comment
stringlengths 1
9.86k
| context
sequencelengths 0
530
|
|---|---|
>
In the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.
1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of. | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?"
] |
>
Shouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population.
Honestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society. | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of."
] |
>
I agree, there was a rape incident in Korea (Cho Doo-soon incident). Due to poor law, he was freed after a short time despite causing too many injuries for the victim. After that every single people who lived near his house moved away. They should keep him in prison. | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of.",
">\n\nShouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population. \nHonestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society."
] |
>
I could get behind this idea in the pragmatic sense that it could be a further deterrent from rape altogether, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make sense. Lying about birth control or intentionally tempering with it in order to impregnate a partner without/against their consent (or to be impregnated, since women can also do it) is a morally reprehensible in its own right, and furthermore can also carry legal repercussions, if it can be proven that the partners agreed to protected intercourse and one of them broke this agreement without the other's knowledge. One example is stealthing, which is a form of sexual abuse and was widely discussed a while ago.
Rape is having sex with someone without/against their consent for the act itself. Additional agreements like whether or not protection is used become irrelevant in this case. Pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely traumatic for victims, that is true, but rape itself is the crime that has been committed and if the victim happened to be on birth control or infertile that does not influence what has been done to them from the perspective of the crime itself. | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of.",
">\n\nShouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population. \nHonestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society.",
">\n\nI agree, there was a rape incident in Korea (Cho Doo-soon incident). Due to poor law, he was freed after a short time despite causing too many injuries for the victim. After that every single people who lived near his house moved away. They should keep him in prison."
] |
>
I would prefer it if we instituted a policy that treats rape with potential conception this way, regardless of the actual results, in a manner similar to how we treat assault, aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon as different crimes. It wouldn't be any harder to prove than rape already is, while accounting for the additional reckless endangerment that comes from concieving a child through violence. | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of.",
">\n\nShouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population. \nHonestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society.",
">\n\nI agree, there was a rape incident in Korea (Cho Doo-soon incident). Due to poor law, he was freed after a short time despite causing too many injuries for the victim. After that every single people who lived near his house moved away. They should keep him in prison.",
">\n\nI could get behind this idea in the pragmatic sense that it could be a further deterrent from rape altogether, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make sense. Lying about birth control or intentionally tempering with it in order to impregnate a partner without/against their consent (or to be impregnated, since women can also do it) is a morally reprehensible in its own right, and furthermore can also carry legal repercussions, if it can be proven that the partners agreed to protected intercourse and one of them broke this agreement without the other's knowledge. One example is stealthing, which is a form of sexual abuse and was widely discussed a while ago. \nRape is having sex with someone without/against their consent for the act itself. Additional agreements like whether or not protection is used become irrelevant in this case. Pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely traumatic for victims, that is true, but rape itself is the crime that has been committed and if the victim happened to be on birth control or infertile that does not influence what has been done to them from the perspective of the crime itself."
] |
>
He should pay child support to whoever keeps the child. | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of.",
">\n\nShouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population. \nHonestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society.",
">\n\nI agree, there was a rape incident in Korea (Cho Doo-soon incident). Due to poor law, he was freed after a short time despite causing too many injuries for the victim. After that every single people who lived near his house moved away. They should keep him in prison.",
">\n\nI could get behind this idea in the pragmatic sense that it could be a further deterrent from rape altogether, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make sense. Lying about birth control or intentionally tempering with it in order to impregnate a partner without/against their consent (or to be impregnated, since women can also do it) is a morally reprehensible in its own right, and furthermore can also carry legal repercussions, if it can be proven that the partners agreed to protected intercourse and one of them broke this agreement without the other's knowledge. One example is stealthing, which is a form of sexual abuse and was widely discussed a while ago. \nRape is having sex with someone without/against their consent for the act itself. Additional agreements like whether or not protection is used become irrelevant in this case. Pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely traumatic for victims, that is true, but rape itself is the crime that has been committed and if the victim happened to be on birth control or infertile that does not influence what has been done to them from the perspective of the crime itself.",
">\n\nI would prefer it if we instituted a policy that treats rape with potential conception this way, regardless of the actual results, in a manner similar to how we treat assault, aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon as different crimes. It wouldn't be any harder to prove than rape already is, while accounting for the additional reckless endangerment that comes from concieving a child through violence."
] |
>
Rapists aren't in control of the conception. If they get lucky and no child is conceived, that isn't because of anything in control of the rapist. People should be punished for things in their control, not let off for things outside their control.
Imagine a drunk driver. He gets in an accident because a child crosses the road in front of the car. But if the child had tripped just before the road and lives, that's not something we can give credit to the driver for.
A rapist who is 'lucky' and doesn't get someone pregnant acted the same as a rapist who is 'unlucky' and did get someone pregnant. They created the same risk and should face the same punishment. | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of.",
">\n\nShouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population. \nHonestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society.",
">\n\nI agree, there was a rape incident in Korea (Cho Doo-soon incident). Due to poor law, he was freed after a short time despite causing too many injuries for the victim. After that every single people who lived near his house moved away. They should keep him in prison.",
">\n\nI could get behind this idea in the pragmatic sense that it could be a further deterrent from rape altogether, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make sense. Lying about birth control or intentionally tempering with it in order to impregnate a partner without/against their consent (or to be impregnated, since women can also do it) is a morally reprehensible in its own right, and furthermore can also carry legal repercussions, if it can be proven that the partners agreed to protected intercourse and one of them broke this agreement without the other's knowledge. One example is stealthing, which is a form of sexual abuse and was widely discussed a while ago. \nRape is having sex with someone without/against their consent for the act itself. Additional agreements like whether or not protection is used become irrelevant in this case. Pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely traumatic for victims, that is true, but rape itself is the crime that has been committed and if the victim happened to be on birth control or infertile that does not influence what has been done to them from the perspective of the crime itself.",
">\n\nI would prefer it if we instituted a policy that treats rape with potential conception this way, regardless of the actual results, in a manner similar to how we treat assault, aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon as different crimes. It wouldn't be any harder to prove than rape already is, while accounting for the additional reckless endangerment that comes from concieving a child through violence.",
">\n\nHe should pay child support to whoever keeps the child."
] |
>
The law does not work that way. In civil cases, a tortfeasor has to take his victim as he finds her. In other words, the asshole is responsible for whatever happens, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage. As another example, if a robber punches someone and that person ends up bleeding internally to death due to hemophilia, then that hemophilia is no defense to murder - the robber must take his victim as he found him. Criminal cases are similar - George Floyd's alleged physical condition was not a defense to the murder charges that Derek Chauvin was convicted of. | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of.",
">\n\nShouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population. \nHonestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society.",
">\n\nI agree, there was a rape incident in Korea (Cho Doo-soon incident). Due to poor law, he was freed after a short time despite causing too many injuries for the victim. After that every single people who lived near his house moved away. They should keep him in prison.",
">\n\nI could get behind this idea in the pragmatic sense that it could be a further deterrent from rape altogether, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make sense. Lying about birth control or intentionally tempering with it in order to impregnate a partner without/against their consent (or to be impregnated, since women can also do it) is a morally reprehensible in its own right, and furthermore can also carry legal repercussions, if it can be proven that the partners agreed to protected intercourse and one of them broke this agreement without the other's knowledge. One example is stealthing, which is a form of sexual abuse and was widely discussed a while ago. \nRape is having sex with someone without/against their consent for the act itself. Additional agreements like whether or not protection is used become irrelevant in this case. Pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely traumatic for victims, that is true, but rape itself is the crime that has been committed and if the victim happened to be on birth control or infertile that does not influence what has been done to them from the perspective of the crime itself.",
">\n\nI would prefer it if we instituted a policy that treats rape with potential conception this way, regardless of the actual results, in a manner similar to how we treat assault, aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon as different crimes. It wouldn't be any harder to prove than rape already is, while accounting for the additional reckless endangerment that comes from concieving a child through violence.",
">\n\nHe should pay child support to whoever keeps the child.",
">\n\nRapists aren't in control of the conception. If they get lucky and no child is conceived, that isn't because of anything in control of the rapist. People should be punished for things in their control, not let off for things outside their control.\nImagine a drunk driver. He gets in an accident because a child crosses the road in front of the car. But if the child had tripped just before the road and lives, that's not something we can give credit to the driver for.\nA rapist who is 'lucky' and doesn't get someone pregnant acted the same as a rapist who is 'unlucky' and did get someone pregnant. They created the same risk and should face the same punishment."
] |
>
The issue isn't with the harsher penalties but with the weaker penalties for rapes that don't result in pregnancy. Take two rapists. Rapist A impregnates his victim, while rapist B does not. Why should rapist B get a lighter sentence than rapist A? Are we implicitly saying that rape isn't as bad if there's no pregnancy? The actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side? | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of.",
">\n\nShouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population. \nHonestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society.",
">\n\nI agree, there was a rape incident in Korea (Cho Doo-soon incident). Due to poor law, he was freed after a short time despite causing too many injuries for the victim. After that every single people who lived near his house moved away. They should keep him in prison.",
">\n\nI could get behind this idea in the pragmatic sense that it could be a further deterrent from rape altogether, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make sense. Lying about birth control or intentionally tempering with it in order to impregnate a partner without/against their consent (or to be impregnated, since women can also do it) is a morally reprehensible in its own right, and furthermore can also carry legal repercussions, if it can be proven that the partners agreed to protected intercourse and one of them broke this agreement without the other's knowledge. One example is stealthing, which is a form of sexual abuse and was widely discussed a while ago. \nRape is having sex with someone without/against their consent for the act itself. Additional agreements like whether or not protection is used become irrelevant in this case. Pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely traumatic for victims, that is true, but rape itself is the crime that has been committed and if the victim happened to be on birth control or infertile that does not influence what has been done to them from the perspective of the crime itself.",
">\n\nI would prefer it if we instituted a policy that treats rape with potential conception this way, regardless of the actual results, in a manner similar to how we treat assault, aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon as different crimes. It wouldn't be any harder to prove than rape already is, while accounting for the additional reckless endangerment that comes from concieving a child through violence.",
">\n\nHe should pay child support to whoever keeps the child.",
">\n\nRapists aren't in control of the conception. If they get lucky and no child is conceived, that isn't because of anything in control of the rapist. People should be punished for things in their control, not let off for things outside their control.\nImagine a drunk driver. He gets in an accident because a child crosses the road in front of the car. But if the child had tripped just before the road and lives, that's not something we can give credit to the driver for.\nA rapist who is 'lucky' and doesn't get someone pregnant acted the same as a rapist who is 'unlucky' and did get someone pregnant. They created the same risk and should face the same punishment.",
">\n\nThe law does not work that way. In civil cases, a tortfeasor has to take his victim as he finds her. In other words, the asshole is responsible for whatever happens, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage. As another example, if a robber punches someone and that person ends up bleeding internally to death due to hemophilia, then that hemophilia is no defense to murder - the robber must take his victim as he found him. Criminal cases are similar - George Floyd's alleged physical condition was not a defense to the murder charges that Derek Chauvin was convicted of."
] |
>
The actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?
This happens all the time. We consider the actions and the consequences of the actions in determining "appropriate" punishment very often.
If I shoot a gun blindly at a random house, that same action can have any number of consequences. Maybe the only consequences are breaking a window and putting a hole in someone's wall. Maybe it kills the family dog. Maybe the consequence is the bullet hitting someone and paralyzing them for life. Maybe the consequence is breaking a gas line that leads to an explosion that kills a dozen people.
Why isn't it reasonable to consider the outcomes of actions when determining the appropriate response? | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of.",
">\n\nShouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population. \nHonestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society.",
">\n\nI agree, there was a rape incident in Korea (Cho Doo-soon incident). Due to poor law, he was freed after a short time despite causing too many injuries for the victim. After that every single people who lived near his house moved away. They should keep him in prison.",
">\n\nI could get behind this idea in the pragmatic sense that it could be a further deterrent from rape altogether, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make sense. Lying about birth control or intentionally tempering with it in order to impregnate a partner without/against their consent (or to be impregnated, since women can also do it) is a morally reprehensible in its own right, and furthermore can also carry legal repercussions, if it can be proven that the partners agreed to protected intercourse and one of them broke this agreement without the other's knowledge. One example is stealthing, which is a form of sexual abuse and was widely discussed a while ago. \nRape is having sex with someone without/against their consent for the act itself. Additional agreements like whether or not protection is used become irrelevant in this case. Pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely traumatic for victims, that is true, but rape itself is the crime that has been committed and if the victim happened to be on birth control or infertile that does not influence what has been done to them from the perspective of the crime itself.",
">\n\nI would prefer it if we instituted a policy that treats rape with potential conception this way, regardless of the actual results, in a manner similar to how we treat assault, aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon as different crimes. It wouldn't be any harder to prove than rape already is, while accounting for the additional reckless endangerment that comes from concieving a child through violence.",
">\n\nHe should pay child support to whoever keeps the child.",
">\n\nRapists aren't in control of the conception. If they get lucky and no child is conceived, that isn't because of anything in control of the rapist. People should be punished for things in their control, not let off for things outside their control.\nImagine a drunk driver. He gets in an accident because a child crosses the road in front of the car. But if the child had tripped just before the road and lives, that's not something we can give credit to the driver for.\nA rapist who is 'lucky' and doesn't get someone pregnant acted the same as a rapist who is 'unlucky' and did get someone pregnant. They created the same risk and should face the same punishment.",
">\n\nThe law does not work that way. In civil cases, a tortfeasor has to take his victim as he finds her. In other words, the asshole is responsible for whatever happens, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage. As another example, if a robber punches someone and that person ends up bleeding internally to death due to hemophilia, then that hemophilia is no defense to murder - the robber must take his victim as he found him. Criminal cases are similar - George Floyd's alleged physical condition was not a defense to the murder charges that Derek Chauvin was convicted of.",
">\n\nThe issue isn't with the harsher penalties but with the weaker penalties for rapes that don't result in pregnancy. Take two rapists. Rapist A impregnates his victim, while rapist B does not. Why should rapist B get a lighter sentence than rapist A? Are we implicitly saying that rape isn't as bad if there's no pregnancy? The actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?"
] |
>
The comparison would be more like: you kill a person in each case, but in one, you also unintentionally break their leg. In the second case, should you be charged with a different crime? It's not like you didn't intend harm and by chance harm was caused. Harm is caused in both rape and rape with pregnancy. The act isn't different at all. It's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day) | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of.",
">\n\nShouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population. \nHonestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society.",
">\n\nI agree, there was a rape incident in Korea (Cho Doo-soon incident). Due to poor law, he was freed after a short time despite causing too many injuries for the victim. After that every single people who lived near his house moved away. They should keep him in prison.",
">\n\nI could get behind this idea in the pragmatic sense that it could be a further deterrent from rape altogether, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make sense. Lying about birth control or intentionally tempering with it in order to impregnate a partner without/against their consent (or to be impregnated, since women can also do it) is a morally reprehensible in its own right, and furthermore can also carry legal repercussions, if it can be proven that the partners agreed to protected intercourse and one of them broke this agreement without the other's knowledge. One example is stealthing, which is a form of sexual abuse and was widely discussed a while ago. \nRape is having sex with someone without/against their consent for the act itself. Additional agreements like whether or not protection is used become irrelevant in this case. Pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely traumatic for victims, that is true, but rape itself is the crime that has been committed and if the victim happened to be on birth control or infertile that does not influence what has been done to them from the perspective of the crime itself.",
">\n\nI would prefer it if we instituted a policy that treats rape with potential conception this way, regardless of the actual results, in a manner similar to how we treat assault, aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon as different crimes. It wouldn't be any harder to prove than rape already is, while accounting for the additional reckless endangerment that comes from concieving a child through violence.",
">\n\nHe should pay child support to whoever keeps the child.",
">\n\nRapists aren't in control of the conception. If they get lucky and no child is conceived, that isn't because of anything in control of the rapist. People should be punished for things in their control, not let off for things outside their control.\nImagine a drunk driver. He gets in an accident because a child crosses the road in front of the car. But if the child had tripped just before the road and lives, that's not something we can give credit to the driver for.\nA rapist who is 'lucky' and doesn't get someone pregnant acted the same as a rapist who is 'unlucky' and did get someone pregnant. They created the same risk and should face the same punishment.",
">\n\nThe law does not work that way. In civil cases, a tortfeasor has to take his victim as he finds her. In other words, the asshole is responsible for whatever happens, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage. As another example, if a robber punches someone and that person ends up bleeding internally to death due to hemophilia, then that hemophilia is no defense to murder - the robber must take his victim as he found him. Criminal cases are similar - George Floyd's alleged physical condition was not a defense to the murder charges that Derek Chauvin was convicted of.",
">\n\nThe issue isn't with the harsher penalties but with the weaker penalties for rapes that don't result in pregnancy. Take two rapists. Rapist A impregnates his victim, while rapist B does not. Why should rapist B get a lighter sentence than rapist A? Are we implicitly saying that rape isn't as bad if there's no pregnancy? The actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?",
">\n\n\nThe actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?\n\nThis happens all the time. We consider the actions and the consequences of the actions in determining \"appropriate\" punishment very often.\nIf I shoot a gun blindly at a random house, that same action can have any number of consequences. Maybe the only consequences are breaking a window and putting a hole in someone's wall. Maybe it kills the family dog. Maybe the consequence is the bullet hitting someone and paralyzing them for life. Maybe the consequence is breaking a gas line that leads to an explosion that kills a dozen people.\nWhy isn't it reasonable to consider the outcomes of actions when determining the appropriate response?"
] |
>
I don't think we need to quibble about whether it's an apt comparison. Based on what the person I responded to said, I think it is (i.e. same actions + different consequences).
The act isn't different at all.
Not saying it isn't. What I'm saying is that the same act can have different consequences, and we very often apply different repercussions/punishments based on differences in consequences for the same act.
It's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)
Getting raped and becoming pregnant by your rapist is worse than getting raped and not becoming pregnant by your rapist. That seems pretty uncontroversial to me. | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of.",
">\n\nShouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population. \nHonestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society.",
">\n\nI agree, there was a rape incident in Korea (Cho Doo-soon incident). Due to poor law, he was freed after a short time despite causing too many injuries for the victim. After that every single people who lived near his house moved away. They should keep him in prison.",
">\n\nI could get behind this idea in the pragmatic sense that it could be a further deterrent from rape altogether, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make sense. Lying about birth control or intentionally tempering with it in order to impregnate a partner without/against their consent (or to be impregnated, since women can also do it) is a morally reprehensible in its own right, and furthermore can also carry legal repercussions, if it can be proven that the partners agreed to protected intercourse and one of them broke this agreement without the other's knowledge. One example is stealthing, which is a form of sexual abuse and was widely discussed a while ago. \nRape is having sex with someone without/against their consent for the act itself. Additional agreements like whether or not protection is used become irrelevant in this case. Pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely traumatic for victims, that is true, but rape itself is the crime that has been committed and if the victim happened to be on birth control or infertile that does not influence what has been done to them from the perspective of the crime itself.",
">\n\nI would prefer it if we instituted a policy that treats rape with potential conception this way, regardless of the actual results, in a manner similar to how we treat assault, aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon as different crimes. It wouldn't be any harder to prove than rape already is, while accounting for the additional reckless endangerment that comes from concieving a child through violence.",
">\n\nHe should pay child support to whoever keeps the child.",
">\n\nRapists aren't in control of the conception. If they get lucky and no child is conceived, that isn't because of anything in control of the rapist. People should be punished for things in their control, not let off for things outside their control.\nImagine a drunk driver. He gets in an accident because a child crosses the road in front of the car. But if the child had tripped just before the road and lives, that's not something we can give credit to the driver for.\nA rapist who is 'lucky' and doesn't get someone pregnant acted the same as a rapist who is 'unlucky' and did get someone pregnant. They created the same risk and should face the same punishment.",
">\n\nThe law does not work that way. In civil cases, a tortfeasor has to take his victim as he finds her. In other words, the asshole is responsible for whatever happens, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage. As another example, if a robber punches someone and that person ends up bleeding internally to death due to hemophilia, then that hemophilia is no defense to murder - the robber must take his victim as he found him. Criminal cases are similar - George Floyd's alleged physical condition was not a defense to the murder charges that Derek Chauvin was convicted of.",
">\n\nThe issue isn't with the harsher penalties but with the weaker penalties for rapes that don't result in pregnancy. Take two rapists. Rapist A impregnates his victim, while rapist B does not. Why should rapist B get a lighter sentence than rapist A? Are we implicitly saying that rape isn't as bad if there's no pregnancy? The actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?",
">\n\n\nThe actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?\n\nThis happens all the time. We consider the actions and the consequences of the actions in determining \"appropriate\" punishment very often.\nIf I shoot a gun blindly at a random house, that same action can have any number of consequences. Maybe the only consequences are breaking a window and putting a hole in someone's wall. Maybe it kills the family dog. Maybe the consequence is the bullet hitting someone and paralyzing them for life. Maybe the consequence is breaking a gas line that leads to an explosion that kills a dozen people.\nWhy isn't it reasonable to consider the outcomes of actions when determining the appropriate response?",
">\n\nThe comparison would be more like: you kill a person in each case, but in one, you also unintentionally break their leg. In the second case, should you be charged with a different crime? It's not like you didn't intend harm and by chance harm was caused. Harm is caused in both rape and rape with pregnancy. The act isn't different at all. It's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)"
] |
>
So... for example, given the exact same circumstances and actions, a woman on birth control is somehow less raped than a woman without who becomes pregnant? And a woman who miscarries or aborts a rape baby is somehow then less raped than she was while she was pregnant? | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of.",
">\n\nShouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population. \nHonestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society.",
">\n\nI agree, there was a rape incident in Korea (Cho Doo-soon incident). Due to poor law, he was freed after a short time despite causing too many injuries for the victim. After that every single people who lived near his house moved away. They should keep him in prison.",
">\n\nI could get behind this idea in the pragmatic sense that it could be a further deterrent from rape altogether, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make sense. Lying about birth control or intentionally tempering with it in order to impregnate a partner without/against their consent (or to be impregnated, since women can also do it) is a morally reprehensible in its own right, and furthermore can also carry legal repercussions, if it can be proven that the partners agreed to protected intercourse and one of them broke this agreement without the other's knowledge. One example is stealthing, which is a form of sexual abuse and was widely discussed a while ago. \nRape is having sex with someone without/against their consent for the act itself. Additional agreements like whether or not protection is used become irrelevant in this case. Pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely traumatic for victims, that is true, but rape itself is the crime that has been committed and if the victim happened to be on birth control or infertile that does not influence what has been done to them from the perspective of the crime itself.",
">\n\nI would prefer it if we instituted a policy that treats rape with potential conception this way, regardless of the actual results, in a manner similar to how we treat assault, aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon as different crimes. It wouldn't be any harder to prove than rape already is, while accounting for the additional reckless endangerment that comes from concieving a child through violence.",
">\n\nHe should pay child support to whoever keeps the child.",
">\n\nRapists aren't in control of the conception. If they get lucky and no child is conceived, that isn't because of anything in control of the rapist. People should be punished for things in their control, not let off for things outside their control.\nImagine a drunk driver. He gets in an accident because a child crosses the road in front of the car. But if the child had tripped just before the road and lives, that's not something we can give credit to the driver for.\nA rapist who is 'lucky' and doesn't get someone pregnant acted the same as a rapist who is 'unlucky' and did get someone pregnant. They created the same risk and should face the same punishment.",
">\n\nThe law does not work that way. In civil cases, a tortfeasor has to take his victim as he finds her. In other words, the asshole is responsible for whatever happens, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage. As another example, if a robber punches someone and that person ends up bleeding internally to death due to hemophilia, then that hemophilia is no defense to murder - the robber must take his victim as he found him. Criminal cases are similar - George Floyd's alleged physical condition was not a defense to the murder charges that Derek Chauvin was convicted of.",
">\n\nThe issue isn't with the harsher penalties but with the weaker penalties for rapes that don't result in pregnancy. Take two rapists. Rapist A impregnates his victim, while rapist B does not. Why should rapist B get a lighter sentence than rapist A? Are we implicitly saying that rape isn't as bad if there's no pregnancy? The actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?",
">\n\n\nThe actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?\n\nThis happens all the time. We consider the actions and the consequences of the actions in determining \"appropriate\" punishment very often.\nIf I shoot a gun blindly at a random house, that same action can have any number of consequences. Maybe the only consequences are breaking a window and putting a hole in someone's wall. Maybe it kills the family dog. Maybe the consequence is the bullet hitting someone and paralyzing them for life. Maybe the consequence is breaking a gas line that leads to an explosion that kills a dozen people.\nWhy isn't it reasonable to consider the outcomes of actions when determining the appropriate response?",
">\n\nThe comparison would be more like: you kill a person in each case, but in one, you also unintentionally break their leg. In the second case, should you be charged with a different crime? It's not like you didn't intend harm and by chance harm was caused. Harm is caused in both rape and rape with pregnancy. The act isn't different at all. It's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)",
">\n\nI don't think we need to quibble about whether it's an apt comparison. Based on what the person I responded to said, I think it is (i.e. same actions + different consequences).\n\nThe act isn't different at all.\n\nNot saying it isn't. What I'm saying is that the same act can have different consequences, and we very often apply different repercussions/punishments based on differences in consequences for the same act.\n\nIt's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)\n\nGetting raped and becoming pregnant by your rapist is worse than getting raped and not becoming pregnant by your rapist. That seems pretty uncontroversial to me."
] |
>
I feel this would cause an issue where, if the victim really wants to hurt their rapist the most, they have an incentive to remain pregnant even if they don't really want to.
Also, should this also apply to situations in which it is the rapist who gets pregnant and not the victim? | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of.",
">\n\nShouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population. \nHonestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society.",
">\n\nI agree, there was a rape incident in Korea (Cho Doo-soon incident). Due to poor law, he was freed after a short time despite causing too many injuries for the victim. After that every single people who lived near his house moved away. They should keep him in prison.",
">\n\nI could get behind this idea in the pragmatic sense that it could be a further deterrent from rape altogether, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make sense. Lying about birth control or intentionally tempering with it in order to impregnate a partner without/against their consent (or to be impregnated, since women can also do it) is a morally reprehensible in its own right, and furthermore can also carry legal repercussions, if it can be proven that the partners agreed to protected intercourse and one of them broke this agreement without the other's knowledge. One example is stealthing, which is a form of sexual abuse and was widely discussed a while ago. \nRape is having sex with someone without/against their consent for the act itself. Additional agreements like whether or not protection is used become irrelevant in this case. Pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely traumatic for victims, that is true, but rape itself is the crime that has been committed and if the victim happened to be on birth control or infertile that does not influence what has been done to them from the perspective of the crime itself.",
">\n\nI would prefer it if we instituted a policy that treats rape with potential conception this way, regardless of the actual results, in a manner similar to how we treat assault, aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon as different crimes. It wouldn't be any harder to prove than rape already is, while accounting for the additional reckless endangerment that comes from concieving a child through violence.",
">\n\nHe should pay child support to whoever keeps the child.",
">\n\nRapists aren't in control of the conception. If they get lucky and no child is conceived, that isn't because of anything in control of the rapist. People should be punished for things in their control, not let off for things outside their control.\nImagine a drunk driver. He gets in an accident because a child crosses the road in front of the car. But if the child had tripped just before the road and lives, that's not something we can give credit to the driver for.\nA rapist who is 'lucky' and doesn't get someone pregnant acted the same as a rapist who is 'unlucky' and did get someone pregnant. They created the same risk and should face the same punishment.",
">\n\nThe law does not work that way. In civil cases, a tortfeasor has to take his victim as he finds her. In other words, the asshole is responsible for whatever happens, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage. As another example, if a robber punches someone and that person ends up bleeding internally to death due to hemophilia, then that hemophilia is no defense to murder - the robber must take his victim as he found him. Criminal cases are similar - George Floyd's alleged physical condition was not a defense to the murder charges that Derek Chauvin was convicted of.",
">\n\nThe issue isn't with the harsher penalties but with the weaker penalties for rapes that don't result in pregnancy. Take two rapists. Rapist A impregnates his victim, while rapist B does not. Why should rapist B get a lighter sentence than rapist A? Are we implicitly saying that rape isn't as bad if there's no pregnancy? The actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?",
">\n\n\nThe actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?\n\nThis happens all the time. We consider the actions and the consequences of the actions in determining \"appropriate\" punishment very often.\nIf I shoot a gun blindly at a random house, that same action can have any number of consequences. Maybe the only consequences are breaking a window and putting a hole in someone's wall. Maybe it kills the family dog. Maybe the consequence is the bullet hitting someone and paralyzing them for life. Maybe the consequence is breaking a gas line that leads to an explosion that kills a dozen people.\nWhy isn't it reasonable to consider the outcomes of actions when determining the appropriate response?",
">\n\nThe comparison would be more like: you kill a person in each case, but in one, you also unintentionally break their leg. In the second case, should you be charged with a different crime? It's not like you didn't intend harm and by chance harm was caused. Harm is caused in both rape and rape with pregnancy. The act isn't different at all. It's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)",
">\n\nI don't think we need to quibble about whether it's an apt comparison. Based on what the person I responded to said, I think it is (i.e. same actions + different consequences).\n\nThe act isn't different at all.\n\nNot saying it isn't. What I'm saying is that the same act can have different consequences, and we very often apply different repercussions/punishments based on differences in consequences for the same act.\n\nIt's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)\n\nGetting raped and becoming pregnant by your rapist is worse than getting raped and not becoming pregnant by your rapist. That seems pretty uncontroversial to me.",
">\n\nSo... for example, given the exact same circumstances and actions, a woman on birth control is somehow less raped than a woman without who becomes pregnant? And a woman who miscarries or aborts a rape baby is somehow then less raped than she was while she was pregnant?"
] |
>
Jesus.. keeping your rapist's baby so they serve a harsher sentence is a level of spite that I don't think anyone could sink to. | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of.",
">\n\nShouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population. \nHonestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society.",
">\n\nI agree, there was a rape incident in Korea (Cho Doo-soon incident). Due to poor law, he was freed after a short time despite causing too many injuries for the victim. After that every single people who lived near his house moved away. They should keep him in prison.",
">\n\nI could get behind this idea in the pragmatic sense that it could be a further deterrent from rape altogether, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make sense. Lying about birth control or intentionally tempering with it in order to impregnate a partner without/against their consent (or to be impregnated, since women can also do it) is a morally reprehensible in its own right, and furthermore can also carry legal repercussions, if it can be proven that the partners agreed to protected intercourse and one of them broke this agreement without the other's knowledge. One example is stealthing, which is a form of sexual abuse and was widely discussed a while ago. \nRape is having sex with someone without/against their consent for the act itself. Additional agreements like whether or not protection is used become irrelevant in this case. Pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely traumatic for victims, that is true, but rape itself is the crime that has been committed and if the victim happened to be on birth control or infertile that does not influence what has been done to them from the perspective of the crime itself.",
">\n\nI would prefer it if we instituted a policy that treats rape with potential conception this way, regardless of the actual results, in a manner similar to how we treat assault, aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon as different crimes. It wouldn't be any harder to prove than rape already is, while accounting for the additional reckless endangerment that comes from concieving a child through violence.",
">\n\nHe should pay child support to whoever keeps the child.",
">\n\nRapists aren't in control of the conception. If they get lucky and no child is conceived, that isn't because of anything in control of the rapist. People should be punished for things in their control, not let off for things outside their control.\nImagine a drunk driver. He gets in an accident because a child crosses the road in front of the car. But if the child had tripped just before the road and lives, that's not something we can give credit to the driver for.\nA rapist who is 'lucky' and doesn't get someone pregnant acted the same as a rapist who is 'unlucky' and did get someone pregnant. They created the same risk and should face the same punishment.",
">\n\nThe law does not work that way. In civil cases, a tortfeasor has to take his victim as he finds her. In other words, the asshole is responsible for whatever happens, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage. As another example, if a robber punches someone and that person ends up bleeding internally to death due to hemophilia, then that hemophilia is no defense to murder - the robber must take his victim as he found him. Criminal cases are similar - George Floyd's alleged physical condition was not a defense to the murder charges that Derek Chauvin was convicted of.",
">\n\nThe issue isn't with the harsher penalties but with the weaker penalties for rapes that don't result in pregnancy. Take two rapists. Rapist A impregnates his victim, while rapist B does not. Why should rapist B get a lighter sentence than rapist A? Are we implicitly saying that rape isn't as bad if there's no pregnancy? The actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?",
">\n\n\nThe actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?\n\nThis happens all the time. We consider the actions and the consequences of the actions in determining \"appropriate\" punishment very often.\nIf I shoot a gun blindly at a random house, that same action can have any number of consequences. Maybe the only consequences are breaking a window and putting a hole in someone's wall. Maybe it kills the family dog. Maybe the consequence is the bullet hitting someone and paralyzing them for life. Maybe the consequence is breaking a gas line that leads to an explosion that kills a dozen people.\nWhy isn't it reasonable to consider the outcomes of actions when determining the appropriate response?",
">\n\nThe comparison would be more like: you kill a person in each case, but in one, you also unintentionally break their leg. In the second case, should you be charged with a different crime? It's not like you didn't intend harm and by chance harm was caused. Harm is caused in both rape and rape with pregnancy. The act isn't different at all. It's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)",
">\n\nI don't think we need to quibble about whether it's an apt comparison. Based on what the person I responded to said, I think it is (i.e. same actions + different consequences).\n\nThe act isn't different at all.\n\nNot saying it isn't. What I'm saying is that the same act can have different consequences, and we very often apply different repercussions/punishments based on differences in consequences for the same act.\n\nIt's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)\n\nGetting raped and becoming pregnant by your rapist is worse than getting raped and not becoming pregnant by your rapist. That seems pretty uncontroversial to me.",
">\n\nSo... for example, given the exact same circumstances and actions, a woman on birth control is somehow less raped than a woman without who becomes pregnant? And a woman who miscarries or aborts a rape baby is somehow then less raped than she was while she was pregnant?",
">\n\nI feel this would cause an issue where, if the victim really wants to hurt their rapist the most, they have an incentive to remain pregnant even if they don't really want to.\nAlso, should this also apply to situations in which it is the rapist who gets pregnant and not the victim?"
] |
>
If you touch my daughters you’d better hope the cops find you first cuz there’s a reckoning upon you if I am first and I’ll gladly sit in a jail for taking a predator to meet the Godess.
To the point , fuck yes a rapist should have to provide child support. Rapist shouldn’t be allowed to rot in jail , make them work and pay for 18 years like non rapist dads do. And when they fall behind it’s incarceration and forced labor.
For far too long our mother, daughter , wives , sisters, aunties and grannies have faced unfair systematic societal oppression. End it by embracing a new paradigm of true human dignity and equality. | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of.",
">\n\nShouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population. \nHonestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society.",
">\n\nI agree, there was a rape incident in Korea (Cho Doo-soon incident). Due to poor law, he was freed after a short time despite causing too many injuries for the victim. After that every single people who lived near his house moved away. They should keep him in prison.",
">\n\nI could get behind this idea in the pragmatic sense that it could be a further deterrent from rape altogether, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make sense. Lying about birth control or intentionally tempering with it in order to impregnate a partner without/against their consent (or to be impregnated, since women can also do it) is a morally reprehensible in its own right, and furthermore can also carry legal repercussions, if it can be proven that the partners agreed to protected intercourse and one of them broke this agreement without the other's knowledge. One example is stealthing, which is a form of sexual abuse and was widely discussed a while ago. \nRape is having sex with someone without/against their consent for the act itself. Additional agreements like whether or not protection is used become irrelevant in this case. Pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely traumatic for victims, that is true, but rape itself is the crime that has been committed and if the victim happened to be on birth control or infertile that does not influence what has been done to them from the perspective of the crime itself.",
">\n\nI would prefer it if we instituted a policy that treats rape with potential conception this way, regardless of the actual results, in a manner similar to how we treat assault, aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon as different crimes. It wouldn't be any harder to prove than rape already is, while accounting for the additional reckless endangerment that comes from concieving a child through violence.",
">\n\nHe should pay child support to whoever keeps the child.",
">\n\nRapists aren't in control of the conception. If they get lucky and no child is conceived, that isn't because of anything in control of the rapist. People should be punished for things in their control, not let off for things outside their control.\nImagine a drunk driver. He gets in an accident because a child crosses the road in front of the car. But if the child had tripped just before the road and lives, that's not something we can give credit to the driver for.\nA rapist who is 'lucky' and doesn't get someone pregnant acted the same as a rapist who is 'unlucky' and did get someone pregnant. They created the same risk and should face the same punishment.",
">\n\nThe law does not work that way. In civil cases, a tortfeasor has to take his victim as he finds her. In other words, the asshole is responsible for whatever happens, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage. As another example, if a robber punches someone and that person ends up bleeding internally to death due to hemophilia, then that hemophilia is no defense to murder - the robber must take his victim as he found him. Criminal cases are similar - George Floyd's alleged physical condition was not a defense to the murder charges that Derek Chauvin was convicted of.",
">\n\nThe issue isn't with the harsher penalties but with the weaker penalties for rapes that don't result in pregnancy. Take two rapists. Rapist A impregnates his victim, while rapist B does not. Why should rapist B get a lighter sentence than rapist A? Are we implicitly saying that rape isn't as bad if there's no pregnancy? The actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?",
">\n\n\nThe actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?\n\nThis happens all the time. We consider the actions and the consequences of the actions in determining \"appropriate\" punishment very often.\nIf I shoot a gun blindly at a random house, that same action can have any number of consequences. Maybe the only consequences are breaking a window and putting a hole in someone's wall. Maybe it kills the family dog. Maybe the consequence is the bullet hitting someone and paralyzing them for life. Maybe the consequence is breaking a gas line that leads to an explosion that kills a dozen people.\nWhy isn't it reasonable to consider the outcomes of actions when determining the appropriate response?",
">\n\nThe comparison would be more like: you kill a person in each case, but in one, you also unintentionally break their leg. In the second case, should you be charged with a different crime? It's not like you didn't intend harm and by chance harm was caused. Harm is caused in both rape and rape with pregnancy. The act isn't different at all. It's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)",
">\n\nI don't think we need to quibble about whether it's an apt comparison. Based on what the person I responded to said, I think it is (i.e. same actions + different consequences).\n\nThe act isn't different at all.\n\nNot saying it isn't. What I'm saying is that the same act can have different consequences, and we very often apply different repercussions/punishments based on differences in consequences for the same act.\n\nIt's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)\n\nGetting raped and becoming pregnant by your rapist is worse than getting raped and not becoming pregnant by your rapist. That seems pretty uncontroversial to me.",
">\n\nSo... for example, given the exact same circumstances and actions, a woman on birth control is somehow less raped than a woman without who becomes pregnant? And a woman who miscarries or aborts a rape baby is somehow then less raped than she was while she was pregnant?",
">\n\nI feel this would cause an issue where, if the victim really wants to hurt their rapist the most, they have an incentive to remain pregnant even if they don't really want to.\nAlso, should this also apply to situations in which it is the rapist who gets pregnant and not the victim?",
">\n\nJesus.. keeping your rapist's baby so they serve a harsher sentence is a level of spite that I don't think anyone could sink to."
] |
>
First of all. I hop on bored with Ben Shapiro when he says to physically castrate rapist, pedophiles, predators, etc. But I like to add my spice to things and add a prison sentence just like they do now. Then add pay for the damage they've done. Example would be. If your caught raping a woman. The woman chooses abortion. He pays for the abortion and following. COunceling sessions through the state to the agency. Or if she keeps it. Then guess who paying a child support for 18 years? Rapist. Just one of many examples I'm sure we could conjure. But by all means tear this idea apart, or let's build from it. | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of.",
">\n\nShouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population. \nHonestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society.",
">\n\nI agree, there was a rape incident in Korea (Cho Doo-soon incident). Due to poor law, he was freed after a short time despite causing too many injuries for the victim. After that every single people who lived near his house moved away. They should keep him in prison.",
">\n\nI could get behind this idea in the pragmatic sense that it could be a further deterrent from rape altogether, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make sense. Lying about birth control or intentionally tempering with it in order to impregnate a partner without/against their consent (or to be impregnated, since women can also do it) is a morally reprehensible in its own right, and furthermore can also carry legal repercussions, if it can be proven that the partners agreed to protected intercourse and one of them broke this agreement without the other's knowledge. One example is stealthing, which is a form of sexual abuse and was widely discussed a while ago. \nRape is having sex with someone without/against their consent for the act itself. Additional agreements like whether or not protection is used become irrelevant in this case. Pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely traumatic for victims, that is true, but rape itself is the crime that has been committed and if the victim happened to be on birth control or infertile that does not influence what has been done to them from the perspective of the crime itself.",
">\n\nI would prefer it if we instituted a policy that treats rape with potential conception this way, regardless of the actual results, in a manner similar to how we treat assault, aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon as different crimes. It wouldn't be any harder to prove than rape already is, while accounting for the additional reckless endangerment that comes from concieving a child through violence.",
">\n\nHe should pay child support to whoever keeps the child.",
">\n\nRapists aren't in control of the conception. If they get lucky and no child is conceived, that isn't because of anything in control of the rapist. People should be punished for things in their control, not let off for things outside their control.\nImagine a drunk driver. He gets in an accident because a child crosses the road in front of the car. But if the child had tripped just before the road and lives, that's not something we can give credit to the driver for.\nA rapist who is 'lucky' and doesn't get someone pregnant acted the same as a rapist who is 'unlucky' and did get someone pregnant. They created the same risk and should face the same punishment.",
">\n\nThe law does not work that way. In civil cases, a tortfeasor has to take his victim as he finds her. In other words, the asshole is responsible for whatever happens, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage. As another example, if a robber punches someone and that person ends up bleeding internally to death due to hemophilia, then that hemophilia is no defense to murder - the robber must take his victim as he found him. Criminal cases are similar - George Floyd's alleged physical condition was not a defense to the murder charges that Derek Chauvin was convicted of.",
">\n\nThe issue isn't with the harsher penalties but with the weaker penalties for rapes that don't result in pregnancy. Take two rapists. Rapist A impregnates his victim, while rapist B does not. Why should rapist B get a lighter sentence than rapist A? Are we implicitly saying that rape isn't as bad if there's no pregnancy? The actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?",
">\n\n\nThe actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?\n\nThis happens all the time. We consider the actions and the consequences of the actions in determining \"appropriate\" punishment very often.\nIf I shoot a gun blindly at a random house, that same action can have any number of consequences. Maybe the only consequences are breaking a window and putting a hole in someone's wall. Maybe it kills the family dog. Maybe the consequence is the bullet hitting someone and paralyzing them for life. Maybe the consequence is breaking a gas line that leads to an explosion that kills a dozen people.\nWhy isn't it reasonable to consider the outcomes of actions when determining the appropriate response?",
">\n\nThe comparison would be more like: you kill a person in each case, but in one, you also unintentionally break their leg. In the second case, should you be charged with a different crime? It's not like you didn't intend harm and by chance harm was caused. Harm is caused in both rape and rape with pregnancy. The act isn't different at all. It's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)",
">\n\nI don't think we need to quibble about whether it's an apt comparison. Based on what the person I responded to said, I think it is (i.e. same actions + different consequences).\n\nThe act isn't different at all.\n\nNot saying it isn't. What I'm saying is that the same act can have different consequences, and we very often apply different repercussions/punishments based on differences in consequences for the same act.\n\nIt's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)\n\nGetting raped and becoming pregnant by your rapist is worse than getting raped and not becoming pregnant by your rapist. That seems pretty uncontroversial to me.",
">\n\nSo... for example, given the exact same circumstances and actions, a woman on birth control is somehow less raped than a woman without who becomes pregnant? And a woman who miscarries or aborts a rape baby is somehow then less raped than she was while she was pregnant?",
">\n\nI feel this would cause an issue where, if the victim really wants to hurt their rapist the most, they have an incentive to remain pregnant even if they don't really want to.\nAlso, should this also apply to situations in which it is the rapist who gets pregnant and not the victim?",
">\n\nJesus.. keeping your rapist's baby so they serve a harsher sentence is a level of spite that I don't think anyone could sink to.",
">\n\nIf you touch my daughters you’d better hope the cops find you first cuz there’s a reckoning upon you if I am first and I’ll gladly sit in a jail for taking a predator to meet the Godess. \n To the point , fuck yes a rapist should have to provide child support. Rapist shouldn’t be allowed to rot in jail , make them work and pay for 18 years like non rapist dads do. And when they fall behind it’s incarceration and forced labor. \nFor far too long our mother, daughter , wives , sisters, aunties and grannies have faced unfair systematic societal oppression. End it by embracing a new paradigm of true human dignity and equality."
] |
>
Disagree. It makes no difference if he causes the worst possible damage (pregnancy, std infection, PTSD etc) or minimal damage (although I don't know what that would be). The punishment should be severe, regardless of the consequences. Otherwise some men will get off lighter simply because they were 'lucky' | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of.",
">\n\nShouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population. \nHonestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society.",
">\n\nI agree, there was a rape incident in Korea (Cho Doo-soon incident). Due to poor law, he was freed after a short time despite causing too many injuries for the victim. After that every single people who lived near his house moved away. They should keep him in prison.",
">\n\nI could get behind this idea in the pragmatic sense that it could be a further deterrent from rape altogether, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make sense. Lying about birth control or intentionally tempering with it in order to impregnate a partner without/against their consent (or to be impregnated, since women can also do it) is a morally reprehensible in its own right, and furthermore can also carry legal repercussions, if it can be proven that the partners agreed to protected intercourse and one of them broke this agreement without the other's knowledge. One example is stealthing, which is a form of sexual abuse and was widely discussed a while ago. \nRape is having sex with someone without/against their consent for the act itself. Additional agreements like whether or not protection is used become irrelevant in this case. Pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely traumatic for victims, that is true, but rape itself is the crime that has been committed and if the victim happened to be on birth control or infertile that does not influence what has been done to them from the perspective of the crime itself.",
">\n\nI would prefer it if we instituted a policy that treats rape with potential conception this way, regardless of the actual results, in a manner similar to how we treat assault, aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon as different crimes. It wouldn't be any harder to prove than rape already is, while accounting for the additional reckless endangerment that comes from concieving a child through violence.",
">\n\nHe should pay child support to whoever keeps the child.",
">\n\nRapists aren't in control of the conception. If they get lucky and no child is conceived, that isn't because of anything in control of the rapist. People should be punished for things in their control, not let off for things outside their control.\nImagine a drunk driver. He gets in an accident because a child crosses the road in front of the car. But if the child had tripped just before the road and lives, that's not something we can give credit to the driver for.\nA rapist who is 'lucky' and doesn't get someone pregnant acted the same as a rapist who is 'unlucky' and did get someone pregnant. They created the same risk and should face the same punishment.",
">\n\nThe law does not work that way. In civil cases, a tortfeasor has to take his victim as he finds her. In other words, the asshole is responsible for whatever happens, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage. As another example, if a robber punches someone and that person ends up bleeding internally to death due to hemophilia, then that hemophilia is no defense to murder - the robber must take his victim as he found him. Criminal cases are similar - George Floyd's alleged physical condition was not a defense to the murder charges that Derek Chauvin was convicted of.",
">\n\nThe issue isn't with the harsher penalties but with the weaker penalties for rapes that don't result in pregnancy. Take two rapists. Rapist A impregnates his victim, while rapist B does not. Why should rapist B get a lighter sentence than rapist A? Are we implicitly saying that rape isn't as bad if there's no pregnancy? The actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?",
">\n\n\nThe actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?\n\nThis happens all the time. We consider the actions and the consequences of the actions in determining \"appropriate\" punishment very often.\nIf I shoot a gun blindly at a random house, that same action can have any number of consequences. Maybe the only consequences are breaking a window and putting a hole in someone's wall. Maybe it kills the family dog. Maybe the consequence is the bullet hitting someone and paralyzing them for life. Maybe the consequence is breaking a gas line that leads to an explosion that kills a dozen people.\nWhy isn't it reasonable to consider the outcomes of actions when determining the appropriate response?",
">\n\nThe comparison would be more like: you kill a person in each case, but in one, you also unintentionally break their leg. In the second case, should you be charged with a different crime? It's not like you didn't intend harm and by chance harm was caused. Harm is caused in both rape and rape with pregnancy. The act isn't different at all. It's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)",
">\n\nI don't think we need to quibble about whether it's an apt comparison. Based on what the person I responded to said, I think it is (i.e. same actions + different consequences).\n\nThe act isn't different at all.\n\nNot saying it isn't. What I'm saying is that the same act can have different consequences, and we very often apply different repercussions/punishments based on differences in consequences for the same act.\n\nIt's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)\n\nGetting raped and becoming pregnant by your rapist is worse than getting raped and not becoming pregnant by your rapist. That seems pretty uncontroversial to me.",
">\n\nSo... for example, given the exact same circumstances and actions, a woman on birth control is somehow less raped than a woman without who becomes pregnant? And a woman who miscarries or aborts a rape baby is somehow then less raped than she was while she was pregnant?",
">\n\nI feel this would cause an issue where, if the victim really wants to hurt their rapist the most, they have an incentive to remain pregnant even if they don't really want to.\nAlso, should this also apply to situations in which it is the rapist who gets pregnant and not the victim?",
">\n\nJesus.. keeping your rapist's baby so they serve a harsher sentence is a level of spite that I don't think anyone could sink to.",
">\n\nIf you touch my daughters you’d better hope the cops find you first cuz there’s a reckoning upon you if I am first and I’ll gladly sit in a jail for taking a predator to meet the Godess. \n To the point , fuck yes a rapist should have to provide child support. Rapist shouldn’t be allowed to rot in jail , make them work and pay for 18 years like non rapist dads do. And when they fall behind it’s incarceration and forced labor. \nFor far too long our mother, daughter , wives , sisters, aunties and grannies have faced unfair systematic societal oppression. End it by embracing a new paradigm of true human dignity and equality.",
">\n\nFirst of all. I hop on bored with Ben Shapiro when he says to physically castrate rapist, pedophiles, predators, etc. But I like to add my spice to things and add a prison sentence just like they do now. Then add pay for the damage they've done. Example would be. If your caught raping a woman. The woman chooses abortion. He pays for the abortion and following. COunceling sessions through the state to the agency. Or if she keeps it. Then guess who paying a child support for 18 years? Rapist. Just one of many examples I'm sure we could conjure. But by all means tear this idea apart, or let's build from it."
