Should the rape of a human being be a death sentence?

[shintao]

In 1285 in English law, the penalty for rape was a death sentence. Due to concerns of AIDs, prison populations, and street crimes against human beings, I think rape would justify a death sentence again. Do you think Congress would pass such a law, and why would states object?

The History of Rape Laws

(from Chapter 1, Against our Will by Susan Brownmiller)
Rape entered the lawbooks through the back door, as property crime of man against man, with the women viewed as the property involved. Women were wholly owned subsidiaries of men in ancient times – first owned by their fathers, and then by their husbands. Rape was, therefore, the theft of virginity, and embezzlement of a man’s fair price for his daughter. Accordingly, the punishments were very severe.

ENGLAND (before 1066)
Penalty for rape was death and dismemberment, but only applied to men who raped a high-born propertied virgin.
– 1066 (William the conquered) penalty reduced from death to castration and loss of both eyes.
– 12th Century (King Henry II) significant change: Trial by Jury, but only if victim filed a civil suit, and ran through the town immediately after the attack making a “hue and cry”, and showing her injuries and torn clothing to “Men Of Good Repute”, thus the roots of today’s stringent rules of corroboration.
– 13th Century (status of Westminster) important advances
o Involved the Crown in all rape cases (not just virgins)
o Statutory rape recognized by law
o No distinction in punishments for rape of virgins and non-virgins
o If a woman failed to institute a private suit within 40 days, the right to prosecute automatically passed to the Crown, meant that rape was no longer a family misfortune, but an issue of public safety and state concern. However, penalty for rape reduced to two years imprisonment (for 10 years, in 1285 the 2nd Statute of Westminster re-established the punishment to death)

http://sascwr.org/resources/pdfs/Legal/The History of Rape Laws.pdf

 

[Sallow]

No.

Rape is a complicated crime..and takes a great deal to sort out.

Sometimes the "rapist" turns out to be innocent.

 

[Avatar4321]

For aggrevated conditions, yes, IMHO

But then Robbers should be executed as well. And it should be considered in cases where people steal the retirement plans of others.

 

[The Infidel]

For aggrevated conditions, yes, IMHO

But then Robbers should be executed as well. And it should be considered in cases where people steal the retirement plans of others.

 

[The Infidel]

Why is this under politics ?

 

[eots]

the laws are total messed up..you have boys in jail in some states that had girl friend under 16 and then there are men that have raped 14 yr old girl I know of personally that got probation and no jail time !

 

[Contumacious]

In 1285 in English law, the penalty for rape was a death sentence. Due to concerns of AIDs, prison populations, and street crimes against human beings, I think rape would justify a death sentence again.

Considering what happened to Kobe Bryant and now to Julian Assange, I have serious reservations in those cases where the crime is not OBJECTIVELY DEFINED and where it is a she says/he says situation.

.

 

[elvis]

In 1285 in English law, the penalty for rape was a death sentence. Due to concerns of AIDs, prison populations, and street crimes against human beings, I think rape would justify a death sentence again. Do you think Congress would pass such a law, and why would states object?

The History of Rape Laws

(from Chapter 1, Against our Will by Susan Brownmiller)
Rape entered the lawbooks through the back door, as property crime of man against man, with the women viewed as the property involved. Women were wholly owned subsidiaries of men in ancient times – first owned by their fathers, and then by their husbands. Rape was, therefore, the theft of virginity, and embezzlement of a man’s fair price for his daughter. Accordingly, the punishments were very severe.

ENGLAND (before 1066)
Penalty for rape was death and dismemberment, but only applied to men who raped a high-born propertied virgin.
– 1066 (William the conquered) penalty reduced from death to castration and loss of both eyes.
– 12th Century (King Henry II) significant change: Trial by Jury, but only if victim filed a civil suit, and ran through the town immediately after the attack making a “hue and cry”, and showing her injuries and torn clothing to “Men Of Good Repute”, thus the roots of today’s stringent rules of corroboration.
– 13th Century (status of Westminster) important advances
o Involved the Crown in all rape cases (not just virgins)
o Statutory rape recognized by law
o No distinction in punishments for rape of virgins and non-virgins
o If a woman failed to institute a private suit within 40 days, the right to prosecute automatically passed to the Crown, meant that rape was no longer a family misfortune, but an issue of public safety and state concern. However, penalty for rape reduced to two years imprisonment (for 10 years, in 1285 the 2nd Statute of Westminster re-established the punishment to death)

http://sascwr.org/resources/pdfs/Legal/The History of Rape Laws.pdf

no. killing a rapist is not justice. killing a killer is.

 

[shintao]

No.

Rape is a complicated crime..and takes a great deal to sort out.

Sometimes the "rapist" turns out to be innocent.

