Debate Rounds (4)
1.The severity of the crime
The severity of the crime can be measured by the effect on the victim. I believe that people who are raped are subject to a lifelong torment. 13% actually take their own lives anyway (1), but the rest are doomed to know it their whole lives and feel 'empty' as they put it in many studies. We cannot underestimate the suffering of these people, and their future relationships are also tainted by it. I know death is definitive but we must understand that sometimes life can be such a torment that one can wish for death. For 33% of victims actually consider suicide and have these thoughts (1), so for the bottom third of people, life is so bad that death is a considered option. And indeed for the bottom 1 in 10, death is actively chosen. So even for the most resilient and least effected cases, major depression, self blame, stress are a certainty and are often lifelong. So although the 'effect' of murder is still more severe, in the way it actually removes somebody from life - rape victims, the ones that don't kill themselves anyway, actually have their entire life changed and that of their family forever. Not as simple as just the removal of someone, but instead a lifelong torment and feeling of anger, not to mention the lifelong feelings of self blame, depression and suicidal thoughts by the victim. Indeed forgive my crudeness, but I believe that someone who is raped and commits suicide, suffers more pain than somebody who is murdered. And in some cases I believe that somebody who is quickly murdered, would suffer less than even a resilient person, who has a lifelong rape trauma.
I know this point may be somewhat weak, but this second one is my main one.
2.The perpetrator and his/her personality.
There are a hundred reasons why one could kill another, indeed there is an infinite number of reasons. Some are even noble and even desirable. Rape however has one reason, small, quick pleasure. The most ignoble thing to murder for, the kind of intent that in a court of law would get you the longest sentence. Rape is only done for pleasure. As I have explained above about the effects of rape, just think that someone will do that to someone for 1 orgasm. The fact that people who live by these morals are being treat less harshly than anyone, annoys me. If an individual murders someone, you cannot assume anything. For example at one end of the scale-soldiers. Further down from that you have people who kill in self defence or even because they are part of a socio-economic caused subculture that does not use the police. For example, people brought up in certain estates will be aware of rivals e.c.t and not be able to get help of police, knowing that a person is out to kill their family, they may kill them first to protect their children. Personally I know people who have killed people and some of them are wonderful people. One grew up in a country where the police where as corrupt as the gangs and so violence was survival not a choice. So murders are often gang related and complicated, the majority are not random acts of cruelty. I am not condoning murder, but I do believe that someone who rapes someone is always at least as bad as someone who murders someone. Would you agree? Obviously there isn't much difference between someone who murders randomly and someone who rapes randomly, but everybody who rapes is wicked, not everybody who kills is wicked.
So because the person who rapes is always the worst kind of person (i.e. selfish, minimum pleasure for lifelong suffering of victim) they should be kept away from the public for the longest and as a result of their extreme wickedness (if we go by the law) they should be punished more severely.
Murder is complicated and unless it is done at random and for purely pleasurable purposes, it should not be classed as severe as rape.
That will be enough to be going on with
My opponents holds an interesting opinion which I had hoped held more intellectual prowess.
1. The severity of the crime
My opponent subscribes this section to a "measurement of the effect on the victim," siting the unending torture that many rape victims experiencing following the vicious assault on their person. The statistics presented suggest that up to 33% of rape victims contemplate suicide, with 13% actually going through with the act. I would begin by reminding my opponent that 100% of murder victims end up very permanently dead as a result of their victimhood, a choice entirely taken out of their hands. Arguing that rape is worse or equivalent to death seems slightly fatuous, as none can experience both, nor can the experiences be compared. What we do know, however. is that to rob someone of their life is to mark the unalterable and irreversible cessation of their consciousness, not only severing all chances, hopes and dreams they may have possessed, but also having an impact similar to that of rape on the victim's family. It can, at the very least, be said that rape victims not only live, but are still there for the benefit of the victim's loved ones, including children and spouses.
It has been argued, a point which my opponent briefly makes, is that since murder victims are dead, they are not condemned, as rape survivors are, to a lifetime of misery and trauma. The primary reason that this argument falls flat is that rape victims are given a chance to overcome the wrongdoing; murder victims have no such opportunity to survive and get over their traumatic experience. Instead, they are forced by the hand of a villain to leave all they loved and all they could have loved, destroyed in every sense of the word.