] |
>
To clarify your position, are you asking for a broader range of available punishment in the event of a pregnancy or are you advocating for a higher minimum punishment? | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of.",
">\n\nShouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population. \nHonestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society.",
">\n\nI agree, there was a rape incident in Korea (Cho Doo-soon incident). Due to poor law, he was freed after a short time despite causing too many injuries for the victim. After that every single people who lived near his house moved away. They should keep him in prison.",
">\n\nI could get behind this idea in the pragmatic sense that it could be a further deterrent from rape altogether, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make sense. Lying about birth control or intentionally tempering with it in order to impregnate a partner without/against their consent (or to be impregnated, since women can also do it) is a morally reprehensible in its own right, and furthermore can also carry legal repercussions, if it can be proven that the partners agreed to protected intercourse and one of them broke this agreement without the other's knowledge. One example is stealthing, which is a form of sexual abuse and was widely discussed a while ago. \nRape is having sex with someone without/against their consent for the act itself. Additional agreements like whether or not protection is used become irrelevant in this case. Pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely traumatic for victims, that is true, but rape itself is the crime that has been committed and if the victim happened to be on birth control or infertile that does not influence what has been done to them from the perspective of the crime itself.",
">\n\nI would prefer it if we instituted a policy that treats rape with potential conception this way, regardless of the actual results, in a manner similar to how we treat assault, aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon as different crimes. It wouldn't be any harder to prove than rape already is, while accounting for the additional reckless endangerment that comes from concieving a child through violence.",
">\n\nHe should pay child support to whoever keeps the child.",
">\n\nRapists aren't in control of the conception. If they get lucky and no child is conceived, that isn't because of anything in control of the rapist. People should be punished for things in their control, not let off for things outside their control.\nImagine a drunk driver. He gets in an accident because a child crosses the road in front of the car. But if the child had tripped just before the road and lives, that's not something we can give credit to the driver for.\nA rapist who is 'lucky' and doesn't get someone pregnant acted the same as a rapist who is 'unlucky' and did get someone pregnant. They created the same risk and should face the same punishment.",
">\n\nThe law does not work that way. In civil cases, a tortfeasor has to take his victim as he finds her. In other words, the asshole is responsible for whatever happens, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage. As another example, if a robber punches someone and that person ends up bleeding internally to death due to hemophilia, then that hemophilia is no defense to murder - the robber must take his victim as he found him. Criminal cases are similar - George Floyd's alleged physical condition was not a defense to the murder charges that Derek Chauvin was convicted of.",
">\n\nThe issue isn't with the harsher penalties but with the weaker penalties for rapes that don't result in pregnancy. Take two rapists. Rapist A impregnates his victim, while rapist B does not. Why should rapist B get a lighter sentence than rapist A? Are we implicitly saying that rape isn't as bad if there's no pregnancy? The actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?",
">\n\n\nThe actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?\n\nThis happens all the time. We consider the actions and the consequences of the actions in determining \"appropriate\" punishment very often.\nIf I shoot a gun blindly at a random house, that same action can have any number of consequences. Maybe the only consequences are breaking a window and putting a hole in someone's wall. Maybe it kills the family dog. Maybe the consequence is the bullet hitting someone and paralyzing them for life. Maybe the consequence is breaking a gas line that leads to an explosion that kills a dozen people.\nWhy isn't it reasonable to consider the outcomes of actions when determining the appropriate response?",
">\n\nThe comparison would be more like: you kill a person in each case, but in one, you also unintentionally break their leg. In the second case, should you be charged with a different crime? It's not like you didn't intend harm and by chance harm was caused. Harm is caused in both rape and rape with pregnancy. The act isn't different at all. It's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)",
">\n\nI don't think we need to quibble about whether it's an apt comparison. Based on what the person I responded to said, I think it is (i.e. same actions + different consequences).\n\nThe act isn't different at all.\n\nNot saying it isn't. What I'm saying is that the same act can have different consequences, and we very often apply different repercussions/punishments based on differences in consequences for the same act.\n\nIt's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)\n\nGetting raped and becoming pregnant by your rapist is worse than getting raped and not becoming pregnant by your rapist. That seems pretty uncontroversial to me.",
">\n\nSo... for example, given the exact same circumstances and actions, a woman on birth control is somehow less raped than a woman without who becomes pregnant? And a woman who miscarries or aborts a rape baby is somehow then less raped than she was while she was pregnant?",
">\n\nI feel this would cause an issue where, if the victim really wants to hurt their rapist the most, they have an incentive to remain pregnant even if they don't really want to.\nAlso, should this also apply to situations in which it is the rapist who gets pregnant and not the victim?",
">\n\nJesus.. keeping your rapist's baby so they serve a harsher sentence is a level of spite that I don't think anyone could sink to.",
">\n\nIf you touch my daughters you’d better hope the cops find you first cuz there’s a reckoning upon you if I am first and I’ll gladly sit in a jail for taking a predator to meet the Godess. \n To the point , fuck yes a rapist should have to provide child support. Rapist shouldn’t be allowed to rot in jail , make them work and pay for 18 years like non rapist dads do. And when they fall behind it’s incarceration and forced labor. \nFor far too long our mother, daughter , wives , sisters, aunties and grannies have faced unfair systematic societal oppression. End it by embracing a new paradigm of true human dignity and equality.",
">\n\nFirst of all. I hop on bored with Ben Shapiro when he says to physically castrate rapist, pedophiles, predators, etc. But I like to add my spice to things and add a prison sentence just like they do now. Then add pay for the damage they've done. Example would be. If your caught raping a woman. The woman chooses abortion. He pays for the abortion and following. COunceling sessions through the state to the agency. Or if she keeps it. Then guess who paying a child support for 18 years? Rapist. Just one of many examples I'm sure we could conjure. But by all means tear this idea apart, or let's build from it.",
">\n\nDisagree. It makes no difference if he causes the worst possible damage (pregnancy, std infection, PTSD etc) or minimal damage (although I don't know what that would be). The punishment should be severe, regardless of the consequences. Otherwise some men will get off lighter simply because they were 'lucky'"
] |
>
Both, honestly. There should be automatic sentence enhancements as well as additional restitution. | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of.",
">\n\nShouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population. \nHonestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society.",
">\n\nI agree, there was a rape incident in Korea (Cho Doo-soon incident). Due to poor law, he was freed after a short time despite causing too many injuries for the victim. After that every single people who lived near his house moved away. They should keep him in prison.",
">\n\nI could get behind this idea in the pragmatic sense that it could be a further deterrent from rape altogether, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make sense. Lying about birth control or intentionally tempering with it in order to impregnate a partner without/against their consent (or to be impregnated, since women can also do it) is a morally reprehensible in its own right, and furthermore can also carry legal repercussions, if it can be proven that the partners agreed to protected intercourse and one of them broke this agreement without the other's knowledge. One example is stealthing, which is a form of sexual abuse and was widely discussed a while ago. \nRape is having sex with someone without/against their consent for the act itself. Additional agreements like whether or not protection is used become irrelevant in this case. Pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely traumatic for victims, that is true, but rape itself is the crime that has been committed and if the victim happened to be on birth control or infertile that does not influence what has been done to them from the perspective of the crime itself.",
">\n\nI would prefer it if we instituted a policy that treats rape with potential conception this way, regardless of the actual results, in a manner similar to how we treat assault, aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon as different crimes. It wouldn't be any harder to prove than rape already is, while accounting for the additional reckless endangerment that comes from concieving a child through violence.",
">\n\nHe should pay child support to whoever keeps the child.",
">\n\nRapists aren't in control of the conception. If they get lucky and no child is conceived, that isn't because of anything in control of the rapist. People should be punished for things in their control, not let off for things outside their control.\nImagine a drunk driver. He gets in an accident because a child crosses the road in front of the car. But if the child had tripped just before the road and lives, that's not something we can give credit to the driver for.\nA rapist who is 'lucky' and doesn't get someone pregnant acted the same as a rapist who is 'unlucky' and did get someone pregnant. They created the same risk and should face the same punishment.",
">\n\nThe law does not work that way. In civil cases, a tortfeasor has to take his victim as he finds her. In other words, the asshole is responsible for whatever happens, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage. As another example, if a robber punches someone and that person ends up bleeding internally to death due to hemophilia, then that hemophilia is no defense to murder - the robber must take his victim as he found him. Criminal cases are similar - George Floyd's alleged physical condition was not a defense to the murder charges that Derek Chauvin was convicted of.",
">\n\nThe issue isn't with the harsher penalties but with the weaker penalties for rapes that don't result in pregnancy. Take two rapists. Rapist A impregnates his victim, while rapist B does not. Why should rapist B get a lighter sentence than rapist A? Are we implicitly saying that rape isn't as bad if there's no pregnancy? The actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?",
">\n\n\nThe actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?\n\nThis happens all the time. We consider the actions and the consequences of the actions in determining \"appropriate\" punishment very often.\nIf I shoot a gun blindly at a random house, that same action can have any number of consequences. Maybe the only consequences are breaking a window and putting a hole in someone's wall. Maybe it kills the family dog. Maybe the consequence is the bullet hitting someone and paralyzing them for life. Maybe the consequence is breaking a gas line that leads to an explosion that kills a dozen people.\nWhy isn't it reasonable to consider the outcomes of actions when determining the appropriate response?",
">\n\nThe comparison would be more like: you kill a person in each case, but in one, you also unintentionally break their leg. In the second case, should you be charged with a different crime? It's not like you didn't intend harm and by chance harm was caused. Harm is caused in both rape and rape with pregnancy. The act isn't different at all. It's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)",
">\n\nI don't think we need to quibble about whether it's an apt comparison. Based on what the person I responded to said, I think it is (i.e. same actions + different consequences).\n\nThe act isn't different at all.\n\nNot saying it isn't. What I'm saying is that the same act can have different consequences, and we very often apply different repercussions/punishments based on differences in consequences for the same act.\n\nIt's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)\n\nGetting raped and becoming pregnant by your rapist is worse than getting raped and not becoming pregnant by your rapist. That seems pretty uncontroversial to me.",
">\n\nSo... for example, given the exact same circumstances and actions, a woman on birth control is somehow less raped than a woman without who becomes pregnant? And a woman who miscarries or aborts a rape baby is somehow then less raped than she was while she was pregnant?",
">\n\nI feel this would cause an issue where, if the victim really wants to hurt their rapist the most, they have an incentive to remain pregnant even if they don't really want to.\nAlso, should this also apply to situations in which it is the rapist who gets pregnant and not the victim?",
">\n\nJesus.. keeping your rapist's baby so they serve a harsher sentence is a level of spite that I don't think anyone could sink to.",
">\n\nIf you touch my daughters you’d better hope the cops find you first cuz there’s a reckoning upon you if I am first and I’ll gladly sit in a jail for taking a predator to meet the Godess. \n To the point , fuck yes a rapist should have to provide child support. Rapist shouldn’t be allowed to rot in jail , make them work and pay for 18 years like non rapist dads do. And when they fall behind it’s incarceration and forced labor. \nFor far too long our mother, daughter , wives , sisters, aunties and grannies have faced unfair systematic societal oppression. End it by embracing a new paradigm of true human dignity and equality.",
">\n\nFirst of all. I hop on bored with Ben Shapiro when he says to physically castrate rapist, pedophiles, predators, etc. But I like to add my spice to things and add a prison sentence just like they do now. Then add pay for the damage they've done. Example would be. If your caught raping a woman. The woman chooses abortion. He pays for the abortion and following. COunceling sessions through the state to the agency. Or if she keeps it. Then guess who paying a child support for 18 years? Rapist. Just one of many examples I'm sure we could conjure. But by all means tear this idea apart, or let's build from it.",
">\n\nDisagree. It makes no difference if he causes the worst possible damage (pregnancy, std infection, PTSD etc) or minimal damage (although I don't know what that would be). The punishment should be severe, regardless of the consequences. Otherwise some men will get off lighter simply because they were 'lucky'",
">\n\nTo clarify your position, are you asking for a broader range of available punishment in the event of a pregnancy or are you advocating for a higher minimum punishment?"
] |
>
I would counter then and suggest that if you are going to aggravate the charge based on causing pregnancy, it should only be to broaden the possible punishment range, not increase a mandatory minimum.
Mandatory minimums have a long history of causing more problems. Yes, rapists deserve to go to prison, but have you considered how many less would take a plea bargain because it would require x versus y years in prison? These are the types of cases that prosecutors lose more often than any other and cause the most trauma and stress to the victims. Mandatory minimums have the effect of making harder-to-prove cases get ignored meaning less overall justice. It would be better for those difficult cases to still see some type of punishment versus more acquittals or dismissals. | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of.",
">\n\nShouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population. \nHonestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society.",
">\n\nI agree, there was a rape incident in Korea (Cho Doo-soon incident). Due to poor law, he was freed after a short time despite causing too many injuries for the victim. After that every single people who lived near his house moved away. They should keep him in prison.",
">\n\nI could get behind this idea in the pragmatic sense that it could be a further deterrent from rape altogether, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make sense. Lying about birth control or intentionally tempering with it in order to impregnate a partner without/against their consent (or to be impregnated, since women can also do it) is a morally reprehensible in its own right, and furthermore can also carry legal repercussions, if it can be proven that the partners agreed to protected intercourse and one of them broke this agreement without the other's knowledge. One example is stealthing, which is a form of sexual abuse and was widely discussed a while ago. \nRape is having sex with someone without/against their consent for the act itself. Additional agreements like whether or not protection is used become irrelevant in this case. Pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely traumatic for victims, that is true, but rape itself is the crime that has been committed and if the victim happened to be on birth control or infertile that does not influence what has been done to them from the perspective of the crime itself.",
">\n\nI would prefer it if we instituted a policy that treats rape with potential conception this way, regardless of the actual results, in a manner similar to how we treat assault, aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon as different crimes. It wouldn't be any harder to prove than rape already is, while accounting for the additional reckless endangerment that comes from concieving a child through violence.",
">\n\nHe should pay child support to whoever keeps the child.",
">\n\nRapists aren't in control of the conception. If they get lucky and no child is conceived, that isn't because of anything in control of the rapist. People should be punished for things in their control, not let off for things outside their control.\nImagine a drunk driver. He gets in an accident because a child crosses the road in front of the car. But if the child had tripped just before the road and lives, that's not something we can give credit to the driver for.\nA rapist who is 'lucky' and doesn't get someone pregnant acted the same as a rapist who is 'unlucky' and did get someone pregnant. They created the same risk and should face the same punishment.",
">\n\nThe law does not work that way. In civil cases, a tortfeasor has to take his victim as he finds her. In other words, the asshole is responsible for whatever happens, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage. As another example, if a robber punches someone and that person ends up bleeding internally to death due to hemophilia, then that hemophilia is no defense to murder - the robber must take his victim as he found him. Criminal cases are similar - George Floyd's alleged physical condition was not a defense to the murder charges that Derek Chauvin was convicted of.",
">\n\nThe issue isn't with the harsher penalties but with the weaker penalties for rapes that don't result in pregnancy. Take two rapists. Rapist A impregnates his victim, while rapist B does not. Why should rapist B get a lighter sentence than rapist A? Are we implicitly saying that rape isn't as bad if there's no pregnancy? The actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?",
">\n\n\nThe actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?\n\nThis happens all the time. We consider the actions and the consequences of the actions in determining \"appropriate\" punishment very often.\nIf I shoot a gun blindly at a random house, that same action can have any number of consequences. Maybe the only consequences are breaking a window and putting a hole in someone's wall. Maybe it kills the family dog. Maybe the consequence is the bullet hitting someone and paralyzing them for life. Maybe the consequence is breaking a gas line that leads to an explosion that kills a dozen people.\nWhy isn't it reasonable to consider the outcomes of actions when determining the appropriate response?",
">\n\nThe comparison would be more like: you kill a person in each case, but in one, you also unintentionally break their leg. In the second case, should you be charged with a different crime? It's not like you didn't intend harm and by chance harm was caused. Harm is caused in both rape and rape with pregnancy. The act isn't different at all. It's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)",
">\n\nI don't think we need to quibble about whether it's an apt comparison. Based on what the person I responded to said, I think it is (i.e. same actions + different consequences).\n\nThe act isn't different at all.\n\nNot saying it isn't. What I'm saying is that the same act can have different consequences, and we very often apply different repercussions/punishments based on differences in consequences for the same act.\n\nIt's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)\n\nGetting raped and becoming pregnant by your rapist is worse than getting raped and not becoming pregnant by your rapist. That seems pretty uncontroversial to me.",
">\n\nSo... for example, given the exact same circumstances and actions, a woman on birth control is somehow less raped than a woman without who becomes pregnant? And a woman who miscarries or aborts a rape baby is somehow then less raped than she was while she was pregnant?",
">\n\nI feel this would cause an issue where, if the victim really wants to hurt their rapist the most, they have an incentive to remain pregnant even if they don't really want to.\nAlso, should this also apply to situations in which it is the rapist who gets pregnant and not the victim?",
">\n\nJesus.. keeping your rapist's baby so they serve a harsher sentence is a level of spite that I don't think anyone could sink to.",
">\n\nIf you touch my daughters you’d better hope the cops find you first cuz there’s a reckoning upon you if I am first and I’ll gladly sit in a jail for taking a predator to meet the Godess. \n To the point , fuck yes a rapist should have to provide child support. Rapist shouldn’t be allowed to rot in jail , make them work and pay for 18 years like non rapist dads do. And when they fall behind it’s incarceration and forced labor. \nFor far too long our mother, daughter , wives , sisters, aunties and grannies have faced unfair systematic societal oppression. End it by embracing a new paradigm of true human dignity and equality.",
">\n\nFirst of all. I hop on bored with Ben Shapiro when he says to physically castrate rapist, pedophiles, predators, etc. But I like to add my spice to things and add a prison sentence just like they do now. Then add pay for the damage they've done. Example would be. If your caught raping a woman. The woman chooses abortion. He pays for the abortion and following. COunceling sessions through the state to the agency. Or if she keeps it. Then guess who paying a child support for 18 years? Rapist. Just one of many examples I'm sure we could conjure. But by all means tear this idea apart, or let's build from it.",
">\n\nDisagree. It makes no difference if he causes the worst possible damage (pregnancy, std infection, PTSD etc) or minimal damage (although I don't know what that would be). The punishment should be severe, regardless of the consequences. Otherwise some men will get off lighter simply because they were 'lucky'",
">\n\nTo clarify your position, are you asking for a broader range of available punishment in the event of a pregnancy or are you advocating for a higher minimum punishment?",
">\n\nBoth, honestly. There should be automatic sentence enhancements as well as additional restitution."
] |
>
It's the same crime whether she ends up getting pregnant. If she does, though, I do think the convict should be held responsible for the child/abortion costs and have no parental rights whatsoever, but not more jail time for the same crime. | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of.",
">\n\nShouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population. \nHonestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society.",
">\n\nI agree, there was a rape incident in Korea (Cho Doo-soon incident). Due to poor law, he was freed after a short time despite causing too many injuries for the victim. After that every single people who lived near his house moved away. They should keep him in prison.",
">\n\nI could get behind this idea in the pragmatic sense that it could be a further deterrent from rape altogether, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make sense. Lying about birth control or intentionally tempering with it in order to impregnate a partner without/against their consent (or to be impregnated, since women can also do it) is a morally reprehensible in its own right, and furthermore can also carry legal repercussions, if it can be proven that the partners agreed to protected intercourse and one of them broke this agreement without the other's knowledge. One example is stealthing, which is a form of sexual abuse and was widely discussed a while ago. \nRape is having sex with someone without/against their consent for the act itself. Additional agreements like whether or not protection is used become irrelevant in this case. Pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely traumatic for victims, that is true, but rape itself is the crime that has been committed and if the victim happened to be on birth control or infertile that does not influence what has been done to them from the perspective of the crime itself.",
">\n\nI would prefer it if we instituted a policy that treats rape with potential conception this way, regardless of the actual results, in a manner similar to how we treat assault, aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon as different crimes. It wouldn't be any harder to prove than rape already is, while accounting for the additional reckless endangerment that comes from concieving a child through violence.",
">\n\nHe should pay child support to whoever keeps the child.",
">\n\nRapists aren't in control of the conception. If they get lucky and no child is conceived, that isn't because of anything in control of the rapist. People should be punished for things in their control, not let off for things outside their control.\nImagine a drunk driver. He gets in an accident because a child crosses the road in front of the car. But if the child had tripped just before the road and lives, that's not something we can give credit to the driver for.\nA rapist who is 'lucky' and doesn't get someone pregnant acted the same as a rapist who is 'unlucky' and did get someone pregnant. They created the same risk and should face the same punishment.",
">\n\nThe law does not work that way. In civil cases, a tortfeasor has to take his victim as he finds her. In other words, the asshole is responsible for whatever happens, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage. As another example, if a robber punches someone and that person ends up bleeding internally to death due to hemophilia, then that hemophilia is no defense to murder - the robber must take his victim as he found him. Criminal cases are similar - George Floyd's alleged physical condition was not a defense to the murder charges that Derek Chauvin was convicted of.",
">\n\nThe issue isn't with the harsher penalties but with the weaker penalties for rapes that don't result in pregnancy. Take two rapists. Rapist A impregnates his victim, while rapist B does not. Why should rapist B get a lighter sentence than rapist A? Are we implicitly saying that rape isn't as bad if there's no pregnancy? The actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?",
">\n\n\nThe actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?\n\nThis happens all the time. We consider the actions and the consequences of the actions in determining \"appropriate\" punishment very often.\nIf I shoot a gun blindly at a random house, that same action can have any number of consequences. Maybe the only consequences are breaking a window and putting a hole in someone's wall. Maybe it kills the family dog. Maybe the consequence is the bullet hitting someone and paralyzing them for life. Maybe the consequence is breaking a gas line that leads to an explosion that kills a dozen people.\nWhy isn't it reasonable to consider the outcomes of actions when determining the appropriate response?",
">\n\nThe comparison would be more like: you kill a person in each case, but in one, you also unintentionally break their leg. In the second case, should you be charged with a different crime? It's not like you didn't intend harm and by chance harm was caused. Harm is caused in both rape and rape with pregnancy. The act isn't different at all. It's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)",
">\n\nI don't think we need to quibble about whether it's an apt comparison. Based on what the person I responded to said, I think it is (i.e. same actions + different consequences).\n\nThe act isn't different at all.\n\nNot saying it isn't. What I'm saying is that the same act can have different consequences, and we very often apply different repercussions/punishments based on differences in consequences for the same act.\n\nIt's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)\n\nGetting raped and becoming pregnant by your rapist is worse than getting raped and not becoming pregnant by your rapist. That seems pretty uncontroversial to me.",
">\n\nSo... for example, given the exact same circumstances and actions, a woman on birth control is somehow less raped than a woman without who becomes pregnant? And a woman who miscarries or aborts a rape baby is somehow then less raped than she was while she was pregnant?",
">\n\nI feel this would cause an issue where, if the victim really wants to hurt their rapist the most, they have an incentive to remain pregnant even if they don't really want to.\nAlso, should this also apply to situations in which it is the rapist who gets pregnant and not the victim?",
">\n\nJesus.. keeping your rapist's baby so they serve a harsher sentence is a level of spite that I don't think anyone could sink to.",
">\n\nIf you touch my daughters you’d better hope the cops find you first cuz there’s a reckoning upon you if I am first and I’ll gladly sit in a jail for taking a predator to meet the Godess. \n To the point , fuck yes a rapist should have to provide child support. Rapist shouldn’t be allowed to rot in jail , make them work and pay for 18 years like non rapist dads do. And when they fall behind it’s incarceration and forced labor. \nFor far too long our mother, daughter , wives , sisters, aunties and grannies have faced unfair systematic societal oppression. End it by embracing a new paradigm of true human dignity and equality.",
">\n\nFirst of all. I hop on bored with Ben Shapiro when he says to physically castrate rapist, pedophiles, predators, etc. But I like to add my spice to things and add a prison sentence just like they do now. Then add pay for the damage they've done. Example would be. If your caught raping a woman. The woman chooses abortion. He pays for the abortion and following. COunceling sessions through the state to the agency. Or if she keeps it. Then guess who paying a child support for 18 years? Rapist. Just one of many examples I'm sure we could conjure. But by all means tear this idea apart, or let's build from it.",
">\n\nDisagree. It makes no difference if he causes the worst possible damage (pregnancy, std infection, PTSD etc) or minimal damage (although I don't know what that would be). The punishment should be severe, regardless of the consequences. Otherwise some men will get off lighter simply because they were 'lucky'",
">\n\nTo clarify your position, are you asking for a broader range of available punishment in the event of a pregnancy or are you advocating for a higher minimum punishment?",
">\n\nBoth, honestly. There should be automatic sentence enhancements as well as additional restitution.",
">\n\nI would counter then and suggest that if you are going to aggravate the charge based on causing pregnancy, it should only be to broaden the possible punishment range, not increase a mandatory minimum. \n\nMandatory minimums have a long history of causing more problems. Yes, rapists deserve to go to prison, but have you considered how many less would take a plea bargain because it would require x versus y years in prison? These are the types of cases that prosecutors lose more often than any other and cause the most trauma and stress to the victims. Mandatory minimums have the effect of making harder-to-prove cases get ignored meaning less overall justice. It would be better for those difficult cases to still see some type of punishment versus more acquittals or dismissals."
] |
>
No, I think the punishment should be the same either way. Give the man a choice of castration or death.
But I get where you're coming from. I think the penalty for attempted murder should be the same as for murder. Just because you're incompetent or the victim was fortunate enough to survive, you get off easier? Doesn't make sense to me. Your actions were the same, even if the result was different. | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of.",
">\n\nShouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population. \nHonestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society.",
">\n\nI agree, there was a rape incident in Korea (Cho Doo-soon incident). Due to poor law, he was freed after a short time despite causing too many injuries for the victim. After that every single people who lived near his house moved away. They should keep him in prison.",
">\n\nI could get behind this idea in the pragmatic sense that it could be a further deterrent from rape altogether, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make sense. Lying about birth control or intentionally tempering with it in order to impregnate a partner without/against their consent (or to be impregnated, since women can also do it) is a morally reprehensible in its own right, and furthermore can also carry legal repercussions, if it can be proven that the partners agreed to protected intercourse and one of them broke this agreement without the other's knowledge. One example is stealthing, which is a form of sexual abuse and was widely discussed a while ago. \nRape is having sex with someone without/against their consent for the act itself. Additional agreements like whether or not protection is used become irrelevant in this case. Pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely traumatic for victims, that is true, but rape itself is the crime that has been committed and if the victim happened to be on birth control or infertile that does not influence what has been done to them from the perspective of the crime itself.",
">\n\nI would prefer it if we instituted a policy that treats rape with potential conception this way, regardless of the actual results, in a manner similar to how we treat assault, aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon as different crimes. It wouldn't be any harder to prove than rape already is, while accounting for the additional reckless endangerment that comes from concieving a child through violence.",
">\n\nHe should pay child support to whoever keeps the child.",
">\n\nRapists aren't in control of the conception. If they get lucky and no child is conceived, that isn't because of anything in control of the rapist. People should be punished for things in their control, not let off for things outside their control.\nImagine a drunk driver. He gets in an accident because a child crosses the road in front of the car. But if the child had tripped just before the road and lives, that's not something we can give credit to the driver for.\nA rapist who is 'lucky' and doesn't get someone pregnant acted the same as a rapist who is 'unlucky' and did get someone pregnant. They created the same risk and should face the same punishment.",
">\n\nThe law does not work that way. In civil cases, a tortfeasor has to take his victim as he finds her. In other words, the asshole is responsible for whatever happens, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage. As another example, if a robber punches someone and that person ends up bleeding internally to death due to hemophilia, then that hemophilia is no defense to murder - the robber must take his victim as he found him. Criminal cases are similar - George Floyd's alleged physical condition was not a defense to the murder charges that Derek Chauvin was convicted of.",
">\n\nThe issue isn't with the harsher penalties but with the weaker penalties for rapes that don't result in pregnancy. Take two rapists. Rapist A impregnates his victim, while rapist B does not. Why should rapist B get a lighter sentence than rapist A? Are we implicitly saying that rape isn't as bad if there's no pregnancy? The actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?",
">\n\n\nThe actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?\n\nThis happens all the time. We consider the actions and the consequences of the actions in determining \"appropriate\" punishment very often.\nIf I shoot a gun blindly at a random house, that same action can have any number of consequences. Maybe the only consequences are breaking a window and putting a hole in someone's wall. Maybe it kills the family dog. Maybe the consequence is the bullet hitting someone and paralyzing them for life. Maybe the consequence is breaking a gas line that leads to an explosion that kills a dozen people.\nWhy isn't it reasonable to consider the outcomes of actions when determining the appropriate response?",
">\n\nThe comparison would be more like: you kill a person in each case, but in one, you also unintentionally break their leg. In the second case, should you be charged with a different crime? It's not like you didn't intend harm and by chance harm was caused. Harm is caused in both rape and rape with pregnancy. The act isn't different at all. It's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)",
">\n\nI don't think we need to quibble about whether it's an apt comparison. Based on what the person I responded to said, I think it is (i.e. same actions + different consequences).\n\nThe act isn't different at all.\n\nNot saying it isn't. What I'm saying is that the same act can have different consequences, and we very often apply different repercussions/punishments based on differences in consequences for the same act.\n\nIt's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)\n\nGetting raped and becoming pregnant by your rapist is worse than getting raped and not becoming pregnant by your rapist. That seems pretty uncontroversial to me.",
">\n\nSo... for example, given the exact same circumstances and actions, a woman on birth control is somehow less raped than a woman without who becomes pregnant? And a woman who miscarries or aborts a rape baby is somehow then less raped than she was while she was pregnant?",
">\n\nI feel this would cause an issue where, if the victim really wants to hurt their rapist the most, they have an incentive to remain pregnant even if they don't really want to.\nAlso, should this also apply to situations in which it is the rapist who gets pregnant and not the victim?",
">\n\nJesus.. keeping your rapist's baby so they serve a harsher sentence is a level of spite that I don't think anyone could sink to.",
">\n\nIf you touch my daughters you’d better hope the cops find you first cuz there’s a reckoning upon you if I am first and I’ll gladly sit in a jail for taking a predator to meet the Godess. \n To the point , fuck yes a rapist should have to provide child support. Rapist shouldn’t be allowed to rot in jail , make them work and pay for 18 years like non rapist dads do. And when they fall behind it’s incarceration and forced labor. \nFor far too long our mother, daughter , wives , sisters, aunties and grannies have faced unfair systematic societal oppression. End it by embracing a new paradigm of true human dignity and equality.",
">\n\nFirst of all. I hop on bored with Ben Shapiro when he says to physically castrate rapist, pedophiles, predators, etc. But I like to add my spice to things and add a prison sentence just like they do now. Then add pay for the damage they've done. Example would be. If your caught raping a woman. The woman chooses abortion. He pays for the abortion and following. COunceling sessions through the state to the agency. Or if she keeps it. Then guess who paying a child support for 18 years? Rapist. Just one of many examples I'm sure we could conjure. But by all means tear this idea apart, or let's build from it.",
">\n\nDisagree. It makes no difference if he causes the worst possible damage (pregnancy, std infection, PTSD etc) or minimal damage (although I don't know what that would be). The punishment should be severe, regardless of the consequences. Otherwise some men will get off lighter simply because they were 'lucky'",
">\n\nTo clarify your position, are you asking for a broader range of available punishment in the event of a pregnancy or are you advocating for a higher minimum punishment?",
">\n\nBoth, honestly. There should be automatic sentence enhancements as well as additional restitution.",
">\n\nI would counter then and suggest that if you are going to aggravate the charge based on causing pregnancy, it should only be to broaden the possible punishment range, not increase a mandatory minimum. \n\nMandatory minimums have a long history of causing more problems. Yes, rapists deserve to go to prison, but have you considered how many less would take a plea bargain because it would require x versus y years in prison? These are the types of cases that prosecutors lose more often than any other and cause the most trauma and stress to the victims. Mandatory minimums have the effect of making harder-to-prove cases get ignored meaning less overall justice. It would be better for those difficult cases to still see some type of punishment versus more acquittals or dismissals.",
">\n\nIt's the same crime whether she ends up getting pregnant. If she does, though, I do think the convict should be held responsible for the child/abortion costs and have no parental rights whatsoever, but not more jail time for the same crime."
] |
>
I get that there should be more restitution, but who would more prison time help? The rapist did the exact same thing in either scenario. | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of.",
">\n\nShouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population. \nHonestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society.",
">\n\nI agree, there was a rape incident in Korea (Cho Doo-soon incident). Due to poor law, he was freed after a short time despite causing too many injuries for the victim. After that every single people who lived near his house moved away. They should keep him in prison.",
">\n\nI could get behind this idea in the pragmatic sense that it could be a further deterrent from rape altogether, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make sense. Lying about birth control or intentionally tempering with it in order to impregnate a partner without/against their consent (or to be impregnated, since women can also do it) is a morally reprehensible in its own right, and furthermore can also carry legal repercussions, if it can be proven that the partners agreed to protected intercourse and one of them broke this agreement without the other's knowledge. One example is stealthing, which is a form of sexual abuse and was widely discussed a while ago. \nRape is having sex with someone without/against their consent for the act itself. Additional agreements like whether or not protection is used become irrelevant in this case. Pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely traumatic for victims, that is true, but rape itself is the crime that has been committed and if the victim happened to be on birth control or infertile that does not influence what has been done to them from the perspective of the crime itself.",
">\n\nI would prefer it if we instituted a policy that treats rape with potential conception this way, regardless of the actual results, in a manner similar to how we treat assault, aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon as different crimes. It wouldn't be any harder to prove than rape already is, while accounting for the additional reckless endangerment that comes from concieving a child through violence.",
">\n\nHe should pay child support to whoever keeps the child.",
">\n\nRapists aren't in control of the conception. If they get lucky and no child is conceived, that isn't because of anything in control of the rapist. People should be punished for things in their control, not let off for things outside their control.\nImagine a drunk driver. He gets in an accident because a child crosses the road in front of the car. But if the child had tripped just before the road and lives, that's not something we can give credit to the driver for.\nA rapist who is 'lucky' and doesn't get someone pregnant acted the same as a rapist who is 'unlucky' and did get someone pregnant. They created the same risk and should face the same punishment.",
">\n\nThe law does not work that way. In civil cases, a tortfeasor has to take his victim as he finds her. In other words, the asshole is responsible for whatever happens, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage. As another example, if a robber punches someone and that person ends up bleeding internally to death due to hemophilia, then that hemophilia is no defense to murder - the robber must take his victim as he found him. Criminal cases are similar - George Floyd's alleged physical condition was not a defense to the murder charges that Derek Chauvin was convicted of.",
">\n\nThe issue isn't with the harsher penalties but with the weaker penalties for rapes that don't result in pregnancy. Take two rapists. Rapist A impregnates his victim, while rapist B does not. Why should rapist B get a lighter sentence than rapist A? Are we implicitly saying that rape isn't as bad if there's no pregnancy? The actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?",
">\n\n\nThe actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?\n\nThis happens all the time. We consider the actions and the consequences of the actions in determining \"appropriate\" punishment very often.\nIf I shoot a gun blindly at a random house, that same action can have any number of consequences. Maybe the only consequences are breaking a window and putting a hole in someone's wall. Maybe it kills the family dog. Maybe the consequence is the bullet hitting someone and paralyzing them for life. Maybe the consequence is breaking a gas line that leads to an explosion that kills a dozen people.\nWhy isn't it reasonable to consider the outcomes of actions when determining the appropriate response?",
">\n\nThe comparison would be more like: you kill a person in each case, but in one, you also unintentionally break their leg. In the second case, should you be charged with a different crime? It's not like you didn't intend harm and by chance harm was caused. Harm is caused in both rape and rape with pregnancy. The act isn't different at all. It's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)",
">\n\nI don't think we need to quibble about whether it's an apt comparison. Based on what the person I responded to said, I think it is (i.e. same actions + different consequences).\n\nThe act isn't different at all.\n\nNot saying it isn't. What I'm saying is that the same act can have different consequences, and we very often apply different repercussions/punishments based on differences in consequences for the same act.\n\nIt's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)\n\nGetting raped and becoming pregnant by your rapist is worse than getting raped and not becoming pregnant by your rapist. That seems pretty uncontroversial to me.",
">\n\nSo... for example, given the exact same circumstances and actions, a woman on birth control is somehow less raped than a woman without who becomes pregnant? And a woman who miscarries or aborts a rape baby is somehow then less raped than she was while she was pregnant?",
">\n\nI feel this would cause an issue where, if the victim really wants to hurt their rapist the most, they have an incentive to remain pregnant even if they don't really want to.\nAlso, should this also apply to situations in which it is the rapist who gets pregnant and not the victim?",
">\n\nJesus.. keeping your rapist's baby so they serve a harsher sentence is a level of spite that I don't think anyone could sink to.",
">\n\nIf you touch my daughters you’d better hope the cops find you first cuz there’s a reckoning upon you if I am first and I’ll gladly sit in a jail for taking a predator to meet the Godess. \n To the point , fuck yes a rapist should have to provide child support. Rapist shouldn’t be allowed to rot in jail , make them work and pay for 18 years like non rapist dads do. And when they fall behind it’s incarceration and forced labor. \nFor far too long our mother, daughter , wives , sisters, aunties and grannies have faced unfair systematic societal oppression. End it by embracing a new paradigm of true human dignity and equality.",
">\n\nFirst of all. I hop on bored with Ben Shapiro when he says to physically castrate rapist, pedophiles, predators, etc. But I like to add my spice to things and add a prison sentence just like they do now. Then add pay for the damage they've done. Example would be. If your caught raping a woman. The woman chooses abortion. He pays for the abortion and following. COunceling sessions through the state to the agency. Or if she keeps it. Then guess who paying a child support for 18 years? Rapist. Just one of many examples I'm sure we could conjure. But by all means tear this idea apart, or let's build from it.",
">\n\nDisagree. It makes no difference if he causes the worst possible damage (pregnancy, std infection, PTSD etc) or minimal damage (although I don't know what that would be). The punishment should be severe, regardless of the consequences. Otherwise some men will get off lighter simply because they were 'lucky'",
">\n\nTo clarify your position, are you asking for a broader range of available punishment in the event of a pregnancy or are you advocating for a higher minimum punishment?",
">\n\nBoth, honestly. There should be automatic sentence enhancements as well as additional restitution.",
">\n\nI would counter then and suggest that if you are going to aggravate the charge based on causing pregnancy, it should only be to broaden the possible punishment range, not increase a mandatory minimum. \n\nMandatory minimums have a long history of causing more problems. Yes, rapists deserve to go to prison, but have you considered how many less would take a plea bargain because it would require x versus y years in prison? These are the types of cases that prosecutors lose more often than any other and cause the most trauma and stress to the victims. Mandatory minimums have the effect of making harder-to-prove cases get ignored meaning less overall justice. It would be better for those difficult cases to still see some type of punishment versus more acquittals or dismissals.",
">\n\nIt's the same crime whether she ends up getting pregnant. If she does, though, I do think the convict should be held responsible for the child/abortion costs and have no parental rights whatsoever, but not more jail time for the same crime.",
">\n\nNo, I think the punishment should be the same either way. Give the man a choice of castration or death. \nBut I get where you're coming from. I think the penalty for attempted murder should be the same as for murder. Just because you're incompetent or the victim was fortunate enough to survive, you get off easier? Doesn't make sense to me. Your actions were the same, even if the result was different."
] |
>
Yes! Twice the emotional damage. | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of.",
">\n\nShouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population. \nHonestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society.",
">\n\nI agree, there was a rape incident in Korea (Cho Doo-soon incident). Due to poor law, he was freed after a short time despite causing too many injuries for the victim. After that every single people who lived near his house moved away. They should keep him in prison.",
">\n\nI could get behind this idea in the pragmatic sense that it could be a further deterrent from rape altogether, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make sense. Lying about birth control or intentionally tempering with it in order to impregnate a partner without/against their consent (or to be impregnated, since women can also do it) is a morally reprehensible in its own right, and furthermore can also carry legal repercussions, if it can be proven that the partners agreed to protected intercourse and one of them broke this agreement without the other's knowledge. One example is stealthing, which is a form of sexual abuse and was widely discussed a while ago. \nRape is having sex with someone without/against their consent for the act itself. Additional agreements like whether or not protection is used become irrelevant in this case. Pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely traumatic for victims, that is true, but rape itself is the crime that has been committed and if the victim happened to be on birth control or infertile that does not influence what has been done to them from the perspective of the crime itself.",
">\n\nI would prefer it if we instituted a policy that treats rape with potential conception this way, regardless of the actual results, in a manner similar to how we treat assault, aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon as different crimes. It wouldn't be any harder to prove than rape already is, while accounting for the additional reckless endangerment that comes from concieving a child through violence.",
">\n\nHe should pay child support to whoever keeps the child.",
">\n\nRapists aren't in control of the conception. If they get lucky and no child is conceived, that isn't because of anything in control of the rapist. People should be punished for things in their control, not let off for things outside their control.\nImagine a drunk driver. He gets in an accident because a child crosses the road in front of the car. But if the child had tripped just before the road and lives, that's not something we can give credit to the driver for.\nA rapist who is 'lucky' and doesn't get someone pregnant acted the same as a rapist who is 'unlucky' and did get someone pregnant. They created the same risk and should face the same punishment.",
">\n\nThe law does not work that way. In civil cases, a tortfeasor has to take his victim as he finds her. In other words, the asshole is responsible for whatever happens, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage. As another example, if a robber punches someone and that person ends up bleeding internally to death due to hemophilia, then that hemophilia is no defense to murder - the robber must take his victim as he found him. Criminal cases are similar - George Floyd's alleged physical condition was not a defense to the murder charges that Derek Chauvin was convicted of.",
">\n\nThe issue isn't with the harsher penalties but with the weaker penalties for rapes that don't result in pregnancy. Take two rapists. Rapist A impregnates his victim, while rapist B does not. Why should rapist B get a lighter sentence than rapist A? Are we implicitly saying that rape isn't as bad if there's no pregnancy? The actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?",
">\n\n\nThe actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?\n\nThis happens all the time. We consider the actions and the consequences of the actions in determining \"appropriate\" punishment very often.\nIf I shoot a gun blindly at a random house, that same action can have any number of consequences. Maybe the only consequences are breaking a window and putting a hole in someone's wall. Maybe it kills the family dog. Maybe the consequence is the bullet hitting someone and paralyzing them for life. Maybe the consequence is breaking a gas line that leads to an explosion that kills a dozen people.\nWhy isn't it reasonable to consider the outcomes of actions when determining the appropriate response?",
">\n\nThe comparison would be more like: you kill a person in each case, but in one, you also unintentionally break their leg. In the second case, should you be charged with a different crime? It's not like you didn't intend harm and by chance harm was caused. Harm is caused in both rape and rape with pregnancy. The act isn't different at all. It's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)",
">\n\nI don't think we need to quibble about whether it's an apt comparison. Based on what the person I responded to said, I think it is (i.e. same actions + different consequences).\n\nThe act isn't different at all.\n\nNot saying it isn't. What I'm saying is that the same act can have different consequences, and we very often apply different repercussions/punishments based on differences in consequences for the same act.\n\nIt's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)\n\nGetting raped and becoming pregnant by your rapist is worse than getting raped and not becoming pregnant by your rapist. That seems pretty uncontroversial to me.",
">\n\nSo... for example, given the exact same circumstances and actions, a woman on birth control is somehow less raped than a woman without who becomes pregnant? And a woman who miscarries or aborts a rape baby is somehow then less raped than she was while she was pregnant?",
">\n\nI feel this would cause an issue where, if the victim really wants to hurt their rapist the most, they have an incentive to remain pregnant even if they don't really want to.\nAlso, should this also apply to situations in which it is the rapist who gets pregnant and not the victim?",
">\n\nJesus.. keeping your rapist's baby so they serve a harsher sentence is a level of spite that I don't think anyone could sink to.",
">\n\nIf you touch my daughters you’d better hope the cops find you first cuz there’s a reckoning upon you if I am first and I’ll gladly sit in a jail for taking a predator to meet the Godess. \n To the point , fuck yes a rapist should have to provide child support. Rapist shouldn’t be allowed to rot in jail , make them work and pay for 18 years like non rapist dads do. And when they fall behind it’s incarceration and forced labor. \nFor far too long our mother, daughter , wives , sisters, aunties and grannies have faced unfair systematic societal oppression. End it by embracing a new paradigm of true human dignity and equality.",
">\n\nFirst of all. I hop on bored with Ben Shapiro when he says to physically castrate rapist, pedophiles, predators, etc. But I like to add my spice to things and add a prison sentence just like they do now. Then add pay for the damage they've done. Example would be. If your caught raping a woman. The woman chooses abortion. He pays for the abortion and following. COunceling sessions through the state to the agency. Or if she keeps it. Then guess who paying a child support for 18 years? Rapist. Just one of many examples I'm sure we could conjure. But by all means tear this idea apart, or let's build from it.",
">\n\nDisagree. It makes no difference if he causes the worst possible damage (pregnancy, std infection, PTSD etc) or minimal damage (although I don't know what that would be). The punishment should be severe, regardless of the consequences. Otherwise some men will get off lighter simply because they were 'lucky'",
">\n\nTo clarify your position, are you asking for a broader range of available punishment in the event of a pregnancy or are you advocating for a higher minimum punishment?",
">\n\nBoth, honestly. There should be automatic sentence enhancements as well as additional restitution.",
">\n\nI would counter then and suggest that if you are going to aggravate the charge based on causing pregnancy, it should only be to broaden the possible punishment range, not increase a mandatory minimum. \n\nMandatory minimums have a long history of causing more problems. Yes, rapists deserve to go to prison, but have you considered how many less would take a plea bargain because it would require x versus y years in prison? These are the types of cases that prosecutors lose more often than any other and cause the most trauma and stress to the victims. Mandatory minimums have the effect of making harder-to-prove cases get ignored meaning less overall justice. It would be better for those difficult cases to still see some type of punishment versus more acquittals or dismissals.",
">\n\nIt's the same crime whether she ends up getting pregnant. If she does, though, I do think the convict should be held responsible for the child/abortion costs and have no parental rights whatsoever, but not more jail time for the same crime.",
">\n\nNo, I think the punishment should be the same either way. Give the man a choice of castration or death. \nBut I get where you're coming from. I think the penalty for attempted murder should be the same as for murder. Just because you're incompetent or the victim was fortunate enough to survive, you get off easier? Doesn't make sense to me. Your actions were the same, even if the result was different.",
">\n\nI get that there should be more restitution, but who would more prison time help? The rapist did the exact same thing in either scenario."
] |
>
I'm going to do the devil's advocate here.
Does that mean that a rape done with a condom will be less punished?
How about a rape done with a stick?
For the sake of argument : if rape was punished by death, how would you punish rape that leads to pregnancy? Do you kill them twice?
If a rape happens, the victim should immediately get an treatment to abord any possible baby, of if te rape is reported later on abortion should be an option available for victims. | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of.",
">\n\nShouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population. \nHonestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society.",
">\n\nI agree, there was a rape incident in Korea (Cho Doo-soon incident). Due to poor law, he was freed after a short time despite causing too many injuries for the victim. After that every single people who lived near his house moved away. They should keep him in prison.",
">\n\nI could get behind this idea in the pragmatic sense that it could be a further deterrent from rape altogether, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make sense. Lying about birth control or intentionally tempering with it in order to impregnate a partner without/against their consent (or to be impregnated, since women can also do it) is a morally reprehensible in its own right, and furthermore can also carry legal repercussions, if it can be proven that the partners agreed to protected intercourse and one of them broke this agreement without the other's knowledge. One example is stealthing, which is a form of sexual abuse and was widely discussed a while ago. \nRape is having sex with someone without/against their consent for the act itself. Additional agreements like whether or not protection is used become irrelevant in this case. Pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely traumatic for victims, that is true, but rape itself is the crime that has been committed and if the victim happened to be on birth control or infertile that does not influence what has been done to them from the perspective of the crime itself.",
">\n\nI would prefer it if we instituted a policy that treats rape with potential conception this way, regardless of the actual results, in a manner similar to how we treat assault, aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon as different crimes. It wouldn't be any harder to prove than rape already is, while accounting for the additional reckless endangerment that comes from concieving a child through violence.",
">\n\nHe should pay child support to whoever keeps the child.",
">\n\nRapists aren't in control of the conception. If they get lucky and no child is conceived, that isn't because of anything in control of the rapist. People should be punished for things in their control, not let off for things outside their control.\nImagine a drunk driver. He gets in an accident because a child crosses the road in front of the car. But if the child had tripped just before the road and lives, that's not something we can give credit to the driver for.\nA rapist who is 'lucky' and doesn't get someone pregnant acted the same as a rapist who is 'unlucky' and did get someone pregnant. They created the same risk and should face the same punishment.",
">\n\nThe law does not work that way. In civil cases, a tortfeasor has to take his victim as he finds her. In other words, the asshole is responsible for whatever happens, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage. As another example, if a robber punches someone and that person ends up bleeding internally to death due to hemophilia, then that hemophilia is no defense to murder - the robber must take his victim as he found him. Criminal cases are similar - George Floyd's alleged physical condition was not a defense to the murder charges that Derek Chauvin was convicted of.",
">\n\nThe issue isn't with the harsher penalties but with the weaker penalties for rapes that don't result in pregnancy. Take two rapists. Rapist A impregnates his victim, while rapist B does not. Why should rapist B get a lighter sentence than rapist A? Are we implicitly saying that rape isn't as bad if there's no pregnancy? The actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?",
">\n\n\nThe actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?\n\nThis happens all the time. We consider the actions and the consequences of the actions in determining \"appropriate\" punishment very often.\nIf I shoot a gun blindly at a random house, that same action can have any number of consequences. Maybe the only consequences are breaking a window and putting a hole in someone's wall. Maybe it kills the family dog. Maybe the consequence is the bullet hitting someone and paralyzing them for life. Maybe the consequence is breaking a gas line that leads to an explosion that kills a dozen people.\nWhy isn't it reasonable to consider the outcomes of actions when determining the appropriate response?",
">\n\nThe comparison would be more like: you kill a person in each case, but in one, you also unintentionally break their leg. In the second case, should you be charged with a different crime? It's not like you didn't intend harm and by chance harm was caused. Harm is caused in both rape and rape with pregnancy. The act isn't different at all. It's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)",
">\n\nI don't think we need to quibble about whether it's an apt comparison. Based on what the person I responded to said, I think it is (i.e. same actions + different consequences).\n\nThe act isn't different at all.\n\nNot saying it isn't. What I'm saying is that the same act can have different consequences, and we very often apply different repercussions/punishments based on differences in consequences for the same act.\n\nIt's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)\n\nGetting raped and becoming pregnant by your rapist is worse than getting raped and not becoming pregnant by your rapist. That seems pretty uncontroversial to me.",
">\n\nSo... for example, given the exact same circumstances and actions, a woman on birth control is somehow less raped than a woman without who becomes pregnant? And a woman who miscarries or aborts a rape baby is somehow then less raped than she was while she was pregnant?",
">\n\nI feel this would cause an issue where, if the victim really wants to hurt their rapist the most, they have an incentive to remain pregnant even if they don't really want to.\nAlso, should this also apply to situations in which it is the rapist who gets pregnant and not the victim?",
">\n\nJesus.. keeping your rapist's baby so they serve a harsher sentence is a level of spite that I don't think anyone could sink to.",
">\n\nIf you touch my daughters you’d better hope the cops find you first cuz there’s a reckoning upon you if I am first and I’ll gladly sit in a jail for taking a predator to meet the Godess. \n To the point , fuck yes a rapist should have to provide child support. Rapist shouldn’t be allowed to rot in jail , make them work and pay for 18 years like non rapist dads do. And when they fall behind it’s incarceration and forced labor. \nFor far too long our mother, daughter , wives , sisters, aunties and grannies have faced unfair systematic societal oppression. End it by embracing a new paradigm of true human dignity and equality.",
">\n\nFirst of all. I hop on bored with Ben Shapiro when he says to physically castrate rapist, pedophiles, predators, etc. But I like to add my spice to things and add a prison sentence just like they do now. Then add pay for the damage they've done. Example would be. If your caught raping a woman. The woman chooses abortion. He pays for the abortion and following. COunceling sessions through the state to the agency. Or if she keeps it. Then guess who paying a child support for 18 years? Rapist. Just one of many examples I'm sure we could conjure. But by all means tear this idea apart, or let's build from it.",
">\n\nDisagree. It makes no difference if he causes the worst possible damage (pregnancy, std infection, PTSD etc) or minimal damage (although I don't know what that would be). The punishment should be severe, regardless of the consequences. Otherwise some men will get off lighter simply because they were 'lucky'",
">\n\nTo clarify your position, are you asking for a broader range of available punishment in the event of a pregnancy or are you advocating for a higher minimum punishment?",
">\n\nBoth, honestly. There should be automatic sentence enhancements as well as additional restitution.",
">\n\nI would counter then and suggest that if you are going to aggravate the charge based on causing pregnancy, it should only be to broaden the possible punishment range, not increase a mandatory minimum. \n\nMandatory minimums have a long history of causing more problems. Yes, rapists deserve to go to prison, but have you considered how many less would take a plea bargain because it would require x versus y years in prison? These are the types of cases that prosecutors lose more often than any other and cause the most trauma and stress to the victims. Mandatory minimums have the effect of making harder-to-prove cases get ignored meaning less overall justice. It would be better for those difficult cases to still see some type of punishment versus more acquittals or dismissals.",
">\n\nIt's the same crime whether she ends up getting pregnant. If she does, though, I do think the convict should be held responsible for the child/abortion costs and have no parental rights whatsoever, but not more jail time for the same crime.",
">\n\nNo, I think the punishment should be the same either way. Give the man a choice of castration or death. \nBut I get where you're coming from. I think the penalty for attempted murder should be the same as for murder. Just because you're incompetent or the victim was fortunate enough to survive, you get off easier? Doesn't make sense to me. Your actions were the same, even if the result was different.",
">\n\nI get that there should be more restitution, but who would more prison time help? The rapist did the exact same thing in either scenario.",
">\n\nYes! Twice the emotional damage."
