NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been thinking about this topic a lot lately, and I have noticed that there aren't really any set Rape Sentencing laws, and this has really bothered me, I know this girl who was raped, and the offender went to jail for 25 days...if that, it could have been 20 who knows, my point is that this isn't fair, does anyone else agree with me that rape offenders should have a set sentence?

I've been thinking about this topic a lot lately, and I have noticed that there aren't really any set Rape Sentencing laws, and this has really bothered me, I know this girl who was raped, and the offender went to jail for 25 days...if that, it could have been 20 who knows, my point is that this isn't fair, does anyone else agree with me that rape offenders should have a set sentence?

This is something I can agree on.

We have mandatory minimum sentencing for Joe D. Dumbfuck who got caught with marijuana, but a rapist gets off easy?

Not right man...

Drug sentencing has some of the toughest minimum sentencing laws on the books. Mainly because the feds drew up all the bullshit on it.

I've been thinking about this topic a lot lately, and I have noticed that there aren't really any set Rape Sentencing laws, and this has really bothered me, I know this girl who was raped, and the offender went to jail for 25 days...if that, it could have been 20 who knows, my point is that this isn't fair, does anyone else agree with me that rape offenders should have a set sentence?

i think that they should......something along the lines of death or a castration would work :), i dont under stand why rapists dont get a heavy sentance, it makes me sick

i think that they should......something along the lines of death or a castration would work :), i dont under stand why rapists dont get a heavy sentance, it makes me sick
Well I was thinking more along the lines of 25 years.....with no chance of parole...

Do you live in the US?

I was watching tv last night where I live and this show was recounting how a man who had been abducting young (ie children) girls, he literally just grabbed these young girls in public places and dragged them out of veiw and then sexually assaulted them. He apparently raped one. :(

They eventually caught him and he was found guilty on mutltiple counts (I believe including rape and abduction). He was sentenced to home detention (and apparently has since escaped)!:headbang:

Home detention for rape!
We have home detention in my country, but the law doesnt allow it for offences like rape. It's only for misdemeanors and even then you have to apply after you have been sentenced (which means by the time you are granted home detention, you've already served a number of months on the sentence, so you still do 'jail-time').

Honestly I was stunned. I've heard of other cases where people in the US have received prison sentences (i.e. in actual prisons rather than in the comfort of their own home....) for drug offences, property offences and all sorts of crimes that dont compare to rape in terms of the harm inflicted and the cruelty of needed to inflict that harm.

Talk about irony; when watching US media you always hear that crazy line about 'the greatest justice system in the world'...some people dont know how good they've got it, any American citizen who believes that old cliche about their justice system doesnt know how bad they've got it.:confused:

So do you live in the US, or is this ridiculous sentence you refer to the result of some other (obviously flawed) justice system?

Do you live in the US?

I was watching tv last night where I live and this show was recounting how a man who had been abducting young (ie children) girls, he literally just grabbed these young girls in public places and dragged them out of veiw and then sexually assaulted them. He apparently raped one. :(

They eventually caught him and he was found guilty on mutltiple counts (I believe including rape and abduction). He was sentenced to home detention (and apparently has since escaped)!:headbang:

Home detention for rape!
We have home detention in my country, but the law doesnt allow it for offences like rape. It's only for misdemeanors and even then you have to apply after you have been sentenced (which means by the time you are granted home detention, you've already served a number of months on the sentence, so you still do 'jail-time').

Honestly I was stunned. I've heard of other cases where people in the US have received prison sentences (i.e. in actual prisons rather than in the comfort of their own home....) for drug offences, property offences and all sorts of crimes that dont compare to rape in terms of the harm inflicted and the cruelty of needed to inflict that harm.

Talk about irony; when watching US media you always hear that crazy line about 'the greatest justice system in the world'...some people dont know how good they've got it, any American citizen who believes that old cliche about their justice system doesnt know how bad they've got it.:confused:

So do you live in the US, or is this ridiculous sentence you refer to the result of some other (obviously flawed) justice system?
Yes I do live in the U.S, and we have sucky rape sentencing laws, its basically all up to the judge, and yes i did research this...

I've been thinking about this topic a lot lately, and I have noticed that there aren't really any set Rape Sentencing laws, and this has really bothered me, I know this girl who was raped, and the offender went to jail for 25 days...if that, it could have been 20 who knows, my point is that this isn't fair, does anyone else agree with me that rape offenders should have a set sentence?

I believe more in public punishments, like in the movie star ship troopers, where ur dragged on the public square. Then everyone will know the offender and he has to carry his burden for ever. If the state publicly remove his genitalia, the social effect will last for many many years. This of course would be morally wrong. But i wonder if the opions would change if the victim is someone close to you. Of course in my state everyone is close to everyone. So most of the time a serious crime will always be categorized as a capital offence. :)

I believe more in public punishments, like in the movie star ship troopers, where ur dragged on the public square. Then everyone will know the offender and he has to carry his burden for ever. If the state publicly remove his genitalia, the social effect will last for many many years. This of course would be morally wrong. But i wonder if the opions would change if the victim is someone close to you. Of course in my state everyone is close to everyone. So most of the time a serious crime will always be categorized as a capital offence. :)
My dad and brothers all say that the guy should be put in a building have his balls nailed to the floor and set a razor next to him, and light the house on fire.

Well I was thinking more along the lines of 25 years.....with no chance of parole...

......or a life sentance

I've been thinking about this topic a lot lately, and I have noticed that there aren't really any set Rape Sentencing laws, and this has really bothered me, I know this girl who was raped, and the offender went to jail for 25 days...if that, it could have been 20 who knows, my point is that this isn't fair, does anyone else agree with me that rape offenders should have a set sentence?

Each state has it's own policies/laws regarding sentencings. In Michigan, defendant is scored taking into consideration several dozen variables. This is an attempt to make sure that there is some consistancy between judges. There are also different degrees of rape (which we call criminal sexual conduct) that carry greater penalties. Example: CSC 1st degree, which requires penetration, carries a maximum penalty of life in prison. CSC 2nd, which doesn't require penetration, is a max of 15 years.

All that being said, every incident is unique and each of them need to be looked at individually. A 18 year old boy sleeping with his 15 year old girlfriend could be rape because she lacks the capacity to give consent. Does that mean he should be imprisoned for 15 years???

