The Student Room Group

Time to give anonimity to rape suspects?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 160
Original post by scrotgrot
If rape is just "a woman's feelings", I can extend that to many crimes.

Why do we have the death penalty, or life imprisonment, for murder? The murder victim is hardly going to care one way or the other, is he?

No, we do it in part because of the feelings of his family. They want retribution.

And you can take feelings out of rape if you want: it's still a violent crime like any other, achieved either with actual or threatened violence.

Even if you contend that rape need not involve even a threat of violence, we have things like force-feeding, which is the only other thing I can think of which involves inserting something into someone else's body against their will. That is considered torture/abuse.


Rape should be punishable, because feelings matter. But they are feelings, nevertheless.

My point is that feelings do not matter more than lives. That's why we don't have the death penalty, even for murder.

And the the feelings of being catcalled or looked at definitely don't matter more than years of a man's freedom.

As for your later comment, it's not a straw man, because my point is that feminism is a very dangerous step away from proportional and logical justice, and if you agree with proportional and logical justice, then it seems you are just nitpicking on the fact that I consider the words feelings and psychology to be synonymous. I could have said "A woman's psychologically should not matter more than a man's life" and then I would have been more definitionally accurate.

Feelings/psychology matters. But not more than a life.
Original post by 41b
Rape should be punishable, because feelings matter. But they are feelings, nevertheless.

My point is that feelings do not matter more than lives. That's why we don't have the death penalty, even for murder.

And the the feelings of being catcalled or looked at definitely don't matter more than years of a man's freedom.

As for your later comment, it's not a straw man, because my point is that feminism is a very dangerous step away from proportional and logical justice, and if you agree with proportional and logical justice, then it seems you are just nitpicking on the fact that I consider the words feelings and psychology to be synonymous. I could have said "A woman's psychologically should not matter more than a man's life" and then I would have been more definitionally accurate.

Feelings/psychology matters. But not more than a life.


I can agree with this.

What is your recommended sentence/social censure for rape, cat-calling, eye-rape?
Reply 162
Original post by scrotgrot
I can agree with this.

What is your recommended sentence/social censure for rape?


I don't know, my view of justice is generally much more subjective and I tend to be against prison sentences in general because it wastes productivity - it places feelings above efficiency. Corporal punishment seems much more efficient in this regard.

Personally I think a harsh, repeated physical punishment over a few weeks would turn any rapist good. It would be a more effective rehabilitator than spending decades out of the workforce, losing skills and creating bonds with other criminals. And it would be a brutal punishment, satisfying demands for retribution.

It would allow him to return to the workforce without wasting taxpayer money.

But society is too weak and prefers to waste 20 years of wasted production and 20 years of taxpayer money, and create a lifelong criminal, instead.

I am not a Saudi or a Muslim, but this aspect of their society seems very efficient to me.

Have a good night.
Original post by 41b
I don't know, my view of justice is generally much more subjective and I tend to be against prison sentences in general because it wastes productivity - it places feelings above efficiency. Corporal punishment seems much more efficient in this regard.

Personally I think a harsh, repeated physical punishment over a few weeks would turn any rapist good. It would be a more effective rehabilitator than spending decades out of the workforce, losing skills and creating bonds with other criminals. And it would be a brutal punishment, satisfying demands for retribution.

It would allow him to return to the workforce without wasting taxpayer money.

But society is too weak and prefers to waste 20 years of wasted production and 20 years of taxpayer money, and create a lifelong criminal, instead.

I am not a Saudi or a Muslim, but this aspect of their society seems very efficient to me.

Have a good night.


Why do you always use Muslims and Saudis interchangeably? Saudi society is on the brink of collapse, it is anything but traditional & Islamic, perhaps superficially it appears so because of women not having sex before marriage but just like the philosophical agnosticism that arose in Europe only two hundred years after Saint Thomas (causing everything else that followed in the west) similarly, athiesm is spreading at a much faster rate within the kingdom due to all its wahabbism nonsense & anything traditional is quickly vanishing, with the final result being the total collapse of the family institution
Original post by 41b
Yeah, when it doesn't cause any physical harm, it's an extreme case, and is horrible in of itself. But that is what it is. Rape Trauma Syndrome doesn't really posit that women's bodies are hurt, after all, but they are psychologically damaged. Read your own feminist literature.


Having your feelings hurt is not equivalent to psychological trauma, just as depression isn't just feeling a bit sad.
The court of public opinion is, typically, harsh, irrational, and less well-informed than the criminal courts. Therefore it would make sense to keep the identity of the accused confidential until there is a verdict, or at the very least a trial. An accusation of a crime alone can ruin somebody's life. The idea is to punish them if and when they are found guilty of something; not beforehand.
Reply 166
no name and shame them (only if they're guilty tho)
Original post by 41b
Feminism is a very dangerous step away from proportional and logical justice.


Justice has no inherent logic or predefined proportionality to be stepped away from.

Justice has always been and most likely always will be used as much as a deterrent for society as a whole as it is as justice for the individual responsible. It is used to shape society as we would like it to be, whether you agree or disagree with how it works. Applying it in such a way as to make rape less common is just another example of justice being used as it always has been.
Original post by thecatwithnohat
I'm split.

Suspects should be publicly stigmatised and shamed if and when they are found guilty, to deter them from committing such a crime again.

However, I do feel for those that are suspects but end up not having done anything wrong and this whole event may affect their employment prospects in the future, etc...


Why does this 'split' your opinion? If someone was convicted of rape, their anonymity would presumably be removed. It's a win-win situation.
Original post by a noble chance
Why does this 'split' your opinion? If someone was convicted of rape, their anonymity would presumably be removed. It's a win-win situation.


What I mean by being split over OP's suggestion is that there are some people who are publicised as being suspects and then are later proven to be innocent, but having their name attached to such a case could affect them when it comes to important things in life e.g. employment, working with children etc.

I don't mind about those convicted, they completely deserve to lose their right to anonymity.
Original post by thecatwithnohat
What I mean by being split over OP's suggestion is that there are some people who are publicised as being suspects and then are later proven to be innocent, but having their name attached to such a case could affect them when it comes to important things in life e.g. employment, working with children etc.

I don't mind about those convicted, they completely deserve to lose their right to anonymity.


Yes...but I don't understand why you're 'split' about whether this is a good idea. Those who aren't convicted retain their anonymity, while those who are lose it.
suspects of any crime should be anonymous till proven guilty.
even if one would be cleared by the court of law, their reputation would be shattered forever.
after, and only after, being found guilty their name, and face should be made known publicly.
Original post by Harriett071
Why on earth would there be a sentence or censure for cat calling or 'eye-rape', that makes absolutely no sense. Would be hard to prove in the first place and second, I think the police have greater things to worry about!!


I agree but one leaves the possibility open for him to answer

Quick Reply

Latest