] |
>
Like child support whether or not the baby is delivered? I’d support that although faked rape cases gonna soar pretty high for men with lots of dough | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of.",
">\n\nShouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population. \nHonestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society.",
">\n\nI agree, there was a rape incident in Korea (Cho Doo-soon incident). Due to poor law, he was freed after a short time despite causing too many injuries for the victim. After that every single people who lived near his house moved away. They should keep him in prison.",
">\n\nI could get behind this idea in the pragmatic sense that it could be a further deterrent from rape altogether, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make sense. Lying about birth control or intentionally tempering with it in order to impregnate a partner without/against their consent (or to be impregnated, since women can also do it) is a morally reprehensible in its own right, and furthermore can also carry legal repercussions, if it can be proven that the partners agreed to protected intercourse and one of them broke this agreement without the other's knowledge. One example is stealthing, which is a form of sexual abuse and was widely discussed a while ago. \nRape is having sex with someone without/against their consent for the act itself. Additional agreements like whether or not protection is used become irrelevant in this case. Pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely traumatic for victims, that is true, but rape itself is the crime that has been committed and if the victim happened to be on birth control or infertile that does not influence what has been done to them from the perspective of the crime itself.",
">\n\nI would prefer it if we instituted a policy that treats rape with potential conception this way, regardless of the actual results, in a manner similar to how we treat assault, aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon as different crimes. It wouldn't be any harder to prove than rape already is, while accounting for the additional reckless endangerment that comes from concieving a child through violence.",
">\n\nHe should pay child support to whoever keeps the child.",
">\n\nRapists aren't in control of the conception. If they get lucky and no child is conceived, that isn't because of anything in control of the rapist. People should be punished for things in their control, not let off for things outside their control.\nImagine a drunk driver. He gets in an accident because a child crosses the road in front of the car. But if the child had tripped just before the road and lives, that's not something we can give credit to the driver for.\nA rapist who is 'lucky' and doesn't get someone pregnant acted the same as a rapist who is 'unlucky' and did get someone pregnant. They created the same risk and should face the same punishment.",
">\n\nThe law does not work that way. In civil cases, a tortfeasor has to take his victim as he finds her. In other words, the asshole is responsible for whatever happens, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage. As another example, if a robber punches someone and that person ends up bleeding internally to death due to hemophilia, then that hemophilia is no defense to murder - the robber must take his victim as he found him. Criminal cases are similar - George Floyd's alleged physical condition was not a defense to the murder charges that Derek Chauvin was convicted of.",
">\n\nThe issue isn't with the harsher penalties but with the weaker penalties for rapes that don't result in pregnancy. Take two rapists. Rapist A impregnates his victim, while rapist B does not. Why should rapist B get a lighter sentence than rapist A? Are we implicitly saying that rape isn't as bad if there's no pregnancy? The actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?",
">\n\n\nThe actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?\n\nThis happens all the time. We consider the actions and the consequences of the actions in determining \"appropriate\" punishment very often.\nIf I shoot a gun blindly at a random house, that same action can have any number of consequences. Maybe the only consequences are breaking a window and putting a hole in someone's wall. Maybe it kills the family dog. Maybe the consequence is the bullet hitting someone and paralyzing them for life. Maybe the consequence is breaking a gas line that leads to an explosion that kills a dozen people.\nWhy isn't it reasonable to consider the outcomes of actions when determining the appropriate response?",
">\n\nThe comparison would be more like: you kill a person in each case, but in one, you also unintentionally break their leg. In the second case, should you be charged with a different crime? It's not like you didn't intend harm and by chance harm was caused. Harm is caused in both rape and rape with pregnancy. The act isn't different at all. It's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)",
">\n\nI don't think we need to quibble about whether it's an apt comparison. Based on what the person I responded to said, I think it is (i.e. same actions + different consequences).\n\nThe act isn't different at all.\n\nNot saying it isn't. What I'm saying is that the same act can have different consequences, and we very often apply different repercussions/punishments based on differences in consequences for the same act.\n\nIt's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)\n\nGetting raped and becoming pregnant by your rapist is worse than getting raped and not becoming pregnant by your rapist. That seems pretty uncontroversial to me.",
">\n\nSo... for example, given the exact same circumstances and actions, a woman on birth control is somehow less raped than a woman without who becomes pregnant? And a woman who miscarries or aborts a rape baby is somehow then less raped than she was while she was pregnant?",
">\n\nI feel this would cause an issue where, if the victim really wants to hurt their rapist the most, they have an incentive to remain pregnant even if they don't really want to.\nAlso, should this also apply to situations in which it is the rapist who gets pregnant and not the victim?",
">\n\nJesus.. keeping your rapist's baby so they serve a harsher sentence is a level of spite that I don't think anyone could sink to.",
">\n\nIf you touch my daughters you’d better hope the cops find you first cuz there’s a reckoning upon you if I am first and I’ll gladly sit in a jail for taking a predator to meet the Godess. \n To the point , fuck yes a rapist should have to provide child support. Rapist shouldn’t be allowed to rot in jail , make them work and pay for 18 years like non rapist dads do. And when they fall behind it’s incarceration and forced labor. \nFor far too long our mother, daughter , wives , sisters, aunties and grannies have faced unfair systematic societal oppression. End it by embracing a new paradigm of true human dignity and equality.",
">\n\nFirst of all. I hop on bored with Ben Shapiro when he says to physically castrate rapist, pedophiles, predators, etc. But I like to add my spice to things and add a prison sentence just like they do now. Then add pay for the damage they've done. Example would be. If your caught raping a woman. The woman chooses abortion. He pays for the abortion and following. COunceling sessions through the state to the agency. Or if she keeps it. Then guess who paying a child support for 18 years? Rapist. Just one of many examples I'm sure we could conjure. But by all means tear this idea apart, or let's build from it.",
">\n\nDisagree. It makes no difference if he causes the worst possible damage (pregnancy, std infection, PTSD etc) or minimal damage (although I don't know what that would be). The punishment should be severe, regardless of the consequences. Otherwise some men will get off lighter simply because they were 'lucky'",
">\n\nTo clarify your position, are you asking for a broader range of available punishment in the event of a pregnancy or are you advocating for a higher minimum punishment?",
">\n\nBoth, honestly. There should be automatic sentence enhancements as well as additional restitution.",
">\n\nI would counter then and suggest that if you are going to aggravate the charge based on causing pregnancy, it should only be to broaden the possible punishment range, not increase a mandatory minimum. \n\nMandatory minimums have a long history of causing more problems. Yes, rapists deserve to go to prison, but have you considered how many less would take a plea bargain because it would require x versus y years in prison? These are the types of cases that prosecutors lose more often than any other and cause the most trauma and stress to the victims. Mandatory minimums have the effect of making harder-to-prove cases get ignored meaning less overall justice. It would be better for those difficult cases to still see some type of punishment versus more acquittals or dismissals.",
">\n\nIt's the same crime whether she ends up getting pregnant. If she does, though, I do think the convict should be held responsible for the child/abortion costs and have no parental rights whatsoever, but not more jail time for the same crime.",
">\n\nNo, I think the punishment should be the same either way. Give the man a choice of castration or death. \nBut I get where you're coming from. I think the penalty for attempted murder should be the same as for murder. Just because you're incompetent or the victim was fortunate enough to survive, you get off easier? Doesn't make sense to me. Your actions were the same, even if the result was different.",
">\n\nI get that there should be more restitution, but who would more prison time help? The rapist did the exact same thing in either scenario.",
">\n\nYes! Twice the emotional damage.",
">\n\nI'm going to do the devil's advocate here.\nDoes that mean that a rape done with a condom will be less punished?\nHow about a rape done with a stick?\nFor the sake of argument : if rape was punished by death, how would you punish rape that leads to pregnancy? Do you kill them twice?\nIf a rape happens, the victim should immediately get an treatment to abord any possible baby, of if te rape is reported later on abortion should be an option available for victims."
] |
>
Someone probably mentioned this but I found out last year that rapists actually have rights to the child!!! | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of.",
">\n\nShouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population. \nHonestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society.",
">\n\nI agree, there was a rape incident in Korea (Cho Doo-soon incident). Due to poor law, he was freed after a short time despite causing too many injuries for the victim. After that every single people who lived near his house moved away. They should keep him in prison.",
">\n\nI could get behind this idea in the pragmatic sense that it could be a further deterrent from rape altogether, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make sense. Lying about birth control or intentionally tempering with it in order to impregnate a partner without/against their consent (or to be impregnated, since women can also do it) is a morally reprehensible in its own right, and furthermore can also carry legal repercussions, if it can be proven that the partners agreed to protected intercourse and one of them broke this agreement without the other's knowledge. One example is stealthing, which is a form of sexual abuse and was widely discussed a while ago. \nRape is having sex with someone without/against their consent for the act itself. Additional agreements like whether or not protection is used become irrelevant in this case. Pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely traumatic for victims, that is true, but rape itself is the crime that has been committed and if the victim happened to be on birth control or infertile that does not influence what has been done to them from the perspective of the crime itself.",
">\n\nI would prefer it if we instituted a policy that treats rape with potential conception this way, regardless of the actual results, in a manner similar to how we treat assault, aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon as different crimes. It wouldn't be any harder to prove than rape already is, while accounting for the additional reckless endangerment that comes from concieving a child through violence.",
">\n\nHe should pay child support to whoever keeps the child.",
">\n\nRapists aren't in control of the conception. If they get lucky and no child is conceived, that isn't because of anything in control of the rapist. People should be punished for things in their control, not let off for things outside their control.\nImagine a drunk driver. He gets in an accident because a child crosses the road in front of the car. But if the child had tripped just before the road and lives, that's not something we can give credit to the driver for.\nA rapist who is 'lucky' and doesn't get someone pregnant acted the same as a rapist who is 'unlucky' and did get someone pregnant. They created the same risk and should face the same punishment.",
">\n\nThe law does not work that way. In civil cases, a tortfeasor has to take his victim as he finds her. In other words, the asshole is responsible for whatever happens, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage. As another example, if a robber punches someone and that person ends up bleeding internally to death due to hemophilia, then that hemophilia is no defense to murder - the robber must take his victim as he found him. Criminal cases are similar - George Floyd's alleged physical condition was not a defense to the murder charges that Derek Chauvin was convicted of.",
">\n\nThe issue isn't with the harsher penalties but with the weaker penalties for rapes that don't result in pregnancy. Take two rapists. Rapist A impregnates his victim, while rapist B does not. Why should rapist B get a lighter sentence than rapist A? Are we implicitly saying that rape isn't as bad if there's no pregnancy? The actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?",
">\n\n\nThe actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?\n\nThis happens all the time. We consider the actions and the consequences of the actions in determining \"appropriate\" punishment very often.\nIf I shoot a gun blindly at a random house, that same action can have any number of consequences. Maybe the only consequences are breaking a window and putting a hole in someone's wall. Maybe it kills the family dog. Maybe the consequence is the bullet hitting someone and paralyzing them for life. Maybe the consequence is breaking a gas line that leads to an explosion that kills a dozen people.\nWhy isn't it reasonable to consider the outcomes of actions when determining the appropriate response?",
">\n\nThe comparison would be more like: you kill a person in each case, but in one, you also unintentionally break their leg. In the second case, should you be charged with a different crime? It's not like you didn't intend harm and by chance harm was caused. Harm is caused in both rape and rape with pregnancy. The act isn't different at all. It's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)",
">\n\nI don't think we need to quibble about whether it's an apt comparison. Based on what the person I responded to said, I think it is (i.e. same actions + different consequences).\n\nThe act isn't different at all.\n\nNot saying it isn't. What I'm saying is that the same act can have different consequences, and we very often apply different repercussions/punishments based on differences in consequences for the same act.\n\nIt's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)\n\nGetting raped and becoming pregnant by your rapist is worse than getting raped and not becoming pregnant by your rapist. That seems pretty uncontroversial to me.",
">\n\nSo... for example, given the exact same circumstances and actions, a woman on birth control is somehow less raped than a woman without who becomes pregnant? And a woman who miscarries or aborts a rape baby is somehow then less raped than she was while she was pregnant?",
">\n\nI feel this would cause an issue where, if the victim really wants to hurt their rapist the most, they have an incentive to remain pregnant even if they don't really want to.\nAlso, should this also apply to situations in which it is the rapist who gets pregnant and not the victim?",
">\n\nJesus.. keeping your rapist's baby so they serve a harsher sentence is a level of spite that I don't think anyone could sink to.",
">\n\nIf you touch my daughters you’d better hope the cops find you first cuz there’s a reckoning upon you if I am first and I’ll gladly sit in a jail for taking a predator to meet the Godess. \n To the point , fuck yes a rapist should have to provide child support. Rapist shouldn’t be allowed to rot in jail , make them work and pay for 18 years like non rapist dads do. And when they fall behind it’s incarceration and forced labor. \nFor far too long our mother, daughter , wives , sisters, aunties and grannies have faced unfair systematic societal oppression. End it by embracing a new paradigm of true human dignity and equality.",
">\n\nFirst of all. I hop on bored with Ben Shapiro when he says to physically castrate rapist, pedophiles, predators, etc. But I like to add my spice to things and add a prison sentence just like they do now. Then add pay for the damage they've done. Example would be. If your caught raping a woman. The woman chooses abortion. He pays for the abortion and following. COunceling sessions through the state to the agency. Or if she keeps it. Then guess who paying a child support for 18 years? Rapist. Just one of many examples I'm sure we could conjure. But by all means tear this idea apart, or let's build from it.",
">\n\nDisagree. It makes no difference if he causes the worst possible damage (pregnancy, std infection, PTSD etc) or minimal damage (although I don't know what that would be). The punishment should be severe, regardless of the consequences. Otherwise some men will get off lighter simply because they were 'lucky'",
">\n\nTo clarify your position, are you asking for a broader range of available punishment in the event of a pregnancy or are you advocating for a higher minimum punishment?",
">\n\nBoth, honestly. There should be automatic sentence enhancements as well as additional restitution.",
">\n\nI would counter then and suggest that if you are going to aggravate the charge based on causing pregnancy, it should only be to broaden the possible punishment range, not increase a mandatory minimum. \n\nMandatory minimums have a long history of causing more problems. Yes, rapists deserve to go to prison, but have you considered how many less would take a plea bargain because it would require x versus y years in prison? These are the types of cases that prosecutors lose more often than any other and cause the most trauma and stress to the victims. Mandatory minimums have the effect of making harder-to-prove cases get ignored meaning less overall justice. It would be better for those difficult cases to still see some type of punishment versus more acquittals or dismissals.",
">\n\nIt's the same crime whether she ends up getting pregnant. If she does, though, I do think the convict should be held responsible for the child/abortion costs and have no parental rights whatsoever, but not more jail time for the same crime.",
">\n\nNo, I think the punishment should be the same either way. Give the man a choice of castration or death. \nBut I get where you're coming from. I think the penalty for attempted murder should be the same as for murder. Just because you're incompetent or the victim was fortunate enough to survive, you get off easier? Doesn't make sense to me. Your actions were the same, even if the result was different.",
">\n\nI get that there should be more restitution, but who would more prison time help? The rapist did the exact same thing in either scenario.",
">\n\nYes! Twice the emotional damage.",
">\n\nI'm going to do the devil's advocate here.\nDoes that mean that a rape done with a condom will be less punished?\nHow about a rape done with a stick?\nFor the sake of argument : if rape was punished by death, how would you punish rape that leads to pregnancy? Do you kill them twice?\nIf a rape happens, the victim should immediately get an treatment to abord any possible baby, of if te rape is reported later on abortion should be an option available for victims.",
">\n\nLike child support whether or not the baby is delivered? I’d support that although faked rape cases gonna soar pretty high for men with lots of dough"
] |
>
Strongly agree | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of.",
">\n\nShouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population. \nHonestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society.",
">\n\nI agree, there was a rape incident in Korea (Cho Doo-soon incident). Due to poor law, he was freed after a short time despite causing too many injuries for the victim. After that every single people who lived near his house moved away. They should keep him in prison.",
">\n\nI could get behind this idea in the pragmatic sense that it could be a further deterrent from rape altogether, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make sense. Lying about birth control or intentionally tempering with it in order to impregnate a partner without/against their consent (or to be impregnated, since women can also do it) is a morally reprehensible in its own right, and furthermore can also carry legal repercussions, if it can be proven that the partners agreed to protected intercourse and one of them broke this agreement without the other's knowledge. One example is stealthing, which is a form of sexual abuse and was widely discussed a while ago. \nRape is having sex with someone without/against their consent for the act itself. Additional agreements like whether or not protection is used become irrelevant in this case. Pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely traumatic for victims, that is true, but rape itself is the crime that has been committed and if the victim happened to be on birth control or infertile that does not influence what has been done to them from the perspective of the crime itself.",
">\n\nI would prefer it if we instituted a policy that treats rape with potential conception this way, regardless of the actual results, in a manner similar to how we treat assault, aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon as different crimes. It wouldn't be any harder to prove than rape already is, while accounting for the additional reckless endangerment that comes from concieving a child through violence.",
">\n\nHe should pay child support to whoever keeps the child.",
">\n\nRapists aren't in control of the conception. If they get lucky and no child is conceived, that isn't because of anything in control of the rapist. People should be punished for things in their control, not let off for things outside their control.\nImagine a drunk driver. He gets in an accident because a child crosses the road in front of the car. But if the child had tripped just before the road and lives, that's not something we can give credit to the driver for.\nA rapist who is 'lucky' and doesn't get someone pregnant acted the same as a rapist who is 'unlucky' and did get someone pregnant. They created the same risk and should face the same punishment.",
">\n\nThe law does not work that way. In civil cases, a tortfeasor has to take his victim as he finds her. In other words, the asshole is responsible for whatever happens, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage. As another example, if a robber punches someone and that person ends up bleeding internally to death due to hemophilia, then that hemophilia is no defense to murder - the robber must take his victim as he found him. Criminal cases are similar - George Floyd's alleged physical condition was not a defense to the murder charges that Derek Chauvin was convicted of.",
">\n\nThe issue isn't with the harsher penalties but with the weaker penalties for rapes that don't result in pregnancy. Take two rapists. Rapist A impregnates his victim, while rapist B does not. Why should rapist B get a lighter sentence than rapist A? Are we implicitly saying that rape isn't as bad if there's no pregnancy? The actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?",
">\n\n\nThe actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?\n\nThis happens all the time. We consider the actions and the consequences of the actions in determining \"appropriate\" punishment very often.\nIf I shoot a gun blindly at a random house, that same action can have any number of consequences. Maybe the only consequences are breaking a window and putting a hole in someone's wall. Maybe it kills the family dog. Maybe the consequence is the bullet hitting someone and paralyzing them for life. Maybe the consequence is breaking a gas line that leads to an explosion that kills a dozen people.\nWhy isn't it reasonable to consider the outcomes of actions when determining the appropriate response?",
">\n\nThe comparison would be more like: you kill a person in each case, but in one, you also unintentionally break their leg. In the second case, should you be charged with a different crime? It's not like you didn't intend harm and by chance harm was caused. Harm is caused in both rape and rape with pregnancy. The act isn't different at all. It's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)",
">\n\nI don't think we need to quibble about whether it's an apt comparison. Based on what the person I responded to said, I think it is (i.e. same actions + different consequences).\n\nThe act isn't different at all.\n\nNot saying it isn't. What I'm saying is that the same act can have different consequences, and we very often apply different repercussions/punishments based on differences in consequences for the same act.\n\nIt's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)\n\nGetting raped and becoming pregnant by your rapist is worse than getting raped and not becoming pregnant by your rapist. That seems pretty uncontroversial to me.",
">\n\nSo... for example, given the exact same circumstances and actions, a woman on birth control is somehow less raped than a woman without who becomes pregnant? And a woman who miscarries or aborts a rape baby is somehow then less raped than she was while she was pregnant?",
">\n\nI feel this would cause an issue where, if the victim really wants to hurt their rapist the most, they have an incentive to remain pregnant even if they don't really want to.\nAlso, should this also apply to situations in which it is the rapist who gets pregnant and not the victim?",
">\n\nJesus.. keeping your rapist's baby so they serve a harsher sentence is a level of spite that I don't think anyone could sink to.",
">\n\nIf you touch my daughters you’d better hope the cops find you first cuz there’s a reckoning upon you if I am first and I’ll gladly sit in a jail for taking a predator to meet the Godess. \n To the point , fuck yes a rapist should have to provide child support. Rapist shouldn’t be allowed to rot in jail , make them work and pay for 18 years like non rapist dads do. And when they fall behind it’s incarceration and forced labor. \nFor far too long our mother, daughter , wives , sisters, aunties and grannies have faced unfair systematic societal oppression. End it by embracing a new paradigm of true human dignity and equality.",
">\n\nFirst of all. I hop on bored with Ben Shapiro when he says to physically castrate rapist, pedophiles, predators, etc. But I like to add my spice to things and add a prison sentence just like they do now. Then add pay for the damage they've done. Example would be. If your caught raping a woman. The woman chooses abortion. He pays for the abortion and following. COunceling sessions through the state to the agency. Or if she keeps it. Then guess who paying a child support for 18 years? Rapist. Just one of many examples I'm sure we could conjure. But by all means tear this idea apart, or let's build from it.",
">\n\nDisagree. It makes no difference if he causes the worst possible damage (pregnancy, std infection, PTSD etc) or minimal damage (although I don't know what that would be). The punishment should be severe, regardless of the consequences. Otherwise some men will get off lighter simply because they were 'lucky'",
">\n\nTo clarify your position, are you asking for a broader range of available punishment in the event of a pregnancy or are you advocating for a higher minimum punishment?",
">\n\nBoth, honestly. There should be automatic sentence enhancements as well as additional restitution.",
">\n\nI would counter then and suggest that if you are going to aggravate the charge based on causing pregnancy, it should only be to broaden the possible punishment range, not increase a mandatory minimum. \n\nMandatory minimums have a long history of causing more problems. Yes, rapists deserve to go to prison, but have you considered how many less would take a plea bargain because it would require x versus y years in prison? These are the types of cases that prosecutors lose more often than any other and cause the most trauma and stress to the victims. Mandatory minimums have the effect of making harder-to-prove cases get ignored meaning less overall justice. It would be better for those difficult cases to still see some type of punishment versus more acquittals or dismissals.",
">\n\nIt's the same crime whether she ends up getting pregnant. If she does, though, I do think the convict should be held responsible for the child/abortion costs and have no parental rights whatsoever, but not more jail time for the same crime.",
">\n\nNo, I think the punishment should be the same either way. Give the man a choice of castration or death. \nBut I get where you're coming from. I think the penalty for attempted murder should be the same as for murder. Just because you're incompetent or the victim was fortunate enough to survive, you get off easier? Doesn't make sense to me. Your actions were the same, even if the result was different.",
">\n\nI get that there should be more restitution, but who would more prison time help? The rapist did the exact same thing in either scenario.",
">\n\nYes! Twice the emotional damage.",
">\n\nI'm going to do the devil's advocate here.\nDoes that mean that a rape done with a condom will be less punished?\nHow about a rape done with a stick?\nFor the sake of argument : if rape was punished by death, how would you punish rape that leads to pregnancy? Do you kill them twice?\nIf a rape happens, the victim should immediately get an treatment to abord any possible baby, of if te rape is reported later on abortion should be an option available for victims.",
">\n\nLike child support whether or not the baby is delivered? I’d support that although faked rape cases gonna soar pretty high for men with lots of dough",
">\n\nSomeone probably mentioned this but I found out last year that rapists actually have rights to the child!!!"
] |
>
You only talk about abortion, but there is also the morning after pill to prevent conception which (to most women) is a lot less traumatising than abortion.
Given this, you are proposing to punish someone based on the actions of someone else if you're suggesting to punish the rapist more based on whether or not a child is born. That goes against every principle of what the rule of law and a fair trial is about.
Also, on a practical note, that would mean you can't try any rape case until 9 months after the rape. There is already a huge backlog and issues around women not feeling able to report rape. I can only see this additional requirement making things worse. | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of.",
">\n\nShouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population. \nHonestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society.",
">\n\nI agree, there was a rape incident in Korea (Cho Doo-soon incident). Due to poor law, he was freed after a short time despite causing too many injuries for the victim. After that every single people who lived near his house moved away. They should keep him in prison.",
">\n\nI could get behind this idea in the pragmatic sense that it could be a further deterrent from rape altogether, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make sense. Lying about birth control or intentionally tempering with it in order to impregnate a partner without/against their consent (or to be impregnated, since women can also do it) is a morally reprehensible in its own right, and furthermore can also carry legal repercussions, if it can be proven that the partners agreed to protected intercourse and one of them broke this agreement without the other's knowledge. One example is stealthing, which is a form of sexual abuse and was widely discussed a while ago. \nRape is having sex with someone without/against their consent for the act itself. Additional agreements like whether or not protection is used become irrelevant in this case. Pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely traumatic for victims, that is true, but rape itself is the crime that has been committed and if the victim happened to be on birth control or infertile that does not influence what has been done to them from the perspective of the crime itself.",
">\n\nI would prefer it if we instituted a policy that treats rape with potential conception this way, regardless of the actual results, in a manner similar to how we treat assault, aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon as different crimes. It wouldn't be any harder to prove than rape already is, while accounting for the additional reckless endangerment that comes from concieving a child through violence.",
">\n\nHe should pay child support to whoever keeps the child.",
">\n\nRapists aren't in control of the conception. If they get lucky and no child is conceived, that isn't because of anything in control of the rapist. People should be punished for things in their control, not let off for things outside their control.\nImagine a drunk driver. He gets in an accident because a child crosses the road in front of the car. But if the child had tripped just before the road and lives, that's not something we can give credit to the driver for.\nA rapist who is 'lucky' and doesn't get someone pregnant acted the same as a rapist who is 'unlucky' and did get someone pregnant. They created the same risk and should face the same punishment.",
">\n\nThe law does not work that way. In civil cases, a tortfeasor has to take his victim as he finds her. In other words, the asshole is responsible for whatever happens, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage. As another example, if a robber punches someone and that person ends up bleeding internally to death due to hemophilia, then that hemophilia is no defense to murder - the robber must take his victim as he found him. Criminal cases are similar - George Floyd's alleged physical condition was not a defense to the murder charges that Derek Chauvin was convicted of.",
">\n\nThe issue isn't with the harsher penalties but with the weaker penalties for rapes that don't result in pregnancy. Take two rapists. Rapist A impregnates his victim, while rapist B does not. Why should rapist B get a lighter sentence than rapist A? Are we implicitly saying that rape isn't as bad if there's no pregnancy? The actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?",
">\n\n\nThe actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?\n\nThis happens all the time. We consider the actions and the consequences of the actions in determining \"appropriate\" punishment very often.\nIf I shoot a gun blindly at a random house, that same action can have any number of consequences. Maybe the only consequences are breaking a window and putting a hole in someone's wall. Maybe it kills the family dog. Maybe the consequence is the bullet hitting someone and paralyzing them for life. Maybe the consequence is breaking a gas line that leads to an explosion that kills a dozen people.\nWhy isn't it reasonable to consider the outcomes of actions when determining the appropriate response?",
">\n\nThe comparison would be more like: you kill a person in each case, but in one, you also unintentionally break their leg. In the second case, should you be charged with a different crime? It's not like you didn't intend harm and by chance harm was caused. Harm is caused in both rape and rape with pregnancy. The act isn't different at all. It's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)",
">\n\nI don't think we need to quibble about whether it's an apt comparison. Based on what the person I responded to said, I think it is (i.e. same actions + different consequences).\n\nThe act isn't different at all.\n\nNot saying it isn't. What I'm saying is that the same act can have different consequences, and we very often apply different repercussions/punishments based on differences in consequences for the same act.\n\nIt's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)\n\nGetting raped and becoming pregnant by your rapist is worse than getting raped and not becoming pregnant by your rapist. That seems pretty uncontroversial to me.",
">\n\nSo... for example, given the exact same circumstances and actions, a woman on birth control is somehow less raped than a woman without who becomes pregnant? And a woman who miscarries or aborts a rape baby is somehow then less raped than she was while she was pregnant?",
">\n\nI feel this would cause an issue where, if the victim really wants to hurt their rapist the most, they have an incentive to remain pregnant even if they don't really want to.\nAlso, should this also apply to situations in which it is the rapist who gets pregnant and not the victim?",
">\n\nJesus.. keeping your rapist's baby so they serve a harsher sentence is a level of spite that I don't think anyone could sink to.",
">\n\nIf you touch my daughters you’d better hope the cops find you first cuz there’s a reckoning upon you if I am first and I’ll gladly sit in a jail for taking a predator to meet the Godess. \n To the point , fuck yes a rapist should have to provide child support. Rapist shouldn’t be allowed to rot in jail , make them work and pay for 18 years like non rapist dads do. And when they fall behind it’s incarceration and forced labor. \nFor far too long our mother, daughter , wives , sisters, aunties and grannies have faced unfair systematic societal oppression. End it by embracing a new paradigm of true human dignity and equality.",
">\n\nFirst of all. I hop on bored with Ben Shapiro when he says to physically castrate rapist, pedophiles, predators, etc. But I like to add my spice to things and add a prison sentence just like they do now. Then add pay for the damage they've done. Example would be. If your caught raping a woman. The woman chooses abortion. He pays for the abortion and following. COunceling sessions through the state to the agency. Or if she keeps it. Then guess who paying a child support for 18 years? Rapist. Just one of many examples I'm sure we could conjure. But by all means tear this idea apart, or let's build from it.",
">\n\nDisagree. It makes no difference if he causes the worst possible damage (pregnancy, std infection, PTSD etc) or minimal damage (although I don't know what that would be). The punishment should be severe, regardless of the consequences. Otherwise some men will get off lighter simply because they were 'lucky'",
">\n\nTo clarify your position, are you asking for a broader range of available punishment in the event of a pregnancy or are you advocating for a higher minimum punishment?",
">\n\nBoth, honestly. There should be automatic sentence enhancements as well as additional restitution.",
">\n\nI would counter then and suggest that if you are going to aggravate the charge based on causing pregnancy, it should only be to broaden the possible punishment range, not increase a mandatory minimum. \n\nMandatory minimums have a long history of causing more problems. Yes, rapists deserve to go to prison, but have you considered how many less would take a plea bargain because it would require x versus y years in prison? These are the types of cases that prosecutors lose more often than any other and cause the most trauma and stress to the victims. Mandatory minimums have the effect of making harder-to-prove cases get ignored meaning less overall justice. It would be better for those difficult cases to still see some type of punishment versus more acquittals or dismissals.",
">\n\nIt's the same crime whether she ends up getting pregnant. If she does, though, I do think the convict should be held responsible for the child/abortion costs and have no parental rights whatsoever, but not more jail time for the same crime.",
">\n\nNo, I think the punishment should be the same either way. Give the man a choice of castration or death. \nBut I get where you're coming from. I think the penalty for attempted murder should be the same as for murder. Just because you're incompetent or the victim was fortunate enough to survive, you get off easier? Doesn't make sense to me. Your actions were the same, even if the result was different.",
">\n\nI get that there should be more restitution, but who would more prison time help? The rapist did the exact same thing in either scenario.",
">\n\nYes! Twice the emotional damage.",
">\n\nI'm going to do the devil's advocate here.\nDoes that mean that a rape done with a condom will be less punished?\nHow about a rape done with a stick?\nFor the sake of argument : if rape was punished by death, how would you punish rape that leads to pregnancy? Do you kill them twice?\nIf a rape happens, the victim should immediately get an treatment to abord any possible baby, of if te rape is reported later on abortion should be an option available for victims.",
">\n\nLike child support whether or not the baby is delivered? I’d support that although faked rape cases gonna soar pretty high for men with lots of dough",
">\n\nSomeone probably mentioned this but I found out last year that rapists actually have rights to the child!!!",
">\n\nStrongly agree"
] |
>
They do. If you go into prison with bad paperwork, you will be in a living hell. | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of.",
">\n\nShouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population. \nHonestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society.",
">\n\nI agree, there was a rape incident in Korea (Cho Doo-soon incident). Due to poor law, he was freed after a short time despite causing too many injuries for the victim. After that every single people who lived near his house moved away. They should keep him in prison.",
">\n\nI could get behind this idea in the pragmatic sense that it could be a further deterrent from rape altogether, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make sense. Lying about birth control or intentionally tempering with it in order to impregnate a partner without/against their consent (or to be impregnated, since women can also do it) is a morally reprehensible in its own right, and furthermore can also carry legal repercussions, if it can be proven that the partners agreed to protected intercourse and one of them broke this agreement without the other's knowledge. One example is stealthing, which is a form of sexual abuse and was widely discussed a while ago. \nRape is having sex with someone without/against their consent for the act itself. Additional agreements like whether or not protection is used become irrelevant in this case. Pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely traumatic for victims, that is true, but rape itself is the crime that has been committed and if the victim happened to be on birth control or infertile that does not influence what has been done to them from the perspective of the crime itself.",
">\n\nI would prefer it if we instituted a policy that treats rape with potential conception this way, regardless of the actual results, in a manner similar to how we treat assault, aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon as different crimes. It wouldn't be any harder to prove than rape already is, while accounting for the additional reckless endangerment that comes from concieving a child through violence.",
">\n\nHe should pay child support to whoever keeps the child.",
">\n\nRapists aren't in control of the conception. If they get lucky and no child is conceived, that isn't because of anything in control of the rapist. People should be punished for things in their control, not let off for things outside their control.\nImagine a drunk driver. He gets in an accident because a child crosses the road in front of the car. But if the child had tripped just before the road and lives, that's not something we can give credit to the driver for.\nA rapist who is 'lucky' and doesn't get someone pregnant acted the same as a rapist who is 'unlucky' and did get someone pregnant. They created the same risk and should face the same punishment.",
">\n\nThe law does not work that way. In civil cases, a tortfeasor has to take his victim as he finds her. In other words, the asshole is responsible for whatever happens, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage. As another example, if a robber punches someone and that person ends up bleeding internally to death due to hemophilia, then that hemophilia is no defense to murder - the robber must take his victim as he found him. Criminal cases are similar - George Floyd's alleged physical condition was not a defense to the murder charges that Derek Chauvin was convicted of.",
">\n\nThe issue isn't with the harsher penalties but with the weaker penalties for rapes that don't result in pregnancy. Take two rapists. Rapist A impregnates his victim, while rapist B does not. Why should rapist B get a lighter sentence than rapist A? Are we implicitly saying that rape isn't as bad if there's no pregnancy? The actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?",
">\n\n\nThe actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?\n\nThis happens all the time. We consider the actions and the consequences of the actions in determining \"appropriate\" punishment very often.\nIf I shoot a gun blindly at a random house, that same action can have any number of consequences. Maybe the only consequences are breaking a window and putting a hole in someone's wall. Maybe it kills the family dog. Maybe the consequence is the bullet hitting someone and paralyzing them for life. Maybe the consequence is breaking a gas line that leads to an explosion that kills a dozen people.\nWhy isn't it reasonable to consider the outcomes of actions when determining the appropriate response?",
">\n\nThe comparison would be more like: you kill a person in each case, but in one, you also unintentionally break their leg. In the second case, should you be charged with a different crime? It's not like you didn't intend harm and by chance harm was caused. Harm is caused in both rape and rape with pregnancy. The act isn't different at all. It's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)",
">\n\nI don't think we need to quibble about whether it's an apt comparison. Based on what the person I responded to said, I think it is (i.e. same actions + different consequences).\n\nThe act isn't different at all.\n\nNot saying it isn't. What I'm saying is that the same act can have different consequences, and we very often apply different repercussions/punishments based on differences in consequences for the same act.\n\nIt's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)\n\nGetting raped and becoming pregnant by your rapist is worse than getting raped and not becoming pregnant by your rapist. That seems pretty uncontroversial to me.",
">\n\nSo... for example, given the exact same circumstances and actions, a woman on birth control is somehow less raped than a woman without who becomes pregnant? And a woman who miscarries or aborts a rape baby is somehow then less raped than she was while she was pregnant?",
">\n\nI feel this would cause an issue where, if the victim really wants to hurt their rapist the most, they have an incentive to remain pregnant even if they don't really want to.\nAlso, should this also apply to situations in which it is the rapist who gets pregnant and not the victim?",
">\n\nJesus.. keeping your rapist's baby so they serve a harsher sentence is a level of spite that I don't think anyone could sink to.",
">\n\nIf you touch my daughters you’d better hope the cops find you first cuz there’s a reckoning upon you if I am first and I’ll gladly sit in a jail for taking a predator to meet the Godess. \n To the point , fuck yes a rapist should have to provide child support. Rapist shouldn’t be allowed to rot in jail , make them work and pay for 18 years like non rapist dads do. And when they fall behind it’s incarceration and forced labor. \nFor far too long our mother, daughter , wives , sisters, aunties and grannies have faced unfair systematic societal oppression. End it by embracing a new paradigm of true human dignity and equality.",
">\n\nFirst of all. I hop on bored with Ben Shapiro when he says to physically castrate rapist, pedophiles, predators, etc. But I like to add my spice to things and add a prison sentence just like they do now. Then add pay for the damage they've done. Example would be. If your caught raping a woman. The woman chooses abortion. He pays for the abortion and following. COunceling sessions through the state to the agency. Or if she keeps it. Then guess who paying a child support for 18 years? Rapist. Just one of many examples I'm sure we could conjure. But by all means tear this idea apart, or let's build from it.",
">\n\nDisagree. It makes no difference if he causes the worst possible damage (pregnancy, std infection, PTSD etc) or minimal damage (although I don't know what that would be). The punishment should be severe, regardless of the consequences. Otherwise some men will get off lighter simply because they were 'lucky'",
">\n\nTo clarify your position, are you asking for a broader range of available punishment in the event of a pregnancy or are you advocating for a higher minimum punishment?",
">\n\nBoth, honestly. There should be automatic sentence enhancements as well as additional restitution.",
">\n\nI would counter then and suggest that if you are going to aggravate the charge based on causing pregnancy, it should only be to broaden the possible punishment range, not increase a mandatory minimum. \n\nMandatory minimums have a long history of causing more problems. Yes, rapists deserve to go to prison, but have you considered how many less would take a plea bargain because it would require x versus y years in prison? These are the types of cases that prosecutors lose more often than any other and cause the most trauma and stress to the victims. Mandatory minimums have the effect of making harder-to-prove cases get ignored meaning less overall justice. It would be better for those difficult cases to still see some type of punishment versus more acquittals or dismissals.",
">\n\nIt's the same crime whether she ends up getting pregnant. If she does, though, I do think the convict should be held responsible for the child/abortion costs and have no parental rights whatsoever, but not more jail time for the same crime.",
">\n\nNo, I think the punishment should be the same either way. Give the man a choice of castration or death. \nBut I get where you're coming from. I think the penalty for attempted murder should be the same as for murder. Just because you're incompetent or the victim was fortunate enough to survive, you get off easier? Doesn't make sense to me. Your actions were the same, even if the result was different.",
">\n\nI get that there should be more restitution, but who would more prison time help? The rapist did the exact same thing in either scenario.",
">\n\nYes! Twice the emotional damage.",
">\n\nI'm going to do the devil's advocate here.\nDoes that mean that a rape done with a condom will be less punished?\nHow about a rape done with a stick?\nFor the sake of argument : if rape was punished by death, how would you punish rape that leads to pregnancy? Do you kill them twice?\nIf a rape happens, the victim should immediately get an treatment to abord any possible baby, of if te rape is reported later on abortion should be an option available for victims.",
">\n\nLike child support whether or not the baby is delivered? I’d support that although faked rape cases gonna soar pretty high for men with lots of dough",
">\n\nSomeone probably mentioned this but I found out last year that rapists actually have rights to the child!!!",
">\n\nStrongly agree",
">\n\nYou only talk about abortion, but there is also the morning after pill to prevent conception which (to most women) is a lot less traumatising than abortion.\nGiven this, you are proposing to punish someone based on the actions of someone else if you're suggesting to punish the rapist more based on whether or not a child is born. That goes against every principle of what the rule of law and a fair trial is about.\nAlso, on a practical note, that would mean you can't try any rape case until 9 months after the rape. There is already a huge backlog and issues around women not feeling able to report rape. I can only see this additional requirement making things worse."
] |
>
especially if the mother carries the child to term.
No. Abortion has far lower physical risks and does not cause a child to come into existence.
Everything up to the conception is caused by the rape, but thereafter the woman has control of her body again, and choosing to continue rather than abort the pregnancy is her own choice, so are the consequences.
So there should be no difference depending on the choices of the victim, only on those of the criminal. This includes inflicting a pregnancy, but not how to deal with it. | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of.",
">\n\nShouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population. \nHonestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society.",
">\n\nI agree, there was a rape incident in Korea (Cho Doo-soon incident). Due to poor law, he was freed after a short time despite causing too many injuries for the victim. After that every single people who lived near his house moved away. They should keep him in prison.",
">\n\nI could get behind this idea in the pragmatic sense that it could be a further deterrent from rape altogether, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make sense. Lying about birth control or intentionally tempering with it in order to impregnate a partner without/against their consent (or to be impregnated, since women can also do it) is a morally reprehensible in its own right, and furthermore can also carry legal repercussions, if it can be proven that the partners agreed to protected intercourse and one of them broke this agreement without the other's knowledge. One example is stealthing, which is a form of sexual abuse and was widely discussed a while ago. \nRape is having sex with someone without/against their consent for the act itself. Additional agreements like whether or not protection is used become irrelevant in this case. Pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely traumatic for victims, that is true, but rape itself is the crime that has been committed and if the victim happened to be on birth control or infertile that does not influence what has been done to them from the perspective of the crime itself.",
">\n\nI would prefer it if we instituted a policy that treats rape with potential conception this way, regardless of the actual results, in a manner similar to how we treat assault, aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon as different crimes. It wouldn't be any harder to prove than rape already is, while accounting for the additional reckless endangerment that comes from concieving a child through violence.",
">\n\nHe should pay child support to whoever keeps the child.",
">\n\nRapists aren't in control of the conception. If they get lucky and no child is conceived, that isn't because of anything in control of the rapist. People should be punished for things in their control, not let off for things outside their control.\nImagine a drunk driver. He gets in an accident because a child crosses the road in front of the car. But if the child had tripped just before the road and lives, that's not something we can give credit to the driver for.\nA rapist who is 'lucky' and doesn't get someone pregnant acted the same as a rapist who is 'unlucky' and did get someone pregnant. They created the same risk and should face the same punishment.",
">\n\nThe law does not work that way. In civil cases, a tortfeasor has to take his victim as he finds her. In other words, the asshole is responsible for whatever happens, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage. As another example, if a robber punches someone and that person ends up bleeding internally to death due to hemophilia, then that hemophilia is no defense to murder - the robber must take his victim as he found him. Criminal cases are similar - George Floyd's alleged physical condition was not a defense to the murder charges that Derek Chauvin was convicted of.",
">\n\nThe issue isn't with the harsher penalties but with the weaker penalties for rapes that don't result in pregnancy. Take two rapists. Rapist A impregnates his victim, while rapist B does not. Why should rapist B get a lighter sentence than rapist A? Are we implicitly saying that rape isn't as bad if there's no pregnancy? The actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?",
">\n\n\nThe actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?\n\nThis happens all the time. We consider the actions and the consequences of the actions in determining \"appropriate\" punishment very often.\nIf I shoot a gun blindly at a random house, that same action can have any number of consequences. Maybe the only consequences are breaking a window and putting a hole in someone's wall. Maybe it kills the family dog. Maybe the consequence is the bullet hitting someone and paralyzing them for life. Maybe the consequence is breaking a gas line that leads to an explosion that kills a dozen people.\nWhy isn't it reasonable to consider the outcomes of actions when determining the appropriate response?",
">\n\nThe comparison would be more like: you kill a person in each case, but in one, you also unintentionally break their leg. In the second case, should you be charged with a different crime? It's not like you didn't intend harm and by chance harm was caused. Harm is caused in both rape and rape with pregnancy. The act isn't different at all. It's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)",
">\n\nI don't think we need to quibble about whether it's an apt comparison. Based on what the person I responded to said, I think it is (i.e. same actions + different consequences).\n\nThe act isn't different at all.\n\nNot saying it isn't. What I'm saying is that the same act can have different consequences, and we very often apply different repercussions/punishments based on differences in consequences for the same act.\n\nIt's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)\n\nGetting raped and becoming pregnant by your rapist is worse than getting raped and not becoming pregnant by your rapist. That seems pretty uncontroversial to me.",
">\n\nSo... for example, given the exact same circumstances and actions, a woman on birth control is somehow less raped than a woman without who becomes pregnant? And a woman who miscarries or aborts a rape baby is somehow then less raped than she was while she was pregnant?",
">\n\nI feel this would cause an issue where, if the victim really wants to hurt their rapist the most, they have an incentive to remain pregnant even if they don't really want to.\nAlso, should this also apply to situations in which it is the rapist who gets pregnant and not the victim?",
">\n\nJesus.. keeping your rapist's baby so they serve a harsher sentence is a level of spite that I don't think anyone could sink to.",
">\n\nIf you touch my daughters you’d better hope the cops find you first cuz there’s a reckoning upon you if I am first and I’ll gladly sit in a jail for taking a predator to meet the Godess. \n To the point , fuck yes a rapist should have to provide child support. Rapist shouldn’t be allowed to rot in jail , make them work and pay for 18 years like non rapist dads do. And when they fall behind it’s incarceration and forced labor. \nFor far too long our mother, daughter , wives , sisters, aunties and grannies have faced unfair systematic societal oppression. End it by embracing a new paradigm of true human dignity and equality.",
">\n\nFirst of all. I hop on bored with Ben Shapiro when he says to physically castrate rapist, pedophiles, predators, etc. But I like to add my spice to things and add a prison sentence just like they do now. Then add pay for the damage they've done. Example would be. If your caught raping a woman. The woman chooses abortion. He pays for the abortion and following. COunceling sessions through the state to the agency. Or if she keeps it. Then guess who paying a child support for 18 years? Rapist. Just one of many examples I'm sure we could conjure. But by all means tear this idea apart, or let's build from it.",
">\n\nDisagree. It makes no difference if he causes the worst possible damage (pregnancy, std infection, PTSD etc) or minimal damage (although I don't know what that would be). The punishment should be severe, regardless of the consequences. Otherwise some men will get off lighter simply because they were 'lucky'",
">\n\nTo clarify your position, are you asking for a broader range of available punishment in the event of a pregnancy or are you advocating for a higher minimum punishment?",
">\n\nBoth, honestly. There should be automatic sentence enhancements as well as additional restitution.",
">\n\nI would counter then and suggest that if you are going to aggravate the charge based on causing pregnancy, it should only be to broaden the possible punishment range, not increase a mandatory minimum. \n\nMandatory minimums have a long history of causing more problems. Yes, rapists deserve to go to prison, but have you considered how many less would take a plea bargain because it would require x versus y years in prison? These are the types of cases that prosecutors lose more often than any other and cause the most trauma and stress to the victims. Mandatory minimums have the effect of making harder-to-prove cases get ignored meaning less overall justice. It would be better for those difficult cases to still see some type of punishment versus more acquittals or dismissals.",
">\n\nIt's the same crime whether she ends up getting pregnant. If she does, though, I do think the convict should be held responsible for the child/abortion costs and have no parental rights whatsoever, but not more jail time for the same crime.",
">\n\nNo, I think the punishment should be the same either way. Give the man a choice of castration or death. \nBut I get where you're coming from. I think the penalty for attempted murder should be the same as for murder. Just because you're incompetent or the victim was fortunate enough to survive, you get off easier? Doesn't make sense to me. Your actions were the same, even if the result was different.",
">\n\nI get that there should be more restitution, but who would more prison time help? The rapist did the exact same thing in either scenario.",
">\n\nYes! Twice the emotional damage.",
">\n\nI'm going to do the devil's advocate here.\nDoes that mean that a rape done with a condom will be less punished?\nHow about a rape done with a stick?\nFor the sake of argument : if rape was punished by death, how would you punish rape that leads to pregnancy? Do you kill them twice?\nIf a rape happens, the victim should immediately get an treatment to abord any possible baby, of if te rape is reported later on abortion should be an option available for victims.",
">\n\nLike child support whether or not the baby is delivered? I’d support that although faked rape cases gonna soar pretty high for men with lots of dough",
">\n\nSomeone probably mentioned this but I found out last year that rapists actually have rights to the child!!!",
">\n\nStrongly agree",
">\n\nYou only talk about abortion, but there is also the morning after pill to prevent conception which (to most women) is a lot less traumatising than abortion.\nGiven this, you are proposing to punish someone based on the actions of someone else if you're suggesting to punish the rapist more based on whether or not a child is born. That goes against every principle of what the rule of law and a fair trial is about.\nAlso, on a practical note, that would mean you can't try any rape case until 9 months after the rape. There is already a huge backlog and issues around women not feeling able to report rape. I can only see this additional requirement making things worse.",
">\n\nThey do. If you go into prison with bad paperwork, you will be in a living hell."