Wellll, normally I would agree with the set penalties... but here in the US we also have women deciding to say they got raped by Famous Guy X.... (ahnould anybody... last time I checked I heard 10+ women claimed rape right after he got elected...) I also don't agree with mandatory sentences in general, but with rape I'd make an exception. 'Specially considering druggie sentences...

On a non-serious note, we could get rid of this mess by having everybody follow this simple rule: "Girls, stop rape, consent." ;)
That or groin shooting sex offenders. I like Crime Prevention's idea as well, but with a nail file instead of a razor :p

i think that they should......something along the lines of death or a castration would work :), i dont under stand why rapists dont get a heavy sentance, it makes me sick
Is castration... Legal?:D

All that being said, every incident is unique and each of them need to be looked at individually. A 18 year old boy sleeping with his 15 year old girlfriend could be rape because she lacks the capacity to give consent. Does that mean he should be imprisoned for 15 years???
That doesnt explain why anyone would (or should) put up with a justice system that gives home-detention to a person who attacks and sexually abuses children.
I would expect the contextual circumstances of any crime to be taken into account, but when a system sends people to prison for long periods of time for drug or property offences, but gives out home detention and/or 25 day sentences for intentionally cruel and extensively hurtful attacks on other people, if that system is called a 'justice system' the phrase is obviously a misnomer.

Is castration... Legal?:D
yes....in most cases its called a vasectomy, they leave every thing there just and just snip, if you castrate you get rid of it all.......also thousands of castrations are preformed every day on animals, men that rape arnt much differant than animals so...

I've been thinking about this topic a lot lately, and I have noticed that there aren't really any set Rape Sentencing laws, and this has really bothered me, I know this girl who was raped, and the offender went to jail for 25 days...if that, it could have been 20 who knows, my point is that this isn't fair, does anyone else agree with me that rape offenders should have a set sentence?

Personally, I think they should all be tortured to death. Slowly.

mandatory death sentence.

Personally, I think they should all be tortured to death. Slowly.I am against torture...in any shape or form.

mandatory death sentence.
seconded

mandatory death sentence.
Thirded..

Or something like that.
:confused:

i think that they should......something along the lines of death or a castration would work :), i dont under stand why rapists dont get a heavy sentance, it makes me sick
Heavy sentence, yes. Death, no. Think about the incentive that would create to kill the victims.

Heavy sentence, yes. Death, no. Think about the incentive that would create to kill the victims.

Exactly.

It also makes getting convictions much, much harder.

(Not to mention it has been ruled unconsitutional to apply capital punishment to rape.)

Complete removal of the genitalia (what's this pansy 'castration' crap?) sounds good to me. No more sex, and no more peeing standing up (assuming the rapist was male, of course).

Hey, if you can't play nice with your toys, we'll just have to take 'em away...

Or how about this? Mandatory gender-reassignment surgery? :eek:

i think that they should......something along the lines of death or a castration would work :), i dont under stand why rapists dont get a heavy sentance, it makes me sick
What would you do in the case of a female raping a male? Either Sodomy or standard method? Or raping another female? Heck technacally nowadays if it's sexual contact regardless of penatration it's considered rape.

My, my, we have some sick little minds with no idea how our criminal justice system works but with rather sordid and violent fantasies.

All that being said, every incident is unique and each of them need to be looked at individually. A 18 year old boy sleeping with his 15 year old girlfriend could be rape because she lacks the capacity to give consent. Does that mean he should be imprisoned for 15 years???

I don't think that most people here are considering staturary rape in the same catagory as actual rape

I don't think that most people here are considering staturary rape in the same catagory as actual rape

Depends on the state.

By I find any attempt to distinguish rape from "real rape" disturbing.

There is the potential that if anything that can be remotely classified as rape could potentially put some people who do not deserve to be in charged in trouble. I am not defending anyone who forcibly rapes, threatens, slips a roofie, gets the girl drunk or any obvious case where it was one person making sure the other does not consent. But lets look at the case of statutory rape, it is still rape. It is in the name. The girl could be one day away from being 16 and her 18 year old boyfriend and her have sex and the parents could get overly pissed and file charges. Should the guy get thrown in jail, even though the girl gave consent but the parents didnt approve after the fact? Or how about a guy and girl meet at the party, both above the drinking age, both get completely shitfaced and end up having sex. In the morning the girl doesn't like the choice she made while drunk and files charges of rape. She was technically incapable of giving consent. And one more for shits and giggles. Both are over the age of consent, sometime during sex the girl says that she does not want to be having sex and he must get out, but he hesitates for a couple seconds, should he get a mandatory sentence of how many years because even though consent was giving early on but she then said no and he was in her with out her consent. In these cases should the men get a harsh mandatory sentencing?

There is the potential that if anything that can be remotely classified as rape could potentially put some people who do not deserve to be in charged in trouble. I am not defending anyone who forcibly rapes, threatens, slips a roofie, gets the girl drunk or any obvious case where it was one person making sure the other does not consent. But lets look at the case of statutory rape, it is still rape. It is in the name. The girl could be one day away from being 16 and her 18 year old boyfriend and her have sex and the parents could get overly pissed and file charges. Should the guy get thrown in jail, even though the girl gave consent but the parents didnt approve after the fact? Or how about a guy and girl meet at the party, both above the drinking age, both get completely shitfaced and end up having sex. In the morning the girl doesn't like the choice she made while drunk and files charges of rape. She was technically incapable of giving consent. And one more for shits and giggles. Both are over the age of consent, sometime during sex the girl says that she does not want to be having sex and he must get out, but he hesitates for a couple seconds, should he get a mandatory sentence of how many years because even though consent was giving early on but she then said no and he was in her with out her consent. In these cases should the men get a harsh mandatory sentencing?

Nice myths you perpetuate there

Nice myths you perpetuate there
Claims of rape have been filed for reasons close to these.

Claims of rape have been filed for reasons close to these.

Very, very, very, very, very, very rarely -- if ever.

I'd love to see you document a few such cases.

Very, very, very, very, very, very rarely -- if ever.

I'd love to see you document a few such cases.
It'll take some digging and they were from a class I had last year. But the first one is technically statutory rape (In Michigan at least), second most claims along those lines are thrown out mostly, the last one I think in the original the guy did not stop after she said...but that was after she said yes. But if there were mandatory sentencing, would you support in these hypothetical situations these people getting the maximum?

