2006-11-25 04:36:52 · 5 answers · asked by Darren T 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
So they can get raped in prison!
2006-11-25 04:48:33 · answer #1 · answered by Chicken Jones 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because unfourtunately they have rights. We no longer live in a society that believes in an "eye for an eye & a tooth for a tooth". These people have violated the rights of their victims in more ways than the obvious. In my mind they should not be allowed the freedom to breathe the air that we as non-violators do. But unfortunately we don't get to make the laws. I see nothing wrong with punishing them the way they did in the "old" days. A good old fashioned quarting by horses. (Where they would tie each of your limbs to a horse and then the horses would run in four differant directions until they pulled the body apart.)
2006-11-25 12:53:44 · answer #2 · answered by burnettebreeze98 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why let anyone who commits an aggravated or violent assault live? Giving a crime greater gravity simply because there is a sexual component is irrational (unless one wants to argue that sex, in itself, is evil) and is nothing more than an emotional response. A legitimate sentence is based on the reality of the situation and nothing else. In the case of rape, except in cases that result in pregnancy, the physical damage done is not necessarily any greater than that done in other non-sexual assaults.
As far as the psychological impact on the victim of a sex crime being greater than that imposed on the victim of any other assault, the majority of the damage done to the rape victim is self-imposed and/or caused by a society that insists on replacing reason with emotion. For example, if an individual is brutally beaten in an attack with no sexual component, that victim is encouraged to recover physically and emotionally, to keep the attack in proper perspective and to put the event behind them. In the case of a "sex crime," society insists on doing everything possible to convince the victim that they will "never be the same" and that their life, as they knew it, is over and irretrievable. This is nonsense, wholly unfair and far more damaging to the victim of such crimes.
2006-11-25 14:17:28 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
An importance principle of justice is that the punishment should fit the crime. If civilized societies are turning away from the death penalty for murder, how much less appropriate is it for an offense in which no life was taken?
2006-11-25 12:52:20 · answer #4 · answered by kreevich 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No reason comes to mind.
2006-11-25 13:45:28 · answer #5 · answered by kitty fresh & hissin' crew 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