] |
>
I actually do like this idea, I’m just wondering is there any equivalent for if a male or AMAB person was raped. They are not able to get pregnant so this same law wouldn’t carry out for them. It would only apply to female and AFAB persons. | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of.",
">\n\nShouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population. \nHonestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society.",
">\n\nI agree, there was a rape incident in Korea (Cho Doo-soon incident). Due to poor law, he was freed after a short time despite causing too many injuries for the victim. After that every single people who lived near his house moved away. They should keep him in prison.",
">\n\nI could get behind this idea in the pragmatic sense that it could be a further deterrent from rape altogether, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make sense. Lying about birth control or intentionally tempering with it in order to impregnate a partner without/against their consent (or to be impregnated, since women can also do it) is a morally reprehensible in its own right, and furthermore can also carry legal repercussions, if it can be proven that the partners agreed to protected intercourse and one of them broke this agreement without the other's knowledge. One example is stealthing, which is a form of sexual abuse and was widely discussed a while ago. \nRape is having sex with someone without/against their consent for the act itself. Additional agreements like whether or not protection is used become irrelevant in this case. Pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely traumatic for victims, that is true, but rape itself is the crime that has been committed and if the victim happened to be on birth control or infertile that does not influence what has been done to them from the perspective of the crime itself.",
">\n\nI would prefer it if we instituted a policy that treats rape with potential conception this way, regardless of the actual results, in a manner similar to how we treat assault, aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon as different crimes. It wouldn't be any harder to prove than rape already is, while accounting for the additional reckless endangerment that comes from concieving a child through violence.",
">\n\nHe should pay child support to whoever keeps the child.",
">\n\nRapists aren't in control of the conception. If they get lucky and no child is conceived, that isn't because of anything in control of the rapist. People should be punished for things in their control, not let off for things outside their control.\nImagine a drunk driver. He gets in an accident because a child crosses the road in front of the car. But if the child had tripped just before the road and lives, that's not something we can give credit to the driver for.\nA rapist who is 'lucky' and doesn't get someone pregnant acted the same as a rapist who is 'unlucky' and did get someone pregnant. They created the same risk and should face the same punishment.",
">\n\nThe law does not work that way. In civil cases, a tortfeasor has to take his victim as he finds her. In other words, the asshole is responsible for whatever happens, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage. As another example, if a robber punches someone and that person ends up bleeding internally to death due to hemophilia, then that hemophilia is no defense to murder - the robber must take his victim as he found him. Criminal cases are similar - George Floyd's alleged physical condition was not a defense to the murder charges that Derek Chauvin was convicted of.",
">\n\nThe issue isn't with the harsher penalties but with the weaker penalties for rapes that don't result in pregnancy. Take two rapists. Rapist A impregnates his victim, while rapist B does not. Why should rapist B get a lighter sentence than rapist A? Are we implicitly saying that rape isn't as bad if there's no pregnancy? The actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?",
">\n\n\nThe actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?\n\nThis happens all the time. We consider the actions and the consequences of the actions in determining \"appropriate\" punishment very often.\nIf I shoot a gun blindly at a random house, that same action can have any number of consequences. Maybe the only consequences are breaking a window and putting a hole in someone's wall. Maybe it kills the family dog. Maybe the consequence is the bullet hitting someone and paralyzing them for life. Maybe the consequence is breaking a gas line that leads to an explosion that kills a dozen people.\nWhy isn't it reasonable to consider the outcomes of actions when determining the appropriate response?",
">\n\nThe comparison would be more like: you kill a person in each case, but in one, you also unintentionally break their leg. In the second case, should you be charged with a different crime? It's not like you didn't intend harm and by chance harm was caused. Harm is caused in both rape and rape with pregnancy. The act isn't different at all. It's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)",
">\n\nI don't think we need to quibble about whether it's an apt comparison. Based on what the person I responded to said, I think it is (i.e. same actions + different consequences).\n\nThe act isn't different at all.\n\nNot saying it isn't. What I'm saying is that the same act can have different consequences, and we very often apply different repercussions/punishments based on differences in consequences for the same act.\n\nIt's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)\n\nGetting raped and becoming pregnant by your rapist is worse than getting raped and not becoming pregnant by your rapist. That seems pretty uncontroversial to me.",
">\n\nSo... for example, given the exact same circumstances and actions, a woman on birth control is somehow less raped than a woman without who becomes pregnant? And a woman who miscarries or aborts a rape baby is somehow then less raped than she was while she was pregnant?",
">\n\nI feel this would cause an issue where, if the victim really wants to hurt their rapist the most, they have an incentive to remain pregnant even if they don't really want to.\nAlso, should this also apply to situations in which it is the rapist who gets pregnant and not the victim?",
">\n\nJesus.. keeping your rapist's baby so they serve a harsher sentence is a level of spite that I don't think anyone could sink to.",
">\n\nIf you touch my daughters you’d better hope the cops find you first cuz there’s a reckoning upon you if I am first and I’ll gladly sit in a jail for taking a predator to meet the Godess. \n To the point , fuck yes a rapist should have to provide child support. Rapist shouldn’t be allowed to rot in jail , make them work and pay for 18 years like non rapist dads do. And when they fall behind it’s incarceration and forced labor. \nFor far too long our mother, daughter , wives , sisters, aunties and grannies have faced unfair systematic societal oppression. End it by embracing a new paradigm of true human dignity and equality.",
">\n\nFirst of all. I hop on bored with Ben Shapiro when he says to physically castrate rapist, pedophiles, predators, etc. But I like to add my spice to things and add a prison sentence just like they do now. Then add pay for the damage they've done. Example would be. If your caught raping a woman. The woman chooses abortion. He pays for the abortion and following. COunceling sessions through the state to the agency. Or if she keeps it. Then guess who paying a child support for 18 years? Rapist. Just one of many examples I'm sure we could conjure. But by all means tear this idea apart, or let's build from it.",
">\n\nDisagree. It makes no difference if he causes the worst possible damage (pregnancy, std infection, PTSD etc) or minimal damage (although I don't know what that would be). The punishment should be severe, regardless of the consequences. Otherwise some men will get off lighter simply because they were 'lucky'",
">\n\nTo clarify your position, are you asking for a broader range of available punishment in the event of a pregnancy or are you advocating for a higher minimum punishment?",
">\n\nBoth, honestly. There should be automatic sentence enhancements as well as additional restitution.",
">\n\nI would counter then and suggest that if you are going to aggravate the charge based on causing pregnancy, it should only be to broaden the possible punishment range, not increase a mandatory minimum. \n\nMandatory minimums have a long history of causing more problems. Yes, rapists deserve to go to prison, but have you considered how many less would take a plea bargain because it would require x versus y years in prison? These are the types of cases that prosecutors lose more often than any other and cause the most trauma and stress to the victims. Mandatory minimums have the effect of making harder-to-prove cases get ignored meaning less overall justice. It would be better for those difficult cases to still see some type of punishment versus more acquittals or dismissals.",
">\n\nIt's the same crime whether she ends up getting pregnant. If she does, though, I do think the convict should be held responsible for the child/abortion costs and have no parental rights whatsoever, but not more jail time for the same crime.",
">\n\nNo, I think the punishment should be the same either way. Give the man a choice of castration or death. \nBut I get where you're coming from. I think the penalty for attempted murder should be the same as for murder. Just because you're incompetent or the victim was fortunate enough to survive, you get off easier? Doesn't make sense to me. Your actions were the same, even if the result was different.",
">\n\nI get that there should be more restitution, but who would more prison time help? The rapist did the exact same thing in either scenario.",
">\n\nYes! Twice the emotional damage.",
">\n\nI'm going to do the devil's advocate here.\nDoes that mean that a rape done with a condom will be less punished?\nHow about a rape done with a stick?\nFor the sake of argument : if rape was punished by death, how would you punish rape that leads to pregnancy? Do you kill them twice?\nIf a rape happens, the victim should immediately get an treatment to abord any possible baby, of if te rape is reported later on abortion should be an option available for victims.",
">\n\nLike child support whether or not the baby is delivered? I’d support that although faked rape cases gonna soar pretty high for men with lots of dough",
">\n\nSomeone probably mentioned this but I found out last year that rapists actually have rights to the child!!!",
">\n\nStrongly agree",
">\n\nYou only talk about abortion, but there is also the morning after pill to prevent conception which (to most women) is a lot less traumatising than abortion.\nGiven this, you are proposing to punish someone based on the actions of someone else if you're suggesting to punish the rapist more based on whether or not a child is born. That goes against every principle of what the rule of law and a fair trial is about.\nAlso, on a practical note, that would mean you can't try any rape case until 9 months after the rape. There is already a huge backlog and issues around women not feeling able to report rape. I can only see this additional requirement making things worse.",
">\n\nThey do. If you go into prison with bad paperwork, you will be in a living hell.",
">\n\n\nespecially if the mother carries the child to term.\n\nNo. Abortion has far lower physical risks and does not cause a child to come into existence.\nEverything up to the conception is caused by the rape, but thereafter the woman has control of her body again, and choosing to continue rather than abort the pregnancy is her own choice, so are the consequences.\nSo there should be no difference depending on the choices of the victim, only on those of the criminal. This includes inflicting a pregnancy, but not how to deal with it."
] |
>
Because the asshole forced that choice on her in the first place, that's why. | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of.",
">\n\nShouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population. \nHonestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society.",
">\n\nI agree, there was a rape incident in Korea (Cho Doo-soon incident). Due to poor law, he was freed after a short time despite causing too many injuries for the victim. After that every single people who lived near his house moved away. They should keep him in prison.",
">\n\nI could get behind this idea in the pragmatic sense that it could be a further deterrent from rape altogether, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make sense. Lying about birth control or intentionally tempering with it in order to impregnate a partner without/against their consent (or to be impregnated, since women can also do it) is a morally reprehensible in its own right, and furthermore can also carry legal repercussions, if it can be proven that the partners agreed to protected intercourse and one of them broke this agreement without the other's knowledge. One example is stealthing, which is a form of sexual abuse and was widely discussed a while ago. \nRape is having sex with someone without/against their consent for the act itself. Additional agreements like whether or not protection is used become irrelevant in this case. Pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely traumatic for victims, that is true, but rape itself is the crime that has been committed and if the victim happened to be on birth control or infertile that does not influence what has been done to them from the perspective of the crime itself.",
">\n\nI would prefer it if we instituted a policy that treats rape with potential conception this way, regardless of the actual results, in a manner similar to how we treat assault, aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon as different crimes. It wouldn't be any harder to prove than rape already is, while accounting for the additional reckless endangerment that comes from concieving a child through violence.",
">\n\nHe should pay child support to whoever keeps the child.",
">\n\nRapists aren't in control of the conception. If they get lucky and no child is conceived, that isn't because of anything in control of the rapist. People should be punished for things in their control, not let off for things outside their control.\nImagine a drunk driver. He gets in an accident because a child crosses the road in front of the car. But if the child had tripped just before the road and lives, that's not something we can give credit to the driver for.\nA rapist who is 'lucky' and doesn't get someone pregnant acted the same as a rapist who is 'unlucky' and did get someone pregnant. They created the same risk and should face the same punishment.",
">\n\nThe law does not work that way. In civil cases, a tortfeasor has to take his victim as he finds her. In other words, the asshole is responsible for whatever happens, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage. As another example, if a robber punches someone and that person ends up bleeding internally to death due to hemophilia, then that hemophilia is no defense to murder - the robber must take his victim as he found him. Criminal cases are similar - George Floyd's alleged physical condition was not a defense to the murder charges that Derek Chauvin was convicted of.",
">\n\nThe issue isn't with the harsher penalties but with the weaker penalties for rapes that don't result in pregnancy. Take two rapists. Rapist A impregnates his victim, while rapist B does not. Why should rapist B get a lighter sentence than rapist A? Are we implicitly saying that rape isn't as bad if there's no pregnancy? The actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?",
">\n\n\nThe actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?\n\nThis happens all the time. We consider the actions and the consequences of the actions in determining \"appropriate\" punishment very often.\nIf I shoot a gun blindly at a random house, that same action can have any number of consequences. Maybe the only consequences are breaking a window and putting a hole in someone's wall. Maybe it kills the family dog. Maybe the consequence is the bullet hitting someone and paralyzing them for life. Maybe the consequence is breaking a gas line that leads to an explosion that kills a dozen people.\nWhy isn't it reasonable to consider the outcomes of actions when determining the appropriate response?",
">\n\nThe comparison would be more like: you kill a person in each case, but in one, you also unintentionally break their leg. In the second case, should you be charged with a different crime? It's not like you didn't intend harm and by chance harm was caused. Harm is caused in both rape and rape with pregnancy. The act isn't different at all. It's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)",
">\n\nI don't think we need to quibble about whether it's an apt comparison. Based on what the person I responded to said, I think it is (i.e. same actions + different consequences).\n\nThe act isn't different at all.\n\nNot saying it isn't. What I'm saying is that the same act can have different consequences, and we very often apply different repercussions/punishments based on differences in consequences for the same act.\n\nIt's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)\n\nGetting raped and becoming pregnant by your rapist is worse than getting raped and not becoming pregnant by your rapist. That seems pretty uncontroversial to me.",
">\n\nSo... for example, given the exact same circumstances and actions, a woman on birth control is somehow less raped than a woman without who becomes pregnant? And a woman who miscarries or aborts a rape baby is somehow then less raped than she was while she was pregnant?",
">\n\nI feel this would cause an issue where, if the victim really wants to hurt their rapist the most, they have an incentive to remain pregnant even if they don't really want to.\nAlso, should this also apply to situations in which it is the rapist who gets pregnant and not the victim?",
">\n\nJesus.. keeping your rapist's baby so they serve a harsher sentence is a level of spite that I don't think anyone could sink to.",
">\n\nIf you touch my daughters you’d better hope the cops find you first cuz there’s a reckoning upon you if I am first and I’ll gladly sit in a jail for taking a predator to meet the Godess. \n To the point , fuck yes a rapist should have to provide child support. Rapist shouldn’t be allowed to rot in jail , make them work and pay for 18 years like non rapist dads do. And when they fall behind it’s incarceration and forced labor. \nFor far too long our mother, daughter , wives , sisters, aunties and grannies have faced unfair systematic societal oppression. End it by embracing a new paradigm of true human dignity and equality.",
">\n\nFirst of all. I hop on bored with Ben Shapiro when he says to physically castrate rapist, pedophiles, predators, etc. But I like to add my spice to things and add a prison sentence just like they do now. Then add pay for the damage they've done. Example would be. If your caught raping a woman. The woman chooses abortion. He pays for the abortion and following. COunceling sessions through the state to the agency. Or if she keeps it. Then guess who paying a child support for 18 years? Rapist. Just one of many examples I'm sure we could conjure. But by all means tear this idea apart, or let's build from it.",
">\n\nDisagree. It makes no difference if he causes the worst possible damage (pregnancy, std infection, PTSD etc) or minimal damage (although I don't know what that would be). The punishment should be severe, regardless of the consequences. Otherwise some men will get off lighter simply because they were 'lucky'",
">\n\nTo clarify your position, are you asking for a broader range of available punishment in the event of a pregnancy or are you advocating for a higher minimum punishment?",
">\n\nBoth, honestly. There should be automatic sentence enhancements as well as additional restitution.",
">\n\nI would counter then and suggest that if you are going to aggravate the charge based on causing pregnancy, it should only be to broaden the possible punishment range, not increase a mandatory minimum. \n\nMandatory minimums have a long history of causing more problems. Yes, rapists deserve to go to prison, but have you considered how many less would take a plea bargain because it would require x versus y years in prison? These are the types of cases that prosecutors lose more often than any other and cause the most trauma and stress to the victims. Mandatory minimums have the effect of making harder-to-prove cases get ignored meaning less overall justice. It would be better for those difficult cases to still see some type of punishment versus more acquittals or dismissals.",
">\n\nIt's the same crime whether she ends up getting pregnant. If she does, though, I do think the convict should be held responsible for the child/abortion costs and have no parental rights whatsoever, but not more jail time for the same crime.",
">\n\nNo, I think the punishment should be the same either way. Give the man a choice of castration or death. \nBut I get where you're coming from. I think the penalty for attempted murder should be the same as for murder. Just because you're incompetent or the victim was fortunate enough to survive, you get off easier? Doesn't make sense to me. Your actions were the same, even if the result was different.",
">\n\nI get that there should be more restitution, but who would more prison time help? The rapist did the exact same thing in either scenario.",
">\n\nYes! Twice the emotional damage.",
">\n\nI'm going to do the devil's advocate here.\nDoes that mean that a rape done with a condom will be less punished?\nHow about a rape done with a stick?\nFor the sake of argument : if rape was punished by death, how would you punish rape that leads to pregnancy? Do you kill them twice?\nIf a rape happens, the victim should immediately get an treatment to abord any possible baby, of if te rape is reported later on abortion should be an option available for victims.",
">\n\nLike child support whether or not the baby is delivered? I’d support that although faked rape cases gonna soar pretty high for men with lots of dough",
">\n\nSomeone probably mentioned this but I found out last year that rapists actually have rights to the child!!!",
">\n\nStrongly agree",
">\n\nYou only talk about abortion, but there is also the morning after pill to prevent conception which (to most women) is a lot less traumatising than abortion.\nGiven this, you are proposing to punish someone based on the actions of someone else if you're suggesting to punish the rapist more based on whether or not a child is born. That goes against every principle of what the rule of law and a fair trial is about.\nAlso, on a practical note, that would mean you can't try any rape case until 9 months after the rape. There is already a huge backlog and issues around women not feeling able to report rape. I can only see this additional requirement making things worse.",
">\n\nThey do. If you go into prison with bad paperwork, you will be in a living hell.",
">\n\n\nespecially if the mother carries the child to term.\n\nNo. Abortion has far lower physical risks and does not cause a child to come into existence.\nEverything up to the conception is caused by the rape, but thereafter the woman has control of her body again, and choosing to continue rather than abort the pregnancy is her own choice, so are the consequences.\nSo there should be no difference depending on the choices of the victim, only on those of the criminal. This includes inflicting a pregnancy, but not how to deal with it.",
">\n\nI actually do like this idea, I’m just wondering is there any equivalent for if a male or AMAB person was raped. They are not able to get pregnant so this same law wouldn’t carry out for them. It would only apply to female and AFAB persons."
] |
>
She might have religious beliefs that proscribe abortion (such as being Catholic)
Abortion can be just as traumatic
The rapist may not have a say in the abortion, but he had a say in the conception. He could have avoided that problem by not raping her in the first place. | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of.",
">\n\nShouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population. \nHonestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society.",
">\n\nI agree, there was a rape incident in Korea (Cho Doo-soon incident). Due to poor law, he was freed after a short time despite causing too many injuries for the victim. After that every single people who lived near his house moved away. They should keep him in prison.",
">\n\nI could get behind this idea in the pragmatic sense that it could be a further deterrent from rape altogether, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make sense. Lying about birth control or intentionally tempering with it in order to impregnate a partner without/against their consent (or to be impregnated, since women can also do it) is a morally reprehensible in its own right, and furthermore can also carry legal repercussions, if it can be proven that the partners agreed to protected intercourse and one of them broke this agreement without the other's knowledge. One example is stealthing, which is a form of sexual abuse and was widely discussed a while ago. \nRape is having sex with someone without/against their consent for the act itself. Additional agreements like whether or not protection is used become irrelevant in this case. Pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely traumatic for victims, that is true, but rape itself is the crime that has been committed and if the victim happened to be on birth control or infertile that does not influence what has been done to them from the perspective of the crime itself.",
">\n\nI would prefer it if we instituted a policy that treats rape with potential conception this way, regardless of the actual results, in a manner similar to how we treat assault, aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon as different crimes. It wouldn't be any harder to prove than rape already is, while accounting for the additional reckless endangerment that comes from concieving a child through violence.",
">\n\nHe should pay child support to whoever keeps the child.",
">\n\nRapists aren't in control of the conception. If they get lucky and no child is conceived, that isn't because of anything in control of the rapist. People should be punished for things in their control, not let off for things outside their control.\nImagine a drunk driver. He gets in an accident because a child crosses the road in front of the car. But if the child had tripped just before the road and lives, that's not something we can give credit to the driver for.\nA rapist who is 'lucky' and doesn't get someone pregnant acted the same as a rapist who is 'unlucky' and did get someone pregnant. They created the same risk and should face the same punishment.",
">\n\nThe law does not work that way. In civil cases, a tortfeasor has to take his victim as he finds her. In other words, the asshole is responsible for whatever happens, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage. As another example, if a robber punches someone and that person ends up bleeding internally to death due to hemophilia, then that hemophilia is no defense to murder - the robber must take his victim as he found him. Criminal cases are similar - George Floyd's alleged physical condition was not a defense to the murder charges that Derek Chauvin was convicted of.",
">\n\nThe issue isn't with the harsher penalties but with the weaker penalties for rapes that don't result in pregnancy. Take two rapists. Rapist A impregnates his victim, while rapist B does not. Why should rapist B get a lighter sentence than rapist A? Are we implicitly saying that rape isn't as bad if there's no pregnancy? The actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?",
">\n\n\nThe actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?\n\nThis happens all the time. We consider the actions and the consequences of the actions in determining \"appropriate\" punishment very often.\nIf I shoot a gun blindly at a random house, that same action can have any number of consequences. Maybe the only consequences are breaking a window and putting a hole in someone's wall. Maybe it kills the family dog. Maybe the consequence is the bullet hitting someone and paralyzing them for life. Maybe the consequence is breaking a gas line that leads to an explosion that kills a dozen people.\nWhy isn't it reasonable to consider the outcomes of actions when determining the appropriate response?",
">\n\nThe comparison would be more like: you kill a person in each case, but in one, you also unintentionally break their leg. In the second case, should you be charged with a different crime? It's not like you didn't intend harm and by chance harm was caused. Harm is caused in both rape and rape with pregnancy. The act isn't different at all. It's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)",
">\n\nI don't think we need to quibble about whether it's an apt comparison. Based on what the person I responded to said, I think it is (i.e. same actions + different consequences).\n\nThe act isn't different at all.\n\nNot saying it isn't. What I'm saying is that the same act can have different consequences, and we very often apply different repercussions/punishments based on differences in consequences for the same act.\n\nIt's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)\n\nGetting raped and becoming pregnant by your rapist is worse than getting raped and not becoming pregnant by your rapist. That seems pretty uncontroversial to me.",
">\n\nSo... for example, given the exact same circumstances and actions, a woman on birth control is somehow less raped than a woman without who becomes pregnant? And a woman who miscarries or aborts a rape baby is somehow then less raped than she was while she was pregnant?",
">\n\nI feel this would cause an issue where, if the victim really wants to hurt their rapist the most, they have an incentive to remain pregnant even if they don't really want to.\nAlso, should this also apply to situations in which it is the rapist who gets pregnant and not the victim?",
">\n\nJesus.. keeping your rapist's baby so they serve a harsher sentence is a level of spite that I don't think anyone could sink to.",
">\n\nIf you touch my daughters you’d better hope the cops find you first cuz there’s a reckoning upon you if I am first and I’ll gladly sit in a jail for taking a predator to meet the Godess. \n To the point , fuck yes a rapist should have to provide child support. Rapist shouldn’t be allowed to rot in jail , make them work and pay for 18 years like non rapist dads do. And when they fall behind it’s incarceration and forced labor. \nFor far too long our mother, daughter , wives , sisters, aunties and grannies have faced unfair systematic societal oppression. End it by embracing a new paradigm of true human dignity and equality.",
">\n\nFirst of all. I hop on bored with Ben Shapiro when he says to physically castrate rapist, pedophiles, predators, etc. But I like to add my spice to things and add a prison sentence just like they do now. Then add pay for the damage they've done. Example would be. If your caught raping a woman. The woman chooses abortion. He pays for the abortion and following. COunceling sessions through the state to the agency. Or if she keeps it. Then guess who paying a child support for 18 years? Rapist. Just one of many examples I'm sure we could conjure. But by all means tear this idea apart, or let's build from it.",
">\n\nDisagree. It makes no difference if he causes the worst possible damage (pregnancy, std infection, PTSD etc) or minimal damage (although I don't know what that would be). The punishment should be severe, regardless of the consequences. Otherwise some men will get off lighter simply because they were 'lucky'",
">\n\nTo clarify your position, are you asking for a broader range of available punishment in the event of a pregnancy or are you advocating for a higher minimum punishment?",
">\n\nBoth, honestly. There should be automatic sentence enhancements as well as additional restitution.",
">\n\nI would counter then and suggest that if you are going to aggravate the charge based on causing pregnancy, it should only be to broaden the possible punishment range, not increase a mandatory minimum. \n\nMandatory minimums have a long history of causing more problems. Yes, rapists deserve to go to prison, but have you considered how many less would take a plea bargain because it would require x versus y years in prison? These are the types of cases that prosecutors lose more often than any other and cause the most trauma and stress to the victims. Mandatory minimums have the effect of making harder-to-prove cases get ignored meaning less overall justice. It would be better for those difficult cases to still see some type of punishment versus more acquittals or dismissals.",
">\n\nIt's the same crime whether she ends up getting pregnant. If she does, though, I do think the convict should be held responsible for the child/abortion costs and have no parental rights whatsoever, but not more jail time for the same crime.",
">\n\nNo, I think the punishment should be the same either way. Give the man a choice of castration or death. \nBut I get where you're coming from. I think the penalty for attempted murder should be the same as for murder. Just because you're incompetent or the victim was fortunate enough to survive, you get off easier? Doesn't make sense to me. Your actions were the same, even if the result was different.",
">\n\nI get that there should be more restitution, but who would more prison time help? The rapist did the exact same thing in either scenario.",
">\n\nYes! Twice the emotional damage.",
">\n\nI'm going to do the devil's advocate here.\nDoes that mean that a rape done with a condom will be less punished?\nHow about a rape done with a stick?\nFor the sake of argument : if rape was punished by death, how would you punish rape that leads to pregnancy? Do you kill them twice?\nIf a rape happens, the victim should immediately get an treatment to abord any possible baby, of if te rape is reported later on abortion should be an option available for victims.",
">\n\nLike child support whether or not the baby is delivered? I’d support that although faked rape cases gonna soar pretty high for men with lots of dough",
">\n\nSomeone probably mentioned this but I found out last year that rapists actually have rights to the child!!!",
">\n\nStrongly agree",
">\n\nYou only talk about abortion, but there is also the morning after pill to prevent conception which (to most women) is a lot less traumatising than abortion.\nGiven this, you are proposing to punish someone based on the actions of someone else if you're suggesting to punish the rapist more based on whether or not a child is born. That goes against every principle of what the rule of law and a fair trial is about.\nAlso, on a practical note, that would mean you can't try any rape case until 9 months after the rape. There is already a huge backlog and issues around women not feeling able to report rape. I can only see this additional requirement making things worse.",
">\n\nThey do. If you go into prison with bad paperwork, you will be in a living hell.",
">\n\n\nespecially if the mother carries the child to term.\n\nNo. Abortion has far lower physical risks and does not cause a child to come into existence.\nEverything up to the conception is caused by the rape, but thereafter the woman has control of her body again, and choosing to continue rather than abort the pregnancy is her own choice, so are the consequences.\nSo there should be no difference depending on the choices of the victim, only on those of the criminal. This includes inflicting a pregnancy, but not how to deal with it.",
">\n\nI actually do like this idea, I’m just wondering is there any equivalent for if a male or AMAB person was raped. They are not able to get pregnant so this same law wouldn’t carry out for them. It would only apply to female and AFAB persons.",
">\n\nBecause the asshole forced that choice on her in the first place, that's why."
] |
>
That would fall under “take your victim as you find her.” The enhanced sentence would happen whether the victim aborts or not. | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of.",
">\n\nShouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population. \nHonestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society.",
">\n\nI agree, there was a rape incident in Korea (Cho Doo-soon incident). Due to poor law, he was freed after a short time despite causing too many injuries for the victim. After that every single people who lived near his house moved away. They should keep him in prison.",
">\n\nI could get behind this idea in the pragmatic sense that it could be a further deterrent from rape altogether, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make sense. Lying about birth control or intentionally tempering with it in order to impregnate a partner without/against their consent (or to be impregnated, since women can also do it) is a morally reprehensible in its own right, and furthermore can also carry legal repercussions, if it can be proven that the partners agreed to protected intercourse and one of them broke this agreement without the other's knowledge. One example is stealthing, which is a form of sexual abuse and was widely discussed a while ago. \nRape is having sex with someone without/against their consent for the act itself. Additional agreements like whether or not protection is used become irrelevant in this case. Pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely traumatic for victims, that is true, but rape itself is the crime that has been committed and if the victim happened to be on birth control or infertile that does not influence what has been done to them from the perspective of the crime itself.",
">\n\nI would prefer it if we instituted a policy that treats rape with potential conception this way, regardless of the actual results, in a manner similar to how we treat assault, aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon as different crimes. It wouldn't be any harder to prove than rape already is, while accounting for the additional reckless endangerment that comes from concieving a child through violence.",
">\n\nHe should pay child support to whoever keeps the child.",
">\n\nRapists aren't in control of the conception. If they get lucky and no child is conceived, that isn't because of anything in control of the rapist. People should be punished for things in their control, not let off for things outside their control.\nImagine a drunk driver. He gets in an accident because a child crosses the road in front of the car. But if the child had tripped just before the road and lives, that's not something we can give credit to the driver for.\nA rapist who is 'lucky' and doesn't get someone pregnant acted the same as a rapist who is 'unlucky' and did get someone pregnant. They created the same risk and should face the same punishment.",
">\n\nThe law does not work that way. In civil cases, a tortfeasor has to take his victim as he finds her. In other words, the asshole is responsible for whatever happens, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage. As another example, if a robber punches someone and that person ends up bleeding internally to death due to hemophilia, then that hemophilia is no defense to murder - the robber must take his victim as he found him. Criminal cases are similar - George Floyd's alleged physical condition was not a defense to the murder charges that Derek Chauvin was convicted of.",
">\n\nThe issue isn't with the harsher penalties but with the weaker penalties for rapes that don't result in pregnancy. Take two rapists. Rapist A impregnates his victim, while rapist B does not. Why should rapist B get a lighter sentence than rapist A? Are we implicitly saying that rape isn't as bad if there's no pregnancy? The actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?",
">\n\n\nThe actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?\n\nThis happens all the time. We consider the actions and the consequences of the actions in determining \"appropriate\" punishment very often.\nIf I shoot a gun blindly at a random house, that same action can have any number of consequences. Maybe the only consequences are breaking a window and putting a hole in someone's wall. Maybe it kills the family dog. Maybe the consequence is the bullet hitting someone and paralyzing them for life. Maybe the consequence is breaking a gas line that leads to an explosion that kills a dozen people.\nWhy isn't it reasonable to consider the outcomes of actions when determining the appropriate response?",
">\n\nThe comparison would be more like: you kill a person in each case, but in one, you also unintentionally break their leg. In the second case, should you be charged with a different crime? It's not like you didn't intend harm and by chance harm was caused. Harm is caused in both rape and rape with pregnancy. The act isn't different at all. It's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)",
">\n\nI don't think we need to quibble about whether it's an apt comparison. Based on what the person I responded to said, I think it is (i.e. same actions + different consequences).\n\nThe act isn't different at all.\n\nNot saying it isn't. What I'm saying is that the same act can have different consequences, and we very often apply different repercussions/punishments based on differences in consequences for the same act.\n\nIt's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)\n\nGetting raped and becoming pregnant by your rapist is worse than getting raped and not becoming pregnant by your rapist. That seems pretty uncontroversial to me.",
">\n\nSo... for example, given the exact same circumstances and actions, a woman on birth control is somehow less raped than a woman without who becomes pregnant? And a woman who miscarries or aborts a rape baby is somehow then less raped than she was while she was pregnant?",
">\n\nI feel this would cause an issue where, if the victim really wants to hurt their rapist the most, they have an incentive to remain pregnant even if they don't really want to.\nAlso, should this also apply to situations in which it is the rapist who gets pregnant and not the victim?",
">\n\nJesus.. keeping your rapist's baby so they serve a harsher sentence is a level of spite that I don't think anyone could sink to.",
">\n\nIf you touch my daughters you’d better hope the cops find you first cuz there’s a reckoning upon you if I am first and I’ll gladly sit in a jail for taking a predator to meet the Godess. \n To the point , fuck yes a rapist should have to provide child support. Rapist shouldn’t be allowed to rot in jail , make them work and pay for 18 years like non rapist dads do. And when they fall behind it’s incarceration and forced labor. \nFor far too long our mother, daughter , wives , sisters, aunties and grannies have faced unfair systematic societal oppression. End it by embracing a new paradigm of true human dignity and equality.",
">\n\nFirst of all. I hop on bored with Ben Shapiro when he says to physically castrate rapist, pedophiles, predators, etc. But I like to add my spice to things and add a prison sentence just like they do now. Then add pay for the damage they've done. Example would be. If your caught raping a woman. The woman chooses abortion. He pays for the abortion and following. COunceling sessions through the state to the agency. Or if she keeps it. Then guess who paying a child support for 18 years? Rapist. Just one of many examples I'm sure we could conjure. But by all means tear this idea apart, or let's build from it.",
">\n\nDisagree. It makes no difference if he causes the worst possible damage (pregnancy, std infection, PTSD etc) or minimal damage (although I don't know what that would be). The punishment should be severe, regardless of the consequences. Otherwise some men will get off lighter simply because they were 'lucky'",
">\n\nTo clarify your position, are you asking for a broader range of available punishment in the event of a pregnancy or are you advocating for a higher minimum punishment?",
">\n\nBoth, honestly. There should be automatic sentence enhancements as well as additional restitution.",
">\n\nI would counter then and suggest that if you are going to aggravate the charge based on causing pregnancy, it should only be to broaden the possible punishment range, not increase a mandatory minimum. \n\nMandatory minimums have a long history of causing more problems. Yes, rapists deserve to go to prison, but have you considered how many less would take a plea bargain because it would require x versus y years in prison? These are the types of cases that prosecutors lose more often than any other and cause the most trauma and stress to the victims. Mandatory minimums have the effect of making harder-to-prove cases get ignored meaning less overall justice. It would be better for those difficult cases to still see some type of punishment versus more acquittals or dismissals.",
">\n\nIt's the same crime whether she ends up getting pregnant. If she does, though, I do think the convict should be held responsible for the child/abortion costs and have no parental rights whatsoever, but not more jail time for the same crime.",
">\n\nNo, I think the punishment should be the same either way. Give the man a choice of castration or death. \nBut I get where you're coming from. I think the penalty for attempted murder should be the same as for murder. Just because you're incompetent or the victim was fortunate enough to survive, you get off easier? Doesn't make sense to me. Your actions were the same, even if the result was different.",
">\n\nI get that there should be more restitution, but who would more prison time help? The rapist did the exact same thing in either scenario.",
">\n\nYes! Twice the emotional damage.",
">\n\nI'm going to do the devil's advocate here.\nDoes that mean that a rape done with a condom will be less punished?\nHow about a rape done with a stick?\nFor the sake of argument : if rape was punished by death, how would you punish rape that leads to pregnancy? Do you kill them twice?\nIf a rape happens, the victim should immediately get an treatment to abord any possible baby, of if te rape is reported later on abortion should be an option available for victims.",
">\n\nLike child support whether or not the baby is delivered? I’d support that although faked rape cases gonna soar pretty high for men with lots of dough",
">\n\nSomeone probably mentioned this but I found out last year that rapists actually have rights to the child!!!",
">\n\nStrongly agree",
">\n\nYou only talk about abortion, but there is also the morning after pill to prevent conception which (to most women) is a lot less traumatising than abortion.\nGiven this, you are proposing to punish someone based on the actions of someone else if you're suggesting to punish the rapist more based on whether or not a child is born. That goes against every principle of what the rule of law and a fair trial is about.\nAlso, on a practical note, that would mean you can't try any rape case until 9 months after the rape. There is already a huge backlog and issues around women not feeling able to report rape. I can only see this additional requirement making things worse.",
">\n\nThey do. If you go into prison with bad paperwork, you will be in a living hell.",
">\n\n\nespecially if the mother carries the child to term.\n\nNo. Abortion has far lower physical risks and does not cause a child to come into existence.\nEverything up to the conception is caused by the rape, but thereafter the woman has control of her body again, and choosing to continue rather than abort the pregnancy is her own choice, so are the consequences.\nSo there should be no difference depending on the choices of the victim, only on those of the criminal. This includes inflicting a pregnancy, but not how to deal with it.",
">\n\nI actually do like this idea, I’m just wondering is there any equivalent for if a male or AMAB person was raped. They are not able to get pregnant so this same law wouldn’t carry out for them. It would only apply to female and AFAB persons.",
">\n\nBecause the asshole forced that choice on her in the first place, that's why.",
">\n\n\nShe might have religious beliefs that proscribe abortion (such as being Catholic)\nAbortion can be just as traumatic\nThe rapist may not have a say in the abortion, but he had a say in the conception. He could have avoided that problem by not raping her in the first place."
] |
>
The charges would be based off of actual outcomes, not possibilities. If a fertile woman is raped but does not conceive, then the aggravating factor would not apply.
The goal behind this is to act as a deterrent in light of opposition to abortion. Certain people have religious objections to abortion even in the event of rape (mainly because the child is not at fault). Even if she aborts, there is still a lot of trauma involved. | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of.",
">\n\nShouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population. \nHonestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society.",
">\n\nI agree, there was a rape incident in Korea (Cho Doo-soon incident). Due to poor law, he was freed after a short time despite causing too many injuries for the victim. After that every single people who lived near his house moved away. They should keep him in prison.",
">\n\nI could get behind this idea in the pragmatic sense that it could be a further deterrent from rape altogether, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make sense. Lying about birth control or intentionally tempering with it in order to impregnate a partner without/against their consent (or to be impregnated, since women can also do it) is a morally reprehensible in its own right, and furthermore can also carry legal repercussions, if it can be proven that the partners agreed to protected intercourse and one of them broke this agreement without the other's knowledge. One example is stealthing, which is a form of sexual abuse and was widely discussed a while ago. \nRape is having sex with someone without/against their consent for the act itself. Additional agreements like whether or not protection is used become irrelevant in this case. Pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely traumatic for victims, that is true, but rape itself is the crime that has been committed and if the victim happened to be on birth control or infertile that does not influence what has been done to them from the perspective of the crime itself.",
">\n\nI would prefer it if we instituted a policy that treats rape with potential conception this way, regardless of the actual results, in a manner similar to how we treat assault, aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon as different crimes. It wouldn't be any harder to prove than rape already is, while accounting for the additional reckless endangerment that comes from concieving a child through violence.",
">\n\nHe should pay child support to whoever keeps the child.",
">\n\nRapists aren't in control of the conception. If they get lucky and no child is conceived, that isn't because of anything in control of the rapist. People should be punished for things in their control, not let off for things outside their control.\nImagine a drunk driver. He gets in an accident because a child crosses the road in front of the car. But if the child had tripped just before the road and lives, that's not something we can give credit to the driver for.\nA rapist who is 'lucky' and doesn't get someone pregnant acted the same as a rapist who is 'unlucky' and did get someone pregnant. They created the same risk and should face the same punishment.",
">\n\nThe law does not work that way. In civil cases, a tortfeasor has to take his victim as he finds her. In other words, the asshole is responsible for whatever happens, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage. As another example, if a robber punches someone and that person ends up bleeding internally to death due to hemophilia, then that hemophilia is no defense to murder - the robber must take his victim as he found him. Criminal cases are similar - George Floyd's alleged physical condition was not a defense to the murder charges that Derek Chauvin was convicted of.",
">\n\nThe issue isn't with the harsher penalties but with the weaker penalties for rapes that don't result in pregnancy. Take two rapists. Rapist A impregnates his victim, while rapist B does not. Why should rapist B get a lighter sentence than rapist A? Are we implicitly saying that rape isn't as bad if there's no pregnancy? The actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?",
">\n\n\nThe actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?\n\nThis happens all the time. We consider the actions and the consequences of the actions in determining \"appropriate\" punishment very often.\nIf I shoot a gun blindly at a random house, that same action can have any number of consequences. Maybe the only consequences are breaking a window and putting a hole in someone's wall. Maybe it kills the family dog. Maybe the consequence is the bullet hitting someone and paralyzing them for life. Maybe the consequence is breaking a gas line that leads to an explosion that kills a dozen people.\nWhy isn't it reasonable to consider the outcomes of actions when determining the appropriate response?",
">\n\nThe comparison would be more like: you kill a person in each case, but in one, you also unintentionally break their leg. In the second case, should you be charged with a different crime? It's not like you didn't intend harm and by chance harm was caused. Harm is caused in both rape and rape with pregnancy. The act isn't different at all. It's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)",
">\n\nI don't think we need to quibble about whether it's an apt comparison. Based on what the person I responded to said, I think it is (i.e. same actions + different consequences).\n\nThe act isn't different at all.\n\nNot saying it isn't. What I'm saying is that the same act can have different consequences, and we very often apply different repercussions/punishments based on differences in consequences for the same act.\n\nIt's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)\n\nGetting raped and becoming pregnant by your rapist is worse than getting raped and not becoming pregnant by your rapist. That seems pretty uncontroversial to me.",
">\n\nSo... for example, given the exact same circumstances and actions, a woman on birth control is somehow less raped than a woman without who becomes pregnant? And a woman who miscarries or aborts a rape baby is somehow then less raped than she was while she was pregnant?",
">\n\nI feel this would cause an issue where, if the victim really wants to hurt their rapist the most, they have an incentive to remain pregnant even if they don't really want to.\nAlso, should this also apply to situations in which it is the rapist who gets pregnant and not the victim?",
">\n\nJesus.. keeping your rapist's baby so they serve a harsher sentence is a level of spite that I don't think anyone could sink to.",
">\n\nIf you touch my daughters you’d better hope the cops find you first cuz there’s a reckoning upon you if I am first and I’ll gladly sit in a jail for taking a predator to meet the Godess. \n To the point , fuck yes a rapist should have to provide child support. Rapist shouldn’t be allowed to rot in jail , make them work and pay for 18 years like non rapist dads do. And when they fall behind it’s incarceration and forced labor. \nFor far too long our mother, daughter , wives , sisters, aunties and grannies have faced unfair systematic societal oppression. End it by embracing a new paradigm of true human dignity and equality.",
">\n\nFirst of all. I hop on bored with Ben Shapiro when he says to physically castrate rapist, pedophiles, predators, etc. But I like to add my spice to things and add a prison sentence just like they do now. Then add pay for the damage they've done. Example would be. If your caught raping a woman. The woman chooses abortion. He pays for the abortion and following. COunceling sessions through the state to the agency. Or if she keeps it. Then guess who paying a child support for 18 years? Rapist. Just one of many examples I'm sure we could conjure. But by all means tear this idea apart, or let's build from it.",
">\n\nDisagree. It makes no difference if he causes the worst possible damage (pregnancy, std infection, PTSD etc) or minimal damage (although I don't know what that would be). The punishment should be severe, regardless of the consequences. Otherwise some men will get off lighter simply because they were 'lucky'",
">\n\nTo clarify your position, are you asking for a broader range of available punishment in the event of a pregnancy or are you advocating for a higher minimum punishment?",
">\n\nBoth, honestly. There should be automatic sentence enhancements as well as additional restitution.",
">\n\nI would counter then and suggest that if you are going to aggravate the charge based on causing pregnancy, it should only be to broaden the possible punishment range, not increase a mandatory minimum. \n\nMandatory minimums have a long history of causing more problems. Yes, rapists deserve to go to prison, but have you considered how many less would take a plea bargain because it would require x versus y years in prison? These are the types of cases that prosecutors lose more often than any other and cause the most trauma and stress to the victims. Mandatory minimums have the effect of making harder-to-prove cases get ignored meaning less overall justice. It would be better for those difficult cases to still see some type of punishment versus more acquittals or dismissals.",
">\n\nIt's the same crime whether she ends up getting pregnant. If she does, though, I do think the convict should be held responsible for the child/abortion costs and have no parental rights whatsoever, but not more jail time for the same crime.",
">\n\nNo, I think the punishment should be the same either way. Give the man a choice of castration or death. \nBut I get where you're coming from. I think the penalty for attempted murder should be the same as for murder. Just because you're incompetent or the victim was fortunate enough to survive, you get off easier? Doesn't make sense to me. Your actions were the same, even if the result was different.",
">\n\nI get that there should be more restitution, but who would more prison time help? The rapist did the exact same thing in either scenario.",
">\n\nYes! Twice the emotional damage.",
">\n\nI'm going to do the devil's advocate here.\nDoes that mean that a rape done with a condom will be less punished?\nHow about a rape done with a stick?\nFor the sake of argument : if rape was punished by death, how would you punish rape that leads to pregnancy? Do you kill them twice?\nIf a rape happens, the victim should immediately get an treatment to abord any possible baby, of if te rape is reported later on abortion should be an option available for victims.",
">\n\nLike child support whether or not the baby is delivered? I’d support that although faked rape cases gonna soar pretty high for men with lots of dough",
">\n\nSomeone probably mentioned this but I found out last year that rapists actually have rights to the child!!!",
">\n\nStrongly agree",
">\n\nYou only talk about abortion, but there is also the morning after pill to prevent conception which (to most women) is a lot less traumatising than abortion.\nGiven this, you are proposing to punish someone based on the actions of someone else if you're suggesting to punish the rapist more based on whether or not a child is born. That goes against every principle of what the rule of law and a fair trial is about.\nAlso, on a practical note, that would mean you can't try any rape case until 9 months after the rape. There is already a huge backlog and issues around women not feeling able to report rape. I can only see this additional requirement making things worse.",
">\n\nThey do. If you go into prison with bad paperwork, you will be in a living hell.",
">\n\n\nespecially if the mother carries the child to term.\n\nNo. Abortion has far lower physical risks and does not cause a child to come into existence.\nEverything up to the conception is caused by the rape, but thereafter the woman has control of her body again, and choosing to continue rather than abort the pregnancy is her own choice, so are the consequences.\nSo there should be no difference depending on the choices of the victim, only on those of the criminal. This includes inflicting a pregnancy, but not how to deal with it.",
">\n\nI actually do like this idea, I’m just wondering is there any equivalent for if a male or AMAB person was raped. They are not able to get pregnant so this same law wouldn’t carry out for them. It would only apply to female and AFAB persons.",
">\n\nBecause the asshole forced that choice on her in the first place, that's why.",
">\n\n\nShe might have religious beliefs that proscribe abortion (such as being Catholic)\nAbortion can be just as traumatic\nThe rapist may not have a say in the abortion, but he had a say in the conception. He could have avoided that problem by not raping her in the first place.",
">\n\nThat would fall under “take your victim as you find her.” The enhanced sentence would happen whether the victim aborts or not."
] |
>
The goal behind this is to act as a deterrent in light of opposition to abortion
You could just generally increase the prison term for rape and have more of a deterrent against all kinds of rape. I'd say that's a much more favourable outcome. | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of.",
">\n\nShouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population. \nHonestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society.",
">\n\nI agree, there was a rape incident in Korea (Cho Doo-soon incident). Due to poor law, he was freed after a short time despite causing too many injuries for the victim. After that every single people who lived near his house moved away. They should keep him in prison.",
">\n\nI could get behind this idea in the pragmatic sense that it could be a further deterrent from rape altogether, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make sense. Lying about birth control or intentionally tempering with it in order to impregnate a partner without/against their consent (or to be impregnated, since women can also do it) is a morally reprehensible in its own right, and furthermore can also carry legal repercussions, if it can be proven that the partners agreed to protected intercourse and one of them broke this agreement without the other's knowledge. One example is stealthing, which is a form of sexual abuse and was widely discussed a while ago. \nRape is having sex with someone without/against their consent for the act itself. Additional agreements like whether or not protection is used become irrelevant in this case. Pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely traumatic for victims, that is true, but rape itself is the crime that has been committed and if the victim happened to be on birth control or infertile that does not influence what has been done to them from the perspective of the crime itself.",
">\n\nI would prefer it if we instituted a policy that treats rape with potential conception this way, regardless of the actual results, in a manner similar to how we treat assault, aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon as different crimes. It wouldn't be any harder to prove than rape already is, while accounting for the additional reckless endangerment that comes from concieving a child through violence.",
">\n\nHe should pay child support to whoever keeps the child.",
">\n\nRapists aren't in control of the conception. If they get lucky and no child is conceived, that isn't because of anything in control of the rapist. People should be punished for things in their control, not let off for things outside their control.\nImagine a drunk driver. He gets in an accident because a child crosses the road in front of the car. But if the child had tripped just before the road and lives, that's not something we can give credit to the driver for.\nA rapist who is 'lucky' and doesn't get someone pregnant acted the same as a rapist who is 'unlucky' and did get someone pregnant. They created the same risk and should face the same punishment.",
">\n\nThe law does not work that way. In civil cases, a tortfeasor has to take his victim as he finds her. In other words, the asshole is responsible for whatever happens, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage. As another example, if a robber punches someone and that person ends up bleeding internally to death due to hemophilia, then that hemophilia is no defense to murder - the robber must take his victim as he found him. Criminal cases are similar - George Floyd's alleged physical condition was not a defense to the murder charges that Derek Chauvin was convicted of.",
">\n\nThe issue isn't with the harsher penalties but with the weaker penalties for rapes that don't result in pregnancy. Take two rapists. Rapist A impregnates his victim, while rapist B does not. Why should rapist B get a lighter sentence than rapist A? Are we implicitly saying that rape isn't as bad if there's no pregnancy? The actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?",
">\n\n\nThe actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?\n\nThis happens all the time. We consider the actions and the consequences of the actions in determining \"appropriate\" punishment very often.\nIf I shoot a gun blindly at a random house, that same action can have any number of consequences. Maybe the only consequences are breaking a window and putting a hole in someone's wall. Maybe it kills the family dog. Maybe the consequence is the bullet hitting someone and paralyzing them for life. Maybe the consequence is breaking a gas line that leads to an explosion that kills a dozen people.\nWhy isn't it reasonable to consider the outcomes of actions when determining the appropriate response?",
">\n\nThe comparison would be more like: you kill a person in each case, but in one, you also unintentionally break their leg. In the second case, should you be charged with a different crime? It's not like you didn't intend harm and by chance harm was caused. Harm is caused in both rape and rape with pregnancy. The act isn't different at all. It's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)",
">\n\nI don't think we need to quibble about whether it's an apt comparison. Based on what the person I responded to said, I think it is (i.e. same actions + different consequences).\n\nThe act isn't different at all.\n\nNot saying it isn't. What I'm saying is that the same act can have different consequences, and we very often apply different repercussions/punishments based on differences in consequences for the same act.\n\nIt's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)\n\nGetting raped and becoming pregnant by your rapist is worse than getting raped and not becoming pregnant by your rapist. That seems pretty uncontroversial to me.",
">\n\nSo... for example, given the exact same circumstances and actions, a woman on birth control is somehow less raped than a woman without who becomes pregnant? And a woman who miscarries or aborts a rape baby is somehow then less raped than she was while she was pregnant?",
">\n\nI feel this would cause an issue where, if the victim really wants to hurt their rapist the most, they have an incentive to remain pregnant even if they don't really want to.\nAlso, should this also apply to situations in which it is the rapist who gets pregnant and not the victim?",
">\n\nJesus.. keeping your rapist's baby so they serve a harsher sentence is a level of spite that I don't think anyone could sink to.",
">\n\nIf you touch my daughters you’d better hope the cops find you first cuz there’s a reckoning upon you if I am first and I’ll gladly sit in a jail for taking a predator to meet the Godess. \n To the point , fuck yes a rapist should have to provide child support. Rapist shouldn’t be allowed to rot in jail , make them work and pay for 18 years like non rapist dads do. And when they fall behind it’s incarceration and forced labor. \nFor far too long our mother, daughter , wives , sisters, aunties and grannies have faced unfair systematic societal oppression. End it by embracing a new paradigm of true human dignity and equality.",
">\n\nFirst of all. I hop on bored with Ben Shapiro when he says to physically castrate rapist, pedophiles, predators, etc. But I like to add my spice to things and add a prison sentence just like they do now. Then add pay for the damage they've done. Example would be. If your caught raping a woman. The woman chooses abortion. He pays for the abortion and following. COunceling sessions through the state to the agency. Or if she keeps it. Then guess who paying a child support for 18 years? Rapist. Just one of many examples I'm sure we could conjure. But by all means tear this idea apart, or let's build from it.",
">\n\nDisagree. It makes no difference if he causes the worst possible damage (pregnancy, std infection, PTSD etc) or minimal damage (although I don't know what that would be). The punishment should be severe, regardless of the consequences. Otherwise some men will get off lighter simply because they were 'lucky'",
">\n\nTo clarify your position, are you asking for a broader range of available punishment in the event of a pregnancy or are you advocating for a higher minimum punishment?",
">\n\nBoth, honestly. There should be automatic sentence enhancements as well as additional restitution.",
">\n\nI would counter then and suggest that if you are going to aggravate the charge based on causing pregnancy, it should only be to broaden the possible punishment range, not increase a mandatory minimum. \n\nMandatory minimums have a long history of causing more problems. Yes, rapists deserve to go to prison, but have you considered how many less would take a plea bargain because it would require x versus y years in prison? These are the types of cases that prosecutors lose more often than any other and cause the most trauma and stress to the victims. Mandatory minimums have the effect of making harder-to-prove cases get ignored meaning less overall justice. It would be better for those difficult cases to still see some type of punishment versus more acquittals or dismissals.",
">\n\nIt's the same crime whether she ends up getting pregnant. If she does, though, I do think the convict should be held responsible for the child/abortion costs and have no parental rights whatsoever, but not more jail time for the same crime.",
">\n\nNo, I think the punishment should be the same either way. Give the man a choice of castration or death. \nBut I get where you're coming from. I think the penalty for attempted murder should be the same as for murder. Just because you're incompetent or the victim was fortunate enough to survive, you get off easier? Doesn't make sense to me. Your actions were the same, even if the result was different.",
">\n\nI get that there should be more restitution, but who would more prison time help? The rapist did the exact same thing in either scenario.",
">\n\nYes! Twice the emotional damage.",
">\n\nI'm going to do the devil's advocate here.\nDoes that mean that a rape done with a condom will be less punished?\nHow about a rape done with a stick?\nFor the sake of argument : if rape was punished by death, how would you punish rape that leads to pregnancy? Do you kill them twice?\nIf a rape happens, the victim should immediately get an treatment to abord any possible baby, of if te rape is reported later on abortion should be an option available for victims.",
">\n\nLike child support whether or not the baby is delivered? I’d support that although faked rape cases gonna soar pretty high for men with lots of dough",
">\n\nSomeone probably mentioned this but I found out last year that rapists actually have rights to the child!!!",
">\n\nStrongly agree",
">\n\nYou only talk about abortion, but there is also the morning after pill to prevent conception which (to most women) is a lot less traumatising than abortion.\nGiven this, you are proposing to punish someone based on the actions of someone else if you're suggesting to punish the rapist more based on whether or not a child is born. That goes against every principle of what the rule of law and a fair trial is about.\nAlso, on a practical note, that would mean you can't try any rape case until 9 months after the rape. There is already a huge backlog and issues around women not feeling able to report rape. I can only see this additional requirement making things worse.",
">\n\nThey do. If you go into prison with bad paperwork, you will be in a living hell.",
">\n\n\nespecially if the mother carries the child to term.\n\nNo. Abortion has far lower physical risks and does not cause a child to come into existence.\nEverything up to the conception is caused by the rape, but thereafter the woman has control of her body again, and choosing to continue rather than abort the pregnancy is her own choice, so are the consequences.\nSo there should be no difference depending on the choices of the victim, only on those of the criminal. This includes inflicting a pregnancy, but not how to deal with it.",
">\n\nI actually do like this idea, I’m just wondering is there any equivalent for if a male or AMAB person was raped. They are not able to get pregnant so this same law wouldn’t carry out for them. It would only apply to female and AFAB persons.",
">\n\nBecause the asshole forced that choice on her in the first place, that's why.",
">\n\n\nShe might have religious beliefs that proscribe abortion (such as being Catholic)\nAbortion can be just as traumatic\nThe rapist may not have a say in the abortion, but he had a say in the conception. He could have avoided that problem by not raping her in the first place.",
">\n\nThat would fall under “take your victim as you find her.” The enhanced sentence would happen whether the victim aborts or not.",
">\n\nThe charges would be based off of actual outcomes, not possibilities. If a fertile woman is raped but does not conceive, then the aggravating factor would not apply.\nThe goal behind this is to act as a deterrent in light of opposition to abortion. Certain people have religious objections to abortion even in the event of rape (mainly because the child is not at fault). Even if she aborts, there is still a lot of trauma involved."