I definitely believe that sentencing for any proven sexual offense should be re-evaluated. I still find it extremely unsettling that a man responsible for molesting a child from the age of four to thirteen and found guilty on seven out of nine counts gets (woo-hoo) 3 months in the brig.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/17/findlaw.analysis.colb.rape/ California ruling on the during sex removal of consent.

Depends on the state.

By I find any attempt to distinguish rape from "real rape" disturbing.

Ok statury rape would be like a 18 year old having consentual sex with a 17 year old...even if the 17 year old was the day before the 18th birthday. It's not really rape...only technacally so by the law.

"Real" rape is forced sexual acts on an unconcenting person. Forced sexual acts on a concenting person is BDSM. :p

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/17/findlaw.analysis.colb.rape/ California ruling on the during sex removal of consent.

Of course a woman can (and should) be able to withdraw consent. that doesn't mean that hesitating a second would get you prosecuted. :headbang:

Of course a woman can (and should) be able to withdraw consent. that doesn't mean that hesitating a second would get you prosecuted. :headbang:
So how long?

So how long?

Don't be a pain in the ass.

Ok statury rape would be like a 18 year old having consentual sex with a 17 year old...even if the 17 year old was the day before the 18th birthday. It's not really rape...only technacally so by the law.

"Real" rape is forced sexual acts on an unconcenting person. Forced sexual acts on a concenting person is BDSM. :p

In most states the statutory rape scenario you describe is not technically rape at all.

In many states, there is a seperate type of crime for sex with minors.

Don't be a pain in the ass.
Slippery slope reasoning. This could be a very important thing. Obviously if its a minute or two yeah they should be persecuted. Getting down to half a minute, yeah he should reasonably be able to get out. But when your getting down I am sure the woman would be drivin hell bound to get the guy persecuted for staying in any longer then she deemed was alright.

In most states the statutory rape scenario you describe is not technically rape at all.

In many states, there is a seperate type of crime for sex with minors.

Granted...and I did place the ages real close together. I know in Maryland there also has to be a 3 year age difference before the statuary rape law can be applied.

But the point is that there is a diffrence between legal rape and "real" rape. And before anything is said, ther is also a diffrence between consentual sex between two underaged or near aged(just above and below the legal line) sex and child molestation.

Child molestation requires the Chinese water with acid applied to the genetials of the offender. IMHO

I've been thinking about this topic a lot lately, and I have noticed that there aren't really any set Rape Sentencing laws, and this has really bothered me, I know this girl who was raped, and the offender went to jail for 25 days...if that, it could have been 20 who knows, my point is that this isn't fair, does anyone else agree with me that rape offenders should have a set sentence?

Mandatory minimums are a bad idea in general and they just happen to be an unconstitutional infringement of the legislative branch on the authority of the judicial branch. In the US there are sentancing guidlines, but some judges ignore them, its unfortunate, but thats the price you pay for having a system where punishment is supposed to be tailored to circumstances. How about a compromise then? First offense, you work under whatever the stautes are. That gives a saftey net for the wrongly accused/convicted, it gives a nod to the concept of rehabilitation, etc. Second offense, you get an express ride to the hearafter courtesy of whatever means your state has proscribed for putting down humans that have crossed the line and are no longer worth trying to fix.

93
93/93

......or a life sentance

Umm, no. Any idea what it costs to house an inmate for life, particularily one who needs to be in maximum security? Sorry, theres only so many tax dollars floating around and those we spend on prisons should be spent on those who have a reasonable chance of behing rehabilitated and once again becoming worthwhile members of society. Give him his appeals, then take a bullet to him. Honestly, you can do it for a dime and a nickel.


93
93/93

All that being said, every incident is unique and each of them need to be looked at individually. A 18 year old boy sleeping with his 15 year old girlfriend could be rape because she lacks the capacity to give consent. Does that mean he should be imprisoned for 15 years???

An important distinction...Everyone, lets just assume it was understood that I was talking about forceable rape when I was talking about killing a man.


93
93/93

(Not to mention it has been ruled unconsitutional to apply capital punishment to rape.)

Yes, although aren't a huge percentage of death row inmates convicted of rape and murder, as opposed to simple murder? I once heard that something like 3/4 of those executed were found guilty of rape/murder, rather than just murder.. that'd make rape a de facto capital offence, constutitional or not on its own.

Personally, I think they should all be tortured to death. Slowly.

Feels nice to say, doesn't it? You get your pound of flesh, etc etc. Criminal justice isn't about punishment in our society, though. Its about rehabilitation. The death penalty is for people who have crossed the line and gotten to a place where they no longer can be (or it is no longer worth the cost to society) rehabilitated. Then, you do what you would do with a rabid dog. There is no joy, no vengence, just what has to be done for society to continue.

Heavy sentence, yes. Death, no. Think about the incentive that would create to kill the victims.

That assumes criminals think that far in advance. Hell, I'm pretty sure a death sentance is alot better than what most rapists have to look forward to in a state lockup. Still, I can't see how you can justify keeping them alive because they might do something worse if you don't. Its appeasment.

93
93/93

(Not to mention it has been ruled unconsitutional to apply capital punishment to rape.)


Really? In what country? What court did it rise to? What were the particulars? Was the decision based on the death penalty or something more procedural? Cite the case, please. Oh, and considering the changes in the rights of women and social attitudes towards rape, it had better be precedent thats less thats within the last 30 or so years.


93
93/93

Hey, if you can't play nice with your toys, we'll just have to take 'em away...


Slight problem. Rape isn't about sex, at least not in the way most of us understand it. Rape is about power, but it is also the mark of a sexual sadist. Castration is no guarantee that a rapist won't reoffend. After all, quite a few very violent sexual assaults (and most of those that involve foreign objects) are caused by the rapist being unable to perform. Indeed, the frusteration often leads to an increase in the brutality of the attack.

Get over this outmoded christian fetish about the sanctity of life. If someone is so unable to respect the rights of others that they would commit a rape, they need to be excised.

93
93/93

By I find any attempt to distinguish rape from "real rape" disturbing.

