You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Rape a suitable punishment for miniskirts?
- Thread starter Arditezza
- Start date
We live in a world where a 16 year old girl is hanged for committing adultery with a married man who is sentenced to 75 lashes for his part in the affair. It is past time that women in the world start focusing attention on this kind of double standard that men have foisted on the world.
"We live in a world where a 16 year old girl is hanged for committing adultery with a married man who is sentenced to 75 lashes for his part in the affair. It is past time that women in the world start focusing attention on this kind of double standard that men have foisted on the world."
not in civilized countries, which dont have capital punishment OR torture
not in civilized countries, which dont have capital punishment OR torture
So this thread won't die off I wanted to take it on a tangent based on the article presented.
Before we can answer a question like "rape suitable punishment for miniskirts?" we would have to determine if rape is a suitable punishment under any circumstances and if so would attire be one of them...as ridiculous as my statement may come across realize that the question has been answered by probably every legal system in the world and much more than once. Without formulating a legal structures and or boundries on major issues like gang-rape and attire you invite further said actions as their is no visable deterent which is what I gathered the other woman were protesting in the article. That there was no sanction for the mens actions.
As a secondary part to the above paragraph is there ever a justification to vigilantism and if so when?
If it was not (which is the position I would take) than what is a suitable consquence for the partipants? Pretend its an open sci-court ....Whatever santions you propose how would u justify them? and what prescedents would they have for future gang rapes?
Before we can answer a question like "rape suitable punishment for miniskirts?" we would have to determine if rape is a suitable punishment under any circumstances and if so would attire be one of them...as ridiculous as my statement may come across realize that the question has been answered by probably every legal system in the world and much more than once. Without formulating a legal structures and or boundries on major issues like gang-rape and attire you invite further said actions as their is no visable deterent which is what I gathered the other woman were protesting in the article. That there was no sanction for the mens actions.
As a secondary part to the above paragraph is there ever a justification to vigilantism and if so when?
If it was not (which is the position I would take) than what is a suitable consquence for the partipants? Pretend its an open sci-court ....Whatever santions you propose how would u justify them? and what prescedents would they have for future gang rapes?
Last edited:
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Let me give you the libertarian perspective.
There are certain purposes for punishing wrongdoers. The most important is to prevent subsequent misdeeds. Primarily by the wrongdoer. Keeping him locked away is one way to accomplish that. Rehabilitation is better. If he's a member of an organized terrorist group you have a problem, however. His buddies will kidnap a bunch of your people and offer to trade them for the prisoner. So it's probably ok to execute terrorists who are not acting alone like Timothy McVeigh. That's a tough decision but it seems like an exercise in situational ethics, picking the lesser of two evils.
Punishing people by making them fix something they broke or paying back money they stole is restitution. That is another very good reason for punishment. To the extent that the misdeed can be corrected, this sorts the universe out a little bit and makes the perp pay for his deed in a way that is directly related to the deed itself. Not bad. It doesn't work for murder or rape but it works for a lot of lesser crimes.
They say that punishing people as an example makes the rest of the population toe the line and not break the law. I think that's not true so I don't buy this excuse for punishment, certainly not for the death penalty or torture (or rape).
If you live in a country where the civil authorities don't have much power or can't be counted on for continuity, prisons may not work. Ancient Mesopotamia or modern Russia, where the people in the government take bribes to allow terrorists on airplanes, are good examples. In places like that I suppose the only way to keep a person from committing more crimes, assuming that you haven't got a good rehabilitation program, is to kill them.
And of course if you catch someone in the act of attacking your family with a lethal weapon you have the right to defend them with lethal force of your own. But if you go to all the trouble of overpowering him, tying him to a chair, waiting for the cops, going to trial, being shaken down by the defense attorney, and hoping you made the right choice, the last thing that should be done is for the government to go ahead and kill him anyway. Why bother having a government if it's just going to do the one thing that we private citizens are not supposed to do under any circumstances: take revenge?
Revenge is never a legitiminate reason for punishing someone.
Killing someone only punishes the people who love them. Like their children, who don't understand what's going on except that you're the bastard responsible for killing their father. All that gets you is an endless escalating cycle of revenge like the stereotyped feuds in the American backwoods. Or the thousand-year-old hatreds in the Middle East, where the definition of a "moderate" is a person who only holds a grudge for six generations.
There are certain purposes for punishing wrongdoers. The most important is to prevent subsequent misdeeds. Primarily by the wrongdoer. Keeping him locked away is one way to accomplish that. Rehabilitation is better. If he's a member of an organized terrorist group you have a problem, however. His buddies will kidnap a bunch of your people and offer to trade them for the prisoner. So it's probably ok to execute terrorists who are not acting alone like Timothy McVeigh. That's a tough decision but it seems like an exercise in situational ethics, picking the lesser of two evils.
Punishing people by making them fix something they broke or paying back money they stole is restitution. That is another very good reason for punishment. To the extent that the misdeed can be corrected, this sorts the universe out a little bit and makes the perp pay for his deed in a way that is directly related to the deed itself. Not bad. It doesn't work for murder or rape but it works for a lot of lesser crimes.
They say that punishing people as an example makes the rest of the population toe the line and not break the law. I think that's not true so I don't buy this excuse for punishment, certainly not for the death penalty or torture (or rape).
If you live in a country where the civil authorities don't have much power or can't be counted on for continuity, prisons may not work. Ancient Mesopotamia or modern Russia, where the people in the government take bribes to allow terrorists on airplanes, are good examples. In places like that I suppose the only way to keep a person from committing more crimes, assuming that you haven't got a good rehabilitation program, is to kill them.
And of course if you catch someone in the act of attacking your family with a lethal weapon you have the right to defend them with lethal force of your own. But if you go to all the trouble of overpowering him, tying him to a chair, waiting for the cops, going to trial, being shaken down by the defense attorney, and hoping you made the right choice, the last thing that should be done is for the government to go ahead and kill him anyway. Why bother having a government if it's just going to do the one thing that we private citizens are not supposed to do under any circumstances: take revenge?
Revenge is never a legitiminate reason for punishing someone.
Killing someone only punishes the people who love them. Like their children, who don't understand what's going on except that you're the bastard responsible for killing their father. All that gets you is an endless escalating cycle of revenge like the stereotyped feuds in the American backwoods. Or the thousand-year-old hatreds in the Middle East, where the definition of a "moderate" is a person who only holds a grudge for six generations.
alain "We live in a world where a 16 year old girl is hanged for committing adultery with a married man who is sentenced to 75 lashes for his part in the affair. It is past time that women in the world start focusing attention on this kind of double standard that men have foisted on the worldnot in civilized countries, which dont have capital punishment OR torture "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3705988.stm This is supposed to be a civilised country, subject to the laws of western society, yet rape is justified by the men involved as 'tradition'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3705988.stm This is supposed to be a civilised country, subject to the laws of western society, yet rape is justified by the men involved as 'tradition'