] |
>
What if he want the victim to abort, but the victim said no/unable to do so?
If you lighten his punishment, all rapish would tell the victim to abort
If you make it harsher, it mean a child would be born with both parent hated him/her
Also, what if the victim drop the child in a safe heaven? Is he allowed to meet the child? | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of.",
">\n\nShouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population. \nHonestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society.",
">\n\nI agree, there was a rape incident in Korea (Cho Doo-soon incident). Due to poor law, he was freed after a short time despite causing too many injuries for the victim. After that every single people who lived near his house moved away. They should keep him in prison.",
">\n\nI could get behind this idea in the pragmatic sense that it could be a further deterrent from rape altogether, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make sense. Lying about birth control or intentionally tempering with it in order to impregnate a partner without/against their consent (or to be impregnated, since women can also do it) is a morally reprehensible in its own right, and furthermore can also carry legal repercussions, if it can be proven that the partners agreed to protected intercourse and one of them broke this agreement without the other's knowledge. One example is stealthing, which is a form of sexual abuse and was widely discussed a while ago. \nRape is having sex with someone without/against their consent for the act itself. Additional agreements like whether or not protection is used become irrelevant in this case. Pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely traumatic for victims, that is true, but rape itself is the crime that has been committed and if the victim happened to be on birth control or infertile that does not influence what has been done to them from the perspective of the crime itself.",
">\n\nI would prefer it if we instituted a policy that treats rape with potential conception this way, regardless of the actual results, in a manner similar to how we treat assault, aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon as different crimes. It wouldn't be any harder to prove than rape already is, while accounting for the additional reckless endangerment that comes from concieving a child through violence.",
">\n\nHe should pay child support to whoever keeps the child.",
">\n\nRapists aren't in control of the conception. If they get lucky and no child is conceived, that isn't because of anything in control of the rapist. People should be punished for things in their control, not let off for things outside their control.\nImagine a drunk driver. He gets in an accident because a child crosses the road in front of the car. But if the child had tripped just before the road and lives, that's not something we can give credit to the driver for.\nA rapist who is 'lucky' and doesn't get someone pregnant acted the same as a rapist who is 'unlucky' and did get someone pregnant. They created the same risk and should face the same punishment.",
">\n\nThe law does not work that way. In civil cases, a tortfeasor has to take his victim as he finds her. In other words, the asshole is responsible for whatever happens, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage. As another example, if a robber punches someone and that person ends up bleeding internally to death due to hemophilia, then that hemophilia is no defense to murder - the robber must take his victim as he found him. Criminal cases are similar - George Floyd's alleged physical condition was not a defense to the murder charges that Derek Chauvin was convicted of.",
">\n\nThe issue isn't with the harsher penalties but with the weaker penalties for rapes that don't result in pregnancy. Take two rapists. Rapist A impregnates his victim, while rapist B does not. Why should rapist B get a lighter sentence than rapist A? Are we implicitly saying that rape isn't as bad if there's no pregnancy? The actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?",
">\n\n\nThe actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?\n\nThis happens all the time. We consider the actions and the consequences of the actions in determining \"appropriate\" punishment very often.\nIf I shoot a gun blindly at a random house, that same action can have any number of consequences. Maybe the only consequences are breaking a window and putting a hole in someone's wall. Maybe it kills the family dog. Maybe the consequence is the bullet hitting someone and paralyzing them for life. Maybe the consequence is breaking a gas line that leads to an explosion that kills a dozen people.\nWhy isn't it reasonable to consider the outcomes of actions when determining the appropriate response?",
">\n\nThe comparison would be more like: you kill a person in each case, but in one, you also unintentionally break their leg. In the second case, should you be charged with a different crime? It's not like you didn't intend harm and by chance harm was caused. Harm is caused in both rape and rape with pregnancy. The act isn't different at all. It's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)",
">\n\nI don't think we need to quibble about whether it's an apt comparison. Based on what the person I responded to said, I think it is (i.e. same actions + different consequences).\n\nThe act isn't different at all.\n\nNot saying it isn't. What I'm saying is that the same act can have different consequences, and we very often apply different repercussions/punishments based on differences in consequences for the same act.\n\nIt's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)\n\nGetting raped and becoming pregnant by your rapist is worse than getting raped and not becoming pregnant by your rapist. That seems pretty uncontroversial to me.",
">\n\nSo... for example, given the exact same circumstances and actions, a woman on birth control is somehow less raped than a woman without who becomes pregnant? And a woman who miscarries or aborts a rape baby is somehow then less raped than she was while she was pregnant?",
">\n\nI feel this would cause an issue where, if the victim really wants to hurt their rapist the most, they have an incentive to remain pregnant even if they don't really want to.\nAlso, should this also apply to situations in which it is the rapist who gets pregnant and not the victim?",
">\n\nJesus.. keeping your rapist's baby so they serve a harsher sentence is a level of spite that I don't think anyone could sink to.",
">\n\nIf you touch my daughters you’d better hope the cops find you first cuz there’s a reckoning upon you if I am first and I’ll gladly sit in a jail for taking a predator to meet the Godess. \n To the point , fuck yes a rapist should have to provide child support. Rapist shouldn’t be allowed to rot in jail , make them work and pay for 18 years like non rapist dads do. And when they fall behind it’s incarceration and forced labor. \nFor far too long our mother, daughter , wives , sisters, aunties and grannies have faced unfair systematic societal oppression. End it by embracing a new paradigm of true human dignity and equality.",
">\n\nFirst of all. I hop on bored with Ben Shapiro when he says to physically castrate rapist, pedophiles, predators, etc. But I like to add my spice to things and add a prison sentence just like they do now. Then add pay for the damage they've done. Example would be. If your caught raping a woman. The woman chooses abortion. He pays for the abortion and following. COunceling sessions through the state to the agency. Or if she keeps it. Then guess who paying a child support for 18 years? Rapist. Just one of many examples I'm sure we could conjure. But by all means tear this idea apart, or let's build from it.",
">\n\nDisagree. It makes no difference if he causes the worst possible damage (pregnancy, std infection, PTSD etc) or minimal damage (although I don't know what that would be). The punishment should be severe, regardless of the consequences. Otherwise some men will get off lighter simply because they were 'lucky'",
">\n\nTo clarify your position, are you asking for a broader range of available punishment in the event of a pregnancy or are you advocating for a higher minimum punishment?",
">\n\nBoth, honestly. There should be automatic sentence enhancements as well as additional restitution.",
">\n\nI would counter then and suggest that if you are going to aggravate the charge based on causing pregnancy, it should only be to broaden the possible punishment range, not increase a mandatory minimum. \n\nMandatory minimums have a long history of causing more problems. Yes, rapists deserve to go to prison, but have you considered how many less would take a plea bargain because it would require x versus y years in prison? These are the types of cases that prosecutors lose more often than any other and cause the most trauma and stress to the victims. Mandatory minimums have the effect of making harder-to-prove cases get ignored meaning less overall justice. It would be better for those difficult cases to still see some type of punishment versus more acquittals or dismissals.",
">\n\nIt's the same crime whether she ends up getting pregnant. If she does, though, I do think the convict should be held responsible for the child/abortion costs and have no parental rights whatsoever, but not more jail time for the same crime.",
">\n\nNo, I think the punishment should be the same either way. Give the man a choice of castration or death. \nBut I get where you're coming from. I think the penalty for attempted murder should be the same as for murder. Just because you're incompetent or the victim was fortunate enough to survive, you get off easier? Doesn't make sense to me. Your actions were the same, even if the result was different.",
">\n\nI get that there should be more restitution, but who would more prison time help? The rapist did the exact same thing in either scenario.",
">\n\nYes! Twice the emotional damage.",
">\n\nI'm going to do the devil's advocate here.\nDoes that mean that a rape done with a condom will be less punished?\nHow about a rape done with a stick?\nFor the sake of argument : if rape was punished by death, how would you punish rape that leads to pregnancy? Do you kill them twice?\nIf a rape happens, the victim should immediately get an treatment to abord any possible baby, of if te rape is reported later on abortion should be an option available for victims.",
">\n\nLike child support whether or not the baby is delivered? I’d support that although faked rape cases gonna soar pretty high for men with lots of dough",
">\n\nSomeone probably mentioned this but I found out last year that rapists actually have rights to the child!!!",
">\n\nStrongly agree",
">\n\nYou only talk about abortion, but there is also the morning after pill to prevent conception which (to most women) is a lot less traumatising than abortion.\nGiven this, you are proposing to punish someone based on the actions of someone else if you're suggesting to punish the rapist more based on whether or not a child is born. That goes against every principle of what the rule of law and a fair trial is about.\nAlso, on a practical note, that would mean you can't try any rape case until 9 months after the rape. There is already a huge backlog and issues around women not feeling able to report rape. I can only see this additional requirement making things worse.",
">\n\nThey do. If you go into prison with bad paperwork, you will be in a living hell.",
">\n\n\nespecially if the mother carries the child to term.\n\nNo. Abortion has far lower physical risks and does not cause a child to come into existence.\nEverything up to the conception is caused by the rape, but thereafter the woman has control of her body again, and choosing to continue rather than abort the pregnancy is her own choice, so are the consequences.\nSo there should be no difference depending on the choices of the victim, only on those of the criminal. This includes inflicting a pregnancy, but not how to deal with it.",
">\n\nI actually do like this idea, I’m just wondering is there any equivalent for if a male or AMAB person was raped. They are not able to get pregnant so this same law wouldn’t carry out for them. It would only apply to female and AFAB persons.",
">\n\nBecause the asshole forced that choice on her in the first place, that's why.",
">\n\n\nShe might have religious beliefs that proscribe abortion (such as being Catholic)\nAbortion can be just as traumatic\nThe rapist may not have a say in the abortion, but he had a say in the conception. He could have avoided that problem by not raping her in the first place.",
">\n\nThat would fall under “take your victim as you find her.” The enhanced sentence would happen whether the victim aborts or not.",
">\n\nThe charges would be based off of actual outcomes, not possibilities. If a fertile woman is raped but does not conceive, then the aggravating factor would not apply.\nThe goal behind this is to act as a deterrent in light of opposition to abortion. Certain people have religious objections to abortion even in the event of rape (mainly because the child is not at fault). Even if she aborts, there is still a lot of trauma involved.",
">\n\n\nThe goal behind this is to act as a deterrent in light of opposition to abortion\n\nYou could just generally increase the prison term for rape and have more of a deterrent against all kinds of rape. I'd say that's a much more favourable outcome."
] |
>
Too bad, so sad for the rapist. As I said before, he would have to take his victim as he found her. If she chose not to abort, then that’s the asshole’s problem. | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of.",
">\n\nShouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population. \nHonestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society.",
">\n\nI agree, there was a rape incident in Korea (Cho Doo-soon incident). Due to poor law, he was freed after a short time despite causing too many injuries for the victim. After that every single people who lived near his house moved away. They should keep him in prison.",
">\n\nI could get behind this idea in the pragmatic sense that it could be a further deterrent from rape altogether, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make sense. Lying about birth control or intentionally tempering with it in order to impregnate a partner without/against their consent (or to be impregnated, since women can also do it) is a morally reprehensible in its own right, and furthermore can also carry legal repercussions, if it can be proven that the partners agreed to protected intercourse and one of them broke this agreement without the other's knowledge. One example is stealthing, which is a form of sexual abuse and was widely discussed a while ago. \nRape is having sex with someone without/against their consent for the act itself. Additional agreements like whether or not protection is used become irrelevant in this case. Pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely traumatic for victims, that is true, but rape itself is the crime that has been committed and if the victim happened to be on birth control or infertile that does not influence what has been done to them from the perspective of the crime itself.",
">\n\nI would prefer it if we instituted a policy that treats rape with potential conception this way, regardless of the actual results, in a manner similar to how we treat assault, aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon as different crimes. It wouldn't be any harder to prove than rape already is, while accounting for the additional reckless endangerment that comes from concieving a child through violence.",
">\n\nHe should pay child support to whoever keeps the child.",
">\n\nRapists aren't in control of the conception. If they get lucky and no child is conceived, that isn't because of anything in control of the rapist. People should be punished for things in their control, not let off for things outside their control.\nImagine a drunk driver. He gets in an accident because a child crosses the road in front of the car. But if the child had tripped just before the road and lives, that's not something we can give credit to the driver for.\nA rapist who is 'lucky' and doesn't get someone pregnant acted the same as a rapist who is 'unlucky' and did get someone pregnant. They created the same risk and should face the same punishment.",
">\n\nThe law does not work that way. In civil cases, a tortfeasor has to take his victim as he finds her. In other words, the asshole is responsible for whatever happens, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage. As another example, if a robber punches someone and that person ends up bleeding internally to death due to hemophilia, then that hemophilia is no defense to murder - the robber must take his victim as he found him. Criminal cases are similar - George Floyd's alleged physical condition was not a defense to the murder charges that Derek Chauvin was convicted of.",
">\n\nThe issue isn't with the harsher penalties but with the weaker penalties for rapes that don't result in pregnancy. Take two rapists. Rapist A impregnates his victim, while rapist B does not. Why should rapist B get a lighter sentence than rapist A? Are we implicitly saying that rape isn't as bad if there's no pregnancy? The actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?",
">\n\n\nThe actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?\n\nThis happens all the time. We consider the actions and the consequences of the actions in determining \"appropriate\" punishment very often.\nIf I shoot a gun blindly at a random house, that same action can have any number of consequences. Maybe the only consequences are breaking a window and putting a hole in someone's wall. Maybe it kills the family dog. Maybe the consequence is the bullet hitting someone and paralyzing them for life. Maybe the consequence is breaking a gas line that leads to an explosion that kills a dozen people.\nWhy isn't it reasonable to consider the outcomes of actions when determining the appropriate response?",
">\n\nThe comparison would be more like: you kill a person in each case, but in one, you also unintentionally break their leg. In the second case, should you be charged with a different crime? It's not like you didn't intend harm and by chance harm was caused. Harm is caused in both rape and rape with pregnancy. The act isn't different at all. It's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)",
">\n\nI don't think we need to quibble about whether it's an apt comparison. Based on what the person I responded to said, I think it is (i.e. same actions + different consequences).\n\nThe act isn't different at all.\n\nNot saying it isn't. What I'm saying is that the same act can have different consequences, and we very often apply different repercussions/punishments based on differences in consequences for the same act.\n\nIt's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)\n\nGetting raped and becoming pregnant by your rapist is worse than getting raped and not becoming pregnant by your rapist. That seems pretty uncontroversial to me.",
">\n\nSo... for example, given the exact same circumstances and actions, a woman on birth control is somehow less raped than a woman without who becomes pregnant? And a woman who miscarries or aborts a rape baby is somehow then less raped than she was while she was pregnant?",
">\n\nI feel this would cause an issue where, if the victim really wants to hurt their rapist the most, they have an incentive to remain pregnant even if they don't really want to.\nAlso, should this also apply to situations in which it is the rapist who gets pregnant and not the victim?",
">\n\nJesus.. keeping your rapist's baby so they serve a harsher sentence is a level of spite that I don't think anyone could sink to.",
">\n\nIf you touch my daughters you’d better hope the cops find you first cuz there’s a reckoning upon you if I am first and I’ll gladly sit in a jail for taking a predator to meet the Godess. \n To the point , fuck yes a rapist should have to provide child support. Rapist shouldn’t be allowed to rot in jail , make them work and pay for 18 years like non rapist dads do. And when they fall behind it’s incarceration and forced labor. \nFor far too long our mother, daughter , wives , sisters, aunties and grannies have faced unfair systematic societal oppression. End it by embracing a new paradigm of true human dignity and equality.",
">\n\nFirst of all. I hop on bored with Ben Shapiro when he says to physically castrate rapist, pedophiles, predators, etc. But I like to add my spice to things and add a prison sentence just like they do now. Then add pay for the damage they've done. Example would be. If your caught raping a woman. The woman chooses abortion. He pays for the abortion and following. COunceling sessions through the state to the agency. Or if she keeps it. Then guess who paying a child support for 18 years? Rapist. Just one of many examples I'm sure we could conjure. But by all means tear this idea apart, or let's build from it.",
">\n\nDisagree. It makes no difference if he causes the worst possible damage (pregnancy, std infection, PTSD etc) or minimal damage (although I don't know what that would be). The punishment should be severe, regardless of the consequences. Otherwise some men will get off lighter simply because they were 'lucky'",
">\n\nTo clarify your position, are you asking for a broader range of available punishment in the event of a pregnancy or are you advocating for a higher minimum punishment?",
">\n\nBoth, honestly. There should be automatic sentence enhancements as well as additional restitution.",
">\n\nI would counter then and suggest that if you are going to aggravate the charge based on causing pregnancy, it should only be to broaden the possible punishment range, not increase a mandatory minimum. \n\nMandatory minimums have a long history of causing more problems. Yes, rapists deserve to go to prison, but have you considered how many less would take a plea bargain because it would require x versus y years in prison? These are the types of cases that prosecutors lose more often than any other and cause the most trauma and stress to the victims. Mandatory minimums have the effect of making harder-to-prove cases get ignored meaning less overall justice. It would be better for those difficult cases to still see some type of punishment versus more acquittals or dismissals.",
">\n\nIt's the same crime whether she ends up getting pregnant. If she does, though, I do think the convict should be held responsible for the child/abortion costs and have no parental rights whatsoever, but not more jail time for the same crime.",
">\n\nNo, I think the punishment should be the same either way. Give the man a choice of castration or death. \nBut I get where you're coming from. I think the penalty for attempted murder should be the same as for murder. Just because you're incompetent or the victim was fortunate enough to survive, you get off easier? Doesn't make sense to me. Your actions were the same, even if the result was different.",
">\n\nI get that there should be more restitution, but who would more prison time help? The rapist did the exact same thing in either scenario.",
">\n\nYes! Twice the emotional damage.",
">\n\nI'm going to do the devil's advocate here.\nDoes that mean that a rape done with a condom will be less punished?\nHow about a rape done with a stick?\nFor the sake of argument : if rape was punished by death, how would you punish rape that leads to pregnancy? Do you kill them twice?\nIf a rape happens, the victim should immediately get an treatment to abord any possible baby, of if te rape is reported later on abortion should be an option available for victims.",
">\n\nLike child support whether or not the baby is delivered? I’d support that although faked rape cases gonna soar pretty high for men with lots of dough",
">\n\nSomeone probably mentioned this but I found out last year that rapists actually have rights to the child!!!",
">\n\nStrongly agree",
">\n\nYou only talk about abortion, but there is also the morning after pill to prevent conception which (to most women) is a lot less traumatising than abortion.\nGiven this, you are proposing to punish someone based on the actions of someone else if you're suggesting to punish the rapist more based on whether or not a child is born. That goes against every principle of what the rule of law and a fair trial is about.\nAlso, on a practical note, that would mean you can't try any rape case until 9 months after the rape. There is already a huge backlog and issues around women not feeling able to report rape. I can only see this additional requirement making things worse.",
">\n\nThey do. If you go into prison with bad paperwork, you will be in a living hell.",
">\n\n\nespecially if the mother carries the child to term.\n\nNo. Abortion has far lower physical risks and does not cause a child to come into existence.\nEverything up to the conception is caused by the rape, but thereafter the woman has control of her body again, and choosing to continue rather than abort the pregnancy is her own choice, so are the consequences.\nSo there should be no difference depending on the choices of the victim, only on those of the criminal. This includes inflicting a pregnancy, but not how to deal with it.",
">\n\nI actually do like this idea, I’m just wondering is there any equivalent for if a male or AMAB person was raped. They are not able to get pregnant so this same law wouldn’t carry out for them. It would only apply to female and AFAB persons.",
">\n\nBecause the asshole forced that choice on her in the first place, that's why.",
">\n\n\nShe might have religious beliefs that proscribe abortion (such as being Catholic)\nAbortion can be just as traumatic\nThe rapist may not have a say in the abortion, but he had a say in the conception. He could have avoided that problem by not raping her in the first place.",
">\n\nThat would fall under “take your victim as you find her.” The enhanced sentence would happen whether the victim aborts or not.",
">\n\nThe charges would be based off of actual outcomes, not possibilities. If a fertile woman is raped but does not conceive, then the aggravating factor would not apply.\nThe goal behind this is to act as a deterrent in light of opposition to abortion. Certain people have religious objections to abortion even in the event of rape (mainly because the child is not at fault). Even if she aborts, there is still a lot of trauma involved.",
">\n\n\nThe goal behind this is to act as a deterrent in light of opposition to abortion\n\nYou could just generally increase the prison term for rape and have more of a deterrent against all kinds of rape. I'd say that's a much more favourable outcome.",
">\n\nWhat if he want the victim to abort, but the victim said no/unable to do so? \nIf you lighten his punishment, all rapish would tell the victim to abort\nIf you make it harsher, it mean a child would be born with both parent hated him/her\nAlso, what if the victim drop the child in a safe heaven? Is he allowed to meet the child?"
] |
>
I’m talking about a CHILD who is about to be raised up without anyone care or want him! | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of.",
">\n\nShouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population. \nHonestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society.",
">\n\nI agree, there was a rape incident in Korea (Cho Doo-soon incident). Due to poor law, he was freed after a short time despite causing too many injuries for the victim. After that every single people who lived near his house moved away. They should keep him in prison.",
">\n\nI could get behind this idea in the pragmatic sense that it could be a further deterrent from rape altogether, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make sense. Lying about birth control or intentionally tempering with it in order to impregnate a partner without/against their consent (or to be impregnated, since women can also do it) is a morally reprehensible in its own right, and furthermore can also carry legal repercussions, if it can be proven that the partners agreed to protected intercourse and one of them broke this agreement without the other's knowledge. One example is stealthing, which is a form of sexual abuse and was widely discussed a while ago. \nRape is having sex with someone without/against their consent for the act itself. Additional agreements like whether or not protection is used become irrelevant in this case. Pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely traumatic for victims, that is true, but rape itself is the crime that has been committed and if the victim happened to be on birth control or infertile that does not influence what has been done to them from the perspective of the crime itself.",
">\n\nI would prefer it if we instituted a policy that treats rape with potential conception this way, regardless of the actual results, in a manner similar to how we treat assault, aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon as different crimes. It wouldn't be any harder to prove than rape already is, while accounting for the additional reckless endangerment that comes from concieving a child through violence.",
">\n\nHe should pay child support to whoever keeps the child.",
">\n\nRapists aren't in control of the conception. If they get lucky and no child is conceived, that isn't because of anything in control of the rapist. People should be punished for things in their control, not let off for things outside their control.\nImagine a drunk driver. He gets in an accident because a child crosses the road in front of the car. But if the child had tripped just before the road and lives, that's not something we can give credit to the driver for.\nA rapist who is 'lucky' and doesn't get someone pregnant acted the same as a rapist who is 'unlucky' and did get someone pregnant. They created the same risk and should face the same punishment.",
">\n\nThe law does not work that way. In civil cases, a tortfeasor has to take his victim as he finds her. In other words, the asshole is responsible for whatever happens, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage. As another example, if a robber punches someone and that person ends up bleeding internally to death due to hemophilia, then that hemophilia is no defense to murder - the robber must take his victim as he found him. Criminal cases are similar - George Floyd's alleged physical condition was not a defense to the murder charges that Derek Chauvin was convicted of.",
">\n\nThe issue isn't with the harsher penalties but with the weaker penalties for rapes that don't result in pregnancy. Take two rapists. Rapist A impregnates his victim, while rapist B does not. Why should rapist B get a lighter sentence than rapist A? Are we implicitly saying that rape isn't as bad if there's no pregnancy? The actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?",
">\n\n\nThe actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?\n\nThis happens all the time. We consider the actions and the consequences of the actions in determining \"appropriate\" punishment very often.\nIf I shoot a gun blindly at a random house, that same action can have any number of consequences. Maybe the only consequences are breaking a window and putting a hole in someone's wall. Maybe it kills the family dog. Maybe the consequence is the bullet hitting someone and paralyzing them for life. Maybe the consequence is breaking a gas line that leads to an explosion that kills a dozen people.\nWhy isn't it reasonable to consider the outcomes of actions when determining the appropriate response?",
">\n\nThe comparison would be more like: you kill a person in each case, but in one, you also unintentionally break their leg. In the second case, should you be charged with a different crime? It's not like you didn't intend harm and by chance harm was caused. Harm is caused in both rape and rape with pregnancy. The act isn't different at all. It's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)",
">\n\nI don't think we need to quibble about whether it's an apt comparison. Based on what the person I responded to said, I think it is (i.e. same actions + different consequences).\n\nThe act isn't different at all.\n\nNot saying it isn't. What I'm saying is that the same act can have different consequences, and we very often apply different repercussions/punishments based on differences in consequences for the same act.\n\nIt's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)\n\nGetting raped and becoming pregnant by your rapist is worse than getting raped and not becoming pregnant by your rapist. That seems pretty uncontroversial to me.",
">\n\nSo... for example, given the exact same circumstances and actions, a woman on birth control is somehow less raped than a woman without who becomes pregnant? And a woman who miscarries or aborts a rape baby is somehow then less raped than she was while she was pregnant?",
">\n\nI feel this would cause an issue where, if the victim really wants to hurt their rapist the most, they have an incentive to remain pregnant even if they don't really want to.\nAlso, should this also apply to situations in which it is the rapist who gets pregnant and not the victim?",
">\n\nJesus.. keeping your rapist's baby so they serve a harsher sentence is a level of spite that I don't think anyone could sink to.",
">\n\nIf you touch my daughters you’d better hope the cops find you first cuz there’s a reckoning upon you if I am first and I’ll gladly sit in a jail for taking a predator to meet the Godess. \n To the point , fuck yes a rapist should have to provide child support. Rapist shouldn’t be allowed to rot in jail , make them work and pay for 18 years like non rapist dads do. And when they fall behind it’s incarceration and forced labor. \nFor far too long our mother, daughter , wives , sisters, aunties and grannies have faced unfair systematic societal oppression. End it by embracing a new paradigm of true human dignity and equality.",
">\n\nFirst of all. I hop on bored with Ben Shapiro when he says to physically castrate rapist, pedophiles, predators, etc. But I like to add my spice to things and add a prison sentence just like they do now. Then add pay for the damage they've done. Example would be. If your caught raping a woman. The woman chooses abortion. He pays for the abortion and following. COunceling sessions through the state to the agency. Or if she keeps it. Then guess who paying a child support for 18 years? Rapist. Just one of many examples I'm sure we could conjure. But by all means tear this idea apart, or let's build from it.",
">\n\nDisagree. It makes no difference if he causes the worst possible damage (pregnancy, std infection, PTSD etc) or minimal damage (although I don't know what that would be). The punishment should be severe, regardless of the consequences. Otherwise some men will get off lighter simply because they were 'lucky'",
">\n\nTo clarify your position, are you asking for a broader range of available punishment in the event of a pregnancy or are you advocating for a higher minimum punishment?",
">\n\nBoth, honestly. There should be automatic sentence enhancements as well as additional restitution.",
">\n\nI would counter then and suggest that if you are going to aggravate the charge based on causing pregnancy, it should only be to broaden the possible punishment range, not increase a mandatory minimum. \n\nMandatory minimums have a long history of causing more problems. Yes, rapists deserve to go to prison, but have you considered how many less would take a plea bargain because it would require x versus y years in prison? These are the types of cases that prosecutors lose more often than any other and cause the most trauma and stress to the victims. Mandatory minimums have the effect of making harder-to-prove cases get ignored meaning less overall justice. It would be better for those difficult cases to still see some type of punishment versus more acquittals or dismissals.",
">\n\nIt's the same crime whether she ends up getting pregnant. If she does, though, I do think the convict should be held responsible for the child/abortion costs and have no parental rights whatsoever, but not more jail time for the same crime.",
">\n\nNo, I think the punishment should be the same either way. Give the man a choice of castration or death. \nBut I get where you're coming from. I think the penalty for attempted murder should be the same as for murder. Just because you're incompetent or the victim was fortunate enough to survive, you get off easier? Doesn't make sense to me. Your actions were the same, even if the result was different.",
">\n\nI get that there should be more restitution, but who would more prison time help? The rapist did the exact same thing in either scenario.",
">\n\nYes! Twice the emotional damage.",
">\n\nI'm going to do the devil's advocate here.\nDoes that mean that a rape done with a condom will be less punished?\nHow about a rape done with a stick?\nFor the sake of argument : if rape was punished by death, how would you punish rape that leads to pregnancy? Do you kill them twice?\nIf a rape happens, the victim should immediately get an treatment to abord any possible baby, of if te rape is reported later on abortion should be an option available for victims.",
">\n\nLike child support whether or not the baby is delivered? I’d support that although faked rape cases gonna soar pretty high for men with lots of dough",
">\n\nSomeone probably mentioned this but I found out last year that rapists actually have rights to the child!!!",
">\n\nStrongly agree",
">\n\nYou only talk about abortion, but there is also the morning after pill to prevent conception which (to most women) is a lot less traumatising than abortion.\nGiven this, you are proposing to punish someone based on the actions of someone else if you're suggesting to punish the rapist more based on whether or not a child is born. That goes against every principle of what the rule of law and a fair trial is about.\nAlso, on a practical note, that would mean you can't try any rape case until 9 months after the rape. There is already a huge backlog and issues around women not feeling able to report rape. I can only see this additional requirement making things worse.",
">\n\nThey do. If you go into prison with bad paperwork, you will be in a living hell.",
">\n\n\nespecially if the mother carries the child to term.\n\nNo. Abortion has far lower physical risks and does not cause a child to come into existence.\nEverything up to the conception is caused by the rape, but thereafter the woman has control of her body again, and choosing to continue rather than abort the pregnancy is her own choice, so are the consequences.\nSo there should be no difference depending on the choices of the victim, only on those of the criminal. This includes inflicting a pregnancy, but not how to deal with it.",
">\n\nI actually do like this idea, I’m just wondering is there any equivalent for if a male or AMAB person was raped. They are not able to get pregnant so this same law wouldn’t carry out for them. It would only apply to female and AFAB persons.",
">\n\nBecause the asshole forced that choice on her in the first place, that's why.",
">\n\n\nShe might have religious beliefs that proscribe abortion (such as being Catholic)\nAbortion can be just as traumatic\nThe rapist may not have a say in the abortion, but he had a say in the conception. He could have avoided that problem by not raping her in the first place.",
">\n\nThat would fall under “take your victim as you find her.” The enhanced sentence would happen whether the victim aborts or not.",
">\n\nThe charges would be based off of actual outcomes, not possibilities. If a fertile woman is raped but does not conceive, then the aggravating factor would not apply.\nThe goal behind this is to act as a deterrent in light of opposition to abortion. Certain people have religious objections to abortion even in the event of rape (mainly because the child is not at fault). Even if she aborts, there is still a lot of trauma involved.",
">\n\n\nThe goal behind this is to act as a deterrent in light of opposition to abortion\n\nYou could just generally increase the prison term for rape and have more of a deterrent against all kinds of rape. I'd say that's a much more favourable outcome.",
">\n\nWhat if he want the victim to abort, but the victim said no/unable to do so? \nIf you lighten his punishment, all rapish would tell the victim to abort\nIf you make it harsher, it mean a child would be born with both parent hated him/her\nAlso, what if the victim drop the child in a safe heaven? Is he allowed to meet the child?",
">\n\nToo bad, so sad for the rapist. As I said before, he would have to take his victim as he found her. If she chose not to abort, then that’s the asshole’s problem."
] |
>
Why not make them pay child support in addition to the normal sentence? Failing to pay child support already had some insane consequences. | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of.",
">\n\nShouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population. \nHonestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society.",
">\n\nI agree, there was a rape incident in Korea (Cho Doo-soon incident). Due to poor law, he was freed after a short time despite causing too many injuries for the victim. After that every single people who lived near his house moved away. They should keep him in prison.",
">\n\nI could get behind this idea in the pragmatic sense that it could be a further deterrent from rape altogether, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make sense. Lying about birth control or intentionally tempering with it in order to impregnate a partner without/against their consent (or to be impregnated, since women can also do it) is a morally reprehensible in its own right, and furthermore can also carry legal repercussions, if it can be proven that the partners agreed to protected intercourse and one of them broke this agreement without the other's knowledge. One example is stealthing, which is a form of sexual abuse and was widely discussed a while ago. \nRape is having sex with someone without/against their consent for the act itself. Additional agreements like whether or not protection is used become irrelevant in this case. Pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely traumatic for victims, that is true, but rape itself is the crime that has been committed and if the victim happened to be on birth control or infertile that does not influence what has been done to them from the perspective of the crime itself.",
">\n\nI would prefer it if we instituted a policy that treats rape with potential conception this way, regardless of the actual results, in a manner similar to how we treat assault, aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon as different crimes. It wouldn't be any harder to prove than rape already is, while accounting for the additional reckless endangerment that comes from concieving a child through violence.",
">\n\nHe should pay child support to whoever keeps the child.",
">\n\nRapists aren't in control of the conception. If they get lucky and no child is conceived, that isn't because of anything in control of the rapist. People should be punished for things in their control, not let off for things outside their control.\nImagine a drunk driver. He gets in an accident because a child crosses the road in front of the car. But if the child had tripped just before the road and lives, that's not something we can give credit to the driver for.\nA rapist who is 'lucky' and doesn't get someone pregnant acted the same as a rapist who is 'unlucky' and did get someone pregnant. They created the same risk and should face the same punishment.",
">\n\nThe law does not work that way. In civil cases, a tortfeasor has to take his victim as he finds her. In other words, the asshole is responsible for whatever happens, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage. As another example, if a robber punches someone and that person ends up bleeding internally to death due to hemophilia, then that hemophilia is no defense to murder - the robber must take his victim as he found him. Criminal cases are similar - George Floyd's alleged physical condition was not a defense to the murder charges that Derek Chauvin was convicted of.",
">\n\nThe issue isn't with the harsher penalties but with the weaker penalties for rapes that don't result in pregnancy. Take two rapists. Rapist A impregnates his victim, while rapist B does not. Why should rapist B get a lighter sentence than rapist A? Are we implicitly saying that rape isn't as bad if there's no pregnancy? The actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?",
">\n\n\nThe actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?\n\nThis happens all the time. We consider the actions and the consequences of the actions in determining \"appropriate\" punishment very often.\nIf I shoot a gun blindly at a random house, that same action can have any number of consequences. Maybe the only consequences are breaking a window and putting a hole in someone's wall. Maybe it kills the family dog. Maybe the consequence is the bullet hitting someone and paralyzing them for life. Maybe the consequence is breaking a gas line that leads to an explosion that kills a dozen people.\nWhy isn't it reasonable to consider the outcomes of actions when determining the appropriate response?",
">\n\nThe comparison would be more like: you kill a person in each case, but in one, you also unintentionally break their leg. In the second case, should you be charged with a different crime? It's not like you didn't intend harm and by chance harm was caused. Harm is caused in both rape and rape with pregnancy. The act isn't different at all. It's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)",
">\n\nI don't think we need to quibble about whether it's an apt comparison. Based on what the person I responded to said, I think it is (i.e. same actions + different consequences).\n\nThe act isn't different at all.\n\nNot saying it isn't. What I'm saying is that the same act can have different consequences, and we very often apply different repercussions/punishments based on differences in consequences for the same act.\n\nIt's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)\n\nGetting raped and becoming pregnant by your rapist is worse than getting raped and not becoming pregnant by your rapist. That seems pretty uncontroversial to me.",
">\n\nSo... for example, given the exact same circumstances and actions, a woman on birth control is somehow less raped than a woman without who becomes pregnant? And a woman who miscarries or aborts a rape baby is somehow then less raped than she was while she was pregnant?",
">\n\nI feel this would cause an issue where, if the victim really wants to hurt their rapist the most, they have an incentive to remain pregnant even if they don't really want to.\nAlso, should this also apply to situations in which it is the rapist who gets pregnant and not the victim?",
">\n\nJesus.. keeping your rapist's baby so they serve a harsher sentence is a level of spite that I don't think anyone could sink to.",
">\n\nIf you touch my daughters you’d better hope the cops find you first cuz there’s a reckoning upon you if I am first and I’ll gladly sit in a jail for taking a predator to meet the Godess. \n To the point , fuck yes a rapist should have to provide child support. Rapist shouldn’t be allowed to rot in jail , make them work and pay for 18 years like non rapist dads do. And when they fall behind it’s incarceration and forced labor. \nFor far too long our mother, daughter , wives , sisters, aunties and grannies have faced unfair systematic societal oppression. End it by embracing a new paradigm of true human dignity and equality.",
">\n\nFirst of all. I hop on bored with Ben Shapiro when he says to physically castrate rapist, pedophiles, predators, etc. But I like to add my spice to things and add a prison sentence just like they do now. Then add pay for the damage they've done. Example would be. If your caught raping a woman. The woman chooses abortion. He pays for the abortion and following. COunceling sessions through the state to the agency. Or if she keeps it. Then guess who paying a child support for 18 years? Rapist. Just one of many examples I'm sure we could conjure. But by all means tear this idea apart, or let's build from it.",
">\n\nDisagree. It makes no difference if he causes the worst possible damage (pregnancy, std infection, PTSD etc) or minimal damage (although I don't know what that would be). The punishment should be severe, regardless of the consequences. Otherwise some men will get off lighter simply because they were 'lucky'",
">\n\nTo clarify your position, are you asking for a broader range of available punishment in the event of a pregnancy or are you advocating for a higher minimum punishment?",
">\n\nBoth, honestly. There should be automatic sentence enhancements as well as additional restitution.",
">\n\nI would counter then and suggest that if you are going to aggravate the charge based on causing pregnancy, it should only be to broaden the possible punishment range, not increase a mandatory minimum. \n\nMandatory minimums have a long history of causing more problems. Yes, rapists deserve to go to prison, but have you considered how many less would take a plea bargain because it would require x versus y years in prison? These are the types of cases that prosecutors lose more often than any other and cause the most trauma and stress to the victims. Mandatory minimums have the effect of making harder-to-prove cases get ignored meaning less overall justice. It would be better for those difficult cases to still see some type of punishment versus more acquittals or dismissals.",
">\n\nIt's the same crime whether she ends up getting pregnant. If she does, though, I do think the convict should be held responsible for the child/abortion costs and have no parental rights whatsoever, but not more jail time for the same crime.",
">\n\nNo, I think the punishment should be the same either way. Give the man a choice of castration or death. \nBut I get where you're coming from. I think the penalty for attempted murder should be the same as for murder. Just because you're incompetent or the victim was fortunate enough to survive, you get off easier? Doesn't make sense to me. Your actions were the same, even if the result was different.",
">\n\nI get that there should be more restitution, but who would more prison time help? The rapist did the exact same thing in either scenario.",
">\n\nYes! Twice the emotional damage.",
">\n\nI'm going to do the devil's advocate here.\nDoes that mean that a rape done with a condom will be less punished?\nHow about a rape done with a stick?\nFor the sake of argument : if rape was punished by death, how would you punish rape that leads to pregnancy? Do you kill them twice?\nIf a rape happens, the victim should immediately get an treatment to abord any possible baby, of if te rape is reported later on abortion should be an option available for victims.",
">\n\nLike child support whether or not the baby is delivered? I’d support that although faked rape cases gonna soar pretty high for men with lots of dough",
">\n\nSomeone probably mentioned this but I found out last year that rapists actually have rights to the child!!!",
">\n\nStrongly agree",
">\n\nYou only talk about abortion, but there is also the morning after pill to prevent conception which (to most women) is a lot less traumatising than abortion.\nGiven this, you are proposing to punish someone based on the actions of someone else if you're suggesting to punish the rapist more based on whether or not a child is born. That goes against every principle of what the rule of law and a fair trial is about.\nAlso, on a practical note, that would mean you can't try any rape case until 9 months after the rape. There is already a huge backlog and issues around women not feeling able to report rape. I can only see this additional requirement making things worse.",
">\n\nThey do. If you go into prison with bad paperwork, you will be in a living hell.",
">\n\n\nespecially if the mother carries the child to term.\n\nNo. Abortion has far lower physical risks and does not cause a child to come into existence.\nEverything up to the conception is caused by the rape, but thereafter the woman has control of her body again, and choosing to continue rather than abort the pregnancy is her own choice, so are the consequences.\nSo there should be no difference depending on the choices of the victim, only on those of the criminal. This includes inflicting a pregnancy, but not how to deal with it.",
">\n\nI actually do like this idea, I’m just wondering is there any equivalent for if a male or AMAB person was raped. They are not able to get pregnant so this same law wouldn’t carry out for them. It would only apply to female and AFAB persons.",
">\n\nBecause the asshole forced that choice on her in the first place, that's why.",
">\n\n\nShe might have religious beliefs that proscribe abortion (such as being Catholic)\nAbortion can be just as traumatic\nThe rapist may not have a say in the abortion, but he had a say in the conception. He could have avoided that problem by not raping her in the first place.",
">\n\nThat would fall under “take your victim as you find her.” The enhanced sentence would happen whether the victim aborts or not.",
">\n\nThe charges would be based off of actual outcomes, not possibilities. If a fertile woman is raped but does not conceive, then the aggravating factor would not apply.\nThe goal behind this is to act as a deterrent in light of opposition to abortion. Certain people have religious objections to abortion even in the event of rape (mainly because the child is not at fault). Even if she aborts, there is still a lot of trauma involved.",
">\n\n\nThe goal behind this is to act as a deterrent in light of opposition to abortion\n\nYou could just generally increase the prison term for rape and have more of a deterrent against all kinds of rape. I'd say that's a much more favourable outcome.",
">\n\nWhat if he want the victim to abort, but the victim said no/unable to do so? \nIf you lighten his punishment, all rapish would tell the victim to abort\nIf you make it harsher, it mean a child would be born with both parent hated him/her\nAlso, what if the victim drop the child in a safe heaven? Is he allowed to meet the child?",
">\n\nToo bad, so sad for the rapist. As I said before, he would have to take his victim as he found her. If she chose not to abort, then that’s the asshole’s problem.",
">\n\nI’m talking about a CHILD who is about to be raised up without anyone care or want him!"
] |
>
I said something in the OP about additional child support or restitution (as in a greater percentage of income than usual) - enough to leave one destitute for life. | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of.",
">\n\nShouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population. \nHonestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society.",
">\n\nI agree, there was a rape incident in Korea (Cho Doo-soon incident). Due to poor law, he was freed after a short time despite causing too many injuries for the victim. After that every single people who lived near his house moved away. They should keep him in prison.",
">\n\nI could get behind this idea in the pragmatic sense that it could be a further deterrent from rape altogether, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make sense. Lying about birth control or intentionally tempering with it in order to impregnate a partner without/against their consent (or to be impregnated, since women can also do it) is a morally reprehensible in its own right, and furthermore can also carry legal repercussions, if it can be proven that the partners agreed to protected intercourse and one of them broke this agreement without the other's knowledge. One example is stealthing, which is a form of sexual abuse and was widely discussed a while ago. \nRape is having sex with someone without/against their consent for the act itself. Additional agreements like whether or not protection is used become irrelevant in this case. Pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely traumatic for victims, that is true, but rape itself is the crime that has been committed and if the victim happened to be on birth control or infertile that does not influence what has been done to them from the perspective of the crime itself.",
">\n\nI would prefer it if we instituted a policy that treats rape with potential conception this way, regardless of the actual results, in a manner similar to how we treat assault, aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon as different crimes. It wouldn't be any harder to prove than rape already is, while accounting for the additional reckless endangerment that comes from concieving a child through violence.",
">\n\nHe should pay child support to whoever keeps the child.",
">\n\nRapists aren't in control of the conception. If they get lucky and no child is conceived, that isn't because of anything in control of the rapist. People should be punished for things in their control, not let off for things outside their control.\nImagine a drunk driver. He gets in an accident because a child crosses the road in front of the car. But if the child had tripped just before the road and lives, that's not something we can give credit to the driver for.\nA rapist who is 'lucky' and doesn't get someone pregnant acted the same as a rapist who is 'unlucky' and did get someone pregnant. They created the same risk and should face the same punishment.",
">\n\nThe law does not work that way. In civil cases, a tortfeasor has to take his victim as he finds her. In other words, the asshole is responsible for whatever happens, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage. As another example, if a robber punches someone and that person ends up bleeding internally to death due to hemophilia, then that hemophilia is no defense to murder - the robber must take his victim as he found him. Criminal cases are similar - George Floyd's alleged physical condition was not a defense to the murder charges that Derek Chauvin was convicted of.",
">\n\nThe issue isn't with the harsher penalties but with the weaker penalties for rapes that don't result in pregnancy. Take two rapists. Rapist A impregnates his victim, while rapist B does not. Why should rapist B get a lighter sentence than rapist A? Are we implicitly saying that rape isn't as bad if there's no pregnancy? The actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?",
">\n\n\nThe actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?\n\nThis happens all the time. We consider the actions and the consequences of the actions in determining \"appropriate\" punishment very often.\nIf I shoot a gun blindly at a random house, that same action can have any number of consequences. Maybe the only consequences are breaking a window and putting a hole in someone's wall. Maybe it kills the family dog. Maybe the consequence is the bullet hitting someone and paralyzing them for life. Maybe the consequence is breaking a gas line that leads to an explosion that kills a dozen people.\nWhy isn't it reasonable to consider the outcomes of actions when determining the appropriate response?",
">\n\nThe comparison would be more like: you kill a person in each case, but in one, you also unintentionally break their leg. In the second case, should you be charged with a different crime? It's not like you didn't intend harm and by chance harm was caused. Harm is caused in both rape and rape with pregnancy. The act isn't different at all. It's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)",
">\n\nI don't think we need to quibble about whether it's an apt comparison. Based on what the person I responded to said, I think it is (i.e. same actions + different consequences).\n\nThe act isn't different at all.\n\nNot saying it isn't. What I'm saying is that the same act can have different consequences, and we very often apply different repercussions/punishments based on differences in consequences for the same act.\n\nIt's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)\n\nGetting raped and becoming pregnant by your rapist is worse than getting raped and not becoming pregnant by your rapist. That seems pretty uncontroversial to me.",
">\n\nSo... for example, given the exact same circumstances and actions, a woman on birth control is somehow less raped than a woman without who becomes pregnant? And a woman who miscarries or aborts a rape baby is somehow then less raped than she was while she was pregnant?",
">\n\nI feel this would cause an issue where, if the victim really wants to hurt their rapist the most, they have an incentive to remain pregnant even if they don't really want to.\nAlso, should this also apply to situations in which it is the rapist who gets pregnant and not the victim?",
">\n\nJesus.. keeping your rapist's baby so they serve a harsher sentence is a level of spite that I don't think anyone could sink to.",
">\n\nIf you touch my daughters you’d better hope the cops find you first cuz there’s a reckoning upon you if I am first and I’ll gladly sit in a jail for taking a predator to meet the Godess. \n To the point , fuck yes a rapist should have to provide child support. Rapist shouldn’t be allowed to rot in jail , make them work and pay for 18 years like non rapist dads do. And when they fall behind it’s incarceration and forced labor. \nFor far too long our mother, daughter , wives , sisters, aunties and grannies have faced unfair systematic societal oppression. End it by embracing a new paradigm of true human dignity and equality.",
">\n\nFirst of all. I hop on bored with Ben Shapiro when he says to physically castrate rapist, pedophiles, predators, etc. But I like to add my spice to things and add a prison sentence just like they do now. Then add pay for the damage they've done. Example would be. If your caught raping a woman. The woman chooses abortion. He pays for the abortion and following. COunceling sessions through the state to the agency. Or if she keeps it. Then guess who paying a child support for 18 years? Rapist. Just one of many examples I'm sure we could conjure. But by all means tear this idea apart, or let's build from it.",
">\n\nDisagree. It makes no difference if he causes the worst possible damage (pregnancy, std infection, PTSD etc) or minimal damage (although I don't know what that would be). The punishment should be severe, regardless of the consequences. Otherwise some men will get off lighter simply because they were 'lucky'",
">\n\nTo clarify your position, are you asking for a broader range of available punishment in the event of a pregnancy or are you advocating for a higher minimum punishment?",
">\n\nBoth, honestly. There should be automatic sentence enhancements as well as additional restitution.",
">\n\nI would counter then and suggest that if you are going to aggravate the charge based on causing pregnancy, it should only be to broaden the possible punishment range, not increase a mandatory minimum. \n\nMandatory minimums have a long history of causing more problems. Yes, rapists deserve to go to prison, but have you considered how many less would take a plea bargain because it would require x versus y years in prison? These are the types of cases that prosecutors lose more often than any other and cause the most trauma and stress to the victims. Mandatory minimums have the effect of making harder-to-prove cases get ignored meaning less overall justice. It would be better for those difficult cases to still see some type of punishment versus more acquittals or dismissals.",
">\n\nIt's the same crime whether she ends up getting pregnant. If she does, though, I do think the convict should be held responsible for the child/abortion costs and have no parental rights whatsoever, but not more jail time for the same crime.",
">\n\nNo, I think the punishment should be the same either way. Give the man a choice of castration or death. \nBut I get where you're coming from. I think the penalty for attempted murder should be the same as for murder. Just because you're incompetent or the victim was fortunate enough to survive, you get off easier? Doesn't make sense to me. Your actions were the same, even if the result was different.",
">\n\nI get that there should be more restitution, but who would more prison time help? The rapist did the exact same thing in either scenario.",
">\n\nYes! Twice the emotional damage.",
">\n\nI'm going to do the devil's advocate here.\nDoes that mean that a rape done with a condom will be less punished?\nHow about a rape done with a stick?\nFor the sake of argument : if rape was punished by death, how would you punish rape that leads to pregnancy? Do you kill them twice?\nIf a rape happens, the victim should immediately get an treatment to abord any possible baby, of if te rape is reported later on abortion should be an option available for victims.",
">\n\nLike child support whether or not the baby is delivered? I’d support that although faked rape cases gonna soar pretty high for men with lots of dough",
">\n\nSomeone probably mentioned this but I found out last year that rapists actually have rights to the child!!!",
">\n\nStrongly agree",
">\n\nYou only talk about abortion, but there is also the morning after pill to prevent conception which (to most women) is a lot less traumatising than abortion.\nGiven this, you are proposing to punish someone based on the actions of someone else if you're suggesting to punish the rapist more based on whether or not a child is born. That goes against every principle of what the rule of law and a fair trial is about.\nAlso, on a practical note, that would mean you can't try any rape case until 9 months after the rape. There is already a huge backlog and issues around women not feeling able to report rape. I can only see this additional requirement making things worse.",
">\n\nThey do. If you go into prison with bad paperwork, you will be in a living hell.",
">\n\n\nespecially if the mother carries the child to term.\n\nNo. Abortion has far lower physical risks and does not cause a child to come into existence.\nEverything up to the conception is caused by the rape, but thereafter the woman has control of her body again, and choosing to continue rather than abort the pregnancy is her own choice, so are the consequences.\nSo there should be no difference depending on the choices of the victim, only on those of the criminal. This includes inflicting a pregnancy, but not how to deal with it.",
">\n\nI actually do like this idea, I’m just wondering is there any equivalent for if a male or AMAB person was raped. They are not able to get pregnant so this same law wouldn’t carry out for them. It would only apply to female and AFAB persons.",
">\n\nBecause the asshole forced that choice on her in the first place, that's why.",
">\n\n\nShe might have religious beliefs that proscribe abortion (such as being Catholic)\nAbortion can be just as traumatic\nThe rapist may not have a say in the abortion, but he had a say in the conception. He could have avoided that problem by not raping her in the first place.",
">\n\nThat would fall under “take your victim as you find her.” The enhanced sentence would happen whether the victim aborts or not.",
">\n\nThe charges would be based off of actual outcomes, not possibilities. If a fertile woman is raped but does not conceive, then the aggravating factor would not apply.\nThe goal behind this is to act as a deterrent in light of opposition to abortion. Certain people have religious objections to abortion even in the event of rape (mainly because the child is not at fault). Even if she aborts, there is still a lot of trauma involved.",
">\n\n\nThe goal behind this is to act as a deterrent in light of opposition to abortion\n\nYou could just generally increase the prison term for rape and have more of a deterrent against all kinds of rape. I'd say that's a much more favourable outcome.",
">\n\nWhat if he want the victim to abort, but the victim said no/unable to do so? \nIf you lighten his punishment, all rapish would tell the victim to abort\nIf you make it harsher, it mean a child would be born with both parent hated him/her\nAlso, what if the victim drop the child in a safe heaven? Is he allowed to meet the child?",
">\n\nToo bad, so sad for the rapist. As I said before, he would have to take his victim as he found her. If she chose not to abort, then that’s the asshole’s problem.",
">\n\nI’m talking about a CHILD who is about to be raised up without anyone care or want him!",
">\n\nWhy not make them pay child support in addition to the normal sentence? Failing to pay child support already had some insane consequences."