While a massive percentage of rape survivors report permanent damage as a result of the rape, 18% happily announce a full recovery. (1) Many others, while still subjected to the painful memories and reminders, live a happy, healthy, and productive life. Meanwhile, the percentage of those murdered who can impart similar news remains at a flat )%; they never have a chance at recovery or reconciliation. This is why rape is worse than murder.
2. The perpetrator and their personality
A common argument, my opponent dictates that as there is no justification for rape, whereas there might be for murder, rape is therefore a more heinous crime, committed by more monstrous individuals. I would put this to my opponent and readers as a simple falsehood. To murder someone is to willingly and knowingly brutally rip from the victim their sole chance at life, and to damn their families and loved ones to endless grief and pain. It is the most heinous crime of all, because to commit it is to intend harm in the worst way imaginable. To put it simply, one can rape and intend no permanent harm, knowing the cruelty of the crime but ignorant of the results, but one cannot murder without the full knowledge of what they do and its impacts, not only on the deceased, but on the living as well.
My opponent seems slightly confused over the definition of "murder". Dictionary.com defines homicide as "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice." (2)My adversary, on the other hand, finds murder synonymous with killing. Indeed, self-defense and killing on necessity is not murder and often not particularly heinous, and does not require depravity of soul. However, premeditation does in almost all circumstances. And no, the majority of homicides are not "random acts of cruelty". They are often very personal, heartless acts of violence that displays a stunning lack of empathy and reason.
Despite the apparent fact that murder is far more despicable than rape, it ultimately makes little difference in how retribution ought to be distributed. Assault can be far more aggravated than an armed robbery, but that has no impact on punishment. One must look at the results. Following a rape, a victim is alive, if permanently damaged, and still may be happy with their loved ones. On the other hand, death is unconquerable and unsurvivable, and so is punished more liberally.
With that said, I turn the discourse over to my opponent.
With that said, I turn the debate over to my opponent.
"Arguing that rape is worse or equivalent to death seems slightly fatuous, as none can experience both, nor can the experiences be compared" yes so we both have no grounds.
You argue simply that because death is finite, it is less bad than rape. This is too simplistic, for every situation is unique. Being murdered is bad you say because its an "unalterable and irreversible cessation of their consciousness, not only severing all chances, hopes and dreams they may have possessed". So, from the point of view of the victim, the only difference is that the murderer victim sometimes knows he is going to die. To the rape victim, this worry is also true. For rape victims logically fear death the whole time, a murder victim typically feels it for less time than a rape victim I assume. Again it comes back to 'every situation being unique' point. So it is far to simplistic to say that murder always causes more suffering than rape. I know we will never know, but I hold it to be relatively even in my ignorace. At least one should not 100% in certainty of murders causing more suffering.
"It has been argued, a point which my opponent briefly makes, is that since murder victims are dead, they are not condemned, as rape survivors are, to a lifetime of misery and trauma. The primary reason that this argument falls flat is that rape victims are given a chance to overcome the wrongdoing; murder victims have no such opportunity to survive and get over their traumatic experience. Instead, they are forced by the hand of a villain to leave all they loved and all they could have loved, destroyed in every sense of the word."
I accept. This is the one thing that murder has over rape, the fact that the victim lives, however broken they might be. Torture victims can still be alive, how much misery can one put someone through in your eyes, before its on par with death? I think you maybe unaware of some the atrocities that go on in this society. For me, someone who mentally and physically tortures or sexually abuses all of their children is worse than someone who flips out one time and kills someone. I am not condoning murder, but that's just my opinion.
2.Perpetrator. Basically your saying that murderers are bad because they "willingly and knowingly brutally rip from the victim their sole chance at life, and to damn their families and loved ones to endless grief and pain." Now, I am aware of what murder is. You also say "It is the most heinous crime of all, because to commit it is to intend harm in the worst way imaginable" Well not quite, from my own experience and also a program on channel 4 about debt collectors, the best way to break a man (from the words of people who's lives involve this kind of thing) is to sexually assault them. A man on Jeremy Kyle who was tortured and abused claimed the sexual assault to be the worst. Gangsters will tell you that death is an easy way out and is not granted to the most hated people. For them, rape and torture is the worst thing, even murder of close loved ones. Victims are often left alive following this, as its believed the torment is worse than death, whether it is or not is subjective.
