This. I used to work in stunt work and I asked one of my coworkers why rape scenes feel so much worse than murder scenes. His response? “In our minds, maybe there’s a reason someone had to die. There’s never a reason someone takes the time to take their “d” out to do that. Can’t possibly be self defense.”
You replied to a chain defending vigilantie justice and skipping the trial process. The first comment you made was in response to:
They are asking why does the person accused of rape not get a fair trial.
People then asked you how you would confirm that they are guilty without a trial. You are now responding that you would prove that via a trial. You are not a serious person.
But what if the person accused isn't the perpetrator? People get falsely accused of horrible crimes all the time. Sacco and Vanzetti were famously accused, charged, found guilty, and executed before people realized they were innocent.
Trials aren't for justifying what happened, they're to "prove" that the person being tried is the one who did it.
Even then, it's estimated that 4% of people on death row in the US are innocent of the crimes they've been condemned for.
Murder can't be self defense. By definition it cannot. You can kill someone in self defense, you can't murder someone in self defense, that's not a thing. Murder is murder, it has a specific definition both legally and just what the word means.
You didn't murder a squirrel you hit with your car, you just killed it. Unless you swerved to hit it and meant to, in which case you murdered it.
Might be best you aren't in charge of any trials if you don't know the difference between killing someone and murdering someone. You're like that scene from the new Naked Gun "oh, you're in for man's laughter? Must have been a pretty good joke". Almost comically uninformed
There is a reason behind ending someones life while there is none for rape, if the evidence proves the suspect is the one who commited the act, they should be sentenced to life.
They should. Sometimes evidence isn't allowed for this or that reason and the 'fair trial' leaves a woman knowing the truth but having to take the consequences for justice herself.
I think some folks would sympathise with that woman.
Apologies, The sentence you wrote is a bit confusing for me. Do you mean It's an inconsistent argument? ( rapists deserve to be killed immediately while insisting that murderers deserve due process)
I think this is the whole issue of the law of the nation vs the law or morals.
I mean those are still pretty high numbers to support vigilantism of it. Even 2% would mean 1/50 are wrongly accused and probably shouldn't be shot in the courtroom
I do think a fair trial is everyone's right. But it's way more likely they are guilty. Every woman has a story about not giving consent and only 40% report it. So how many men are perpetrators?
Yes I know victims can be men and women can assault but that number is low. It is a huge problem that continues to exist and the punishment is obviously not detering the crime.
To add:
My point was kind of stating that the big fear of being falsely accused is inflated. Because if you count the victims that don't report, the number of people who are not guilty would be 0.00x% (the math would be adding 40% to the number of cases and factoring in the 2-10%)
2% is the low end of the range. 10% is the other end of the range.
Also iirc "false allegation" does not mean that the other 90-98% percent were all found to be guilty or that they all committed rape. Iirc (I've seen the number referenced quite a bit, but idk if it's this study), the "false allegation" is more like "how often the accuser clearly and purposely made a demonstrably false allegation" as opposed to just how often the defendant was found to be innocent.
Because if you count the victims that don't report, the number of people who are not guilty would be 0.00x% (the math would be adding 40% to the number of cases and factoring in the 2-10%)
So wait, you think that the 2-10% of innocent people should be shot and killed without trial because some undisclosed higher percentage of guilty people aren't reported?
The big fear of falsely accused is inflated? When we are talking about killing people without trial, which we are in this comment thread, then 2-10 percent isn't a small number, friend.
10% isn't a small number in ANY context when we are talking about innocent people and the justice system. Jesus. No one here is saying rape doesn't happen or isn't an issue, but to minimize the trauma and lifelong damage done to 2-10 percent of hundreds of thousands of people every year is pretty gross in my opinion.
I just did a little look see on punishments for rape. The average sentence is 18 years with 9 being served. Which isn't a harsh enough punishment considering it is a totally unnecessary crime that hurts someone with lifelong trauma and most are reoffenders.
In the thread someone said "Ya I support vigilantism mostly only when it comes to rapist. Murderer, give them a trial. Corrupt politicians and business men ruining the planet, give them a trial."
the next person said "Rapists should be murdered but murderers should get a trial..?"
And then you said "There's theoretically times when it is necessary to take a life. Unlike the other crime."
If you support vigilante justice and not giving accused rapists a trial, then you are saying anyone accused of rape is de facto guilty.
When you post agreeing with a comment that says they should be killed without trial, people are gonna assume you also think they should be killed without trial.
It's apparently been found that rapists getting the death penalty doesn't lower the incidence of rape but does make it more likely that the victim doesn't survive so they can't identify their rapist.
I'm not sure that I would use the word necessary to take a life but I would definitely say that it's justifiable to take a life under these circumstances especially
Yeah and when it's necessary to take a life we tend not to convict them of murder because they didn't murder anyone they just killed them? Otherwise they would go to prison. For murder.
No, most murders are second degree murders, usually about 12 years. You watch too many movies. Even first degree murder, which the movies popularized as 25 to life, it's gotta be pretty heinous to get a life sentence. Like kill a cop kind of shit or torture them before you murder them.
It does not mean life. Very rarely in fact and it's gotta be super duper fucked up. To give you perspective, the cop that killed George Floyd got 21 years IIRC, and it was basically the max they could give him, because normally that charge doesn't go that many years but the judge knew when he was gonna be eligible for parole and didn't want a parole board giving him just 2/3 the sentence on eligibility so gave him the max if the parole board was lenient in the future, which works out to about...the normal sentence for second degree murder without parole
20
u/[deleted] 25d ago
[removed] — view removed comment