] |
>
Right, but putting them in jail longer means they aren't working which means they aren't paying child support. | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of.",
">\n\nShouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population. \nHonestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society.",
">\n\nI agree, there was a rape incident in Korea (Cho Doo-soon incident). Due to poor law, he was freed after a short time despite causing too many injuries for the victim. After that every single people who lived near his house moved away. They should keep him in prison.",
">\n\nI could get behind this idea in the pragmatic sense that it could be a further deterrent from rape altogether, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make sense. Lying about birth control or intentionally tempering with it in order to impregnate a partner without/against their consent (or to be impregnated, since women can also do it) is a morally reprehensible in its own right, and furthermore can also carry legal repercussions, if it can be proven that the partners agreed to protected intercourse and one of them broke this agreement without the other's knowledge. One example is stealthing, which is a form of sexual abuse and was widely discussed a while ago. \nRape is having sex with someone without/against their consent for the act itself. Additional agreements like whether or not protection is used become irrelevant in this case. Pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely traumatic for victims, that is true, but rape itself is the crime that has been committed and if the victim happened to be on birth control or infertile that does not influence what has been done to them from the perspective of the crime itself.",
">\n\nI would prefer it if we instituted a policy that treats rape with potential conception this way, regardless of the actual results, in a manner similar to how we treat assault, aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon as different crimes. It wouldn't be any harder to prove than rape already is, while accounting for the additional reckless endangerment that comes from concieving a child through violence.",
">\n\nHe should pay child support to whoever keeps the child.",
">\n\nRapists aren't in control of the conception. If they get lucky and no child is conceived, that isn't because of anything in control of the rapist. People should be punished for things in their control, not let off for things outside their control.\nImagine a drunk driver. He gets in an accident because a child crosses the road in front of the car. But if the child had tripped just before the road and lives, that's not something we can give credit to the driver for.\nA rapist who is 'lucky' and doesn't get someone pregnant acted the same as a rapist who is 'unlucky' and did get someone pregnant. They created the same risk and should face the same punishment.",
">\n\nThe law does not work that way. In civil cases, a tortfeasor has to take his victim as he finds her. In other words, the asshole is responsible for whatever happens, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage. As another example, if a robber punches someone and that person ends up bleeding internally to death due to hemophilia, then that hemophilia is no defense to murder - the robber must take his victim as he found him. Criminal cases are similar - George Floyd's alleged physical condition was not a defense to the murder charges that Derek Chauvin was convicted of.",
">\n\nThe issue isn't with the harsher penalties but with the weaker penalties for rapes that don't result in pregnancy. Take two rapists. Rapist A impregnates his victim, while rapist B does not. Why should rapist B get a lighter sentence than rapist A? Are we implicitly saying that rape isn't as bad if there's no pregnancy? The actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?",
">\n\n\nThe actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?\n\nThis happens all the time. We consider the actions and the consequences of the actions in determining \"appropriate\" punishment very often.\nIf I shoot a gun blindly at a random house, that same action can have any number of consequences. Maybe the only consequences are breaking a window and putting a hole in someone's wall. Maybe it kills the family dog. Maybe the consequence is the bullet hitting someone and paralyzing them for life. Maybe the consequence is breaking a gas line that leads to an explosion that kills a dozen people.\nWhy isn't it reasonable to consider the outcomes of actions when determining the appropriate response?",
">\n\nThe comparison would be more like: you kill a person in each case, but in one, you also unintentionally break their leg. In the second case, should you be charged with a different crime? It's not like you didn't intend harm and by chance harm was caused. Harm is caused in both rape and rape with pregnancy. The act isn't different at all. It's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)",
">\n\nI don't think we need to quibble about whether it's an apt comparison. Based on what the person I responded to said, I think it is (i.e. same actions + different consequences).\n\nThe act isn't different at all.\n\nNot saying it isn't. What I'm saying is that the same act can have different consequences, and we very often apply different repercussions/punishments based on differences in consequences for the same act.\n\nIt's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)\n\nGetting raped and becoming pregnant by your rapist is worse than getting raped and not becoming pregnant by your rapist. That seems pretty uncontroversial to me.",
">\n\nSo... for example, given the exact same circumstances and actions, a woman on birth control is somehow less raped than a woman without who becomes pregnant? And a woman who miscarries or aborts a rape baby is somehow then less raped than she was while she was pregnant?",
">\n\nI feel this would cause an issue where, if the victim really wants to hurt their rapist the most, they have an incentive to remain pregnant even if they don't really want to.\nAlso, should this also apply to situations in which it is the rapist who gets pregnant and not the victim?",
">\n\nJesus.. keeping your rapist's baby so they serve a harsher sentence is a level of spite that I don't think anyone could sink to.",
">\n\nIf you touch my daughters you’d better hope the cops find you first cuz there’s a reckoning upon you if I am first and I’ll gladly sit in a jail for taking a predator to meet the Godess. \n To the point , fuck yes a rapist should have to provide child support. Rapist shouldn’t be allowed to rot in jail , make them work and pay for 18 years like non rapist dads do. And when they fall behind it’s incarceration and forced labor. \nFor far too long our mother, daughter , wives , sisters, aunties and grannies have faced unfair systematic societal oppression. End it by embracing a new paradigm of true human dignity and equality.",
">\n\nFirst of all. I hop on bored with Ben Shapiro when he says to physically castrate rapist, pedophiles, predators, etc. But I like to add my spice to things and add a prison sentence just like they do now. Then add pay for the damage they've done. Example would be. If your caught raping a woman. The woman chooses abortion. He pays for the abortion and following. COunceling sessions through the state to the agency. Or if she keeps it. Then guess who paying a child support for 18 years? Rapist. Just one of many examples I'm sure we could conjure. But by all means tear this idea apart, or let's build from it.",
">\n\nDisagree. It makes no difference if he causes the worst possible damage (pregnancy, std infection, PTSD etc) or minimal damage (although I don't know what that would be). The punishment should be severe, regardless of the consequences. Otherwise some men will get off lighter simply because they were 'lucky'",
">\n\nTo clarify your position, are you asking for a broader range of available punishment in the event of a pregnancy or are you advocating for a higher minimum punishment?",
">\n\nBoth, honestly. There should be automatic sentence enhancements as well as additional restitution.",
">\n\nI would counter then and suggest that if you are going to aggravate the charge based on causing pregnancy, it should only be to broaden the possible punishment range, not increase a mandatory minimum. \n\nMandatory minimums have a long history of causing more problems. Yes, rapists deserve to go to prison, but have you considered how many less would take a plea bargain because it would require x versus y years in prison? These are the types of cases that prosecutors lose more often than any other and cause the most trauma and stress to the victims. Mandatory minimums have the effect of making harder-to-prove cases get ignored meaning less overall justice. It would be better for those difficult cases to still see some type of punishment versus more acquittals or dismissals.",
">\n\nIt's the same crime whether she ends up getting pregnant. If she does, though, I do think the convict should be held responsible for the child/abortion costs and have no parental rights whatsoever, but not more jail time for the same crime.",
">\n\nNo, I think the punishment should be the same either way. Give the man a choice of castration or death. \nBut I get where you're coming from. I think the penalty for attempted murder should be the same as for murder. Just because you're incompetent or the victim was fortunate enough to survive, you get off easier? Doesn't make sense to me. Your actions were the same, even if the result was different.",
">\n\nI get that there should be more restitution, but who would more prison time help? The rapist did the exact same thing in either scenario.",
">\n\nYes! Twice the emotional damage.",
">\n\nI'm going to do the devil's advocate here.\nDoes that mean that a rape done with a condom will be less punished?\nHow about a rape done with a stick?\nFor the sake of argument : if rape was punished by death, how would you punish rape that leads to pregnancy? Do you kill them twice?\nIf a rape happens, the victim should immediately get an treatment to abord any possible baby, of if te rape is reported later on abortion should be an option available for victims.",
">\n\nLike child support whether or not the baby is delivered? I’d support that although faked rape cases gonna soar pretty high for men with lots of dough",
">\n\nSomeone probably mentioned this but I found out last year that rapists actually have rights to the child!!!",
">\n\nStrongly agree",
">\n\nYou only talk about abortion, but there is also the morning after pill to prevent conception which (to most women) is a lot less traumatising than abortion.\nGiven this, you are proposing to punish someone based on the actions of someone else if you're suggesting to punish the rapist more based on whether or not a child is born. That goes against every principle of what the rule of law and a fair trial is about.\nAlso, on a practical note, that would mean you can't try any rape case until 9 months after the rape. There is already a huge backlog and issues around women not feeling able to report rape. I can only see this additional requirement making things worse.",
">\n\nThey do. If you go into prison with bad paperwork, you will be in a living hell.",
">\n\n\nespecially if the mother carries the child to term.\n\nNo. Abortion has far lower physical risks and does not cause a child to come into existence.\nEverything up to the conception is caused by the rape, but thereafter the woman has control of her body again, and choosing to continue rather than abort the pregnancy is her own choice, so are the consequences.\nSo there should be no difference depending on the choices of the victim, only on those of the criminal. This includes inflicting a pregnancy, but not how to deal with it.",
">\n\nI actually do like this idea, I’m just wondering is there any equivalent for if a male or AMAB person was raped. They are not able to get pregnant so this same law wouldn’t carry out for them. It would only apply to female and AFAB persons.",
">\n\nBecause the asshole forced that choice on her in the first place, that's why.",
">\n\n\nShe might have religious beliefs that proscribe abortion (such as being Catholic)\nAbortion can be just as traumatic\nThe rapist may not have a say in the abortion, but he had a say in the conception. He could have avoided that problem by not raping her in the first place.",
">\n\nThat would fall under “take your victim as you find her.” The enhanced sentence would happen whether the victim aborts or not.",
">\n\nThe charges would be based off of actual outcomes, not possibilities. If a fertile woman is raped but does not conceive, then the aggravating factor would not apply.\nThe goal behind this is to act as a deterrent in light of opposition to abortion. Certain people have religious objections to abortion even in the event of rape (mainly because the child is not at fault). Even if she aborts, there is still a lot of trauma involved.",
">\n\n\nThe goal behind this is to act as a deterrent in light of opposition to abortion\n\nYou could just generally increase the prison term for rape and have more of a deterrent against all kinds of rape. I'd say that's a much more favourable outcome.",
">\n\nWhat if he want the victim to abort, but the victim said no/unable to do so? \nIf you lighten his punishment, all rapish would tell the victim to abort\nIf you make it harsher, it mean a child would be born with both parent hated him/her\nAlso, what if the victim drop the child in a safe heaven? Is he allowed to meet the child?",
">\n\nToo bad, so sad for the rapist. As I said before, he would have to take his victim as he found her. If she chose not to abort, then that’s the asshole’s problem.",
">\n\nI’m talking about a CHILD who is about to be raised up without anyone care or want him!",
">\n\nWhy not make them pay child support in addition to the normal sentence? Failing to pay child support already had some insane consequences.",
">\n\nI said something in the OP about additional child support or restitution (as in a greater percentage of income than usual) - enough to leave one destitute for life."
] |
>
If they're in prison, then they're doing convict labor. In that case, you can simply use the (meager) wages from that labor as restitution for the duration of the sentence. | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of.",
">\n\nShouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population. \nHonestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society.",
">\n\nI agree, there was a rape incident in Korea (Cho Doo-soon incident). Due to poor law, he was freed after a short time despite causing too many injuries for the victim. After that every single people who lived near his house moved away. They should keep him in prison.",
">\n\nI could get behind this idea in the pragmatic sense that it could be a further deterrent from rape altogether, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make sense. Lying about birth control or intentionally tempering with it in order to impregnate a partner without/against their consent (or to be impregnated, since women can also do it) is a morally reprehensible in its own right, and furthermore can also carry legal repercussions, if it can be proven that the partners agreed to protected intercourse and one of them broke this agreement without the other's knowledge. One example is stealthing, which is a form of sexual abuse and was widely discussed a while ago. \nRape is having sex with someone without/against their consent for the act itself. Additional agreements like whether or not protection is used become irrelevant in this case. Pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely traumatic for victims, that is true, but rape itself is the crime that has been committed and if the victim happened to be on birth control or infertile that does not influence what has been done to them from the perspective of the crime itself.",
">\n\nI would prefer it if we instituted a policy that treats rape with potential conception this way, regardless of the actual results, in a manner similar to how we treat assault, aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon as different crimes. It wouldn't be any harder to prove than rape already is, while accounting for the additional reckless endangerment that comes from concieving a child through violence.",
">\n\nHe should pay child support to whoever keeps the child.",
">\n\nRapists aren't in control of the conception. If they get lucky and no child is conceived, that isn't because of anything in control of the rapist. People should be punished for things in their control, not let off for things outside their control.\nImagine a drunk driver. He gets in an accident because a child crosses the road in front of the car. But if the child had tripped just before the road and lives, that's not something we can give credit to the driver for.\nA rapist who is 'lucky' and doesn't get someone pregnant acted the same as a rapist who is 'unlucky' and did get someone pregnant. They created the same risk and should face the same punishment.",
">\n\nThe law does not work that way. In civil cases, a tortfeasor has to take his victim as he finds her. In other words, the asshole is responsible for whatever happens, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage. As another example, if a robber punches someone and that person ends up bleeding internally to death due to hemophilia, then that hemophilia is no defense to murder - the robber must take his victim as he found him. Criminal cases are similar - George Floyd's alleged physical condition was not a defense to the murder charges that Derek Chauvin was convicted of.",
">\n\nThe issue isn't with the harsher penalties but with the weaker penalties for rapes that don't result in pregnancy. Take two rapists. Rapist A impregnates his victim, while rapist B does not. Why should rapist B get a lighter sentence than rapist A? Are we implicitly saying that rape isn't as bad if there's no pregnancy? The actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?",
">\n\n\nThe actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?\n\nThis happens all the time. We consider the actions and the consequences of the actions in determining \"appropriate\" punishment very often.\nIf I shoot a gun blindly at a random house, that same action can have any number of consequences. Maybe the only consequences are breaking a window and putting a hole in someone's wall. Maybe it kills the family dog. Maybe the consequence is the bullet hitting someone and paralyzing them for life. Maybe the consequence is breaking a gas line that leads to an explosion that kills a dozen people.\nWhy isn't it reasonable to consider the outcomes of actions when determining the appropriate response?",
">\n\nThe comparison would be more like: you kill a person in each case, but in one, you also unintentionally break their leg. In the second case, should you be charged with a different crime? It's not like you didn't intend harm and by chance harm was caused. Harm is caused in both rape and rape with pregnancy. The act isn't different at all. It's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)",
">\n\nI don't think we need to quibble about whether it's an apt comparison. Based on what the person I responded to said, I think it is (i.e. same actions + different consequences).\n\nThe act isn't different at all.\n\nNot saying it isn't. What I'm saying is that the same act can have different consequences, and we very often apply different repercussions/punishments based on differences in consequences for the same act.\n\nIt's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)\n\nGetting raped and becoming pregnant by your rapist is worse than getting raped and not becoming pregnant by your rapist. That seems pretty uncontroversial to me.",
">\n\nSo... for example, given the exact same circumstances and actions, a woman on birth control is somehow less raped than a woman without who becomes pregnant? And a woman who miscarries or aborts a rape baby is somehow then less raped than she was while she was pregnant?",
">\n\nI feel this would cause an issue where, if the victim really wants to hurt their rapist the most, they have an incentive to remain pregnant even if they don't really want to.\nAlso, should this also apply to situations in which it is the rapist who gets pregnant and not the victim?",
">\n\nJesus.. keeping your rapist's baby so they serve a harsher sentence is a level of spite that I don't think anyone could sink to.",
">\n\nIf you touch my daughters you’d better hope the cops find you first cuz there’s a reckoning upon you if I am first and I’ll gladly sit in a jail for taking a predator to meet the Godess. \n To the point , fuck yes a rapist should have to provide child support. Rapist shouldn’t be allowed to rot in jail , make them work and pay for 18 years like non rapist dads do. And when they fall behind it’s incarceration and forced labor. \nFor far too long our mother, daughter , wives , sisters, aunties and grannies have faced unfair systematic societal oppression. End it by embracing a new paradigm of true human dignity and equality.",
">\n\nFirst of all. I hop on bored with Ben Shapiro when he says to physically castrate rapist, pedophiles, predators, etc. But I like to add my spice to things and add a prison sentence just like they do now. Then add pay for the damage they've done. Example would be. If your caught raping a woman. The woman chooses abortion. He pays for the abortion and following. COunceling sessions through the state to the agency. Or if she keeps it. Then guess who paying a child support for 18 years? Rapist. Just one of many examples I'm sure we could conjure. But by all means tear this idea apart, or let's build from it.",
">\n\nDisagree. It makes no difference if he causes the worst possible damage (pregnancy, std infection, PTSD etc) or minimal damage (although I don't know what that would be). The punishment should be severe, regardless of the consequences. Otherwise some men will get off lighter simply because they were 'lucky'",
">\n\nTo clarify your position, are you asking for a broader range of available punishment in the event of a pregnancy or are you advocating for a higher minimum punishment?",
">\n\nBoth, honestly. There should be automatic sentence enhancements as well as additional restitution.",
">\n\nI would counter then and suggest that if you are going to aggravate the charge based on causing pregnancy, it should only be to broaden the possible punishment range, not increase a mandatory minimum. \n\nMandatory minimums have a long history of causing more problems. Yes, rapists deserve to go to prison, but have you considered how many less would take a plea bargain because it would require x versus y years in prison? These are the types of cases that prosecutors lose more often than any other and cause the most trauma and stress to the victims. Mandatory minimums have the effect of making harder-to-prove cases get ignored meaning less overall justice. It would be better for those difficult cases to still see some type of punishment versus more acquittals or dismissals.",
">\n\nIt's the same crime whether she ends up getting pregnant. If she does, though, I do think the convict should be held responsible for the child/abortion costs and have no parental rights whatsoever, but not more jail time for the same crime.",
">\n\nNo, I think the punishment should be the same either way. Give the man a choice of castration or death. \nBut I get where you're coming from. I think the penalty for attempted murder should be the same as for murder. Just because you're incompetent or the victim was fortunate enough to survive, you get off easier? Doesn't make sense to me. Your actions were the same, even if the result was different.",
">\n\nI get that there should be more restitution, but who would more prison time help? The rapist did the exact same thing in either scenario.",
">\n\nYes! Twice the emotional damage.",
">\n\nI'm going to do the devil's advocate here.\nDoes that mean that a rape done with a condom will be less punished?\nHow about a rape done with a stick?\nFor the sake of argument : if rape was punished by death, how would you punish rape that leads to pregnancy? Do you kill them twice?\nIf a rape happens, the victim should immediately get an treatment to abord any possible baby, of if te rape is reported later on abortion should be an option available for victims.",
">\n\nLike child support whether or not the baby is delivered? I’d support that although faked rape cases gonna soar pretty high for men with lots of dough",
">\n\nSomeone probably mentioned this but I found out last year that rapists actually have rights to the child!!!",
">\n\nStrongly agree",
">\n\nYou only talk about abortion, but there is also the morning after pill to prevent conception which (to most women) is a lot less traumatising than abortion.\nGiven this, you are proposing to punish someone based on the actions of someone else if you're suggesting to punish the rapist more based on whether or not a child is born. That goes against every principle of what the rule of law and a fair trial is about.\nAlso, on a practical note, that would mean you can't try any rape case until 9 months after the rape. There is already a huge backlog and issues around women not feeling able to report rape. I can only see this additional requirement making things worse.",
">\n\nThey do. If you go into prison with bad paperwork, you will be in a living hell.",
">\n\n\nespecially if the mother carries the child to term.\n\nNo. Abortion has far lower physical risks and does not cause a child to come into existence.\nEverything up to the conception is caused by the rape, but thereafter the woman has control of her body again, and choosing to continue rather than abort the pregnancy is her own choice, so are the consequences.\nSo there should be no difference depending on the choices of the victim, only on those of the criminal. This includes inflicting a pregnancy, but not how to deal with it.",
">\n\nI actually do like this idea, I’m just wondering is there any equivalent for if a male or AMAB person was raped. They are not able to get pregnant so this same law wouldn’t carry out for them. It would only apply to female and AFAB persons.",
">\n\nBecause the asshole forced that choice on her in the first place, that's why.",
">\n\n\nShe might have religious beliefs that proscribe abortion (such as being Catholic)\nAbortion can be just as traumatic\nThe rapist may not have a say in the abortion, but he had a say in the conception. He could have avoided that problem by not raping her in the first place.",
">\n\nThat would fall under “take your victim as you find her.” The enhanced sentence would happen whether the victim aborts or not.",
">\n\nThe charges would be based off of actual outcomes, not possibilities. If a fertile woman is raped but does not conceive, then the aggravating factor would not apply.\nThe goal behind this is to act as a deterrent in light of opposition to abortion. Certain people have religious objections to abortion even in the event of rape (mainly because the child is not at fault). Even if she aborts, there is still a lot of trauma involved.",
">\n\n\nThe goal behind this is to act as a deterrent in light of opposition to abortion\n\nYou could just generally increase the prison term for rape and have more of a deterrent against all kinds of rape. I'd say that's a much more favourable outcome.",
">\n\nWhat if he want the victim to abort, but the victim said no/unable to do so? \nIf you lighten his punishment, all rapish would tell the victim to abort\nIf you make it harsher, it mean a child would be born with both parent hated him/her\nAlso, what if the victim drop the child in a safe heaven? Is he allowed to meet the child?",
">\n\nToo bad, so sad for the rapist. As I said before, he would have to take his victim as he found her. If she chose not to abort, then that’s the asshole’s problem.",
">\n\nI’m talking about a CHILD who is about to be raised up without anyone care or want him!",
">\n\nWhy not make them pay child support in addition to the normal sentence? Failing to pay child support already had some insane consequences.",
">\n\nI said something in the OP about additional child support or restitution (as in a greater percentage of income than usual) - enough to leave one destitute for life.",
">\n\nRight, but putting them in jail longer means they aren't working which means they aren't paying child support."
] |
>
You know that can be as little as $1 a day right? | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of.",
">\n\nShouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population. \nHonestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society.",
">\n\nI agree, there was a rape incident in Korea (Cho Doo-soon incident). Due to poor law, he was freed after a short time despite causing too many injuries for the victim. After that every single people who lived near his house moved away. They should keep him in prison.",
">\n\nI could get behind this idea in the pragmatic sense that it could be a further deterrent from rape altogether, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make sense. Lying about birth control or intentionally tempering with it in order to impregnate a partner without/against their consent (or to be impregnated, since women can also do it) is a morally reprehensible in its own right, and furthermore can also carry legal repercussions, if it can be proven that the partners agreed to protected intercourse and one of them broke this agreement without the other's knowledge. One example is stealthing, which is a form of sexual abuse and was widely discussed a while ago. \nRape is having sex with someone without/against their consent for the act itself. Additional agreements like whether or not protection is used become irrelevant in this case. Pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely traumatic for victims, that is true, but rape itself is the crime that has been committed and if the victim happened to be on birth control or infertile that does not influence what has been done to them from the perspective of the crime itself.",
">\n\nI would prefer it if we instituted a policy that treats rape with potential conception this way, regardless of the actual results, in a manner similar to how we treat assault, aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon as different crimes. It wouldn't be any harder to prove than rape already is, while accounting for the additional reckless endangerment that comes from concieving a child through violence.",
">\n\nHe should pay child support to whoever keeps the child.",
">\n\nRapists aren't in control of the conception. If they get lucky and no child is conceived, that isn't because of anything in control of the rapist. People should be punished for things in their control, not let off for things outside their control.\nImagine a drunk driver. He gets in an accident because a child crosses the road in front of the car. But if the child had tripped just before the road and lives, that's not something we can give credit to the driver for.\nA rapist who is 'lucky' and doesn't get someone pregnant acted the same as a rapist who is 'unlucky' and did get someone pregnant. They created the same risk and should face the same punishment.",
">\n\nThe law does not work that way. In civil cases, a tortfeasor has to take his victim as he finds her. In other words, the asshole is responsible for whatever happens, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage. As another example, if a robber punches someone and that person ends up bleeding internally to death due to hemophilia, then that hemophilia is no defense to murder - the robber must take his victim as he found him. Criminal cases are similar - George Floyd's alleged physical condition was not a defense to the murder charges that Derek Chauvin was convicted of.",
">\n\nThe issue isn't with the harsher penalties but with the weaker penalties for rapes that don't result in pregnancy. Take two rapists. Rapist A impregnates his victim, while rapist B does not. Why should rapist B get a lighter sentence than rapist A? Are we implicitly saying that rape isn't as bad if there's no pregnancy? The actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?",
">\n\n\nThe actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?\n\nThis happens all the time. We consider the actions and the consequences of the actions in determining \"appropriate\" punishment very often.\nIf I shoot a gun blindly at a random house, that same action can have any number of consequences. Maybe the only consequences are breaking a window and putting a hole in someone's wall. Maybe it kills the family dog. Maybe the consequence is the bullet hitting someone and paralyzing them for life. Maybe the consequence is breaking a gas line that leads to an explosion that kills a dozen people.\nWhy isn't it reasonable to consider the outcomes of actions when determining the appropriate response?",
">\n\nThe comparison would be more like: you kill a person in each case, but in one, you also unintentionally break their leg. In the second case, should you be charged with a different crime? It's not like you didn't intend harm and by chance harm was caused. Harm is caused in both rape and rape with pregnancy. The act isn't different at all. It's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)",
">\n\nI don't think we need to quibble about whether it's an apt comparison. Based on what the person I responded to said, I think it is (i.e. same actions + different consequences).\n\nThe act isn't different at all.\n\nNot saying it isn't. What I'm saying is that the same act can have different consequences, and we very often apply different repercussions/punishments based on differences in consequences for the same act.\n\nIt's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)\n\nGetting raped and becoming pregnant by your rapist is worse than getting raped and not becoming pregnant by your rapist. That seems pretty uncontroversial to me.",
">\n\nSo... for example, given the exact same circumstances and actions, a woman on birth control is somehow less raped than a woman without who becomes pregnant? And a woman who miscarries or aborts a rape baby is somehow then less raped than she was while she was pregnant?",
">\n\nI feel this would cause an issue where, if the victim really wants to hurt their rapist the most, they have an incentive to remain pregnant even if they don't really want to.\nAlso, should this also apply to situations in which it is the rapist who gets pregnant and not the victim?",
">\n\nJesus.. keeping your rapist's baby so they serve a harsher sentence is a level of spite that I don't think anyone could sink to.",
">\n\nIf you touch my daughters you’d better hope the cops find you first cuz there’s a reckoning upon you if I am first and I’ll gladly sit in a jail for taking a predator to meet the Godess. \n To the point , fuck yes a rapist should have to provide child support. Rapist shouldn’t be allowed to rot in jail , make them work and pay for 18 years like non rapist dads do. And when they fall behind it’s incarceration and forced labor. \nFor far too long our mother, daughter , wives , sisters, aunties and grannies have faced unfair systematic societal oppression. End it by embracing a new paradigm of true human dignity and equality.",
">\n\nFirst of all. I hop on bored with Ben Shapiro when he says to physically castrate rapist, pedophiles, predators, etc. But I like to add my spice to things and add a prison sentence just like they do now. Then add pay for the damage they've done. Example would be. If your caught raping a woman. The woman chooses abortion. He pays for the abortion and following. COunceling sessions through the state to the agency. Or if she keeps it. Then guess who paying a child support for 18 years? Rapist. Just one of many examples I'm sure we could conjure. But by all means tear this idea apart, or let's build from it.",
">\n\nDisagree. It makes no difference if he causes the worst possible damage (pregnancy, std infection, PTSD etc) or minimal damage (although I don't know what that would be). The punishment should be severe, regardless of the consequences. Otherwise some men will get off lighter simply because they were 'lucky'",
">\n\nTo clarify your position, are you asking for a broader range of available punishment in the event of a pregnancy or are you advocating for a higher minimum punishment?",
">\n\nBoth, honestly. There should be automatic sentence enhancements as well as additional restitution.",
">\n\nI would counter then and suggest that if you are going to aggravate the charge based on causing pregnancy, it should only be to broaden the possible punishment range, not increase a mandatory minimum. \n\nMandatory minimums have a long history of causing more problems. Yes, rapists deserve to go to prison, but have you considered how many less would take a plea bargain because it would require x versus y years in prison? These are the types of cases that prosecutors lose more often than any other and cause the most trauma and stress to the victims. Mandatory minimums have the effect of making harder-to-prove cases get ignored meaning less overall justice. It would be better for those difficult cases to still see some type of punishment versus more acquittals or dismissals.",
">\n\nIt's the same crime whether she ends up getting pregnant. If she does, though, I do think the convict should be held responsible for the child/abortion costs and have no parental rights whatsoever, but not more jail time for the same crime.",
">\n\nNo, I think the punishment should be the same either way. Give the man a choice of castration or death. \nBut I get where you're coming from. I think the penalty for attempted murder should be the same as for murder. Just because you're incompetent or the victim was fortunate enough to survive, you get off easier? Doesn't make sense to me. Your actions were the same, even if the result was different.",
">\n\nI get that there should be more restitution, but who would more prison time help? The rapist did the exact same thing in either scenario.",
">\n\nYes! Twice the emotional damage.",
">\n\nI'm going to do the devil's advocate here.\nDoes that mean that a rape done with a condom will be less punished?\nHow about a rape done with a stick?\nFor the sake of argument : if rape was punished by death, how would you punish rape that leads to pregnancy? Do you kill them twice?\nIf a rape happens, the victim should immediately get an treatment to abord any possible baby, of if te rape is reported later on abortion should be an option available for victims.",
">\n\nLike child support whether or not the baby is delivered? I’d support that although faked rape cases gonna soar pretty high for men with lots of dough",
">\n\nSomeone probably mentioned this but I found out last year that rapists actually have rights to the child!!!",
">\n\nStrongly agree",
">\n\nYou only talk about abortion, but there is also the morning after pill to prevent conception which (to most women) is a lot less traumatising than abortion.\nGiven this, you are proposing to punish someone based on the actions of someone else if you're suggesting to punish the rapist more based on whether or not a child is born. That goes against every principle of what the rule of law and a fair trial is about.\nAlso, on a practical note, that would mean you can't try any rape case until 9 months after the rape. There is already a huge backlog and issues around women not feeling able to report rape. I can only see this additional requirement making things worse.",
">\n\nThey do. If you go into prison with bad paperwork, you will be in a living hell.",
">\n\n\nespecially if the mother carries the child to term.\n\nNo. Abortion has far lower physical risks and does not cause a child to come into existence.\nEverything up to the conception is caused by the rape, but thereafter the woman has control of her body again, and choosing to continue rather than abort the pregnancy is her own choice, so are the consequences.\nSo there should be no difference depending on the choices of the victim, only on those of the criminal. This includes inflicting a pregnancy, but not how to deal with it.",
">\n\nI actually do like this idea, I’m just wondering is there any equivalent for if a male or AMAB person was raped. They are not able to get pregnant so this same law wouldn’t carry out for them. It would only apply to female and AFAB persons.",
">\n\nBecause the asshole forced that choice on her in the first place, that's why.",
">\n\n\nShe might have religious beliefs that proscribe abortion (such as being Catholic)\nAbortion can be just as traumatic\nThe rapist may not have a say in the abortion, but he had a say in the conception. He could have avoided that problem by not raping her in the first place.",
">\n\nThat would fall under “take your victim as you find her.” The enhanced sentence would happen whether the victim aborts or not.",
">\n\nThe charges would be based off of actual outcomes, not possibilities. If a fertile woman is raped but does not conceive, then the aggravating factor would not apply.\nThe goal behind this is to act as a deterrent in light of opposition to abortion. Certain people have religious objections to abortion even in the event of rape (mainly because the child is not at fault). Even if she aborts, there is still a lot of trauma involved.",
">\n\n\nThe goal behind this is to act as a deterrent in light of opposition to abortion\n\nYou could just generally increase the prison term for rape and have more of a deterrent against all kinds of rape. I'd say that's a much more favourable outcome.",
">\n\nWhat if he want the victim to abort, but the victim said no/unable to do so? \nIf you lighten his punishment, all rapish would tell the victim to abort\nIf you make it harsher, it mean a child would be born with both parent hated him/her\nAlso, what if the victim drop the child in a safe heaven? Is he allowed to meet the child?",
">\n\nToo bad, so sad for the rapist. As I said before, he would have to take his victim as he found her. If she chose not to abort, then that’s the asshole’s problem.",
">\n\nI’m talking about a CHILD who is about to be raised up without anyone care or want him!",
">\n\nWhy not make them pay child support in addition to the normal sentence? Failing to pay child support already had some insane consequences.",
">\n\nI said something in the OP about additional child support or restitution (as in a greater percentage of income than usual) - enough to leave one destitute for life.",
">\n\nRight, but putting them in jail longer means they aren't working which means they aren't paying child support.",
">\n\nIf they're in prison, then they're doing convict labor. In that case, you can simply use the (meager) wages from that labor as restitution for the duration of the sentence."
] |
>
I know. In that case, the victim should get all of it. | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of.",
">\n\nShouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population. \nHonestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society.",
">\n\nI agree, there was a rape incident in Korea (Cho Doo-soon incident). Due to poor law, he was freed after a short time despite causing too many injuries for the victim. After that every single people who lived near his house moved away. They should keep him in prison.",
">\n\nI could get behind this idea in the pragmatic sense that it could be a further deterrent from rape altogether, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make sense. Lying about birth control or intentionally tempering with it in order to impregnate a partner without/against their consent (or to be impregnated, since women can also do it) is a morally reprehensible in its own right, and furthermore can also carry legal repercussions, if it can be proven that the partners agreed to protected intercourse and one of them broke this agreement without the other's knowledge. One example is stealthing, which is a form of sexual abuse and was widely discussed a while ago. \nRape is having sex with someone without/against their consent for the act itself. Additional agreements like whether or not protection is used become irrelevant in this case. Pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely traumatic for victims, that is true, but rape itself is the crime that has been committed and if the victim happened to be on birth control or infertile that does not influence what has been done to them from the perspective of the crime itself.",
">\n\nI would prefer it if we instituted a policy that treats rape with potential conception this way, regardless of the actual results, in a manner similar to how we treat assault, aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon as different crimes. It wouldn't be any harder to prove than rape already is, while accounting for the additional reckless endangerment that comes from concieving a child through violence.",
">\n\nHe should pay child support to whoever keeps the child.",
">\n\nRapists aren't in control of the conception. If they get lucky and no child is conceived, that isn't because of anything in control of the rapist. People should be punished for things in their control, not let off for things outside their control.\nImagine a drunk driver. He gets in an accident because a child crosses the road in front of the car. But if the child had tripped just before the road and lives, that's not something we can give credit to the driver for.\nA rapist who is 'lucky' and doesn't get someone pregnant acted the same as a rapist who is 'unlucky' and did get someone pregnant. They created the same risk and should face the same punishment.",
">\n\nThe law does not work that way. In civil cases, a tortfeasor has to take his victim as he finds her. In other words, the asshole is responsible for whatever happens, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage. As another example, if a robber punches someone and that person ends up bleeding internally to death due to hemophilia, then that hemophilia is no defense to murder - the robber must take his victim as he found him. Criminal cases are similar - George Floyd's alleged physical condition was not a defense to the murder charges that Derek Chauvin was convicted of.",
">\n\nThe issue isn't with the harsher penalties but with the weaker penalties for rapes that don't result in pregnancy. Take two rapists. Rapist A impregnates his victim, while rapist B does not. Why should rapist B get a lighter sentence than rapist A? Are we implicitly saying that rape isn't as bad if there's no pregnancy? The actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?",
">\n\n\nThe actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?\n\nThis happens all the time. We consider the actions and the consequences of the actions in determining \"appropriate\" punishment very often.\nIf I shoot a gun blindly at a random house, that same action can have any number of consequences. Maybe the only consequences are breaking a window and putting a hole in someone's wall. Maybe it kills the family dog. Maybe the consequence is the bullet hitting someone and paralyzing them for life. Maybe the consequence is breaking a gas line that leads to an explosion that kills a dozen people.\nWhy isn't it reasonable to consider the outcomes of actions when determining the appropriate response?",
">\n\nThe comparison would be more like: you kill a person in each case, but in one, you also unintentionally break their leg. In the second case, should you be charged with a different crime? It's not like you didn't intend harm and by chance harm was caused. Harm is caused in both rape and rape with pregnancy. The act isn't different at all. It's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)",
">\n\nI don't think we need to quibble about whether it's an apt comparison. Based on what the person I responded to said, I think it is (i.e. same actions + different consequences).\n\nThe act isn't different at all.\n\nNot saying it isn't. What I'm saying is that the same act can have different consequences, and we very often apply different repercussions/punishments based on differences in consequences for the same act.\n\nIt's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)\n\nGetting raped and becoming pregnant by your rapist is worse than getting raped and not becoming pregnant by your rapist. That seems pretty uncontroversial to me.",
">\n\nSo... for example, given the exact same circumstances and actions, a woman on birth control is somehow less raped than a woman without who becomes pregnant? And a woman who miscarries or aborts a rape baby is somehow then less raped than she was while she was pregnant?",
">\n\nI feel this would cause an issue where, if the victim really wants to hurt their rapist the most, they have an incentive to remain pregnant even if they don't really want to.\nAlso, should this also apply to situations in which it is the rapist who gets pregnant and not the victim?",
">\n\nJesus.. keeping your rapist's baby so they serve a harsher sentence is a level of spite that I don't think anyone could sink to.",
">\n\nIf you touch my daughters you’d better hope the cops find you first cuz there’s a reckoning upon you if I am first and I’ll gladly sit in a jail for taking a predator to meet the Godess. \n To the point , fuck yes a rapist should have to provide child support. Rapist shouldn’t be allowed to rot in jail , make them work and pay for 18 years like non rapist dads do. And when they fall behind it’s incarceration and forced labor. \nFor far too long our mother, daughter , wives , sisters, aunties and grannies have faced unfair systematic societal oppression. End it by embracing a new paradigm of true human dignity and equality.",
">\n\nFirst of all. I hop on bored with Ben Shapiro when he says to physically castrate rapist, pedophiles, predators, etc. But I like to add my spice to things and add a prison sentence just like they do now. Then add pay for the damage they've done. Example would be. If your caught raping a woman. The woman chooses abortion. He pays for the abortion and following. COunceling sessions through the state to the agency. Or if she keeps it. Then guess who paying a child support for 18 years? Rapist. Just one of many examples I'm sure we could conjure. But by all means tear this idea apart, or let's build from it.",
">\n\nDisagree. It makes no difference if he causes the worst possible damage (pregnancy, std infection, PTSD etc) or minimal damage (although I don't know what that would be). The punishment should be severe, regardless of the consequences. Otherwise some men will get off lighter simply because they were 'lucky'",
">\n\nTo clarify your position, are you asking for a broader range of available punishment in the event of a pregnancy or are you advocating for a higher minimum punishment?",
">\n\nBoth, honestly. There should be automatic sentence enhancements as well as additional restitution.",
">\n\nI would counter then and suggest that if you are going to aggravate the charge based on causing pregnancy, it should only be to broaden the possible punishment range, not increase a mandatory minimum. \n\nMandatory minimums have a long history of causing more problems. Yes, rapists deserve to go to prison, but have you considered how many less would take a plea bargain because it would require x versus y years in prison? These are the types of cases that prosecutors lose more often than any other and cause the most trauma and stress to the victims. Mandatory minimums have the effect of making harder-to-prove cases get ignored meaning less overall justice. It would be better for those difficult cases to still see some type of punishment versus more acquittals or dismissals.",
">\n\nIt's the same crime whether she ends up getting pregnant. If she does, though, I do think the convict should be held responsible for the child/abortion costs and have no parental rights whatsoever, but not more jail time for the same crime.",
">\n\nNo, I think the punishment should be the same either way. Give the man a choice of castration or death. \nBut I get where you're coming from. I think the penalty for attempted murder should be the same as for murder. Just because you're incompetent or the victim was fortunate enough to survive, you get off easier? Doesn't make sense to me. Your actions were the same, even if the result was different.",
">\n\nI get that there should be more restitution, but who would more prison time help? The rapist did the exact same thing in either scenario.",
">\n\nYes! Twice the emotional damage.",
">\n\nI'm going to do the devil's advocate here.\nDoes that mean that a rape done with a condom will be less punished?\nHow about a rape done with a stick?\nFor the sake of argument : if rape was punished by death, how would you punish rape that leads to pregnancy? Do you kill them twice?\nIf a rape happens, the victim should immediately get an treatment to abord any possible baby, of if te rape is reported later on abortion should be an option available for victims.",
">\n\nLike child support whether or not the baby is delivered? I’d support that although faked rape cases gonna soar pretty high for men with lots of dough",
">\n\nSomeone probably mentioned this but I found out last year that rapists actually have rights to the child!!!",
">\n\nStrongly agree",
">\n\nYou only talk about abortion, but there is also the morning after pill to prevent conception which (to most women) is a lot less traumatising than abortion.\nGiven this, you are proposing to punish someone based on the actions of someone else if you're suggesting to punish the rapist more based on whether or not a child is born. That goes against every principle of what the rule of law and a fair trial is about.\nAlso, on a practical note, that would mean you can't try any rape case until 9 months after the rape. There is already a huge backlog and issues around women not feeling able to report rape. I can only see this additional requirement making things worse.",
">\n\nThey do. If you go into prison with bad paperwork, you will be in a living hell.",
">\n\n\nespecially if the mother carries the child to term.\n\nNo. Abortion has far lower physical risks and does not cause a child to come into existence.\nEverything up to the conception is caused by the rape, but thereafter the woman has control of her body again, and choosing to continue rather than abort the pregnancy is her own choice, so are the consequences.\nSo there should be no difference depending on the choices of the victim, only on those of the criminal. This includes inflicting a pregnancy, but not how to deal with it.",
">\n\nI actually do like this idea, I’m just wondering is there any equivalent for if a male or AMAB person was raped. They are not able to get pregnant so this same law wouldn’t carry out for them. It would only apply to female and AFAB persons.",
">\n\nBecause the asshole forced that choice on her in the first place, that's why.",
">\n\n\nShe might have religious beliefs that proscribe abortion (such as being Catholic)\nAbortion can be just as traumatic\nThe rapist may not have a say in the abortion, but he had a say in the conception. He could have avoided that problem by not raping her in the first place.",
">\n\nThat would fall under “take your victim as you find her.” The enhanced sentence would happen whether the victim aborts or not.",
">\n\nThe charges would be based off of actual outcomes, not possibilities. If a fertile woman is raped but does not conceive, then the aggravating factor would not apply.\nThe goal behind this is to act as a deterrent in light of opposition to abortion. Certain people have religious objections to abortion even in the event of rape (mainly because the child is not at fault). Even if she aborts, there is still a lot of trauma involved.",
">\n\n\nThe goal behind this is to act as a deterrent in light of opposition to abortion\n\nYou could just generally increase the prison term for rape and have more of a deterrent against all kinds of rape. I'd say that's a much more favourable outcome.",
">\n\nWhat if he want the victim to abort, but the victim said no/unable to do so? \nIf you lighten his punishment, all rapish would tell the victim to abort\nIf you make it harsher, it mean a child would be born with both parent hated him/her\nAlso, what if the victim drop the child in a safe heaven? Is he allowed to meet the child?",
">\n\nToo bad, so sad for the rapist. As I said before, he would have to take his victim as he found her. If she chose not to abort, then that’s the asshole’s problem.",
">\n\nI’m talking about a CHILD who is about to be raised up without anyone care or want him!",
">\n\nWhy not make them pay child support in addition to the normal sentence? Failing to pay child support already had some insane consequences.",
">\n\nI said something in the OP about additional child support or restitution (as in a greater percentage of income than usual) - enough to leave one destitute for life.",
">\n\nRight, but putting them in jail longer means they aren't working which means they aren't paying child support.",
">\n\nIf they're in prison, then they're doing convict labor. In that case, you can simply use the (meager) wages from that labor as restitution for the duration of the sentence.",
">\n\nYou know that can be as little as $1 a day right?"