One is a crime that involves the willful and conscious violation of the rights of another, the other involves disobeying a cutoff point on which there exists no concensus. It the difference between beating someone with a pipe and smoking a joint. The reason you find it disturbing is because in a paternalistic society still grappling with laws and definitions rooted in a time when women were basically property, rape is a word used to describe quite a few things outside of it's instinctual definition. Remember, even the word itself originally held a connotation of robbery or theft. Its hard to get a clear hold on an issue when it's very definitions are so archaic.


93
93/93

Claims of rape have been filed for reasons close to these.

As the exception, not the rule.

93
93/93

Might want to go easy on the consecutive posts.. or merge them next time, using quotes or something.

Don't be a pain in the ass.

*Repeats to himself "Don't make the joke, don't make the joke, don't make the joke....."*


93
93/93

There is the potential that if anything that can be remotely classified as rape could potentially put some people who do not deserve to be in charged in trouble. I am not defending anyone who forcibly rapes, threatens, slips a roofie, gets the girl drunk or any obvious case where it was one person making sure the other does not consent. But lets look at the case of statutory rape, it is still rape. It is in the name. The girl could be one day away from being 16 and her 18 year old boyfriend and her have sex and the parents could get overly pissed and file charges. Should the guy get thrown in jail, even though the girl gave consent but the parents didnt approve after the fact? Or how about a guy and girl meet at the party, both above the drinking age, both get completely shitfaced and end up having sex. In the morning the girl doesn't like the choice she made while drunk and files charges of rape. She was technically incapable of giving consent. And one more for shits and giggles. Both are over the age of consent, sometime during sex the girl says that she does not want to be having sex and he must get out, but he hesitates for a couple seconds, should he get a mandatory sentence of how many years because even though consent was giving early on but she then said no and he was in her with out her consent. In these cases should the men get a harsh mandatory sentencing?


No. In those cases I believe that the girl is stuck with her chouse. There comes a time when there is no turning back. If a drunk guy kills someone he is responsible and if a drunk girl says "yes" then she's stuck with her dissensions and their consciences. Yes = Ya = shur = can't wate/ not maybe or start and ill tell you if you can keep going. Oh and not to be sexist that goes for the guys too if any of us care. Also I believe that their should be no such thing as statutory rape passed 16; at that point everyone knows what he/she is doing and getting into.

* I don’t agree with actual rape and do believe that there should be a, heavy, minimum sentience for it; maybe 30+ years solitary, followed up by some constant government moderating.

My, my, we have some sick little minds with no idea how our criminal justice system works but with rather sordid and violent fantasies.

Oh, I know how it works. I just wish in some instances it worked a bit differently. I certaintly don't deny having a sick mind or the like.

Feels nice to say, doesn't it? You get your pound of flesh, etc etc. Criminal justice isn't about punishment in our society, though. Its about rehabilitation. The death penalty is for people who have crossed the line and gotten to a place where they no longer can be (or it is no longer worth the cost to society) rehabilitated. Then, you do what you would do with a rabid dog. There is no joy, no vengence, just what has to be done for society to continue.

Yes, it rather does feel nice. And rehabilitation doesn't seem to work so well with the harder criminals, such as the rapists. And comparing a dangerous criminal to a dog doesn't work. The criminal, whether you want to accept it, or not, is still human. They're still part of the human race, still capable of thoughts, feelings and are self-aware. I'd want a rapist to suffer at least as much as the pain they inflicted upon their victims, and for them to know why.

What would you do in the case of a female raping a male? Either Sodomy or standard method? Or raping another female? Heck technacally nowadays if it's sexual contact regardless of penatration it's considered rape.

Female rapist sentenced
The 24-year-old woman found guilty on Thursday of forcing sex on a sleeping man has been sentenced to eight months in prison by a Bergen court.

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1152684.ece

Rapists should be given automatic life sentences.

IMHO, rape is worse than murder because the victim is forced to relive that event every day of their life. Rape is incredibly horrific for the victims, having to face that reality every day is like pure torture for the victims. Murder is horrific, yes, but the murdered are not faced with that reality everyday, though their families may be.

Rapists should be given automatic life sentences.

IMHO, rape is worse than murder because the victim is forced to relive that event every day of their life. Rape is incredibly horrific for the victims, having to face that reality every day is like pure torture for the victims. Murder is horrific, yes, but the murdered are not faced with that reality everyday, though their families may be.

I agree completely. It is a crime victims suffer for the rest of their life, why shouldn't the criminal do so as well?

Sorry have to disagree. Every crime should be judged on its specifics, there should be guidlines for sentencing. But if you want a system where people have a greater say go will the French legal system, IMHO better than the adversarial systems of many western countires.

Mandatory high sentences for rape will just reduce the number of convictions - as has been seen in some countries.

Each case should be judged on merit, and severe sentneces should certainly be introduced - who says its more immoral to castrate rapists than to not punish them sufficiently to deter as many rapists as possible. And yes rape is about power/powerlessness, and socio-economic hardships as well.

My, my, we have some sick little minds with no idea how our criminal justice system works but with rather sordid and violent fantasies.
If by 'our' you mean the US system, you are right, I dont think it works and that being the case could hardly have ideas about it doing something (ie working) that I believe it doesnt do.

No. In those cases I believe that the girl is stuck with her chouse. There comes a time when there is no turning back. If a drunk guy kills someone he is responsible and if a drunk girl says "yes" then she's stuck with her dissensions and their consciences. Yes = Ya = shur = can't wate/ not maybe or start and ill tell you if you can keep going.
She's stuck with her decision if she tells him to stop and he does, there is no time travelling back to make it all unhappen.

Any person has the right to decide that sexual attentions directed towards them ought to stop, and to have that decision respected, at any time, for any reason, drunk or sober or painted blue with gold pokerdots. This is a right anyone would extend to someone's property, such as their house or car, and in fact if someone refused to leave someone's house or car after being told to, regardless of why, how and when the decision to evict the person occured, it would be a criminal act, and frankly I doubt many people see that as unreasonable.

To suggest someone should have less right to control thier own body and to change their mind at short notice, even at inconvinience to others with regards to their body is inconsistent with the respect shown for less intimate, less important forms of property even though the damage and harm done when a body is violated is of a worse nature and less reversable. I wouldnt see your suggestion as reasonable in regards to material property, it is indescribably less reasonable when applied to a person's own body.

