Clayton, disputes have be resolved by satisfying the sense of justice of both parties. So the question remains, what is just? In my opinion the aggressor has the duty to undo the damage, to make the victim whole when that is possible. That’s my personal sense of justice, that’s what I would have demanded from the aggressor. If undoing the damage is impossible, I would use estoppel as my indicator of justice.
I also wouldn’t consider it legitimate if someone sued me for psychological damage. It would be ridiculous. I don’t expect adults to demand property because I offended them or something. Adults should be able to get over negative emotions.
Eugene: OK, yes, that’s a colloquial way of describing it but the problem is that it’s horribly imprecise. You think the damage done to you is $1M and the aggressor thinks it’s $0. Who’s right and how do you prove it?
Amelia, rape can cause less physical damage than a punch in the face, but for a punch you get a few weeks in jail at most, and for rape you can get 20 years.
What’s your definition of rape? What do you consider rape, or the act of being raped? Do you realize it’s not as simple as you think, that’s it’s not just 2 people having sex while the other just didn’t feel like, it’s not gentle or loving, and it’s not right. With rape there’s aggression, there’s a struggle, someone does not want to be raped, before there is even penetration there is already a struggle, the victim does not want it, she/he will fight it. It’s not soft or loving, it’s rough and hateful. People have been raped and have had physical damage done to them from rape, and not just from the physical force to keep this person from resisting, women have had vaginal bleeding, future physical pain during sex, psychological and emotional problems and a decreased sexual drive. A woman can have her vagina torn apart from being raped. The rapist doesn’t care, he could spread her a virus or disease and get her pregnant. The crime is already committed, to what extent makes no difference, it’s still rape, and all should be punished harshly. As harsh as possible. You can’t say one rape was less horrific than the other. You can’t connect on the plane that someone is on who has been raped, and deals with that event time after it has happened.
Also, what makes the act of rape different than that of being a sex slave? Is the victim not bound to the aggression of the rapist who’s using the victim as a means of sex against their will? The act of rape is no different than that of someone sold into sex slavery, the difference being the sex slave is constantly raped time and time again, as long as he/she is enslaved.
Drug users get more years than a rapist or child molester. A victimless crime gets more time. I’ve never hear a rapist getting 20 years, but I generally hear about them getting back on the streets after a few.
If anyone’s interested the band Aus-Rotten wrote a song about this called The Second Rape. You can listen to it here or read the lyrics.
Well, the harshest possible sentence in a free market of law and security would be outlawry or, basically, “no one will protect you.” If the victim is motivated enough to pay someone to take out the aggressor then the aggressor is probably going to die.
I don’t think it’s a foregone conclusion that rape is always a death penalty or outlawing offense, if common law is any guide.
Here, I disagree. The modern definition of rape is so broad it could include a sex act between husband and wife when the wife was not in the mood.
Here, I disagree. The modern definition of rape is so broad it could include a sex act between husband and wife when the wife was not in the mood.
In regards to actual rape, what we can both agree to as rape. You can have it as it mainly being just someone being forced to have sex and resisting, and then you can have a woman beaten and gang raped in more than one way. They are both rape, we can’t determine the emotional and psychological damage.
What you’re talking about is another issue that I could write about, but I’m not sure I have the energy to go off in feminist rants right now.
Sorry to jump into this conversation suddenly, but I myself have thought on this subject. My thoughts/comments follow:
Insertion is definitely much more invasive
Ah, but are the mouth or vagina part of the body? They are merely holes. Indeed, scientists actually often find it useful to think of the digestive tract as external space.
vagina torn apart
This is a case-by-case thing. A rape may be nearly without (hypothetically) injuries or viruses. Obviously injuries add to the offense (unless you take the view of another poster that extent of damage itself is irrelevant).
I still think that this debate is being framed by the psychological perspective, which could be also brought into play when someone is being exploited by a big mean corporation, yet as libertarians we generally disregard that.
kidnapping
The victim may be asleep. Is kidnapping a location-change crime? Regardless, where do we draw the line of kidnapping? Is compulsory school considered kidnapping?
I am not trying to make rape better. Yet I am interested in a rational discussion of the crime, and saying “why is this one of your top priorities” is not an appropriate response (methinks).
My guess, Wheylous, is that you are a) male, b) have never been raped or sexully abused, and c) don’t know anyone who has.
Moreover, I am actually quite surprised to see that no one else here is even noting that rape is a fundamental violation of self-ownership, that the notion of an agressor being able to use another body as they see fit is intrinsic to the very act.
How the hell is this discussion even continuing at this point? If someone were to firebomb another person’s unoccupied property, there is no doubt that everyone here would be in agreement about the punishment being quite harsh, but in the case of rape we get things like “Is the vagina really part of the body?” Is your house, by any means, part of the body?
no one else here is even noting that rape is a fundamental violation of self-ownership
Everyone noted that… That and psychological harm are essentially what have been carrying the convo.
Is the vagina really part of the body
Not what I said. The argument was abuse of outside of body vs actual entry of body. Since the poster made the distinction, I decided to point out the different ways of viewing the body cavities.
What I mean by continuing the discussion is that yes, it is a violation of self-ownership, but so are a lot of crimes. How does this one distinguish itself from the others besides psychological harm. And if the answer is only psychological harm (and I do not use “only” to make it sound better), can we use psychological harm to assess the punishment. If so, can we also use psychological harm for any other crime and anything which is not even a crime, such as free speech?