] |
>
All $300 a year? That isn't even a good chuck of a rent payment. | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of.",
">\n\nShouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population. \nHonestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society.",
">\n\nI agree, there was a rape incident in Korea (Cho Doo-soon incident). Due to poor law, he was freed after a short time despite causing too many injuries for the victim. After that every single people who lived near his house moved away. They should keep him in prison.",
">\n\nI could get behind this idea in the pragmatic sense that it could be a further deterrent from rape altogether, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make sense. Lying about birth control or intentionally tempering with it in order to impregnate a partner without/against their consent (or to be impregnated, since women can also do it) is a morally reprehensible in its own right, and furthermore can also carry legal repercussions, if it can be proven that the partners agreed to protected intercourse and one of them broke this agreement without the other's knowledge. One example is stealthing, which is a form of sexual abuse and was widely discussed a while ago. \nRape is having sex with someone without/against their consent for the act itself. Additional agreements like whether or not protection is used become irrelevant in this case. Pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely traumatic for victims, that is true, but rape itself is the crime that has been committed and if the victim happened to be on birth control or infertile that does not influence what has been done to them from the perspective of the crime itself.",
">\n\nI would prefer it if we instituted a policy that treats rape with potential conception this way, regardless of the actual results, in a manner similar to how we treat assault, aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon as different crimes. It wouldn't be any harder to prove than rape already is, while accounting for the additional reckless endangerment that comes from concieving a child through violence.",
">\n\nHe should pay child support to whoever keeps the child.",
">\n\nRapists aren't in control of the conception. If they get lucky and no child is conceived, that isn't because of anything in control of the rapist. People should be punished for things in their control, not let off for things outside their control.\nImagine a drunk driver. He gets in an accident because a child crosses the road in front of the car. But if the child had tripped just before the road and lives, that's not something we can give credit to the driver for.\nA rapist who is 'lucky' and doesn't get someone pregnant acted the same as a rapist who is 'unlucky' and did get someone pregnant. They created the same risk and should face the same punishment.",
">\n\nThe law does not work that way. In civil cases, a tortfeasor has to take his victim as he finds her. In other words, the asshole is responsible for whatever happens, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage. As another example, if a robber punches someone and that person ends up bleeding internally to death due to hemophilia, then that hemophilia is no defense to murder - the robber must take his victim as he found him. Criminal cases are similar - George Floyd's alleged physical condition was not a defense to the murder charges that Derek Chauvin was convicted of.",
">\n\nThe issue isn't with the harsher penalties but with the weaker penalties for rapes that don't result in pregnancy. Take two rapists. Rapist A impregnates his victim, while rapist B does not. Why should rapist B get a lighter sentence than rapist A? Are we implicitly saying that rape isn't as bad if there's no pregnancy? The actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?",
">\n\n\nThe actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?\n\nThis happens all the time. We consider the actions and the consequences of the actions in determining \"appropriate\" punishment very often.\nIf I shoot a gun blindly at a random house, that same action can have any number of consequences. Maybe the only consequences are breaking a window and putting a hole in someone's wall. Maybe it kills the family dog. Maybe the consequence is the bullet hitting someone and paralyzing them for life. Maybe the consequence is breaking a gas line that leads to an explosion that kills a dozen people.\nWhy isn't it reasonable to consider the outcomes of actions when determining the appropriate response?",
">\n\nThe comparison would be more like: you kill a person in each case, but in one, you also unintentionally break their leg. In the second case, should you be charged with a different crime? It's not like you didn't intend harm and by chance harm was caused. Harm is caused in both rape and rape with pregnancy. The act isn't different at all. It's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)",
">\n\nI don't think we need to quibble about whether it's an apt comparison. Based on what the person I responded to said, I think it is (i.e. same actions + different consequences).\n\nThe act isn't different at all.\n\nNot saying it isn't. What I'm saying is that the same act can have different consequences, and we very often apply different repercussions/punishments based on differences in consequences for the same act.\n\nIt's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)\n\nGetting raped and becoming pregnant by your rapist is worse than getting raped and not becoming pregnant by your rapist. That seems pretty uncontroversial to me.",
">\n\nSo... for example, given the exact same circumstances and actions, a woman on birth control is somehow less raped than a woman without who becomes pregnant? And a woman who miscarries or aborts a rape baby is somehow then less raped than she was while she was pregnant?",
">\n\nI feel this would cause an issue where, if the victim really wants to hurt their rapist the most, they have an incentive to remain pregnant even if they don't really want to.\nAlso, should this also apply to situations in which it is the rapist who gets pregnant and not the victim?",
">\n\nJesus.. keeping your rapist's baby so they serve a harsher sentence is a level of spite that I don't think anyone could sink to.",
">\n\nIf you touch my daughters you’d better hope the cops find you first cuz there’s a reckoning upon you if I am first and I’ll gladly sit in a jail for taking a predator to meet the Godess. \n To the point , fuck yes a rapist should have to provide child support. Rapist shouldn’t be allowed to rot in jail , make them work and pay for 18 years like non rapist dads do. And when they fall behind it’s incarceration and forced labor. \nFor far too long our mother, daughter , wives , sisters, aunties and grannies have faced unfair systematic societal oppression. End it by embracing a new paradigm of true human dignity and equality.",
">\n\nFirst of all. I hop on bored with Ben Shapiro when he says to physically castrate rapist, pedophiles, predators, etc. But I like to add my spice to things and add a prison sentence just like they do now. Then add pay for the damage they've done. Example would be. If your caught raping a woman. The woman chooses abortion. He pays for the abortion and following. COunceling sessions through the state to the agency. Or if she keeps it. Then guess who paying a child support for 18 years? Rapist. Just one of many examples I'm sure we could conjure. But by all means tear this idea apart, or let's build from it.",
">\n\nDisagree. It makes no difference if he causes the worst possible damage (pregnancy, std infection, PTSD etc) or minimal damage (although I don't know what that would be). The punishment should be severe, regardless of the consequences. Otherwise some men will get off lighter simply because they were 'lucky'",
">\n\nTo clarify your position, are you asking for a broader range of available punishment in the event of a pregnancy or are you advocating for a higher minimum punishment?",
">\n\nBoth, honestly. There should be automatic sentence enhancements as well as additional restitution.",
">\n\nI would counter then and suggest that if you are going to aggravate the charge based on causing pregnancy, it should only be to broaden the possible punishment range, not increase a mandatory minimum. \n\nMandatory minimums have a long history of causing more problems. Yes, rapists deserve to go to prison, but have you considered how many less would take a plea bargain because it would require x versus y years in prison? These are the types of cases that prosecutors lose more often than any other and cause the most trauma and stress to the victims. Mandatory minimums have the effect of making harder-to-prove cases get ignored meaning less overall justice. It would be better for those difficult cases to still see some type of punishment versus more acquittals or dismissals.",
">\n\nIt's the same crime whether she ends up getting pregnant. If she does, though, I do think the convict should be held responsible for the child/abortion costs and have no parental rights whatsoever, but not more jail time for the same crime.",
">\n\nNo, I think the punishment should be the same either way. Give the man a choice of castration or death. \nBut I get where you're coming from. I think the penalty for attempted murder should be the same as for murder. Just because you're incompetent or the victim was fortunate enough to survive, you get off easier? Doesn't make sense to me. Your actions were the same, even if the result was different.",
">\n\nI get that there should be more restitution, but who would more prison time help? The rapist did the exact same thing in either scenario.",
">\n\nYes! Twice the emotional damage.",
">\n\nI'm going to do the devil's advocate here.\nDoes that mean that a rape done with a condom will be less punished?\nHow about a rape done with a stick?\nFor the sake of argument : if rape was punished by death, how would you punish rape that leads to pregnancy? Do you kill them twice?\nIf a rape happens, the victim should immediately get an treatment to abord any possible baby, of if te rape is reported later on abortion should be an option available for victims.",
">\n\nLike child support whether or not the baby is delivered? I’d support that although faked rape cases gonna soar pretty high for men with lots of dough",
">\n\nSomeone probably mentioned this but I found out last year that rapists actually have rights to the child!!!",
">\n\nStrongly agree",
">\n\nYou only talk about abortion, but there is also the morning after pill to prevent conception which (to most women) is a lot less traumatising than abortion.\nGiven this, you are proposing to punish someone based on the actions of someone else if you're suggesting to punish the rapist more based on whether or not a child is born. That goes against every principle of what the rule of law and a fair trial is about.\nAlso, on a practical note, that would mean you can't try any rape case until 9 months after the rape. There is already a huge backlog and issues around women not feeling able to report rape. I can only see this additional requirement making things worse.",
">\n\nThey do. If you go into prison with bad paperwork, you will be in a living hell.",
">\n\n\nespecially if the mother carries the child to term.\n\nNo. Abortion has far lower physical risks and does not cause a child to come into existence.\nEverything up to the conception is caused by the rape, but thereafter the woman has control of her body again, and choosing to continue rather than abort the pregnancy is her own choice, so are the consequences.\nSo there should be no difference depending on the choices of the victim, only on those of the criminal. This includes inflicting a pregnancy, but not how to deal with it.",
">\n\nI actually do like this idea, I’m just wondering is there any equivalent for if a male or AMAB person was raped. They are not able to get pregnant so this same law wouldn’t carry out for them. It would only apply to female and AFAB persons.",
">\n\nBecause the asshole forced that choice on her in the first place, that's why.",
">\n\n\nShe might have religious beliefs that proscribe abortion (such as being Catholic)\nAbortion can be just as traumatic\nThe rapist may not have a say in the abortion, but he had a say in the conception. He could have avoided that problem by not raping her in the first place.",
">\n\nThat would fall under “take your victim as you find her.” The enhanced sentence would happen whether the victim aborts or not.",
">\n\nThe charges would be based off of actual outcomes, not possibilities. If a fertile woman is raped but does not conceive, then the aggravating factor would not apply.\nThe goal behind this is to act as a deterrent in light of opposition to abortion. Certain people have religious objections to abortion even in the event of rape (mainly because the child is not at fault). Even if she aborts, there is still a lot of trauma involved.",
">\n\n\nThe goal behind this is to act as a deterrent in light of opposition to abortion\n\nYou could just generally increase the prison term for rape and have more of a deterrent against all kinds of rape. I'd say that's a much more favourable outcome.",
">\n\nWhat if he want the victim to abort, but the victim said no/unable to do so? \nIf you lighten his punishment, all rapish would tell the victim to abort\nIf you make it harsher, it mean a child would be born with both parent hated him/her\nAlso, what if the victim drop the child in a safe heaven? Is he allowed to meet the child?",
">\n\nToo bad, so sad for the rapist. As I said before, he would have to take his victim as he found her. If she chose not to abort, then that’s the asshole’s problem.",
">\n\nI’m talking about a CHILD who is about to be raised up without anyone care or want him!",
">\n\nWhy not make them pay child support in addition to the normal sentence? Failing to pay child support already had some insane consequences.",
">\n\nI said something in the OP about additional child support or restitution (as in a greater percentage of income than usual) - enough to leave one destitute for life.",
">\n\nRight, but putting them in jail longer means they aren't working which means they aren't paying child support.",
">\n\nIf they're in prison, then they're doing convict labor. In that case, you can simply use the (meager) wages from that labor as restitution for the duration of the sentence.",
">\n\nYou know that can be as little as $1 a day right?",
">\n\nI know. In that case, the victim should get all of it."
] |
>
It's barely enough for a month's diapers. | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of.",
">\n\nShouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population. \nHonestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society.",
">\n\nI agree, there was a rape incident in Korea (Cho Doo-soon incident). Due to poor law, he was freed after a short time despite causing too many injuries for the victim. After that every single people who lived near his house moved away. They should keep him in prison.",
">\n\nI could get behind this idea in the pragmatic sense that it could be a further deterrent from rape altogether, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make sense. Lying about birth control or intentionally tempering with it in order to impregnate a partner without/against their consent (or to be impregnated, since women can also do it) is a morally reprehensible in its own right, and furthermore can also carry legal repercussions, if it can be proven that the partners agreed to protected intercourse and one of them broke this agreement without the other's knowledge. One example is stealthing, which is a form of sexual abuse and was widely discussed a while ago. \nRape is having sex with someone without/against their consent for the act itself. Additional agreements like whether or not protection is used become irrelevant in this case. Pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely traumatic for victims, that is true, but rape itself is the crime that has been committed and if the victim happened to be on birth control or infertile that does not influence what has been done to them from the perspective of the crime itself.",
">\n\nI would prefer it if we instituted a policy that treats rape with potential conception this way, regardless of the actual results, in a manner similar to how we treat assault, aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon as different crimes. It wouldn't be any harder to prove than rape already is, while accounting for the additional reckless endangerment that comes from concieving a child through violence.",
">\n\nHe should pay child support to whoever keeps the child.",
">\n\nRapists aren't in control of the conception. If they get lucky and no child is conceived, that isn't because of anything in control of the rapist. People should be punished for things in their control, not let off for things outside their control.\nImagine a drunk driver. He gets in an accident because a child crosses the road in front of the car. But if the child had tripped just before the road and lives, that's not something we can give credit to the driver for.\nA rapist who is 'lucky' and doesn't get someone pregnant acted the same as a rapist who is 'unlucky' and did get someone pregnant. They created the same risk and should face the same punishment.",
">\n\nThe law does not work that way. In civil cases, a tortfeasor has to take his victim as he finds her. In other words, the asshole is responsible for whatever happens, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage. As another example, if a robber punches someone and that person ends up bleeding internally to death due to hemophilia, then that hemophilia is no defense to murder - the robber must take his victim as he found him. Criminal cases are similar - George Floyd's alleged physical condition was not a defense to the murder charges that Derek Chauvin was convicted of.",
">\n\nThe issue isn't with the harsher penalties but with the weaker penalties for rapes that don't result in pregnancy. Take two rapists. Rapist A impregnates his victim, while rapist B does not. Why should rapist B get a lighter sentence than rapist A? Are we implicitly saying that rape isn't as bad if there's no pregnancy? The actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?",
">\n\n\nThe actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?\n\nThis happens all the time. We consider the actions and the consequences of the actions in determining \"appropriate\" punishment very often.\nIf I shoot a gun blindly at a random house, that same action can have any number of consequences. Maybe the only consequences are breaking a window and putting a hole in someone's wall. Maybe it kills the family dog. Maybe the consequence is the bullet hitting someone and paralyzing them for life. Maybe the consequence is breaking a gas line that leads to an explosion that kills a dozen people.\nWhy isn't it reasonable to consider the outcomes of actions when determining the appropriate response?",
">\n\nThe comparison would be more like: you kill a person in each case, but in one, you also unintentionally break their leg. In the second case, should you be charged with a different crime? It's not like you didn't intend harm and by chance harm was caused. Harm is caused in both rape and rape with pregnancy. The act isn't different at all. It's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)",
">\n\nI don't think we need to quibble about whether it's an apt comparison. Based on what the person I responded to said, I think it is (i.e. same actions + different consequences).\n\nThe act isn't different at all.\n\nNot saying it isn't. What I'm saying is that the same act can have different consequences, and we very often apply different repercussions/punishments based on differences in consequences for the same act.\n\nIt's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)\n\nGetting raped and becoming pregnant by your rapist is worse than getting raped and not becoming pregnant by your rapist. That seems pretty uncontroversial to me.",
">\n\nSo... for example, given the exact same circumstances and actions, a woman on birth control is somehow less raped than a woman without who becomes pregnant? And a woman who miscarries or aborts a rape baby is somehow then less raped than she was while she was pregnant?",
">\n\nI feel this would cause an issue where, if the victim really wants to hurt their rapist the most, they have an incentive to remain pregnant even if they don't really want to.\nAlso, should this also apply to situations in which it is the rapist who gets pregnant and not the victim?",
">\n\nJesus.. keeping your rapist's baby so they serve a harsher sentence is a level of spite that I don't think anyone could sink to.",
">\n\nIf you touch my daughters you’d better hope the cops find you first cuz there’s a reckoning upon you if I am first and I’ll gladly sit in a jail for taking a predator to meet the Godess. \n To the point , fuck yes a rapist should have to provide child support. Rapist shouldn’t be allowed to rot in jail , make them work and pay for 18 years like non rapist dads do. And when they fall behind it’s incarceration and forced labor. \nFor far too long our mother, daughter , wives , sisters, aunties and grannies have faced unfair systematic societal oppression. End it by embracing a new paradigm of true human dignity and equality.",
">\n\nFirst of all. I hop on bored with Ben Shapiro when he says to physically castrate rapist, pedophiles, predators, etc. But I like to add my spice to things and add a prison sentence just like they do now. Then add pay for the damage they've done. Example would be. If your caught raping a woman. The woman chooses abortion. He pays for the abortion and following. COunceling sessions through the state to the agency. Or if she keeps it. Then guess who paying a child support for 18 years? Rapist. Just one of many examples I'm sure we could conjure. But by all means tear this idea apart, or let's build from it.",
">\n\nDisagree. It makes no difference if he causes the worst possible damage (pregnancy, std infection, PTSD etc) or minimal damage (although I don't know what that would be). The punishment should be severe, regardless of the consequences. Otherwise some men will get off lighter simply because they were 'lucky'",
">\n\nTo clarify your position, are you asking for a broader range of available punishment in the event of a pregnancy or are you advocating for a higher minimum punishment?",
">\n\nBoth, honestly. There should be automatic sentence enhancements as well as additional restitution.",
">\n\nI would counter then and suggest that if you are going to aggravate the charge based on causing pregnancy, it should only be to broaden the possible punishment range, not increase a mandatory minimum. \n\nMandatory minimums have a long history of causing more problems. Yes, rapists deserve to go to prison, but have you considered how many less would take a plea bargain because it would require x versus y years in prison? These are the types of cases that prosecutors lose more often than any other and cause the most trauma and stress to the victims. Mandatory minimums have the effect of making harder-to-prove cases get ignored meaning less overall justice. It would be better for those difficult cases to still see some type of punishment versus more acquittals or dismissals.",
">\n\nIt's the same crime whether she ends up getting pregnant. If she does, though, I do think the convict should be held responsible for the child/abortion costs and have no parental rights whatsoever, but not more jail time for the same crime.",
">\n\nNo, I think the punishment should be the same either way. Give the man a choice of castration or death. \nBut I get where you're coming from. I think the penalty for attempted murder should be the same as for murder. Just because you're incompetent or the victim was fortunate enough to survive, you get off easier? Doesn't make sense to me. Your actions were the same, even if the result was different.",
">\n\nI get that there should be more restitution, but who would more prison time help? The rapist did the exact same thing in either scenario.",
">\n\nYes! Twice the emotional damage.",
">\n\nI'm going to do the devil's advocate here.\nDoes that mean that a rape done with a condom will be less punished?\nHow about a rape done with a stick?\nFor the sake of argument : if rape was punished by death, how would you punish rape that leads to pregnancy? Do you kill them twice?\nIf a rape happens, the victim should immediately get an treatment to abord any possible baby, of if te rape is reported later on abortion should be an option available for victims.",
">\n\nLike child support whether or not the baby is delivered? I’d support that although faked rape cases gonna soar pretty high for men with lots of dough",
">\n\nSomeone probably mentioned this but I found out last year that rapists actually have rights to the child!!!",
">\n\nStrongly agree",
">\n\nYou only talk about abortion, but there is also the morning after pill to prevent conception which (to most women) is a lot less traumatising than abortion.\nGiven this, you are proposing to punish someone based on the actions of someone else if you're suggesting to punish the rapist more based on whether or not a child is born. That goes against every principle of what the rule of law and a fair trial is about.\nAlso, on a practical note, that would mean you can't try any rape case until 9 months after the rape. There is already a huge backlog and issues around women not feeling able to report rape. I can only see this additional requirement making things worse.",
">\n\nThey do. If you go into prison with bad paperwork, you will be in a living hell.",
">\n\n\nespecially if the mother carries the child to term.\n\nNo. Abortion has far lower physical risks and does not cause a child to come into existence.\nEverything up to the conception is caused by the rape, but thereafter the woman has control of her body again, and choosing to continue rather than abort the pregnancy is her own choice, so are the consequences.\nSo there should be no difference depending on the choices of the victim, only on those of the criminal. This includes inflicting a pregnancy, but not how to deal with it.",
">\n\nI actually do like this idea, I’m just wondering is there any equivalent for if a male or AMAB person was raped. They are not able to get pregnant so this same law wouldn’t carry out for them. It would only apply to female and AFAB persons.",
">\n\nBecause the asshole forced that choice on her in the first place, that's why.",
">\n\n\nShe might have religious beliefs that proscribe abortion (such as being Catholic)\nAbortion can be just as traumatic\nThe rapist may not have a say in the abortion, but he had a say in the conception. He could have avoided that problem by not raping her in the first place.",
">\n\nThat would fall under “take your victim as you find her.” The enhanced sentence would happen whether the victim aborts or not.",
">\n\nThe charges would be based off of actual outcomes, not possibilities. If a fertile woman is raped but does not conceive, then the aggravating factor would not apply.\nThe goal behind this is to act as a deterrent in light of opposition to abortion. Certain people have religious objections to abortion even in the event of rape (mainly because the child is not at fault). Even if she aborts, there is still a lot of trauma involved.",
">\n\n\nThe goal behind this is to act as a deterrent in light of opposition to abortion\n\nYou could just generally increase the prison term for rape and have more of a deterrent against all kinds of rape. I'd say that's a much more favourable outcome.",
">\n\nWhat if he want the victim to abort, but the victim said no/unable to do so? \nIf you lighten his punishment, all rapish would tell the victim to abort\nIf you make it harsher, it mean a child would be born with both parent hated him/her\nAlso, what if the victim drop the child in a safe heaven? Is he allowed to meet the child?",
">\n\nToo bad, so sad for the rapist. As I said before, he would have to take his victim as he found her. If she chose not to abort, then that’s the asshole’s problem.",
">\n\nI’m talking about a CHILD who is about to be raised up without anyone care or want him!",
">\n\nWhy not make them pay child support in addition to the normal sentence? Failing to pay child support already had some insane consequences.",
">\n\nI said something in the OP about additional child support or restitution (as in a greater percentage of income than usual) - enough to leave one destitute for life.",
">\n\nRight, but putting them in jail longer means they aren't working which means they aren't paying child support.",
">\n\nIf they're in prison, then they're doing convict labor. In that case, you can simply use the (meager) wages from that labor as restitution for the duration of the sentence.",
">\n\nYou know that can be as little as $1 a day right?",
">\n\nI know. In that case, the victim should get all of it.",
">\n\nAll $300 a year? That isn't even a good chuck of a rent payment."
] |
>
I wholeheartedly agree! He could've worn a rubber. If anyone is harmed during the commission of a crime, that criminal is held responsible. We should follow suit with new litigations for pregnancy as well. | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of.",
">\n\nShouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population. \nHonestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society.",
">\n\nI agree, there was a rape incident in Korea (Cho Doo-soon incident). Due to poor law, he was freed after a short time despite causing too many injuries for the victim. After that every single people who lived near his house moved away. They should keep him in prison.",
">\n\nI could get behind this idea in the pragmatic sense that it could be a further deterrent from rape altogether, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make sense. Lying about birth control or intentionally tempering with it in order to impregnate a partner without/against their consent (or to be impregnated, since women can also do it) is a morally reprehensible in its own right, and furthermore can also carry legal repercussions, if it can be proven that the partners agreed to protected intercourse and one of them broke this agreement without the other's knowledge. One example is stealthing, which is a form of sexual abuse and was widely discussed a while ago. \nRape is having sex with someone without/against their consent for the act itself. Additional agreements like whether or not protection is used become irrelevant in this case. Pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely traumatic for victims, that is true, but rape itself is the crime that has been committed and if the victim happened to be on birth control or infertile that does not influence what has been done to them from the perspective of the crime itself.",
">\n\nI would prefer it if we instituted a policy that treats rape with potential conception this way, regardless of the actual results, in a manner similar to how we treat assault, aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon as different crimes. It wouldn't be any harder to prove than rape already is, while accounting for the additional reckless endangerment that comes from concieving a child through violence.",
">\n\nHe should pay child support to whoever keeps the child.",
">\n\nRapists aren't in control of the conception. If they get lucky and no child is conceived, that isn't because of anything in control of the rapist. People should be punished for things in their control, not let off for things outside their control.\nImagine a drunk driver. He gets in an accident because a child crosses the road in front of the car. But if the child had tripped just before the road and lives, that's not something we can give credit to the driver for.\nA rapist who is 'lucky' and doesn't get someone pregnant acted the same as a rapist who is 'unlucky' and did get someone pregnant. They created the same risk and should face the same punishment.",
">\n\nThe law does not work that way. In civil cases, a tortfeasor has to take his victim as he finds her. In other words, the asshole is responsible for whatever happens, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage. As another example, if a robber punches someone and that person ends up bleeding internally to death due to hemophilia, then that hemophilia is no defense to murder - the robber must take his victim as he found him. Criminal cases are similar - George Floyd's alleged physical condition was not a defense to the murder charges that Derek Chauvin was convicted of.",
">\n\nThe issue isn't with the harsher penalties but with the weaker penalties for rapes that don't result in pregnancy. Take two rapists. Rapist A impregnates his victim, while rapist B does not. Why should rapist B get a lighter sentence than rapist A? Are we implicitly saying that rape isn't as bad if there's no pregnancy? The actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?",
">\n\n\nThe actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?\n\nThis happens all the time. We consider the actions and the consequences of the actions in determining \"appropriate\" punishment very often.\nIf I shoot a gun blindly at a random house, that same action can have any number of consequences. Maybe the only consequences are breaking a window and putting a hole in someone's wall. Maybe it kills the family dog. Maybe the consequence is the bullet hitting someone and paralyzing them for life. Maybe the consequence is breaking a gas line that leads to an explosion that kills a dozen people.\nWhy isn't it reasonable to consider the outcomes of actions when determining the appropriate response?",
">\n\nThe comparison would be more like: you kill a person in each case, but in one, you also unintentionally break their leg. In the second case, should you be charged with a different crime? It's not like you didn't intend harm and by chance harm was caused. Harm is caused in both rape and rape with pregnancy. The act isn't different at all. It's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)",
">\n\nI don't think we need to quibble about whether it's an apt comparison. Based on what the person I responded to said, I think it is (i.e. same actions + different consequences).\n\nThe act isn't different at all.\n\nNot saying it isn't. What I'm saying is that the same act can have different consequences, and we very often apply different repercussions/punishments based on differences in consequences for the same act.\n\nIt's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)\n\nGetting raped and becoming pregnant by your rapist is worse than getting raped and not becoming pregnant by your rapist. That seems pretty uncontroversial to me.",
">\n\nSo... for example, given the exact same circumstances and actions, a woman on birth control is somehow less raped than a woman without who becomes pregnant? And a woman who miscarries or aborts a rape baby is somehow then less raped than she was while she was pregnant?",
">\n\nI feel this would cause an issue where, if the victim really wants to hurt their rapist the most, they have an incentive to remain pregnant even if they don't really want to.\nAlso, should this also apply to situations in which it is the rapist who gets pregnant and not the victim?",
">\n\nJesus.. keeping your rapist's baby so they serve a harsher sentence is a level of spite that I don't think anyone could sink to.",
">\n\nIf you touch my daughters you’d better hope the cops find you first cuz there’s a reckoning upon you if I am first and I’ll gladly sit in a jail for taking a predator to meet the Godess. \n To the point , fuck yes a rapist should have to provide child support. Rapist shouldn’t be allowed to rot in jail , make them work and pay for 18 years like non rapist dads do. And when they fall behind it’s incarceration and forced labor. \nFor far too long our mother, daughter , wives , sisters, aunties and grannies have faced unfair systematic societal oppression. End it by embracing a new paradigm of true human dignity and equality.",
">\n\nFirst of all. I hop on bored with Ben Shapiro when he says to physically castrate rapist, pedophiles, predators, etc. But I like to add my spice to things and add a prison sentence just like they do now. Then add pay for the damage they've done. Example would be. If your caught raping a woman. The woman chooses abortion. He pays for the abortion and following. COunceling sessions through the state to the agency. Or if she keeps it. Then guess who paying a child support for 18 years? Rapist. Just one of many examples I'm sure we could conjure. But by all means tear this idea apart, or let's build from it.",
">\n\nDisagree. It makes no difference if he causes the worst possible damage (pregnancy, std infection, PTSD etc) or minimal damage (although I don't know what that would be). The punishment should be severe, regardless of the consequences. Otherwise some men will get off lighter simply because they were 'lucky'",
">\n\nTo clarify your position, are you asking for a broader range of available punishment in the event of a pregnancy or are you advocating for a higher minimum punishment?",
">\n\nBoth, honestly. There should be automatic sentence enhancements as well as additional restitution.",
">\n\nI would counter then and suggest that if you are going to aggravate the charge based on causing pregnancy, it should only be to broaden the possible punishment range, not increase a mandatory minimum. \n\nMandatory minimums have a long history of causing more problems. Yes, rapists deserve to go to prison, but have you considered how many less would take a plea bargain because it would require x versus y years in prison? These are the types of cases that prosecutors lose more often than any other and cause the most trauma and stress to the victims. Mandatory minimums have the effect of making harder-to-prove cases get ignored meaning less overall justice. It would be better for those difficult cases to still see some type of punishment versus more acquittals or dismissals.",
">\n\nIt's the same crime whether she ends up getting pregnant. If she does, though, I do think the convict should be held responsible for the child/abortion costs and have no parental rights whatsoever, but not more jail time for the same crime.",
">\n\nNo, I think the punishment should be the same either way. Give the man a choice of castration or death. \nBut I get where you're coming from. I think the penalty for attempted murder should be the same as for murder. Just because you're incompetent or the victim was fortunate enough to survive, you get off easier? Doesn't make sense to me. Your actions were the same, even if the result was different.",
">\n\nI get that there should be more restitution, but who would more prison time help? The rapist did the exact same thing in either scenario.",
">\n\nYes! Twice the emotional damage.",
">\n\nI'm going to do the devil's advocate here.\nDoes that mean that a rape done with a condom will be less punished?\nHow about a rape done with a stick?\nFor the sake of argument : if rape was punished by death, how would you punish rape that leads to pregnancy? Do you kill them twice?\nIf a rape happens, the victim should immediately get an treatment to abord any possible baby, of if te rape is reported later on abortion should be an option available for victims.",
">\n\nLike child support whether or not the baby is delivered? I’d support that although faked rape cases gonna soar pretty high for men with lots of dough",
">\n\nSomeone probably mentioned this but I found out last year that rapists actually have rights to the child!!!",
">\n\nStrongly agree",
">\n\nYou only talk about abortion, but there is also the morning after pill to prevent conception which (to most women) is a lot less traumatising than abortion.\nGiven this, you are proposing to punish someone based on the actions of someone else if you're suggesting to punish the rapist more based on whether or not a child is born. That goes against every principle of what the rule of law and a fair trial is about.\nAlso, on a practical note, that would mean you can't try any rape case until 9 months after the rape. There is already a huge backlog and issues around women not feeling able to report rape. I can only see this additional requirement making things worse.",
">\n\nThey do. If you go into prison with bad paperwork, you will be in a living hell.",
">\n\n\nespecially if the mother carries the child to term.\n\nNo. Abortion has far lower physical risks and does not cause a child to come into existence.\nEverything up to the conception is caused by the rape, but thereafter the woman has control of her body again, and choosing to continue rather than abort the pregnancy is her own choice, so are the consequences.\nSo there should be no difference depending on the choices of the victim, only on those of the criminal. This includes inflicting a pregnancy, but not how to deal with it.",
">\n\nI actually do like this idea, I’m just wondering is there any equivalent for if a male or AMAB person was raped. They are not able to get pregnant so this same law wouldn’t carry out for them. It would only apply to female and AFAB persons.",
">\n\nBecause the asshole forced that choice on her in the first place, that's why.",
">\n\n\nShe might have religious beliefs that proscribe abortion (such as being Catholic)\nAbortion can be just as traumatic\nThe rapist may not have a say in the abortion, but he had a say in the conception. He could have avoided that problem by not raping her in the first place.",
">\n\nThat would fall under “take your victim as you find her.” The enhanced sentence would happen whether the victim aborts or not.",
">\n\nThe charges would be based off of actual outcomes, not possibilities. If a fertile woman is raped but does not conceive, then the aggravating factor would not apply.\nThe goal behind this is to act as a deterrent in light of opposition to abortion. Certain people have religious objections to abortion even in the event of rape (mainly because the child is not at fault). Even if she aborts, there is still a lot of trauma involved.",
">\n\n\nThe goal behind this is to act as a deterrent in light of opposition to abortion\n\nYou could just generally increase the prison term for rape and have more of a deterrent against all kinds of rape. I'd say that's a much more favourable outcome.",
">\n\nWhat if he want the victim to abort, but the victim said no/unable to do so? \nIf you lighten his punishment, all rapish would tell the victim to abort\nIf you make it harsher, it mean a child would be born with both parent hated him/her\nAlso, what if the victim drop the child in a safe heaven? Is he allowed to meet the child?",
">\n\nToo bad, so sad for the rapist. As I said before, he would have to take his victim as he found her. If she chose not to abort, then that’s the asshole’s problem.",
">\n\nI’m talking about a CHILD who is about to be raised up without anyone care or want him!",
">\n\nWhy not make them pay child support in addition to the normal sentence? Failing to pay child support already had some insane consequences.",
">\n\nI said something in the OP about additional child support or restitution (as in a greater percentage of income than usual) - enough to leave one destitute for life.",
">\n\nRight, but putting them in jail longer means they aren't working which means they aren't paying child support.",
">\n\nIf they're in prison, then they're doing convict labor. In that case, you can simply use the (meager) wages from that labor as restitution for the duration of the sentence.",
">\n\nYou know that can be as little as $1 a day right?",
">\n\nI know. In that case, the victim should get all of it.",
">\n\nAll $300 a year? That isn't even a good chuck of a rent payment.",
">\n\nIt's barely enough for a month's diapers."
] |
>
This wouldn’t make sense it then criminalizes pregnancy. | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of.",
">\n\nShouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population. \nHonestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society.",
">\n\nI agree, there was a rape incident in Korea (Cho Doo-soon incident). Due to poor law, he was freed after a short time despite causing too many injuries for the victim. After that every single people who lived near his house moved away. They should keep him in prison.",
">\n\nI could get behind this idea in the pragmatic sense that it could be a further deterrent from rape altogether, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make sense. Lying about birth control or intentionally tempering with it in order to impregnate a partner without/against their consent (or to be impregnated, since women can also do it) is a morally reprehensible in its own right, and furthermore can also carry legal repercussions, if it can be proven that the partners agreed to protected intercourse and one of them broke this agreement without the other's knowledge. One example is stealthing, which is a form of sexual abuse and was widely discussed a while ago. \nRape is having sex with someone without/against their consent for the act itself. Additional agreements like whether or not protection is used become irrelevant in this case. Pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely traumatic for victims, that is true, but rape itself is the crime that has been committed and if the victim happened to be on birth control or infertile that does not influence what has been done to them from the perspective of the crime itself.",
">\n\nI would prefer it if we instituted a policy that treats rape with potential conception this way, regardless of the actual results, in a manner similar to how we treat assault, aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon as different crimes. It wouldn't be any harder to prove than rape already is, while accounting for the additional reckless endangerment that comes from concieving a child through violence.",
">\n\nHe should pay child support to whoever keeps the child.",
">\n\nRapists aren't in control of the conception. If they get lucky and no child is conceived, that isn't because of anything in control of the rapist. People should be punished for things in their control, not let off for things outside their control.\nImagine a drunk driver. He gets in an accident because a child crosses the road in front of the car. But if the child had tripped just before the road and lives, that's not something we can give credit to the driver for.\nA rapist who is 'lucky' and doesn't get someone pregnant acted the same as a rapist who is 'unlucky' and did get someone pregnant. They created the same risk and should face the same punishment.",
">\n\nThe law does not work that way. In civil cases, a tortfeasor has to take his victim as he finds her. In other words, the asshole is responsible for whatever happens, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage. As another example, if a robber punches someone and that person ends up bleeding internally to death due to hemophilia, then that hemophilia is no defense to murder - the robber must take his victim as he found him. Criminal cases are similar - George Floyd's alleged physical condition was not a defense to the murder charges that Derek Chauvin was convicted of.",
">\n\nThe issue isn't with the harsher penalties but with the weaker penalties for rapes that don't result in pregnancy. Take two rapists. Rapist A impregnates his victim, while rapist B does not. Why should rapist B get a lighter sentence than rapist A? Are we implicitly saying that rape isn't as bad if there's no pregnancy? The actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?",
">\n\n\nThe actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?\n\nThis happens all the time. We consider the actions and the consequences of the actions in determining \"appropriate\" punishment very often.\nIf I shoot a gun blindly at a random house, that same action can have any number of consequences. Maybe the only consequences are breaking a window and putting a hole in someone's wall. Maybe it kills the family dog. Maybe the consequence is the bullet hitting someone and paralyzing them for life. Maybe the consequence is breaking a gas line that leads to an explosion that kills a dozen people.\nWhy isn't it reasonable to consider the outcomes of actions when determining the appropriate response?",
">\n\nThe comparison would be more like: you kill a person in each case, but in one, you also unintentionally break their leg. In the second case, should you be charged with a different crime? It's not like you didn't intend harm and by chance harm was caused. Harm is caused in both rape and rape with pregnancy. The act isn't different at all. It's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)",
">\n\nI don't think we need to quibble about whether it's an apt comparison. Based on what the person I responded to said, I think it is (i.e. same actions + different consequences).\n\nThe act isn't different at all.\n\nNot saying it isn't. What I'm saying is that the same act can have different consequences, and we very often apply different repercussions/punishments based on differences in consequences for the same act.\n\nIt's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)\n\nGetting raped and becoming pregnant by your rapist is worse than getting raped and not becoming pregnant by your rapist. That seems pretty uncontroversial to me.",
">\n\nSo... for example, given the exact same circumstances and actions, a woman on birth control is somehow less raped than a woman without who becomes pregnant? And a woman who miscarries or aborts a rape baby is somehow then less raped than she was while she was pregnant?",
">\n\nI feel this would cause an issue where, if the victim really wants to hurt their rapist the most, they have an incentive to remain pregnant even if they don't really want to.\nAlso, should this also apply to situations in which it is the rapist who gets pregnant and not the victim?",
">\n\nJesus.. keeping your rapist's baby so they serve a harsher sentence is a level of spite that I don't think anyone could sink to.",
">\n\nIf you touch my daughters you’d better hope the cops find you first cuz there’s a reckoning upon you if I am first and I’ll gladly sit in a jail for taking a predator to meet the Godess. \n To the point , fuck yes a rapist should have to provide child support. Rapist shouldn’t be allowed to rot in jail , make them work and pay for 18 years like non rapist dads do. And when they fall behind it’s incarceration and forced labor. \nFor far too long our mother, daughter , wives , sisters, aunties and grannies have faced unfair systematic societal oppression. End it by embracing a new paradigm of true human dignity and equality.",
">\n\nFirst of all. I hop on bored with Ben Shapiro when he says to physically castrate rapist, pedophiles, predators, etc. But I like to add my spice to things and add a prison sentence just like they do now. Then add pay for the damage they've done. Example would be. If your caught raping a woman. The woman chooses abortion. He pays for the abortion and following. COunceling sessions through the state to the agency. Or if she keeps it. Then guess who paying a child support for 18 years? Rapist. Just one of many examples I'm sure we could conjure. But by all means tear this idea apart, or let's build from it.",
">\n\nDisagree. It makes no difference if he causes the worst possible damage (pregnancy, std infection, PTSD etc) or minimal damage (although I don't know what that would be). The punishment should be severe, regardless of the consequences. Otherwise some men will get off lighter simply because they were 'lucky'",
">\n\nTo clarify your position, are you asking for a broader range of available punishment in the event of a pregnancy or are you advocating for a higher minimum punishment?",
">\n\nBoth, honestly. There should be automatic sentence enhancements as well as additional restitution.",
">\n\nI would counter then and suggest that if you are going to aggravate the charge based on causing pregnancy, it should only be to broaden the possible punishment range, not increase a mandatory minimum. \n\nMandatory minimums have a long history of causing more problems. Yes, rapists deserve to go to prison, but have you considered how many less would take a plea bargain because it would require x versus y years in prison? These are the types of cases that prosecutors lose more often than any other and cause the most trauma and stress to the victims. Mandatory minimums have the effect of making harder-to-prove cases get ignored meaning less overall justice. It would be better for those difficult cases to still see some type of punishment versus more acquittals or dismissals.",
">\n\nIt's the same crime whether she ends up getting pregnant. If she does, though, I do think the convict should be held responsible for the child/abortion costs and have no parental rights whatsoever, but not more jail time for the same crime.",
">\n\nNo, I think the punishment should be the same either way. Give the man a choice of castration or death. \nBut I get where you're coming from. I think the penalty for attempted murder should be the same as for murder. Just because you're incompetent or the victim was fortunate enough to survive, you get off easier? Doesn't make sense to me. Your actions were the same, even if the result was different.",
">\n\nI get that there should be more restitution, but who would more prison time help? The rapist did the exact same thing in either scenario.",
">\n\nYes! Twice the emotional damage.",
">\n\nI'm going to do the devil's advocate here.\nDoes that mean that a rape done with a condom will be less punished?\nHow about a rape done with a stick?\nFor the sake of argument : if rape was punished by death, how would you punish rape that leads to pregnancy? Do you kill them twice?\nIf a rape happens, the victim should immediately get an treatment to abord any possible baby, of if te rape is reported later on abortion should be an option available for victims.",
">\n\nLike child support whether or not the baby is delivered? I’d support that although faked rape cases gonna soar pretty high for men with lots of dough",
">\n\nSomeone probably mentioned this but I found out last year that rapists actually have rights to the child!!!",
">\n\nStrongly agree",
">\n\nYou only talk about abortion, but there is also the morning after pill to prevent conception which (to most women) is a lot less traumatising than abortion.\nGiven this, you are proposing to punish someone based on the actions of someone else if you're suggesting to punish the rapist more based on whether or not a child is born. That goes against every principle of what the rule of law and a fair trial is about.\nAlso, on a practical note, that would mean you can't try any rape case until 9 months after the rape. There is already a huge backlog and issues around women not feeling able to report rape. I can only see this additional requirement making things worse.",
">\n\nThey do. If you go into prison with bad paperwork, you will be in a living hell.",
">\n\n\nespecially if the mother carries the child to term.\n\nNo. Abortion has far lower physical risks and does not cause a child to come into existence.\nEverything up to the conception is caused by the rape, but thereafter the woman has control of her body again, and choosing to continue rather than abort the pregnancy is her own choice, so are the consequences.\nSo there should be no difference depending on the choices of the victim, only on those of the criminal. This includes inflicting a pregnancy, but not how to deal with it.",
">\n\nI actually do like this idea, I’m just wondering is there any equivalent for if a male or AMAB person was raped. They are not able to get pregnant so this same law wouldn’t carry out for them. It would only apply to female and AFAB persons.",
">\n\nBecause the asshole forced that choice on her in the first place, that's why.",
">\n\n\nShe might have religious beliefs that proscribe abortion (such as being Catholic)\nAbortion can be just as traumatic\nThe rapist may not have a say in the abortion, but he had a say in the conception. He could have avoided that problem by not raping her in the first place.",
">\n\nThat would fall under “take your victim as you find her.” The enhanced sentence would happen whether the victim aborts or not.",
">\n\nThe charges would be based off of actual outcomes, not possibilities. If a fertile woman is raped but does not conceive, then the aggravating factor would not apply.\nThe goal behind this is to act as a deterrent in light of opposition to abortion. Certain people have religious objections to abortion even in the event of rape (mainly because the child is not at fault). Even if she aborts, there is still a lot of trauma involved.",
">\n\n\nThe goal behind this is to act as a deterrent in light of opposition to abortion\n\nYou could just generally increase the prison term for rape and have more of a deterrent against all kinds of rape. I'd say that's a much more favourable outcome.",
">\n\nWhat if he want the victim to abort, but the victim said no/unable to do so? \nIf you lighten his punishment, all rapish would tell the victim to abort\nIf you make it harsher, it mean a child would be born with both parent hated him/her\nAlso, what if the victim drop the child in a safe heaven? Is he allowed to meet the child?",
">\n\nToo bad, so sad for the rapist. As I said before, he would have to take his victim as he found her. If she chose not to abort, then that’s the asshole’s problem.",
">\n\nI’m talking about a CHILD who is about to be raised up without anyone care or want him!",
">\n\nWhy not make them pay child support in addition to the normal sentence? Failing to pay child support already had some insane consequences.",
">\n\nI said something in the OP about additional child support or restitution (as in a greater percentage of income than usual) - enough to leave one destitute for life.",
">\n\nRight, but putting them in jail longer means they aren't working which means they aren't paying child support.",
">\n\nIf they're in prison, then they're doing convict labor. In that case, you can simply use the (meager) wages from that labor as restitution for the duration of the sentence.",
">\n\nYou know that can be as little as $1 a day right?",
">\n\nI know. In that case, the victim should get all of it.",
">\n\nAll $300 a year? That isn't even a good chuck of a rent payment.",
">\n\nIt's barely enough for a month's diapers.",
">\n\nI wholeheartedly agree! He could've worn a rubber. If anyone is harmed during the commission of a crime, that criminal is held responsible. We should follow suit with new litigations for pregnancy as well."
] |
>
I think that some rape to hurt and some could want the outcome to be fertilization. Either way it’s pretty much a crapshoot. Can you show intent? | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of.",
">\n\nShouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population. \nHonestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society.",
">\n\nI agree, there was a rape incident in Korea (Cho Doo-soon incident). Due to poor law, he was freed after a short time despite causing too many injuries for the victim. After that every single people who lived near his house moved away. They should keep him in prison.",
">\n\nI could get behind this idea in the pragmatic sense that it could be a further deterrent from rape altogether, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make sense. Lying about birth control or intentionally tempering with it in order to impregnate a partner without/against their consent (or to be impregnated, since women can also do it) is a morally reprehensible in its own right, and furthermore can also carry legal repercussions, if it can be proven that the partners agreed to protected intercourse and one of them broke this agreement without the other's knowledge. One example is stealthing, which is a form of sexual abuse and was widely discussed a while ago. \nRape is having sex with someone without/against their consent for the act itself. Additional agreements like whether or not protection is used become irrelevant in this case. Pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely traumatic for victims, that is true, but rape itself is the crime that has been committed and if the victim happened to be on birth control or infertile that does not influence what has been done to them from the perspective of the crime itself.",
">\n\nI would prefer it if we instituted a policy that treats rape with potential conception this way, regardless of the actual results, in a manner similar to how we treat assault, aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon as different crimes. It wouldn't be any harder to prove than rape already is, while accounting for the additional reckless endangerment that comes from concieving a child through violence.",
">\n\nHe should pay child support to whoever keeps the child.",
">\n\nRapists aren't in control of the conception. If they get lucky and no child is conceived, that isn't because of anything in control of the rapist. People should be punished for things in their control, not let off for things outside their control.\nImagine a drunk driver. He gets in an accident because a child crosses the road in front of the car. But if the child had tripped just before the road and lives, that's not something we can give credit to the driver for.\nA rapist who is 'lucky' and doesn't get someone pregnant acted the same as a rapist who is 'unlucky' and did get someone pregnant. They created the same risk and should face the same punishment.",
">\n\nThe law does not work that way. In civil cases, a tortfeasor has to take his victim as he finds her. In other words, the asshole is responsible for whatever happens, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage. As another example, if a robber punches someone and that person ends up bleeding internally to death due to hemophilia, then that hemophilia is no defense to murder - the robber must take his victim as he found him. Criminal cases are similar - George Floyd's alleged physical condition was not a defense to the murder charges that Derek Chauvin was convicted of.",
">\n\nThe issue isn't with the harsher penalties but with the weaker penalties for rapes that don't result in pregnancy. Take two rapists. Rapist A impregnates his victim, while rapist B does not. Why should rapist B get a lighter sentence than rapist A? Are we implicitly saying that rape isn't as bad if there's no pregnancy? The actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?",
">\n\n\nThe actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?\n\nThis happens all the time. We consider the actions and the consequences of the actions in determining \"appropriate\" punishment very often.\nIf I shoot a gun blindly at a random house, that same action can have any number of consequences. Maybe the only consequences are breaking a window and putting a hole in someone's wall. Maybe it kills the family dog. Maybe the consequence is the bullet hitting someone and paralyzing them for life. Maybe the consequence is breaking a gas line that leads to an explosion that kills a dozen people.\nWhy isn't it reasonable to consider the outcomes of actions when determining the appropriate response?",
">\n\nThe comparison would be more like: you kill a person in each case, but in one, you also unintentionally break their leg. In the second case, should you be charged with a different crime? It's not like you didn't intend harm and by chance harm was caused. Harm is caused in both rape and rape with pregnancy. The act isn't different at all. It's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)",
">\n\nI don't think we need to quibble about whether it's an apt comparison. Based on what the person I responded to said, I think it is (i.e. same actions + different consequences).\n\nThe act isn't different at all.\n\nNot saying it isn't. What I'm saying is that the same act can have different consequences, and we very often apply different repercussions/punishments based on differences in consequences for the same act.\n\nIt's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)\n\nGetting raped and becoming pregnant by your rapist is worse than getting raped and not becoming pregnant by your rapist. That seems pretty uncontroversial to me.",
">\n\nSo... for example, given the exact same circumstances and actions, a woman on birth control is somehow less raped than a woman without who becomes pregnant? And a woman who miscarries or aborts a rape baby is somehow then less raped than she was while she was pregnant?",
">\n\nI feel this would cause an issue where, if the victim really wants to hurt their rapist the most, they have an incentive to remain pregnant even if they don't really want to.\nAlso, should this also apply to situations in which it is the rapist who gets pregnant and not the victim?",
">\n\nJesus.. keeping your rapist's baby so they serve a harsher sentence is a level of spite that I don't think anyone could sink to.",
">\n\nIf you touch my daughters you’d better hope the cops find you first cuz there’s a reckoning upon you if I am first and I’ll gladly sit in a jail for taking a predator to meet the Godess. \n To the point , fuck yes a rapist should have to provide child support. Rapist shouldn’t be allowed to rot in jail , make them work and pay for 18 years like non rapist dads do. And when they fall behind it’s incarceration and forced labor. \nFor far too long our mother, daughter , wives , sisters, aunties and grannies have faced unfair systematic societal oppression. End it by embracing a new paradigm of true human dignity and equality.",
">\n\nFirst of all. I hop on bored with Ben Shapiro when he says to physically castrate rapist, pedophiles, predators, etc. But I like to add my spice to things and add a prison sentence just like they do now. Then add pay for the damage they've done. Example would be. If your caught raping a woman. The woman chooses abortion. He pays for the abortion and following. COunceling sessions through the state to the agency. Or if she keeps it. Then guess who paying a child support for 18 years? Rapist. Just one of many examples I'm sure we could conjure. But by all means tear this idea apart, or let's build from it.",
">\n\nDisagree. It makes no difference if he causes the worst possible damage (pregnancy, std infection, PTSD etc) or minimal damage (although I don't know what that would be). The punishment should be severe, regardless of the consequences. Otherwise some men will get off lighter simply because they were 'lucky'",
">\n\nTo clarify your position, are you asking for a broader range of available punishment in the event of a pregnancy or are you advocating for a higher minimum punishment?",
">\n\nBoth, honestly. There should be automatic sentence enhancements as well as additional restitution.",
">\n\nI would counter then and suggest that if you are going to aggravate the charge based on causing pregnancy, it should only be to broaden the possible punishment range, not increase a mandatory minimum. \n\nMandatory minimums have a long history of causing more problems. Yes, rapists deserve to go to prison, but have you considered how many less would take a plea bargain because it would require x versus y years in prison? These are the types of cases that prosecutors lose more often than any other and cause the most trauma and stress to the victims. Mandatory minimums have the effect of making harder-to-prove cases get ignored meaning less overall justice. It would be better for those difficult cases to still see some type of punishment versus more acquittals or dismissals.",
">\n\nIt's the same crime whether she ends up getting pregnant. If she does, though, I do think the convict should be held responsible for the child/abortion costs and have no parental rights whatsoever, but not more jail time for the same crime.",
">\n\nNo, I think the punishment should be the same either way. Give the man a choice of castration or death. \nBut I get where you're coming from. I think the penalty for attempted murder should be the same as for murder. Just because you're incompetent or the victim was fortunate enough to survive, you get off easier? Doesn't make sense to me. Your actions were the same, even if the result was different.",
">\n\nI get that there should be more restitution, but who would more prison time help? The rapist did the exact same thing in either scenario.",
">\n\nYes! Twice the emotional damage.",
">\n\nI'm going to do the devil's advocate here.\nDoes that mean that a rape done with a condom will be less punished?\nHow about a rape done with a stick?\nFor the sake of argument : if rape was punished by death, how would you punish rape that leads to pregnancy? Do you kill them twice?\nIf a rape happens, the victim should immediately get an treatment to abord any possible baby, of if te rape is reported later on abortion should be an option available for victims.",
">\n\nLike child support whether or not the baby is delivered? I’d support that although faked rape cases gonna soar pretty high for men with lots of dough",
">\n\nSomeone probably mentioned this but I found out last year that rapists actually have rights to the child!!!",
">\n\nStrongly agree",
">\n\nYou only talk about abortion, but there is also the morning after pill to prevent conception which (to most women) is a lot less traumatising than abortion.\nGiven this, you are proposing to punish someone based on the actions of someone else if you're suggesting to punish the rapist more based on whether or not a child is born. That goes against every principle of what the rule of law and a fair trial is about.\nAlso, on a practical note, that would mean you can't try any rape case until 9 months after the rape. There is already a huge backlog and issues around women not feeling able to report rape. I can only see this additional requirement making things worse.",
">\n\nThey do. If you go into prison with bad paperwork, you will be in a living hell.",
">\n\n\nespecially if the mother carries the child to term.\n\nNo. Abortion has far lower physical risks and does not cause a child to come into existence.\nEverything up to the conception is caused by the rape, but thereafter the woman has control of her body again, and choosing to continue rather than abort the pregnancy is her own choice, so are the consequences.\nSo there should be no difference depending on the choices of the victim, only on those of the criminal. This includes inflicting a pregnancy, but not how to deal with it.",
">\n\nI actually do like this idea, I’m just wondering is there any equivalent for if a male or AMAB person was raped. They are not able to get pregnant so this same law wouldn’t carry out for them. It would only apply to female and AFAB persons.",
">\n\nBecause the asshole forced that choice on her in the first place, that's why.",
">\n\n\nShe might have religious beliefs that proscribe abortion (such as being Catholic)\nAbortion can be just as traumatic\nThe rapist may not have a say in the abortion, but he had a say in the conception. He could have avoided that problem by not raping her in the first place.",
">\n\nThat would fall under “take your victim as you find her.” The enhanced sentence would happen whether the victim aborts or not.",
">\n\nThe charges would be based off of actual outcomes, not possibilities. If a fertile woman is raped but does not conceive, then the aggravating factor would not apply.\nThe goal behind this is to act as a deterrent in light of opposition to abortion. Certain people have religious objections to abortion even in the event of rape (mainly because the child is not at fault). Even if she aborts, there is still a lot of trauma involved.",
">\n\n\nThe goal behind this is to act as a deterrent in light of opposition to abortion\n\nYou could just generally increase the prison term for rape and have more of a deterrent against all kinds of rape. I'd say that's a much more favourable outcome.",
">\n\nWhat if he want the victim to abort, but the victim said no/unable to do so? \nIf you lighten his punishment, all rapish would tell the victim to abort\nIf you make it harsher, it mean a child would be born with both parent hated him/her\nAlso, what if the victim drop the child in a safe heaven? Is he allowed to meet the child?",
">\n\nToo bad, so sad for the rapist. As I said before, he would have to take his victim as he found her. If she chose not to abort, then that’s the asshole’s problem.",
">\n\nI’m talking about a CHILD who is about to be raised up without anyone care or want him!",
">\n\nWhy not make them pay child support in addition to the normal sentence? Failing to pay child support already had some insane consequences.",
">\n\nI said something in the OP about additional child support or restitution (as in a greater percentage of income than usual) - enough to leave one destitute for life.",
">\n\nRight, but putting them in jail longer means they aren't working which means they aren't paying child support.",
">\n\nIf they're in prison, then they're doing convict labor. In that case, you can simply use the (meager) wages from that labor as restitution for the duration of the sentence.",
">\n\nYou know that can be as little as $1 a day right?",
">\n\nI know. In that case, the victim should get all of it.",
">\n\nAll $300 a year? That isn't even a good chuck of a rent payment.",
">\n\nIt's barely enough for a month's diapers.",
">\n\nI wholeheartedly agree! He could've worn a rubber. If anyone is harmed during the commission of a crime, that criminal is held responsible. We should follow suit with new litigations for pregnancy as well.",
">\n\nThis wouldn’t make sense it then criminalizes pregnancy."