I am against mandatory sentencing for any crime. Id rather leave sentencing in the hands of a human being who is capable of judging the circumstances of each individual case than in the hands of a mathematical formula incapable of making any distinctions. Most judges are elected, which means if you are unhappy with the way they sentence people you can get rid of them. I am against most circumstances where you take power away from people and put it in the hands of machines (or in this case, in the hands of a formula).

Here are some samples of how mandatory sentencing can go wrong:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week744/cover.html

http://www.drugpolicy.org/drugwar/mandatorymin/

http://www.courttv.com/talk/chat_transcripts/2002/0313minimums.html

Here is one specifically dealing with rape and how mandatory sentencing can go wrong there:
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/005182.html

There are plenty of other examples, but I dont feel like spending a lot of time looking for them. I recall one story about a gay teenager sentenced to 10+ years for having sex with his slightly younger boyfriend. Then there's the case where the judge famously declared that the sentence he was about to hand down was abhorrent and a "bitter and unfortunate sentence".

Sentencing should be based on each individual case, not on a magic formula. If you dont like the way a judge hands out sentences, feel free to vote or even campaign against him (or in favor of his opponents).

Then there is the separation of powers problem, which Im not even going to get into in detail. Basically, congress is taking over the job of judges every time they further tie judge's hands. This is dangerous to the system as a whole.

Really? In what country? What court did it rise to? What were the particulars? Was the decision based on the death penalty or something more procedural? Cite the case, please. Oh, and considering the changes in the rights of women and social attitudes towards rape, it had better be precedent thats less thats within the last 30 or so years.


93
93/93

In the US, death sentences for rape were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the case of Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977).

mandatory death sentences for any crime at all were declared unconstitutional by the SCOTUS in the following cases:

Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (1976)
and
Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 325 (1976)

In the US, death sentences for rape were declared unconstitutional ...the US legal system is fucked up ayways...

The thread starter ask my opinion on a mandatory sentence...and my answer has not changed.

Death sentence.

no castration or other torture shit...I am not barbaric.

i think that they should......something along the lines of death or a castration would work :), i dont under stand why rapists dont get a heavy sentance, it makes me sick

Depends on the state you're in. It's a state law, not a federal law.

To make it a Federal law, you would somehow have to tie rape to interstate commerce.

Bank robbery, for example, is a Federal crime - interstate commerce.

Drugs, depending on who is prosecuting you and for what particular violation, can be a Federal crime - interstate commerce.

Kind of hard to make the case that rape is a Federal crime in that sense.

If you think the sentence for rape is too lenient in your particular state, you can always change things at the ballot box. Raise the issue with your state representative.

Well I was thinking more along the lines of 25 years.....with no chance of parole...

There's a problem with this: it's too close to a murder sentence. Essentially, it would encourage a rapist to kill his victim. Since the penalty for rape and murder would be so close, it would be better for the rapist to eliminate the best witness against him -- the victim.

<snip>

I agree. The purpose of the goverment in criminal justice should be to protect it's citizens from excessive punishment.

the US legal system is fucked up ayways...

The thread starter ask my opinion on a mandatory sentence...and my answer has not changed.

Death sentence.

no castration or other torture shit...I am not barbaric.

See my post above.

... it would encourage a rapist to kill his victim. Since the penalty for rape and murder would be so close, it would be better for the rapist to eliminate the best witness against him -- the victim.In the current US system...It is already better to eliminate the witness...

The only victims that are pretty much sure to survive are the ones that god drugged inconsious. BGH, etc.

In fact...I would not be surprised to learn that an ex-boyfriend who thinks he did not rape...gets scared and instead of trying to prove his innocence decides to do something extreme...like eliminating the witness...or leaving the country for ever.

The US system is flawed.

There's a problem with this: it's too close to a murder sentence. Essentially, it would encourage a rapist to kill his victim. Since the penalty for rape and murder would be so close, it would be better for the rapist to eliminate the best witness against him -- the victim.

Oddly, it doesn't get rid of his DNA, unless he can successfully hide the body.

In the current US system...It is already better to eliminate the witness...

The only victims that are pretty much sure to survive are the ones that god drugged inconsious. BGH, etc.

There's also the argument that rape is not as serious as murder and should not be treated the same. A rape victim is still alive after the crime. Not so for a murder victim.

Now, I know some people are going to go ballistic because I said this, because it's such an emotionally charged subject, but emotion should not enter into law.

There's also the argument that rape is not as serious as murder and should not be treated the same. A rape victim is still alive after the crime. Not so for a murder victim.

Now, I know some people are going to go ballistic because I said this, because it's such an emotionally charged subject, but emotion should not enter into law.

According to the Dept of Justice statistics, 89 percent of rapists carry no weapon at all (not even a knife) when committing their crimes.

Makes you wonder if you could resolve the situation with a liberal dose of pepper spray, or a lead shampoo from a Glock.

There's also the argument that rape is not as serious as murder and should not be treated the same. A rape victim is still alive after the crime. Not so for a murder victim.somthings are worse than death.

That doesnt explain why anyone would (or should) put up with a justice system that gives home-detention to a person who attacks and sexually abuses children.
I would expect the contextual circumstances of any crime to be taken into account, but when a system sends people to prison for long periods of time for drug or property offences, but gives out home detention and/or 25 day sentences for intentionally cruel and extensively hurtful attacks on other people, if that system is called a 'justice system' the phrase is obviously a misnomer.

On its face, I completely agree with what you're saying.

But, a possible explanation for these kind of results could be plea bargaining by the prosecuting attorney. I can think of one case in particular where a defendent was charged with rape of a 2 year old boy.

There was only a circumstantial witness to the crime and no physical evidence. The prosecutor is outraged enough to charge him with a crime, but not confident at all of conviction. What did he do? He plea bargained the case down a criminal sexual conduct 4th degree. A misdemeanor with a max of 1 year in jail. The defendent went to jail for 9 months and on probation for 2 years.

What could the prosecutor or the courts have done differently??? The system is filled with cases like this. Rape victims typically do NOT want to testify.

I agree that the US criminal justice system has some major flaws. Not always....but frequently, there are explanations when you see crazy stories in the news.

dp

somthings are worse than death.


That's an emotional argument. As I've already said, emotion has no place in law.

... these kind of results could be plea bargaining by the prosecuting attorney.that is another ugly issue...in our legal system.

sometimes you can be declared Innocent or Guilty in function of "how good is your attorney"

and of course your sentence is in function of the attorneys..