Isn't that why we have the laws like probable cause? Sometimes the murderer turns out to be innocent as well, and that doesn't mean a death sentence isn't needed. With the forsenic crime tests it is pretty easy to verify when rape has occurred. DNA for example can be found where a person touches you on skin or clothes, so sperm alone isn't needed.

Good detective work is needed, proper procedures followed, and a court room.

 

[eots]

In 1285 in English law, the penalty for rape was a death sentence. Due to concerns of AIDs, prison populations, and street crimes against human beings, I think rape would justify a death sentence again. Do you think Congress would pass such a law, and why would states object?

The History of Rape Laws

(from Chapter 1, Against our Will by Susan Brownmiller)
Rape entered the lawbooks through the back door, as property crime of man against man, with the women viewed as the property involved. Women were wholly owned subsidiaries of men in ancient times – first owned by their fathers, and then by their husbands. Rape was, therefore, the theft of virginity, and embezzlement of a man’s fair price for his daughter. Accordingly, the punishments were very severe.

ENGLAND (before 1066)
Penalty for rape was death and dismemberment, but only applied to men who raped a high-born propertied virgin.
– 1066 (William the conquered) penalty reduced from death to castration and loss of both eyes.
– 12th Century (King Henry II) significant change: Trial by Jury, but only if victim filed a civil suit, and ran through the town immediately after the attack making a “hue and cry”, and showing her injuries and torn clothing to “Men Of Good Repute”, thus the roots of today’s stringent rules of corroboration.
– 13th Century (status of Westminster) important advances
o Involved the Crown in all rape cases (not just virgins)
o Statutory rape recognized by law
o No distinction in punishments for rape of virgins and non-virgins
o If a woman failed to institute a private suit within 40 days, the right to prosecute automatically passed to the Crown, meant that rape was no longer a family misfortune, but an issue of public safety and state concern. However, penalty for rape reduced to two years imprisonment (for 10 years, in 1285 the 2nd Statute of Westminster re-established the punishment to death)

http://sascwr.org/resources/pdfs/Legal/The History of Rape Laws.pdf

no. killing a rapist is not justice. killing a killer is.

Just throw them in general population and let nature take its course

 

[LordBrownTrout]

No.

Rape is a complicated crime..and takes a great deal to sort out.

Sometimes the "rapist" turns out to be innocent.

I've seen this happen before, dna evidence comes back, person is innocent, let them go. That's good. However, if dna evidence comes back against the rapist, then he deserves to have his balls lopped off with a rusty dull knife. Im speaking on forcible, aggravated rape. Statutory rape between a 17 and 16 year old who both consented, yeah, that's too young, but I just can't see locking up a kid for some stupid mistake and hanging a felony record on him for the rest of his life.

 

[shintao]

For aggrevated conditions, yes, IMHO

But then Robbers should be executed as well. And it should be considered in cases where people steal the retirement plans of others.

I am not against get tough laws, or even using torture prior to execution as a means to give a murdered victim equal justice. I also favor getting the perpetrators who previously abused a pedophile, who then acted against a child.

 

[Sallow]

No.

Rape is a complicated crime..and takes a great deal to sort out.

Sometimes the "rapist" turns out to be innocent.

DNA for example can be found where a person touches you on skin or clothes, so sperm alone isn't needed.

Good detective work is needed, proper procedures followed, and a court room.

There was a case some time ago where a man got convicted for both torturing and raping a woman. He got a very severe jail sentence for it. Subsequently it was found that he contacted her via the internet..and she was looking for the type of sex they engaged in.

He was exonerated.

Like I said..rape is a very complicated crime.

 

[shintao]

Why is this under politics ?

Because having congress pass tough laws is poltics??? And tying in state laws to be surrendered. Did you read the op?

 

[shintao]

the laws are total messed up..you have boys in jail in some states that had girl friend under 16 and then there are men that have raped 14 yr old girl I know of personally that got probation and no jail time !

That is why federal law is superior for the USA, it brings equality and "equal justice" to crimes, to age, to professional credentials, etc. States offer us chaos. Look at the qualifications for president by each state.

 

[shintao]

In 1285 in English law, the penalty for rape was a death sentence. Due to concerns of AIDs, prison populations, and street crimes against human beings, I think rape would justify a death sentence again.

Considering what happened to Kobe Bryant and now to Julian Assange, I have serious reservations in those cases where the crime is not OBJECTIVELY DEFINED and where it is a she says/he says situation.

.

You don't execute on a whim. There is a trial where evidence is presented to a jury of his peers.

 

[elvis]

In 1285 in English law, the penalty for rape was a death sentence. Due to concerns of AIDs, prison populations, and street crimes against human beings, I think rape would justify a death sentence again.