I cannot believe somebody who writes so eloquently could say such an absurd thing: "To put it simply, one can rape and intend no permanent harm, knowing the cruelty of the crime but ignorant of the results, but one cannot murder without the full knowledge of what they do and its impacts." So you think that one would feel less guilt, or feeling of wrongdoing, going through the whole procedure of rape, than pulling a trigger? No sir, you have this one very wrong. Pulling a trigger can be impulsive and instantly regretted, rape you have a hundred opportunities to stop. The woman screaming "please! Please!" for at least 15 minuets, bare in mind the rapist is also able to get turned on and actually orgasm during this. Its not like a murder, in which the perpetrator may have felt pressured to do, but did not necessarily take pleasure in committing.
You say. " And no, the majority of homicides are not "random acts of cruelty". They are often very personal, heartless acts of violence that displays a stunning lack of empathy and reason." You misread, I said they where not random acts of cruelty. However its worse (on the perpetrators behalf) if it IS a random act, for its almost purely evil and selfish. So the fact that rapes ARE random acts of cruelty, and murders ARE NOT usually, it makes rapist typically worse. I don't know how you can argue with that? I don't know what image you have of murderous, it seems you obtained your knowledge from T.V. Most murderers are not middle-class people gone mad or working-class people who are just horrible, its a whole sub-culture. Also in many countries it is worse to rape than murder. In Jamaican gangs, rape is the worst crime. Murder is a way of life.
My point is not that murder is okay and rape is always 100% worse. My point is that murder or 'killing' for your definition only applies to certain countries. For example if the government was corrupt, you could not be called a murderer for defending yourself. So murder CAN, but not always, be justified. Rape is NEVER justified. You must not ignore this point for it is key.
You say "Despite the apparent fact that murder is far more despicable than rape" But how can this be true when rape is ALWAYS sinister and murders are not always. Indeed it comes from anger problems because they are likely to have been abused, it can come from a misshaped view on the world and a constant feeling of distrust towards others and a lack of control. These are almost always the result of childhood trauma and other, socio-economic factors. For to survive in their community you cannot be a grass, so it must be done your own way. Many people who get murdered have done something wrong however little it might be. Rape is never this! Rape is purely innocent victim, purely self interested attacker with psychopathic levels of empathy. Indeed its much easier to murder someone than rape them from a moral point of view. One takes a second and requires no touch or specific mind set. The other requires time, long time fighting, long time to witness suffering and the person must still be able to be that unaffected by his actions, that he can orgasm.
These people to not calculate their actions like you make out. They don't murder because they "brutally rip from the victim their sole chance at life, and to damn their families and loved ones to endless grief and pain. It is the most heinous crime of all, because to commit it is to intend harm in the worst way imaginable." they murder normally as a split-second decision and do not calculate it like that. Rape must be thought about for much longer and carried out for longer, it is also FAR, FAR more personal and thus demonstrates a greater lack of empathy. Due to this greater lack of empathy, they should be kept away from people to the same degree that murderers are, and in some cases more so.
Murders are mostly the result of conflict. Somebody has done something bad to someone else. In the olden days and in some parts of the world today, people can be killed for petty crimes against members of their local community. Murder is the exaggerated natural response to defence of yourself, however in most circumstances murder is a 'perceived logical necessity, do deal with the situation' however misguided.
(I am not talking about people who just go and murder someone for fun, these are rare and do not give a accurate picture of murderers in prison today)
Rape is 100% of the time purely selfish and thus purely evil. Also the perpetrator must be more immune to empathy, for raping someone requires much more evil than killing someone. To kill someone, one could just pull a trigger from 200 meters away. Many murders are also done in fits of rage and are alcohol/drug fuelled, they have a cause or a grievance and so an excuse, however weak.
Rape never has an excuse
Murder almost always has an excuse, and rarely it will even have a legitimate one
Rapists are almost always worse people than murderers.
Ameliamk1 forfeited this round.
Tommy.leadbetter forfeited this round.
Ameliamk1 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||0|
Reasons for voting decision: More rounds forfeited by Con.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.