There's also the argument that rape is not as serious as murder ...You say its not as serious...I say its as bad.

Let the voters decide...lets make a NS poll.

...God I love democracy :D

that is another ugly issue...in our legal system.

sometimes you can be declared Innocent or Guilty in function of "how good is your attorney"

and of course your sentence is in function of the attorneys..

What do you suppose would rectify that? If I'm already a highly paid attorney, and under some new system, the state forces me to defend a dirtbag and pays me whatever amount of money I ask, will that make me care about the client any more?

Nope.

There are other humans involved in the process as well. The jury and the judge, for starters.

You say its not as serious...I say its as bad.

Let the voters decide...lets make a NS poll.

...God I love democracy :D


Go ahead. I'm sure more people would agree with you, but that would be simply because they'd be voting based on emotion. Yes, rape is a horrible thing, but it's not as bad as murder.

That's an emotional argument. As I've already said, emotion has no place in law.Go ahead. I'm sure more people would agree with you, but that would be simply because they'd be voting based on emotion. Yes, rape is a horrible thing, but it's not as bad as murder.Law is dictated by Legislators...and interpreted by Judges...

Judges are elected...or appointed by elected officials.

Ultimately a Country's Laws..are reflections of that Country's society...and the voters of that Country. (unless its a Dictature)

Laws are not the same in the US..or Singapore.. or Spain.. or Sweden...

These sovereign countries...their citizens...do not always share our "values"...our opinions on different issues.
who is rite? ...who is wrong? ...who are we to decide?

________________
We get the Gov we deserve...and the Laws we deserve...
If we vote like morons...we get moronic presidents...and moronic Laws.
Ultimate justice.

You say its not as serious...I say its as bad.

Let the voters decide...lets make a NS poll.

Be sure to make it gender-specific.
...God I love democracy :D

You sure?

...God I love democracy :DYou sure?absolutamente.

(What a stupid question :D ...oh well.. his free speech)

Umm, no. Any idea what it costs to house an inmate for life, particularily one who needs to be in maximum security? Sorry, theres only so many tax dollars floating around and those we spend on prisons should be spent on those who have a reasonable chance of behing rehabilitated and once again becoming worthwhile members of society. Give him his appeals, then take a bullet to him. Honestly, you can do it for a dime and a nickel.


93
93/93

ah, but what if we empty the jails of the pot-heads? Poor bastards. The streets of America are filled with criminals: rapists, murderers, extortionists, arsonists, robbers, you name it, and the jails are filled with druggers. I don't understand why the US is so paranoid about a bit of weed. It just isn't a problem. I think if you have or even sell amounts of an ounce or less, confiscation and (maybe) a fine. Now, if you deal to dealers, maybe you should get a month or two. Growers less than 10 plants should have them taken away. after that, it should be a month a plant.

Rapists, now, they should be castrated. simple as that. In fact, all violent criminals should be castrated. Kidnappers, murderers, wifebeaters, Give them a few months to settle down and think about it with a therapist, then let them go. They'll be pussycats. and anybody that gives them testosterone, put THEM in jail. I wish these kinds of things were issues in NS.

ah, but what if we empty the jails of the pot-heads? Poor bastards. The streets of America are filled with criminals: rapists, murderers, extortionists, arsonists, robbers, you name it, and the jails are filled with druggers. I don't understand why the US is so paranoid about a bit of weed. It just isn't a problem. I think if you have or even sell amounts of an ounce or less, confiscation and (maybe) a fine. Now, if you deal to dealers, maybe you should get a month or two. Growers less than 10 plants should have them taken away. after that, it should be a month a plant.

Rapists, now, they should be castrated. simple as that. In fact, all violent criminals should be castrated. Kidnappers, murderers, wifebeaters, Give them a few months to settle down and think about it with a therapist, then let them go. They'll be pussycats. and anybody that gives them testosterone, put THEM in jail. I wish these kinds of things were issues in NS.


I guess that's why violent crime in the US has dropped over the past ten years....

Estimates from the National Crime Victimization Survey
(NCVS)indicate that between 1993 and 2001 approximately
26% of the average annual 8.9 million violent victimizations
were committed by offenders armed with a weapon. About 10%,
or 846,950 victimizations each year, involved a firearm.

From 1993 through 2001 violent crime declined 54%; weapon
violence went down 59%; and firearm violence, 63%.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/wuvc01.txt

least[/i] as much as the pain they inflicted upon their victims, and for them to know why.

Why? Because of some barbaric need for revenge? Please, whoever has to carry out the brutality you suggest is going to end up damaged, likely in the same seat as his victim. As for being "still human," what is a human? A higher primate with thumbs, vocal chords, and a marginally more developed forebrain than it's closest relative? Humans are animals, sure, we're more evolved, but were still just animals. There is nothing to be gained from responding to the law with emotion. The law should be cold, clinical, and tailored to improve society. If something cannot be fixed you do not break it further, you simply toss it on the heap and start over.

*snip citations*

Thank you. It is worth noting that three of the justices in Coker filed concurring opinions that any application of the death penalty was cruel and unusual. Coker in specific is not unassailable precedent, but I must admit that it is rather compelling. Still, as a concept, the Death Penalty is still open to debate. It was ruled universally unconstitutional by SCOTUS in 1972 (Furman v. Georgia), then SCOTUS reversed itself in 1976 (Gregg v. Georgia). Any attempt to make rape a capital offence would end up at the supreme court, but under the current court, it might pass. In the late 70s the court was VERY hostile towards the death penalty in general. Not so much today. Maybe its a fight worth having, maybe its an idea whose time has come, maybe not.

Makes you wonder if you could resolve the situation with a liberal dose of pepper spray, or a lead shampoo from a Glock.

There is a statistically significant drop in the rates of rape in areas that pass a concealed carry law. Then again, they are human, after all, and humans shouldn't be killed cause thats excessive, and it's only rape, they're only stealing sex, so maybe killing them would be wrong...Seriously, though, no Glock, they're unreliable, they have stiff triggers, and they lack an external safety.

Go ahead. I'm sure more people would agree with you, but that would be simply because they'd be voting based on emotion. Yes, rape is a horrible thing, but it's not as bad as murder.