It’s hard to have a rational discussion of rape with analogies to other crimes without sounding really insensitive, sorry…
Ah, but are the mouth or vagina part of the body? They are merely holes. Indeed, scientists actually often find it useful to think of the digestive tract as external space.
That’s great, except we aren’t discussing biological science - we are discussing cultural norms. You can try to “nothing but” your way out of this, but it doesn’t mean anything. All we can do is try and talk about what culture does and does not accept, the rest is worthless speculation. We are outside of the realm of philosophy and science. All speculation is hubris at this point.
I am not trying to make rape better. Yet I am interested in a rational discussion of the crime, and saying “why is this one of your top priorities” is not an appropriate response (methinks).
There is no rational discussion. It is not a “rational” category in the way you seem to be using the word. These are terms of custom, all we can do is positively identify what custom is. And in your case you pretty much have the entirety of legal and cultural human history against you, which makes your “cold, logical” analysis all the more dubious.
A Birthday Pony:
I don’t think self-ownership is a good philisophical term, and I say this as an egoist, and I can’t really use it as a universal legal term. I think it is too confusing, and while I haven’t really thought about it - may have the tendency to lead to a sort of psedoscientific reductionism that simply doesn’t exist.
There is a reason, that has been pointed out numerous times, why it’s hard to discuss this without sounding insensitive and why there is no crime analogous to rape. Rape is a crime in and of itself.
It is not an attack on self-ownership like aggression against property. It is an attack on the very self, one that requires penetration. It’s beyond just a punch or a slap, but is insertion of someone’s body into another by way of force. Any crime that is analgous is just as haneous.
The reason that there are so many psychological effects of rape is because it is a personal violation on the most fundamental level. One’s entire sense of self is struck in a way that no other attack can do. It is not because of these effects that rape is punished so harshly, but they are an effect of the crime itself.
This has nothing to do with quantifying emotional harm. It has to do with direct aggression against an individual in a way that is unique to all other forms of aggression, one that just so happens to disproportionately affect women, but I’m not even going into that right now.
“I don’t think self-ownership is a good philisophical term”
I don’t think so either, for all the reasons you stated and more, but I’m arguing on terms that seem to be more widely accepted here instead of going back and forth with words.
It is not because of these effects that rape is punished so harshly, but they are an effect of the crime itself
Well, I think that in the current system, it is. But it seems like you are referring to some system we are assuming in this thread specifically.
I am trying to narrow down your argument. Please bear with me. So it seems like you are saying the psychological effect is not what requires the punishment. Hence, the last two paragraphs are not it. The first one is not your argument either. So it must be the second one.
insertion of someone’s body into another by way of force
Are other crimes of insertion just as bad then? What if they are not of a body part, but an object?
“Are other crimes of insertion just as bad then? What if they are not of a body part, but an object?”
What’s left? Mutilation, murder, attempted murder, or rape involving the use of an object. I think rape is usually viewed as worse because sex is supposed to be personally expressive, whereas getting stabbed is not, and the robbery of personal expression is shitty, but it would not be crazy to list all of the above as on par with rape.
I think rape is usually viewed as worse because sex is supposed to be personally expressive, whereas getting stabbed is not, and the robbery of personal expression is shitty, but it would not be crazy to list all of the above as on par with rape.
Right. If one wants to take a “cold hard” look at rape - it can only be looked at as a tautological type of expression. That is a term that inherently implies it is in the category of the worst of legal crimes / cultural taboos, that can affect a being (and in particular a woman) down to a deep ontological core - it isn’t assault, penetration, psychological damage, kidnaping, or whatever - it’s rape. As much as it may piss off some people here, it is than up to jurors and culture IN ACTUAL PRACTICE to figure out “the essence” of rape, as it were. It can not be deduced in a void, rape is the “thing in itself” and it’s own atomic fact. It may sound artsy fartsy, and that is because it is - a legal and social art. And as far as what can be said of the actual living and existing of human life is concerned, rape by definition, seems to be one of the biggest damaging factors to a woman’s being.
Note:
As far as rape or whatever is concerned, I honestly have no personal horse in this race. I am a man who has had no real connection with the matter. Nor am I a feminist so far as I know, as feminism just isn’t my issue. I am simply trying to point out that all languages have their limitations, and if one wishes to speak in a type of “theoretical void”, most peoples approach to looking at law is off the mark here. I don’t think anyone here is arguing to try to drum up some chincy sentimentalism or self-righteous anger, (I think) we are just pointing out that rape in itself is a devestating thing and when it is actually done it is a REAL thing as opposed to speculating and deducing “coldly” about a universal ideal in some void.
vive la insurrection: While I agree that rape is its own thing, it can and must be analyzed from the point of view of law. For example, the law differentiates between sexual assault and rape. I believe the distinction has to do with penetration or attempted penetration. Anyway, my only point is that analysis matters because that is how we know whether something meets the definition of rape or not.
Sure, discussion of rape is sometimes necessary, and it’s certainly better than an imposed silence on the issue. But it does say much of this board that rape is the thing being discussed as something that needs to be clarified, while when it comes to damage of property there is little to no discussion of why punishment should be so harsh.
What of arson on the other hand? Arsonists that are caught regularly serve about 10 years, 20 if it was politically motivated, yet at what point does the fire actually harm anyone? I understand that it’s harm to property, but what makes arson more easily condemnable than rape?