Death Penalty for Sexual Assault

Post Reply New Topic

A great idea from both an evolutionary stand point as well as a utilitarian stand point. Sexual assault--whether it's of men, women, or children--undoubtedly detracts from GDP and fills the mental health system. What if there were a zero tolerance and a quick execution policy with certain cases of rape/sexual assault where the act was supported by a certain amount of confirmatory evidence?

Would we miss these people at all? For those who say that sexual aggression is natural, would it be if the genes for it were disfavored via executions? Those who feel the need to engage in this conduct (and cannot get it consensually) are usually genetically unfit in other ways, too (including bad looks, mental disorders, or lack of employment capacity). Televising some of the executions (not just for rapes -- I'm for televising executions generally) would add to the deterrent factor as well. Everyone left over would be happier, and the economy would be stronger due to having fewer mental illnesses and a more productive work force.

When we still had the death penalty in South Africa, rape was one of the few offences that was punishable by the death penalty. Though the death penalty has now been abolished since the end of Apartheid in 1994 and the new constitution was drawn up.

In America, Black men convicted of rape were more likely to be executed than other men convicted of rape. And, they were also more likely to be convicted of rape, whether they actually raped anyone or not.

That's why there would need to be guidelines on what evidence was required and a fairly rigid process (outside of jury discretion) for determining the death penalty.

I don't agree with the death penalty for any crime committed. The whole idea of justice and vengeance is wrong. Humans, including rapists, are a product of their genes and environment. They had no real freedom to not do what they ended up doing. More humane to secure them away from society for life or until effective treatment.

Well, you're in Texas, which is the world leader in executions per capita. I gather that most Texans are quite proud of this distinction.

Still, it will end up mostly Black men being executed. Most of them won't have as much money for lawyers as OJ Simpson did.

The death penalty cannot be applied fairly and without error even when it comes to murder, sexual assault is a crime that is very hard to prove and isn't fairly applied either so using to death penalty for sexual assaults would not be a disaster. Just look at the Jodi Arias case, if she were a black man there would of been no question she would of gotten the death penalty.

Offender concerns

1. Man rapes victim.
2. Man is left with a choice: (A) kill victim or (B) let victim live.

(A) has the advantage of eliminating a testimony which would put the rapist at risk of being convicted. If he also gets rid of the body, there is not physical evidence and little to no chance that he will be convicted.

(B) has the advantage that rape is a lesser crime than murder, and should he be convicted, he would face a lighter sentence if he decided to let the victim live.

If one introduces the death penalty for rape, or any sentence which differs little from the sentence for murder, one is actually encouraging rapists to kill their victims.

Furthermore, since psychopathy seems to be more prevalent among convicted rapists (I have found figures ranging from 12 to 40 percent based on US data) than among the general population (estimated at approx. 1 percent), one would expect the average rapist to display more psychopathic traits than the average Joe.

And the current research suggests that psychopaths tend to overestimate rewards compared to punishments. A psychopath would thus be more likely to appreciate action A (the potential of walking away free = pure reward) compared to action B (getting a lighter sentence = less punishment).

Victim concerns

Assume that there was indeed a zero tolerance policy towards rape which resulted in the death penalty.

How would a rape victim then react if he or she believed that the offender should be punished, but that the offender should not be put to death? The only viable option would then be not to report the rape in the first place...

Imagine for instance a sexual assault against a child (which is usually the scenario where the call for the death penalty surfaces most frequently). These assaults often involve family members or close acquaintances. Are we to believe that a child would report a brother, father or uncle knowing that they would get the needle?

Summary

Imposing the death penalty for sexual assault would introduce an incentive for escalating the crime, and it would introduce a disincentive against reporting the crime.

Last edited by GGPViper on 25 May 2013, 7:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I think that televising executions is a vile idea. People commit crimes and the are punished accordingly. I have as much desire to see their punishment as I do their crime.
Public executions dehumanize everyone.

I would possibly consider them being sterilized, but not killed. I don't agree with the death penalty for any crime except Treason during War Time.

Evolution?

Evolution does not follow what people what, it is also not a entity which decides, nor can be 'convinced', it is merely what is happening in the present. The total opposite could happen from what people want.

Although Darwinian evolutionary ideas are more about individuals, modern evolutionary science realizes that this is simplistic. Human race is a great example of complex social relationships evolving together.

If you are talking about natural selection in the wild, sexual selection, etc. Well with other animals rape is there. In ducks for instance gang rape plays a part in sexual competition.

Sexual aggression is a part of animal behavior to a lesser or greater extent. However human are interesting, because they are well adapted to contort their very nature to fit any given scenario,

If you are talking about Eugenics, then that often doesn't turn out how people expect. It also assumes these trait can be bred out. Quite often it is both congenial and developmental aspect to this behavior.

As a society we are against sexual assault (I would hope), this is a meme.

Our rules are adaptions, so in that way, we are evolving. However with biological evolution, that doesn't not automatically get imprinted because some decisions are made, any consequences might contribute however, we just don't know.

The stupidity of this notion cannot be overstated.

Consider why the offence of "sexual assault" exists in the legal lexicon in the first place. Over the centuries, the legal definition of rape was regularly and consistently eroded because of the harsh penalties that existed, that courts were unwilling to impose for offenses that met the definition, but did not merit the harsh sentence. By the time the twentieth century rolled around, the term "rape" at Common Law (in most jurisdictions) required evidence of penile penetration of the vagina, which eliminated a vast array of sexually motivated misconduct.

If we turn around, then, and suggest that every inappropriate touch potentially exposes the offender to the death penalty, we are inviting that cycle all over again.

GGPViper has it right. This is bad for victims. It places them in more danger, not less, and by elevating the stakes, you can be damn sure that every lawyer defending an accused rapist is going to be ethically obliged to put the victim through a thorough cross examination at trial.

GGPViper pretty much sums up the reason why rapists don't get the death penalty in many countries that have a death penalty.

There are other arguments based on the notion that punishments which cannot be undone are unethical. If new evidence surfaces five years later that a convicted rapist was innocent, if he were imprisoned, at least he has a chance to repair his life. If he's killed that's obviously not the case. If he's sterilized it's the same thing. I'm not saying the world couldn't potentially be better off without certain individuals, but our justice system is too flawed for the death penalty to be a practical way to deal with it.

People who commit these kinds of crimes are thinking with their testicles and not their brain. I don't think any punishment including death is a deterrent.

Curse your Vulcan logic!



There is still the fact that killing a person in self-defense or in defense of another - such as when someone is being physically assaulted - seems to rarely result in a murder conviction for the person who killed the attacker.

Too many ways it could be abused rape is a horrible crime dont think killing people will do much to stop it more chance that innocent people would be harmed by this than justice served.