Actually, in the American system (a system based around individual rights), rape and murder are nearly the same offense. Both involve a willful and forceful violation of the basic rights of others. Killing the offender would be considered justified in every state if the underlying facts could be proven. Indeed, the flaws in an individual that lead to rape can worse than those that lead to murder. I can think of quite a few situations when I would feel ethically justified in taking a life, and not all of them would meet the legal threshold for justification. I can't think of a single one for rape.

ah, but what if we empty the jails of the pot-heads? Poor bastards. The streets of America are filled with criminals: rapists, murderers, extortionists, arsonists, robbers, you name it, and the jails are filled with druggers. I don't understand why the US is so paranoid about a bit of weed. It just isn't a problem. I think if you have or even sell amounts of an ounce or less, confiscation and (maybe) a fine. Now, if you deal to dealers, maybe you should get a month or two. Growers less than 10 plants should have them taken away. after that, it should be a month a plant.


Oh, I'm all for the complete legalization of all consensual "crimes". But once you shrink the justice system so that its no longer housing drug offenders (and gamblers, prostitutes, inside traders, people who shoot land developers who use eminent domain, etc), you don't use the space to put more people in jail, you close those jails and stop spending money. Keep enough space for those who have committed serious crimes but have a chance for being rehabilitated, but housing hundreds of thousands of criminals is a sign that your justice system is flawed or your society is falling.

93
93/93

but housing hundreds of thousands of criminals is a sign that your justice system is flawed or your society is falling.


Oh, and having our crime rates plummet while piling these people into prison is failure? We proved conclusively in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s that rehabilitation DOES NOT WORK.

See? Our crime rates are going down by double-digits while the prison population soars...

Estimates from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)indicate that between 1993 and 2001 approximately 26% of the average annual 8.9 million violent victimizations were committed by offenders armed with a weapon. About 10%, or 846,950 victimizations each year, involved a firearm.

From 1993 through 2001 violent crime declined 54%; weapon violence went down 59%; and firearm violence, 63%.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/wuvc01.txt

For some reason, people think that crime rates dropping has nothing to do with locking more criminals up for longer.

They think that the crime rate is dropping for no reason, and that the locked up criminals not being able to commit crime has nothing to do with it, so we should let them go.

Oh, and please, death penalty for rapists. It would keep men like me from thinking up all kinds of methods of retaliation...

As for judges having discretion, certain male judges give rapists and child molesters lighter sentences, maybe for the same reason some judges give drunk drivers lighter sentences---they drink (molest) too!

I agree completely. It is a crime victims suffer for the rest of their life, why shouldn't the criminal do so as well?

And if the victim is a strong person or for other reasons do not suffer for the rest of their lives, should the perpetrator then get a lesser punishment? Or almost none at all, if the victim happens to suffer very little?

I feel that the punishment should match the crime, not the victims suffering - allthough that would be something to take into consideration when deciding the sentence. And due to the individuality of each case, there shouldn't be any mandatory minimum.

As for judges having discretion, certain male judges give rapists and child molesters lighter sentences, maybe for the same reason some judges give drunk drivers lighter sentences---they drink (molest) too!

Got a source for that? I'd say that men are harder on rape than women.

Oh, and having our crime rates plummet while piling these people into prison is failure? We proved conclusively in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s that rehabilitation DOES NOT WORK.

See? Our crime rates are going down by double-digits while the prison population soars...

Estimates from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)indicate that between 1993 and 2001 approximately 26% of the average annual 8.9 million violent victimizations were committed by offenders armed with a weapon. About 10%, or 846,950 victimizations each year, involved a firearm.

From 1993 through 2001 violent crime declined 54%; weapon violence went down 59%; and firearm violence, 63%.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/wuvc01.txt


Correlation, causation, all that jazz. There are alot of reasons crime rates have been dropping. Violent crime in particularly has been strongly affected (in a statisticially significant way) by the rise of concealed carry statues in many states. Economic conditions have improved, which helps, etc. Yes, the prison population has seen a steady rise, but if you look at the demographics, you'll see that it hasn't been so much a rise in violent criminals, but rather drug offenders. Further, the NCVS has some serious methodological problems. There is a high degree of self-selector bias, there are problems with deceit, the sample size is painfully small considering the way they attempt to generalize the data.

I stand by my argument that the number of people in our jails is a sign that our justice system has a problem. We have so many laws on the books, ones that often carry stiff sentances, for things that really shouldn't be crimes. As a result, our taxes go up, our prison populations rise, and often times violent criminals get parolled just to make room. Think about it this way. If you have a jail with 100 cells, and 75 of them are filled with murderers and rapists, then 50 small time heroin dealers come in, what do you do? Either 25 people have to go free, or you can raise taxes to build a new prison. The way our prison system works, those 25 are going to come from the existing population (otherwise there would be public outcry because someone served NO portion of their sentance). That means you have 50 rapists and murders you have to set free or build a new prison. Which costs money to build, money to staff, money to maintain.

Why not just turn our backs on consensual crimes, make people convicted of real crimes (murder, assault, rape, etc) serve out their entire sentances, and use the extra cash for a tax break?

93
93/93

On its face, I completely agree with what you're saying.

But, a possible explanation for these kind of results could be plea bargaining by the prosecuting attorney. I can think of one case in particular where a defendent was charged with rape of a 2 year old boy.
While that is an explanation that I do not doubt is a cause of some such cases, it wasnt the case in the specific example (home detention for multiple attacks that included using physical force, and that were characterised by sexual violation) that I was referring to. On the contrary there was a reliable witness who was able to provide a description that resulted in a good sketch of the offender, a description of the offender's vehical that was specific enough to lead to the arrest of the offender, and a positive identification of the offender.

Rape victims typically do NOT want to testify.
Given the fact that even though their description might be accurate enough to produce a very good sketch likeness, and to directly identify the offender's vehicle so that police could single it out (this was in fact the piece of information that enabled the police to locate and so identify the offender) from all the other vehicles driving about, and even though in addition to this they might be able to make an positive id with certitude, the offender can be found guilty of not only the attack on them, but in fact multiple attacks/sexual violations against children (including under 10 years of age), all utilising physical force in order to carry them out, the offender might still be sentenced to nothing more than home detention, it is not in the least bit suprising that rape victims would be reluctant to testify.