Considering what happened to Kobe Bryant and now to Julian Assange, I have serious reservations in those cases where the crime is not OBJECTIVELY DEFINED and where it is a she says/he says situation.

.

You don't execute on a whim. There is a trial where evidence is presented to a jury of his peers.

in America.

 

[shintao]

In 1285 in English law, the penalty for rape was a death sentence. Due to concerns of AIDs, prison populations, and street crimes against human beings, I think rape would justify a death sentence again. Do you think Congress would pass such a law, and why would states object?

The History of Rape Laws

(from Chapter 1, Against our Will by Susan Brownmiller)
Rape entered the lawbooks through the back door, as property crime of man against man, with the women viewed as the property involved. Women were wholly owned subsidiaries of men in ancient times – first owned by their fathers, and then by their husbands. Rape was, therefore, the theft of virginity, and embezzlement of a man’s fair price for his daughter. Accordingly, the punishments were very severe.

ENGLAND (before 1066)
Penalty for rape was death and dismemberment, but only applied to men who raped a high-born propertied virgin.
– 1066 (William the conquered) penalty reduced from death to castration and loss of both eyes.
– 12th Century (King Henry II) significant change: Trial by Jury, but only if victim filed a civil suit, and ran through the town immediately after the attack making a “hue and cry”, and showing her injuries and torn clothing to “Men Of Good Repute”, thus the roots of today’s stringent rules of corroboration.
– 13th Century (status of Westminster) important advances
o Involved the Crown in all rape cases (not just virgins)
o Statutory rape recognized by law
o No distinction in punishments for rape of virgins and non-virgins
o If a woman failed to institute a private suit within 40 days, the right to prosecute automatically passed to the Crown, meant that rape was no longer a family misfortune, but an issue of public safety and state concern. However, penalty for rape reduced to two years imprisonment (for 10 years, in 1285 the 2nd Statute of Westminster re-established the punishment to death)

http://sascwr.org/resources/pdfs/Legal/The History of Rape Laws.pdf

no. killing a rapist is not justice. killing a killer is.

In a rapist's eyes, maybe. Not in the victim's eyes.

 

[elvis]

In 1285 in English law, the penalty for rape was a death sentence. Due to concerns of AIDs, prison populations, and street crimes against human beings, I think rape would justify a death sentence again. Do you think Congress would pass such a law, and why would states object?

The History of Rape Laws

(from Chapter 1, Against our Will by Susan Brownmiller)
Rape entered the lawbooks through the back door, as property crime of man against man, with the women viewed as the property involved. Women were wholly owned subsidiaries of men in ancient times – first owned by their fathers, and then by their husbands. Rape was, therefore, the theft of virginity, and embezzlement of a man’s fair price for his daughter. Accordingly, the punishments were very severe.

ENGLAND (before 1066)
Penalty for rape was death and dismemberment, but only applied to men who raped a high-born propertied virgin.
– 1066 (William the conquered) penalty reduced from death to castration and loss of both eyes.
– 12th Century (King Henry II) significant change: Trial by Jury, but only if victim filed a civil suit, and ran through the town immediately after the attack making a “hue and cry”, and showing her injuries and torn clothing to “Men Of Good Repute”, thus the roots of today’s stringent rules of corroboration.
– 13th Century (status of Westminster) important advances
o Involved the Crown in all rape cases (not just virgins)
o Statutory rape recognized by law
o No distinction in punishments for rape of virgins and non-virgins
o If a woman failed to institute a private suit within 40 days, the right to prosecute automatically passed to the Crown, meant that rape was no longer a family misfortune, but an issue of public safety and state concern. However, penalty for rape reduced to two years imprisonment (for 10 years, in 1285 the 2nd Statute of Westminster re-established the punishment to death)

http://sascwr.org/resources/pdfs/Legal/The History of Rape Laws.pdf

no. killing a rapist is not justice. killing a killer is.

In a rapist's eyes, maybe. Not in the victim's eyes.

well, one could say the same thing about a victim of a cheating spouse.

 

[shintao]

No.

Rape is a complicated crime..and takes a great deal to sort out.

Sometimes the "rapist" turns out to be innocent.

DNA for example can be found where a person touches you on skin or clothes, so sperm alone isn't needed.

Good detective work is needed, proper procedures followed, and a court room.

There was a case some time ago where a man got convicted for both torturing and raping a woman. He got a very severe jail sentence for it. Subsequently it was found that he contacted her via the internet..and she was looking for the type of sex they engaged in.

He was exonerated.

Like I said..rape is a very complicated crime.

Yes indeed, that is why we have court rooms. You have the same type of circumstantial evidence cases in child sexual abuse, but the court figures out using evidence. Do you want to give child molesters a death sentence? I do.