime: if a certain amount of damage is inflicted, then each perpetrator is responsible for a portion of the damage.

Are you kidding me? So if X plans to rape Y, X for example will gather 9 other sick fucks to help him/her commit the crime. You would argue that the punishment should be divided by 10 for each perpetrator? That's ridiculous and I honestly have never come across such a fail in terms of the application of math.