I agree that the US criminal justice system has some major flaws. Not always....but frequently, there are explanations when you see crazy stories in the news.
In this case I dont believe there is an acceptable (ie one that shows the best result possible, or even an acceptable result given the limitations of law systems generally) explanation.

And this is without taking into account the fact that the only barrier to eluding even this minimal punishment, was the removal of an electronic 'monitoring device' that was kept in place by no more than a strip of rubber, and the fact that the offender was a foreign national (in the country on a working visa) who hardly seems a minimal flight risk given the lack of any particular reason to stay (ie community ties such as family etc).

Evidently the offender did escape from 'home detention' after only a couple of months home detention.

ah, but what if we empty the jails of the pot-heads?
A lot of time, money and resources would be saved (by law enforcement agencies) that could be utilised to minimise harm to victims of crime, many people who have negative attitudes towards law enforcement that are counter-productive (to the detection of crime/apprehension of criminals/successful prosecution of criminals) would not have such attitudes, loses to productivity that arise (not from the abuse itself, but) from the existence of criminal sanctions against use would be avoided and the supposed purpose/aim of locking them up would be more readily achieved with a greater success rate.

We proved conclusively in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s that rehabilitation DOES NOT WORK.
We did? :confused:

Depends on the state you're in. It's a state law, not a federal law.

To make it a Federal law, you would somehow have to tie rape to interstate commerce.

Bank robbery, for example, is a Federal crime - interstate commerce.



NOT TO AVOCATE BUT: you could rape a truck driver or someone who works for the goverment.

I've been thinking about this topic a lot lately, and I have noticed that there aren't really any set Rape Sentencing laws, and this has really bothered me, I know this girl who was raped, and the offender went to jail for 25 days...if that, it could have been 20 who knows, my point is that this isn't fair, does anyone else agree with me that rape offenders should have a set sentence?
Rape should carry a mandatory sentence of life in a forced labor camp, no possibility of parole, with all profits from the convict's labors going to charities and organizations that help rape survivors.

Any person has the right to decide that sexual attentions directed towards them ought to stop, and to have that decision respected, at any time, for any reason, drunk or sober or painted blue with gold pokerdots. This is a right anyone would extend to someone's property, such as their house or car, and in fact if someone refused to leave someone's house or car after being told to, regardless of why, how and when the decision to evict the person occured, it would be a criminal act, and frankly I doubt many people see that as unreasonable.

To suggest someone should have less right to control thier own body and to change their mind at short notice, even at inconvinience to others with regards to their body is inconsistent with the respect shown for less intimate, less important forms of property even though the damage and harm done when a body is violated is of a worse nature and less reversable. I wouldnt see your suggestion as reasonable in regards to material property, it is indescribably less reasonable when applied to a person's own body.

If we are going to compare rape to braking and entering then rape (and other sex crimes) should be put under property laws and should be treated the same which would create srten problems such as slvery and leagel prostitution; which some people ovisly have problems with. I do agrey that evryone has a right to say stop but at a srten point its too late. Also in PA where I am residing if a girl is drunk and says "yes" then wakes up the next day and changes her mind then its still rape. thats just grade "A" BS.

Now, I know some people are going to go ballistic because I said this, because it's such an emotionally charged subject, but emotion should not enter into law.

Law = Justes = opinion. All opinoins have emotion atached, if want to get rid of emotion in the acual trial then the JUge and jury should be removed and meshens with tickers should be put in their place. this being expensive and meny people still not trusting or understanding technoligy this isent going to happen anytime soon. also congressMEN and COngressWEMEN are people with emothins fealing and trying to get realeted by other people that (for the most part) have emotions and fealings too. Emotion will never be seperated from law.

If we are going to compare rape to braking and entering then rape (and other sex crimes) should be put under property laws and should be treated the same which would create srten problems such as slvery and leagel prostitution; which some people ovisly have problems with
:confused: Comparing one thing to another doesnt necessitate that we must treat them the same, or that we should.
I'm not sure what your intention was in posting the above comments...:confused:

I do agrey that evryone has a right to say stop but at a srten point its too late.
Again I'm not clear what exactly you mean by this. The only point at which it is too late is the point at which saying 'stop' is pointless. If there is something to actually stop, it's not too late. It can only be too late to say stop when in fact whatever was occuring has already stopped.

Also in PA where I am residing if a girl is drunk and says "yes" then wakes up the next day and changes her mind then its still rape. thats just grade "A" BS.
That's neither here nor there with regards to whether or not a person has the right to decide at any particular moment what someone does in regards to their body.
While I wouldnt suggest it is an ideal law, it does have some advantages for both parties. Is it a 'good' law? Not necessarily, but without considering contextually specific issues involved in the law coming into effect, it's not really something I can comment on either way, other than to say that it does confer some benefits, whilst having the potential to be very problematic.

That's neither here nor there with regards to whether or not a person has the right to decide at any particular moment what someone does in regards to their body.
While I wouldnt suggest it is an ideal law, it does have some advantages for both parties. Is it a 'good' law? Not necessarily, but without considering contextually specific issues involved in the law coming into effect, it's not really something I can comment on either way, other than to say that it does confer some benefits, whilst having the potential to be very problematic.all that talk ...to say nothing...

all that talk ...to say nothing...
1. Less talk meaning even less
2. Macbeth has a better line. :p

There is no minimum? could have fooled me

http://www.ocjc.state.or.us/SGGrid.htm

At least oregon has one (look under seriousness 10)

all that talk ...to say nothing...
:confused: Is the irony of your post intentional? :confused:

i think that they should......something along the lines of death or a castration would work :), i dont under stand why rapists dont get a heavy sentance, it makes me sick
My thoughts exactly

I agree that true rapists (people who force someone to have sex using violence or the threat of violence) should recieve severe sentences. However, mandatory minimum sentencing laws are not necessary for this. Mandatory sentencing laws cannot make critical distinctions that may exist on a case by case basis. For example, the woman seduces the man but changes her mind after they have gotten very hot and heavy, the man doesnt stop for whatever reason (let us give him the benefit of the doubt and say he doesnt stop because he thinks when she says "no" it's just part of the role playing theyve been doing up to this point). Yes, the guy deserves punishment, but he does not deserve the same amount of punishment that a guy who assaulted and raped a stranger at gunpoint deserves. Mandatory sentencing laws cannot make such distinctions, but a judge can.

Well it depends if it is indeed rape.
I think it should be high.