] |
>
I’m saying that specific intent shouldn’t matter. A rapist should have to take his victim as he finds her. | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of.",
">\n\nShouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population. \nHonestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society.",
">\n\nI agree, there was a rape incident in Korea (Cho Doo-soon incident). Due to poor law, he was freed after a short time despite causing too many injuries for the victim. After that every single people who lived near his house moved away. They should keep him in prison.",
">\n\nI could get behind this idea in the pragmatic sense that it could be a further deterrent from rape altogether, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make sense. Lying about birth control or intentionally tempering with it in order to impregnate a partner without/against their consent (or to be impregnated, since women can also do it) is a morally reprehensible in its own right, and furthermore can also carry legal repercussions, if it can be proven that the partners agreed to protected intercourse and one of them broke this agreement without the other's knowledge. One example is stealthing, which is a form of sexual abuse and was widely discussed a while ago. \nRape is having sex with someone without/against their consent for the act itself. Additional agreements like whether or not protection is used become irrelevant in this case. Pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely traumatic for victims, that is true, but rape itself is the crime that has been committed and if the victim happened to be on birth control or infertile that does not influence what has been done to them from the perspective of the crime itself.",
">\n\nI would prefer it if we instituted a policy that treats rape with potential conception this way, regardless of the actual results, in a manner similar to how we treat assault, aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon as different crimes. It wouldn't be any harder to prove than rape already is, while accounting for the additional reckless endangerment that comes from concieving a child through violence.",
">\n\nHe should pay child support to whoever keeps the child.",
">\n\nRapists aren't in control of the conception. If they get lucky and no child is conceived, that isn't because of anything in control of the rapist. People should be punished for things in their control, not let off for things outside their control.\nImagine a drunk driver. He gets in an accident because a child crosses the road in front of the car. But if the child had tripped just before the road and lives, that's not something we can give credit to the driver for.\nA rapist who is 'lucky' and doesn't get someone pregnant acted the same as a rapist who is 'unlucky' and did get someone pregnant. They created the same risk and should face the same punishment.",
">\n\nThe law does not work that way. In civil cases, a tortfeasor has to take his victim as he finds her. In other words, the asshole is responsible for whatever happens, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage. As another example, if a robber punches someone and that person ends up bleeding internally to death due to hemophilia, then that hemophilia is no defense to murder - the robber must take his victim as he found him. Criminal cases are similar - George Floyd's alleged physical condition was not a defense to the murder charges that Derek Chauvin was convicted of.",
">\n\nThe issue isn't with the harsher penalties but with the weaker penalties for rapes that don't result in pregnancy. Take two rapists. Rapist A impregnates his victim, while rapist B does not. Why should rapist B get a lighter sentence than rapist A? Are we implicitly saying that rape isn't as bad if there's no pregnancy? The actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?",
">\n\n\nThe actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?\n\nThis happens all the time. We consider the actions and the consequences of the actions in determining \"appropriate\" punishment very often.\nIf I shoot a gun blindly at a random house, that same action can have any number of consequences. Maybe the only consequences are breaking a window and putting a hole in someone's wall. Maybe it kills the family dog. Maybe the consequence is the bullet hitting someone and paralyzing them for life. Maybe the consequence is breaking a gas line that leads to an explosion that kills a dozen people.\nWhy isn't it reasonable to consider the outcomes of actions when determining the appropriate response?",
">\n\nThe comparison would be more like: you kill a person in each case, but in one, you also unintentionally break their leg. In the second case, should you be charged with a different crime? It's not like you didn't intend harm and by chance harm was caused. Harm is caused in both rape and rape with pregnancy. The act isn't different at all. It's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)",
">\n\nI don't think we need to quibble about whether it's an apt comparison. Based on what the person I responded to said, I think it is (i.e. same actions + different consequences).\n\nThe act isn't different at all.\n\nNot saying it isn't. What I'm saying is that the same act can have different consequences, and we very often apply different repercussions/punishments based on differences in consequences for the same act.\n\nIt's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)\n\nGetting raped and becoming pregnant by your rapist is worse than getting raped and not becoming pregnant by your rapist. That seems pretty uncontroversial to me.",
">\n\nSo... for example, given the exact same circumstances and actions, a woman on birth control is somehow less raped than a woman without who becomes pregnant? And a woman who miscarries or aborts a rape baby is somehow then less raped than she was while she was pregnant?",
">\n\nI feel this would cause an issue where, if the victim really wants to hurt their rapist the most, they have an incentive to remain pregnant even if they don't really want to.\nAlso, should this also apply to situations in which it is the rapist who gets pregnant and not the victim?",
">\n\nJesus.. keeping your rapist's baby so they serve a harsher sentence is a level of spite that I don't think anyone could sink to.",
">\n\nIf you touch my daughters you’d better hope the cops find you first cuz there’s a reckoning upon you if I am first and I’ll gladly sit in a jail for taking a predator to meet the Godess. \n To the point , fuck yes a rapist should have to provide child support. Rapist shouldn’t be allowed to rot in jail , make them work and pay for 18 years like non rapist dads do. And when they fall behind it’s incarceration and forced labor. \nFor far too long our mother, daughter , wives , sisters, aunties and grannies have faced unfair systematic societal oppression. End it by embracing a new paradigm of true human dignity and equality.",
">\n\nFirst of all. I hop on bored with Ben Shapiro when he says to physically castrate rapist, pedophiles, predators, etc. But I like to add my spice to things and add a prison sentence just like they do now. Then add pay for the damage they've done. Example would be. If your caught raping a woman. The woman chooses abortion. He pays for the abortion and following. COunceling sessions through the state to the agency. Or if she keeps it. Then guess who paying a child support for 18 years? Rapist. Just one of many examples I'm sure we could conjure. But by all means tear this idea apart, or let's build from it.",
">\n\nDisagree. It makes no difference if he causes the worst possible damage (pregnancy, std infection, PTSD etc) or minimal damage (although I don't know what that would be). The punishment should be severe, regardless of the consequences. Otherwise some men will get off lighter simply because they were 'lucky'",
">\n\nTo clarify your position, are you asking for a broader range of available punishment in the event of a pregnancy or are you advocating for a higher minimum punishment?",
">\n\nBoth, honestly. There should be automatic sentence enhancements as well as additional restitution.",
">\n\nI would counter then and suggest that if you are going to aggravate the charge based on causing pregnancy, it should only be to broaden the possible punishment range, not increase a mandatory minimum. \n\nMandatory minimums have a long history of causing more problems. Yes, rapists deserve to go to prison, but have you considered how many less would take a plea bargain because it would require x versus y years in prison? These are the types of cases that prosecutors lose more often than any other and cause the most trauma and stress to the victims. Mandatory minimums have the effect of making harder-to-prove cases get ignored meaning less overall justice. It would be better for those difficult cases to still see some type of punishment versus more acquittals or dismissals.",
">\n\nIt's the same crime whether she ends up getting pregnant. If she does, though, I do think the convict should be held responsible for the child/abortion costs and have no parental rights whatsoever, but not more jail time for the same crime.",
">\n\nNo, I think the punishment should be the same either way. Give the man a choice of castration or death. \nBut I get where you're coming from. I think the penalty for attempted murder should be the same as for murder. Just because you're incompetent or the victim was fortunate enough to survive, you get off easier? Doesn't make sense to me. Your actions were the same, even if the result was different.",
">\n\nI get that there should be more restitution, but who would more prison time help? The rapist did the exact same thing in either scenario.",
">\n\nYes! Twice the emotional damage.",
">\n\nI'm going to do the devil's advocate here.\nDoes that mean that a rape done with a condom will be less punished?\nHow about a rape done with a stick?\nFor the sake of argument : if rape was punished by death, how would you punish rape that leads to pregnancy? Do you kill them twice?\nIf a rape happens, the victim should immediately get an treatment to abord any possible baby, of if te rape is reported later on abortion should be an option available for victims.",
">\n\nLike child support whether or not the baby is delivered? I’d support that although faked rape cases gonna soar pretty high for men with lots of dough",
">\n\nSomeone probably mentioned this but I found out last year that rapists actually have rights to the child!!!",
">\n\nStrongly agree",
">\n\nYou only talk about abortion, but there is also the morning after pill to prevent conception which (to most women) is a lot less traumatising than abortion.\nGiven this, you are proposing to punish someone based on the actions of someone else if you're suggesting to punish the rapist more based on whether or not a child is born. That goes against every principle of what the rule of law and a fair trial is about.\nAlso, on a practical note, that would mean you can't try any rape case until 9 months after the rape. There is already a huge backlog and issues around women not feeling able to report rape. I can only see this additional requirement making things worse.",
">\n\nThey do. If you go into prison with bad paperwork, you will be in a living hell.",
">\n\n\nespecially if the mother carries the child to term.\n\nNo. Abortion has far lower physical risks and does not cause a child to come into existence.\nEverything up to the conception is caused by the rape, but thereafter the woman has control of her body again, and choosing to continue rather than abort the pregnancy is her own choice, so are the consequences.\nSo there should be no difference depending on the choices of the victim, only on those of the criminal. This includes inflicting a pregnancy, but not how to deal with it.",
">\n\nI actually do like this idea, I’m just wondering is there any equivalent for if a male or AMAB person was raped. They are not able to get pregnant so this same law wouldn’t carry out for them. It would only apply to female and AFAB persons.",
">\n\nBecause the asshole forced that choice on her in the first place, that's why.",
">\n\n\nShe might have religious beliefs that proscribe abortion (such as being Catholic)\nAbortion can be just as traumatic\nThe rapist may not have a say in the abortion, but he had a say in the conception. He could have avoided that problem by not raping her in the first place.",
">\n\nThat would fall under “take your victim as you find her.” The enhanced sentence would happen whether the victim aborts or not.",
">\n\nThe charges would be based off of actual outcomes, not possibilities. If a fertile woman is raped but does not conceive, then the aggravating factor would not apply.\nThe goal behind this is to act as a deterrent in light of opposition to abortion. Certain people have religious objections to abortion even in the event of rape (mainly because the child is not at fault). Even if she aborts, there is still a lot of trauma involved.",
">\n\n\nThe goal behind this is to act as a deterrent in light of opposition to abortion\n\nYou could just generally increase the prison term for rape and have more of a deterrent against all kinds of rape. I'd say that's a much more favourable outcome.",
">\n\nWhat if he want the victim to abort, but the victim said no/unable to do so? \nIf you lighten his punishment, all rapish would tell the victim to abort\nIf you make it harsher, it mean a child would be born with both parent hated him/her\nAlso, what if the victim drop the child in a safe heaven? Is he allowed to meet the child?",
">\n\nToo bad, so sad for the rapist. As I said before, he would have to take his victim as he found her. If she chose not to abort, then that’s the asshole’s problem.",
">\n\nI’m talking about a CHILD who is about to be raised up without anyone care or want him!",
">\n\nWhy not make them pay child support in addition to the normal sentence? Failing to pay child support already had some insane consequences.",
">\n\nI said something in the OP about additional child support or restitution (as in a greater percentage of income than usual) - enough to leave one destitute for life.",
">\n\nRight, but putting them in jail longer means they aren't working which means they aren't paying child support.",
">\n\nIf they're in prison, then they're doing convict labor. In that case, you can simply use the (meager) wages from that labor as restitution for the duration of the sentence.",
">\n\nYou know that can be as little as $1 a day right?",
">\n\nI know. In that case, the victim should get all of it.",
">\n\nAll $300 a year? That isn't even a good chuck of a rent payment.",
">\n\nIt's barely enough for a month's diapers.",
">\n\nI wholeheartedly agree! He could've worn a rubber. If anyone is harmed during the commission of a crime, that criminal is held responsible. We should follow suit with new litigations for pregnancy as well.",
">\n\nThis wouldn’t make sense it then criminalizes pregnancy.",
">\n\nI think that some rape to hurt and some could want the outcome to be fertilization. Either way it’s pretty much a crapshoot. Can you show intent?"
] |
>
Well, they is clearly a difference between being charged with murder or attempted murder. The punishment is not the same. | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of.",
">\n\nShouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population. \nHonestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society.",
">\n\nI agree, there was a rape incident in Korea (Cho Doo-soon incident). Due to poor law, he was freed after a short time despite causing too many injuries for the victim. After that every single people who lived near his house moved away. They should keep him in prison.",
">\n\nI could get behind this idea in the pragmatic sense that it could be a further deterrent from rape altogether, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make sense. Lying about birth control or intentionally tempering with it in order to impregnate a partner without/against their consent (or to be impregnated, since women can also do it) is a morally reprehensible in its own right, and furthermore can also carry legal repercussions, if it can be proven that the partners agreed to protected intercourse and one of them broke this agreement without the other's knowledge. One example is stealthing, which is a form of sexual abuse and was widely discussed a while ago. \nRape is having sex with someone without/against their consent for the act itself. Additional agreements like whether or not protection is used become irrelevant in this case. Pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely traumatic for victims, that is true, but rape itself is the crime that has been committed and if the victim happened to be on birth control or infertile that does not influence what has been done to them from the perspective of the crime itself.",
">\n\nI would prefer it if we instituted a policy that treats rape with potential conception this way, regardless of the actual results, in a manner similar to how we treat assault, aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon as different crimes. It wouldn't be any harder to prove than rape already is, while accounting for the additional reckless endangerment that comes from concieving a child through violence.",
">\n\nHe should pay child support to whoever keeps the child.",
">\n\nRapists aren't in control of the conception. If they get lucky and no child is conceived, that isn't because of anything in control of the rapist. People should be punished for things in their control, not let off for things outside their control.\nImagine a drunk driver. He gets in an accident because a child crosses the road in front of the car. But if the child had tripped just before the road and lives, that's not something we can give credit to the driver for.\nA rapist who is 'lucky' and doesn't get someone pregnant acted the same as a rapist who is 'unlucky' and did get someone pregnant. They created the same risk and should face the same punishment.",
">\n\nThe law does not work that way. In civil cases, a tortfeasor has to take his victim as he finds her. In other words, the asshole is responsible for whatever happens, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage. As another example, if a robber punches someone and that person ends up bleeding internally to death due to hemophilia, then that hemophilia is no defense to murder - the robber must take his victim as he found him. Criminal cases are similar - George Floyd's alleged physical condition was not a defense to the murder charges that Derek Chauvin was convicted of.",
">\n\nThe issue isn't with the harsher penalties but with the weaker penalties for rapes that don't result in pregnancy. Take two rapists. Rapist A impregnates his victim, while rapist B does not. Why should rapist B get a lighter sentence than rapist A? Are we implicitly saying that rape isn't as bad if there's no pregnancy? The actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?",
">\n\n\nThe actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?\n\nThis happens all the time. We consider the actions and the consequences of the actions in determining \"appropriate\" punishment very often.\nIf I shoot a gun blindly at a random house, that same action can have any number of consequences. Maybe the only consequences are breaking a window and putting a hole in someone's wall. Maybe it kills the family dog. Maybe the consequence is the bullet hitting someone and paralyzing them for life. Maybe the consequence is breaking a gas line that leads to an explosion that kills a dozen people.\nWhy isn't it reasonable to consider the outcomes of actions when determining the appropriate response?",
">\n\nThe comparison would be more like: you kill a person in each case, but in one, you also unintentionally break their leg. In the second case, should you be charged with a different crime? It's not like you didn't intend harm and by chance harm was caused. Harm is caused in both rape and rape with pregnancy. The act isn't different at all. It's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)",
">\n\nI don't think we need to quibble about whether it's an apt comparison. Based on what the person I responded to said, I think it is (i.e. same actions + different consequences).\n\nThe act isn't different at all.\n\nNot saying it isn't. What I'm saying is that the same act can have different consequences, and we very often apply different repercussions/punishments based on differences in consequences for the same act.\n\nIt's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)\n\nGetting raped and becoming pregnant by your rapist is worse than getting raped and not becoming pregnant by your rapist. That seems pretty uncontroversial to me.",
">\n\nSo... for example, given the exact same circumstances and actions, a woman on birth control is somehow less raped than a woman without who becomes pregnant? And a woman who miscarries or aborts a rape baby is somehow then less raped than she was while she was pregnant?",
">\n\nI feel this would cause an issue where, if the victim really wants to hurt their rapist the most, they have an incentive to remain pregnant even if they don't really want to.\nAlso, should this also apply to situations in which it is the rapist who gets pregnant and not the victim?",
">\n\nJesus.. keeping your rapist's baby so they serve a harsher sentence is a level of spite that I don't think anyone could sink to.",
">\n\nIf you touch my daughters you’d better hope the cops find you first cuz there’s a reckoning upon you if I am first and I’ll gladly sit in a jail for taking a predator to meet the Godess. \n To the point , fuck yes a rapist should have to provide child support. Rapist shouldn’t be allowed to rot in jail , make them work and pay for 18 years like non rapist dads do. And when they fall behind it’s incarceration and forced labor. \nFor far too long our mother, daughter , wives , sisters, aunties and grannies have faced unfair systematic societal oppression. End it by embracing a new paradigm of true human dignity and equality.",
">\n\nFirst of all. I hop on bored with Ben Shapiro when he says to physically castrate rapist, pedophiles, predators, etc. But I like to add my spice to things and add a prison sentence just like they do now. Then add pay for the damage they've done. Example would be. If your caught raping a woman. The woman chooses abortion. He pays for the abortion and following. COunceling sessions through the state to the agency. Or if she keeps it. Then guess who paying a child support for 18 years? Rapist. Just one of many examples I'm sure we could conjure. But by all means tear this idea apart, or let's build from it.",
">\n\nDisagree. It makes no difference if he causes the worst possible damage (pregnancy, std infection, PTSD etc) or minimal damage (although I don't know what that would be). The punishment should be severe, regardless of the consequences. Otherwise some men will get off lighter simply because they were 'lucky'",
">\n\nTo clarify your position, are you asking for a broader range of available punishment in the event of a pregnancy or are you advocating for a higher minimum punishment?",
">\n\nBoth, honestly. There should be automatic sentence enhancements as well as additional restitution.",
">\n\nI would counter then and suggest that if you are going to aggravate the charge based on causing pregnancy, it should only be to broaden the possible punishment range, not increase a mandatory minimum. \n\nMandatory minimums have a long history of causing more problems. Yes, rapists deserve to go to prison, but have you considered how many less would take a plea bargain because it would require x versus y years in prison? These are the types of cases that prosecutors lose more often than any other and cause the most trauma and stress to the victims. Mandatory minimums have the effect of making harder-to-prove cases get ignored meaning less overall justice. It would be better for those difficult cases to still see some type of punishment versus more acquittals or dismissals.",
">\n\nIt's the same crime whether she ends up getting pregnant. If she does, though, I do think the convict should be held responsible for the child/abortion costs and have no parental rights whatsoever, but not more jail time for the same crime.",
">\n\nNo, I think the punishment should be the same either way. Give the man a choice of castration or death. \nBut I get where you're coming from. I think the penalty for attempted murder should be the same as for murder. Just because you're incompetent or the victim was fortunate enough to survive, you get off easier? Doesn't make sense to me. Your actions were the same, even if the result was different.",
">\n\nI get that there should be more restitution, but who would more prison time help? The rapist did the exact same thing in either scenario.",
">\n\nYes! Twice the emotional damage.",
">\n\nI'm going to do the devil's advocate here.\nDoes that mean that a rape done with a condom will be less punished?\nHow about a rape done with a stick?\nFor the sake of argument : if rape was punished by death, how would you punish rape that leads to pregnancy? Do you kill them twice?\nIf a rape happens, the victim should immediately get an treatment to abord any possible baby, of if te rape is reported later on abortion should be an option available for victims.",
">\n\nLike child support whether or not the baby is delivered? I’d support that although faked rape cases gonna soar pretty high for men with lots of dough",
">\n\nSomeone probably mentioned this but I found out last year that rapists actually have rights to the child!!!",
">\n\nStrongly agree",
">\n\nYou only talk about abortion, but there is also the morning after pill to prevent conception which (to most women) is a lot less traumatising than abortion.\nGiven this, you are proposing to punish someone based on the actions of someone else if you're suggesting to punish the rapist more based on whether or not a child is born. That goes against every principle of what the rule of law and a fair trial is about.\nAlso, on a practical note, that would mean you can't try any rape case until 9 months after the rape. There is already a huge backlog and issues around women not feeling able to report rape. I can only see this additional requirement making things worse.",
">\n\nThey do. If you go into prison with bad paperwork, you will be in a living hell.",
">\n\n\nespecially if the mother carries the child to term.\n\nNo. Abortion has far lower physical risks and does not cause a child to come into existence.\nEverything up to the conception is caused by the rape, but thereafter the woman has control of her body again, and choosing to continue rather than abort the pregnancy is her own choice, so are the consequences.\nSo there should be no difference depending on the choices of the victim, only on those of the criminal. This includes inflicting a pregnancy, but not how to deal with it.",
">\n\nI actually do like this idea, I’m just wondering is there any equivalent for if a male or AMAB person was raped. They are not able to get pregnant so this same law wouldn’t carry out for them. It would only apply to female and AFAB persons.",
">\n\nBecause the asshole forced that choice on her in the first place, that's why.",
">\n\n\nShe might have religious beliefs that proscribe abortion (such as being Catholic)\nAbortion can be just as traumatic\nThe rapist may not have a say in the abortion, but he had a say in the conception. He could have avoided that problem by not raping her in the first place.",
">\n\nThat would fall under “take your victim as you find her.” The enhanced sentence would happen whether the victim aborts or not.",
">\n\nThe charges would be based off of actual outcomes, not possibilities. If a fertile woman is raped but does not conceive, then the aggravating factor would not apply.\nThe goal behind this is to act as a deterrent in light of opposition to abortion. Certain people have religious objections to abortion even in the event of rape (mainly because the child is not at fault). Even if she aborts, there is still a lot of trauma involved.",
">\n\n\nThe goal behind this is to act as a deterrent in light of opposition to abortion\n\nYou could just generally increase the prison term for rape and have more of a deterrent against all kinds of rape. I'd say that's a much more favourable outcome.",
">\n\nWhat if he want the victim to abort, but the victim said no/unable to do so? \nIf you lighten his punishment, all rapish would tell the victim to abort\nIf you make it harsher, it mean a child would be born with both parent hated him/her\nAlso, what if the victim drop the child in a safe heaven? Is he allowed to meet the child?",
">\n\nToo bad, so sad for the rapist. As I said before, he would have to take his victim as he found her. If she chose not to abort, then that’s the asshole’s problem.",
">\n\nI’m talking about a CHILD who is about to be raised up without anyone care or want him!",
">\n\nWhy not make them pay child support in addition to the normal sentence? Failing to pay child support already had some insane consequences.",
">\n\nI said something in the OP about additional child support or restitution (as in a greater percentage of income than usual) - enough to leave one destitute for life.",
">\n\nRight, but putting them in jail longer means they aren't working which means they aren't paying child support.",
">\n\nIf they're in prison, then they're doing convict labor. In that case, you can simply use the (meager) wages from that labor as restitution for the duration of the sentence.",
">\n\nYou know that can be as little as $1 a day right?",
">\n\nI know. In that case, the victim should get all of it.",
">\n\nAll $300 a year? That isn't even a good chuck of a rent payment.",
">\n\nIt's barely enough for a month's diapers.",
">\n\nI wholeheartedly agree! He could've worn a rubber. If anyone is harmed during the commission of a crime, that criminal is held responsible. We should follow suit with new litigations for pregnancy as well.",
">\n\nThis wouldn’t make sense it then criminalizes pregnancy.",
">\n\nI think that some rape to hurt and some could want the outcome to be fertilization. Either way it’s pretty much a crapshoot. Can you show intent?",
">\n\nI’m saying that specific intent shouldn’t matter. A rapist should have to take his victim as he finds her."
] |
>
I think OP is applying the eggshell rule wrong and missing the point of mens rea. OP should instead be advocating for an intentional or knowingly standard to apply in this case. If a rapist knowingly engages in conduct that is likely to cause an outcome, he should be punished more harshly for doing so. In other words, if a rapist forcibly ejaculates into a woman he is knowingly engaging in behavior that can reasonably cause pregnancy.
We already have the same rule for murder. A person commits murder if they intentionally or knowingly engage in conduct that causes the death of another. If a killer intentionally shoots someone in the stomach, and that person dies, the killer can't claim "I only meant to wound him." | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of.",
">\n\nShouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population. \nHonestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society.",
">\n\nI agree, there was a rape incident in Korea (Cho Doo-soon incident). Due to poor law, he was freed after a short time despite causing too many injuries for the victim. After that every single people who lived near his house moved away. They should keep him in prison.",
">\n\nI could get behind this idea in the pragmatic sense that it could be a further deterrent from rape altogether, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make sense. Lying about birth control or intentionally tempering with it in order to impregnate a partner without/against their consent (or to be impregnated, since women can also do it) is a morally reprehensible in its own right, and furthermore can also carry legal repercussions, if it can be proven that the partners agreed to protected intercourse and one of them broke this agreement without the other's knowledge. One example is stealthing, which is a form of sexual abuse and was widely discussed a while ago. \nRape is having sex with someone without/against their consent for the act itself. Additional agreements like whether or not protection is used become irrelevant in this case. Pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely traumatic for victims, that is true, but rape itself is the crime that has been committed and if the victim happened to be on birth control or infertile that does not influence what has been done to them from the perspective of the crime itself.",
">\n\nI would prefer it if we instituted a policy that treats rape with potential conception this way, regardless of the actual results, in a manner similar to how we treat assault, aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon as different crimes. It wouldn't be any harder to prove than rape already is, while accounting for the additional reckless endangerment that comes from concieving a child through violence.",
">\n\nHe should pay child support to whoever keeps the child.",
">\n\nRapists aren't in control of the conception. If they get lucky and no child is conceived, that isn't because of anything in control of the rapist. People should be punished for things in their control, not let off for things outside their control.\nImagine a drunk driver. He gets in an accident because a child crosses the road in front of the car. But if the child had tripped just before the road and lives, that's not something we can give credit to the driver for.\nA rapist who is 'lucky' and doesn't get someone pregnant acted the same as a rapist who is 'unlucky' and did get someone pregnant. They created the same risk and should face the same punishment.",
">\n\nThe law does not work that way. In civil cases, a tortfeasor has to take his victim as he finds her. In other words, the asshole is responsible for whatever happens, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage. As another example, if a robber punches someone and that person ends up bleeding internally to death due to hemophilia, then that hemophilia is no defense to murder - the robber must take his victim as he found him. Criminal cases are similar - George Floyd's alleged physical condition was not a defense to the murder charges that Derek Chauvin was convicted of.",
">\n\nThe issue isn't with the harsher penalties but with the weaker penalties for rapes that don't result in pregnancy. Take two rapists. Rapist A impregnates his victim, while rapist B does not. Why should rapist B get a lighter sentence than rapist A? Are we implicitly saying that rape isn't as bad if there's no pregnancy? The actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?",
">\n\n\nThe actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?\n\nThis happens all the time. We consider the actions and the consequences of the actions in determining \"appropriate\" punishment very often.\nIf I shoot a gun blindly at a random house, that same action can have any number of consequences. Maybe the only consequences are breaking a window and putting a hole in someone's wall. Maybe it kills the family dog. Maybe the consequence is the bullet hitting someone and paralyzing them for life. Maybe the consequence is breaking a gas line that leads to an explosion that kills a dozen people.\nWhy isn't it reasonable to consider the outcomes of actions when determining the appropriate response?",
">\n\nThe comparison would be more like: you kill a person in each case, but in one, you also unintentionally break their leg. In the second case, should you be charged with a different crime? It's not like you didn't intend harm and by chance harm was caused. Harm is caused in both rape and rape with pregnancy. The act isn't different at all. It's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)",
">\n\nI don't think we need to quibble about whether it's an apt comparison. Based on what the person I responded to said, I think it is (i.e. same actions + different consequences).\n\nThe act isn't different at all.\n\nNot saying it isn't. What I'm saying is that the same act can have different consequences, and we very often apply different repercussions/punishments based on differences in consequences for the same act.\n\nIt's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)\n\nGetting raped and becoming pregnant by your rapist is worse than getting raped and not becoming pregnant by your rapist. That seems pretty uncontroversial to me.",
">\n\nSo... for example, given the exact same circumstances and actions, a woman on birth control is somehow less raped than a woman without who becomes pregnant? And a woman who miscarries or aborts a rape baby is somehow then less raped than she was while she was pregnant?",
">\n\nI feel this would cause an issue where, if the victim really wants to hurt their rapist the most, they have an incentive to remain pregnant even if they don't really want to.\nAlso, should this also apply to situations in which it is the rapist who gets pregnant and not the victim?",
">\n\nJesus.. keeping your rapist's baby so they serve a harsher sentence is a level of spite that I don't think anyone could sink to.",
">\n\nIf you touch my daughters you’d better hope the cops find you first cuz there’s a reckoning upon you if I am first and I’ll gladly sit in a jail for taking a predator to meet the Godess. \n To the point , fuck yes a rapist should have to provide child support. Rapist shouldn’t be allowed to rot in jail , make them work and pay for 18 years like non rapist dads do. And when they fall behind it’s incarceration and forced labor. \nFor far too long our mother, daughter , wives , sisters, aunties and grannies have faced unfair systematic societal oppression. End it by embracing a new paradigm of true human dignity and equality.",
">\n\nFirst of all. I hop on bored with Ben Shapiro when he says to physically castrate rapist, pedophiles, predators, etc. But I like to add my spice to things and add a prison sentence just like they do now. Then add pay for the damage they've done. Example would be. If your caught raping a woman. The woman chooses abortion. He pays for the abortion and following. COunceling sessions through the state to the agency. Or if she keeps it. Then guess who paying a child support for 18 years? Rapist. Just one of many examples I'm sure we could conjure. But by all means tear this idea apart, or let's build from it.",
">\n\nDisagree. It makes no difference if he causes the worst possible damage (pregnancy, std infection, PTSD etc) or minimal damage (although I don't know what that would be). The punishment should be severe, regardless of the consequences. Otherwise some men will get off lighter simply because they were 'lucky'",
">\n\nTo clarify your position, are you asking for a broader range of available punishment in the event of a pregnancy or are you advocating for a higher minimum punishment?",
">\n\nBoth, honestly. There should be automatic sentence enhancements as well as additional restitution.",
">\n\nI would counter then and suggest that if you are going to aggravate the charge based on causing pregnancy, it should only be to broaden the possible punishment range, not increase a mandatory minimum. \n\nMandatory minimums have a long history of causing more problems. Yes, rapists deserve to go to prison, but have you considered how many less would take a plea bargain because it would require x versus y years in prison? These are the types of cases that prosecutors lose more often than any other and cause the most trauma and stress to the victims. Mandatory minimums have the effect of making harder-to-prove cases get ignored meaning less overall justice. It would be better for those difficult cases to still see some type of punishment versus more acquittals or dismissals.",
">\n\nIt's the same crime whether she ends up getting pregnant. If she does, though, I do think the convict should be held responsible for the child/abortion costs and have no parental rights whatsoever, but not more jail time for the same crime.",
">\n\nNo, I think the punishment should be the same either way. Give the man a choice of castration or death. \nBut I get where you're coming from. I think the penalty for attempted murder should be the same as for murder. Just because you're incompetent or the victim was fortunate enough to survive, you get off easier? Doesn't make sense to me. Your actions were the same, even if the result was different.",
">\n\nI get that there should be more restitution, but who would more prison time help? The rapist did the exact same thing in either scenario.",
">\n\nYes! Twice the emotional damage.",
">\n\nI'm going to do the devil's advocate here.\nDoes that mean that a rape done with a condom will be less punished?\nHow about a rape done with a stick?\nFor the sake of argument : if rape was punished by death, how would you punish rape that leads to pregnancy? Do you kill them twice?\nIf a rape happens, the victim should immediately get an treatment to abord any possible baby, of if te rape is reported later on abortion should be an option available for victims.",
">\n\nLike child support whether or not the baby is delivered? I’d support that although faked rape cases gonna soar pretty high for men with lots of dough",
">\n\nSomeone probably mentioned this but I found out last year that rapists actually have rights to the child!!!",
">\n\nStrongly agree",
">\n\nYou only talk about abortion, but there is also the morning after pill to prevent conception which (to most women) is a lot less traumatising than abortion.\nGiven this, you are proposing to punish someone based on the actions of someone else if you're suggesting to punish the rapist more based on whether or not a child is born. That goes against every principle of what the rule of law and a fair trial is about.\nAlso, on a practical note, that would mean you can't try any rape case until 9 months after the rape. There is already a huge backlog and issues around women not feeling able to report rape. I can only see this additional requirement making things worse.",
">\n\nThey do. If you go into prison with bad paperwork, you will be in a living hell.",
">\n\n\nespecially if the mother carries the child to term.\n\nNo. Abortion has far lower physical risks and does not cause a child to come into existence.\nEverything up to the conception is caused by the rape, but thereafter the woman has control of her body again, and choosing to continue rather than abort the pregnancy is her own choice, so are the consequences.\nSo there should be no difference depending on the choices of the victim, only on those of the criminal. This includes inflicting a pregnancy, but not how to deal with it.",
">\n\nI actually do like this idea, I’m just wondering is there any equivalent for if a male or AMAB person was raped. They are not able to get pregnant so this same law wouldn’t carry out for them. It would only apply to female and AFAB persons.",
">\n\nBecause the asshole forced that choice on her in the first place, that's why.",
">\n\n\nShe might have religious beliefs that proscribe abortion (such as being Catholic)\nAbortion can be just as traumatic\nThe rapist may not have a say in the abortion, but he had a say in the conception. He could have avoided that problem by not raping her in the first place.",
">\n\nThat would fall under “take your victim as you find her.” The enhanced sentence would happen whether the victim aborts or not.",
">\n\nThe charges would be based off of actual outcomes, not possibilities. If a fertile woman is raped but does not conceive, then the aggravating factor would not apply.\nThe goal behind this is to act as a deterrent in light of opposition to abortion. Certain people have religious objections to abortion even in the event of rape (mainly because the child is not at fault). Even if she aborts, there is still a lot of trauma involved.",
">\n\n\nThe goal behind this is to act as a deterrent in light of opposition to abortion\n\nYou could just generally increase the prison term for rape and have more of a deterrent against all kinds of rape. I'd say that's a much more favourable outcome.",
">\n\nWhat if he want the victim to abort, but the victim said no/unable to do so? \nIf you lighten his punishment, all rapish would tell the victim to abort\nIf you make it harsher, it mean a child would be born with both parent hated him/her\nAlso, what if the victim drop the child in a safe heaven? Is he allowed to meet the child?",
">\n\nToo bad, so sad for the rapist. As I said before, he would have to take his victim as he found her. If she chose not to abort, then that’s the asshole’s problem.",
">\n\nI’m talking about a CHILD who is about to be raised up without anyone care or want him!",
">\n\nWhy not make them pay child support in addition to the normal sentence? Failing to pay child support already had some insane consequences.",
">\n\nI said something in the OP about additional child support or restitution (as in a greater percentage of income than usual) - enough to leave one destitute for life.",
">\n\nRight, but putting them in jail longer means they aren't working which means they aren't paying child support.",
">\n\nIf they're in prison, then they're doing convict labor. In that case, you can simply use the (meager) wages from that labor as restitution for the duration of the sentence.",
">\n\nYou know that can be as little as $1 a day right?",
">\n\nI know. In that case, the victim should get all of it.",
">\n\nAll $300 a year? That isn't even a good chuck of a rent payment.",
">\n\nIt's barely enough for a month's diapers.",
">\n\nI wholeheartedly agree! He could've worn a rubber. If anyone is harmed during the commission of a crime, that criminal is held responsible. We should follow suit with new litigations for pregnancy as well.",
">\n\nThis wouldn’t make sense it then criminalizes pregnancy.",
">\n\nI think that some rape to hurt and some could want the outcome to be fertilization. Either way it’s pretty much a crapshoot. Can you show intent?",
">\n\nI’m saying that specific intent shouldn’t matter. A rapist should have to take his victim as he finds her.",
">\n\nWell, they is clearly a difference between being charged with murder or attempted murder. The punishment is not the same."
] |
>
Not very common but what if a woman rapes a man and the woman get pregnant? Should she be punished harder? | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of.",
">\n\nShouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population. \nHonestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society.",
">\n\nI agree, there was a rape incident in Korea (Cho Doo-soon incident). Due to poor law, he was freed after a short time despite causing too many injuries for the victim. After that every single people who lived near his house moved away. They should keep him in prison.",
">\n\nI could get behind this idea in the pragmatic sense that it could be a further deterrent from rape altogether, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make sense. Lying about birth control or intentionally tempering with it in order to impregnate a partner without/against their consent (or to be impregnated, since women can also do it) is a morally reprehensible in its own right, and furthermore can also carry legal repercussions, if it can be proven that the partners agreed to protected intercourse and one of them broke this agreement without the other's knowledge. One example is stealthing, which is a form of sexual abuse and was widely discussed a while ago. \nRape is having sex with someone without/against their consent for the act itself. Additional agreements like whether or not protection is used become irrelevant in this case. Pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely traumatic for victims, that is true, but rape itself is the crime that has been committed and if the victim happened to be on birth control or infertile that does not influence what has been done to them from the perspective of the crime itself.",
">\n\nI would prefer it if we instituted a policy that treats rape with potential conception this way, regardless of the actual results, in a manner similar to how we treat assault, aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon as different crimes. It wouldn't be any harder to prove than rape already is, while accounting for the additional reckless endangerment that comes from concieving a child through violence.",
">\n\nHe should pay child support to whoever keeps the child.",
">\n\nRapists aren't in control of the conception. If they get lucky and no child is conceived, that isn't because of anything in control of the rapist. People should be punished for things in their control, not let off for things outside their control.\nImagine a drunk driver. He gets in an accident because a child crosses the road in front of the car. But if the child had tripped just before the road and lives, that's not something we can give credit to the driver for.\nA rapist who is 'lucky' and doesn't get someone pregnant acted the same as a rapist who is 'unlucky' and did get someone pregnant. They created the same risk and should face the same punishment.",
">\n\nThe law does not work that way. In civil cases, a tortfeasor has to take his victim as he finds her. In other words, the asshole is responsible for whatever happens, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage. As another example, if a robber punches someone and that person ends up bleeding internally to death due to hemophilia, then that hemophilia is no defense to murder - the robber must take his victim as he found him. Criminal cases are similar - George Floyd's alleged physical condition was not a defense to the murder charges that Derek Chauvin was convicted of.",
">\n\nThe issue isn't with the harsher penalties but with the weaker penalties for rapes that don't result in pregnancy. Take two rapists. Rapist A impregnates his victim, while rapist B does not. Why should rapist B get a lighter sentence than rapist A? Are we implicitly saying that rape isn't as bad if there's no pregnancy? The actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?",
">\n\n\nThe actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?\n\nThis happens all the time. We consider the actions and the consequences of the actions in determining \"appropriate\" punishment very often.\nIf I shoot a gun blindly at a random house, that same action can have any number of consequences. Maybe the only consequences are breaking a window and putting a hole in someone's wall. Maybe it kills the family dog. Maybe the consequence is the bullet hitting someone and paralyzing them for life. Maybe the consequence is breaking a gas line that leads to an explosion that kills a dozen people.\nWhy isn't it reasonable to consider the outcomes of actions when determining the appropriate response?",
">\n\nThe comparison would be more like: you kill a person in each case, but in one, you also unintentionally break their leg. In the second case, should you be charged with a different crime? It's not like you didn't intend harm and by chance harm was caused. Harm is caused in both rape and rape with pregnancy. The act isn't different at all. It's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)",
">\n\nI don't think we need to quibble about whether it's an apt comparison. Based on what the person I responded to said, I think it is (i.e. same actions + different consequences).\n\nThe act isn't different at all.\n\nNot saying it isn't. What I'm saying is that the same act can have different consequences, and we very often apply different repercussions/punishments based on differences in consequences for the same act.\n\nIt's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)\n\nGetting raped and becoming pregnant by your rapist is worse than getting raped and not becoming pregnant by your rapist. That seems pretty uncontroversial to me.",
">\n\nSo... for example, given the exact same circumstances and actions, a woman on birth control is somehow less raped than a woman without who becomes pregnant? And a woman who miscarries or aborts a rape baby is somehow then less raped than she was while she was pregnant?",
">\n\nI feel this would cause an issue where, if the victim really wants to hurt their rapist the most, they have an incentive to remain pregnant even if they don't really want to.\nAlso, should this also apply to situations in which it is the rapist who gets pregnant and not the victim?",
">\n\nJesus.. keeping your rapist's baby so they serve a harsher sentence is a level of spite that I don't think anyone could sink to.",
">\n\nIf you touch my daughters you’d better hope the cops find you first cuz there’s a reckoning upon you if I am first and I’ll gladly sit in a jail for taking a predator to meet the Godess. \n To the point , fuck yes a rapist should have to provide child support. Rapist shouldn’t be allowed to rot in jail , make them work and pay for 18 years like non rapist dads do. And when they fall behind it’s incarceration and forced labor. \nFor far too long our mother, daughter , wives , sisters, aunties and grannies have faced unfair systematic societal oppression. End it by embracing a new paradigm of true human dignity and equality.",
">\n\nFirst of all. I hop on bored with Ben Shapiro when he says to physically castrate rapist, pedophiles, predators, etc. But I like to add my spice to things and add a prison sentence just like they do now. Then add pay for the damage they've done. Example would be. If your caught raping a woman. The woman chooses abortion. He pays for the abortion and following. COunceling sessions through the state to the agency. Or if she keeps it. Then guess who paying a child support for 18 years? Rapist. Just one of many examples I'm sure we could conjure. But by all means tear this idea apart, or let's build from it.",
">\n\nDisagree. It makes no difference if he causes the worst possible damage (pregnancy, std infection, PTSD etc) or minimal damage (although I don't know what that would be). The punishment should be severe, regardless of the consequences. Otherwise some men will get off lighter simply because they were 'lucky'",
">\n\nTo clarify your position, are you asking for a broader range of available punishment in the event of a pregnancy or are you advocating for a higher minimum punishment?",
">\n\nBoth, honestly. There should be automatic sentence enhancements as well as additional restitution.",
">\n\nI would counter then and suggest that if you are going to aggravate the charge based on causing pregnancy, it should only be to broaden the possible punishment range, not increase a mandatory minimum. \n\nMandatory minimums have a long history of causing more problems. Yes, rapists deserve to go to prison, but have you considered how many less would take a plea bargain because it would require x versus y years in prison? These are the types of cases that prosecutors lose more often than any other and cause the most trauma and stress to the victims. Mandatory minimums have the effect of making harder-to-prove cases get ignored meaning less overall justice. It would be better for those difficult cases to still see some type of punishment versus more acquittals or dismissals.",
">\n\nIt's the same crime whether she ends up getting pregnant. If she does, though, I do think the convict should be held responsible for the child/abortion costs and have no parental rights whatsoever, but not more jail time for the same crime.",
">\n\nNo, I think the punishment should be the same either way. Give the man a choice of castration or death. \nBut I get where you're coming from. I think the penalty for attempted murder should be the same as for murder. Just because you're incompetent or the victim was fortunate enough to survive, you get off easier? Doesn't make sense to me. Your actions were the same, even if the result was different.",
">\n\nI get that there should be more restitution, but who would more prison time help? The rapist did the exact same thing in either scenario.",
">\n\nYes! Twice the emotional damage.",
">\n\nI'm going to do the devil's advocate here.\nDoes that mean that a rape done with a condom will be less punished?\nHow about a rape done with a stick?\nFor the sake of argument : if rape was punished by death, how would you punish rape that leads to pregnancy? Do you kill them twice?\nIf a rape happens, the victim should immediately get an treatment to abord any possible baby, of if te rape is reported later on abortion should be an option available for victims.",
">\n\nLike child support whether or not the baby is delivered? I’d support that although faked rape cases gonna soar pretty high for men with lots of dough",
">\n\nSomeone probably mentioned this but I found out last year that rapists actually have rights to the child!!!",
">\n\nStrongly agree",
">\n\nYou only talk about abortion, but there is also the morning after pill to prevent conception which (to most women) is a lot less traumatising than abortion.\nGiven this, you are proposing to punish someone based on the actions of someone else if you're suggesting to punish the rapist more based on whether or not a child is born. That goes against every principle of what the rule of law and a fair trial is about.\nAlso, on a practical note, that would mean you can't try any rape case until 9 months after the rape. There is already a huge backlog and issues around women not feeling able to report rape. I can only see this additional requirement making things worse.",
">\n\nThey do. If you go into prison with bad paperwork, you will be in a living hell.",
">\n\n\nespecially if the mother carries the child to term.\n\nNo. Abortion has far lower physical risks and does not cause a child to come into existence.\nEverything up to the conception is caused by the rape, but thereafter the woman has control of her body again, and choosing to continue rather than abort the pregnancy is her own choice, so are the consequences.\nSo there should be no difference depending on the choices of the victim, only on those of the criminal. This includes inflicting a pregnancy, but not how to deal with it.",
">\n\nI actually do like this idea, I’m just wondering is there any equivalent for if a male or AMAB person was raped. They are not able to get pregnant so this same law wouldn’t carry out for them. It would only apply to female and AFAB persons.",
">\n\nBecause the asshole forced that choice on her in the first place, that's why.",
">\n\n\nShe might have religious beliefs that proscribe abortion (such as being Catholic)\nAbortion can be just as traumatic\nThe rapist may not have a say in the abortion, but he had a say in the conception. He could have avoided that problem by not raping her in the first place.",
">\n\nThat would fall under “take your victim as you find her.” The enhanced sentence would happen whether the victim aborts or not.",
">\n\nThe charges would be based off of actual outcomes, not possibilities. If a fertile woman is raped but does not conceive, then the aggravating factor would not apply.\nThe goal behind this is to act as a deterrent in light of opposition to abortion. Certain people have religious objections to abortion even in the event of rape (mainly because the child is not at fault). Even if she aborts, there is still a lot of trauma involved.",
">\n\n\nThe goal behind this is to act as a deterrent in light of opposition to abortion\n\nYou could just generally increase the prison term for rape and have more of a deterrent against all kinds of rape. I'd say that's a much more favourable outcome.",
">\n\nWhat if he want the victim to abort, but the victim said no/unable to do so? \nIf you lighten his punishment, all rapish would tell the victim to abort\nIf you make it harsher, it mean a child would be born with both parent hated him/her\nAlso, what if the victim drop the child in a safe heaven? Is he allowed to meet the child?",
">\n\nToo bad, so sad for the rapist. As I said before, he would have to take his victim as he found her. If she chose not to abort, then that’s the asshole’s problem.",
">\n\nI’m talking about a CHILD who is about to be raised up without anyone care or want him!",
">\n\nWhy not make them pay child support in addition to the normal sentence? Failing to pay child support already had some insane consequences.",
">\n\nI said something in the OP about additional child support or restitution (as in a greater percentage of income than usual) - enough to leave one destitute for life.",
">\n\nRight, but putting them in jail longer means they aren't working which means they aren't paying child support.",
">\n\nIf they're in prison, then they're doing convict labor. In that case, you can simply use the (meager) wages from that labor as restitution for the duration of the sentence.",
">\n\nYou know that can be as little as $1 a day right?",
">\n\nI know. In that case, the victim should get all of it.",
">\n\nAll $300 a year? That isn't even a good chuck of a rent payment.",
">\n\nIt's barely enough for a month's diapers.",
">\n\nI wholeheartedly agree! He could've worn a rubber. If anyone is harmed during the commission of a crime, that criminal is held responsible. We should follow suit with new litigations for pregnancy as well.",
">\n\nThis wouldn’t make sense it then criminalizes pregnancy.",
">\n\nI think that some rape to hurt and some could want the outcome to be fertilization. Either way it’s pretty much a crapshoot. Can you show intent?",
">\n\nI’m saying that specific intent shouldn’t matter. A rapist should have to take his victim as he finds her.",
">\n\nWell, they is clearly a difference between being charged with murder or attempted murder. The punishment is not the same.",
">\n\nI think OP is applying the eggshell rule wrong and missing the point of mens rea. OP should instead be advocating for an intentional or knowingly standard to apply in this case. If a rapist knowingly engages in conduct that is likely to cause an outcome, he should be punished more harshly for doing so. In other words, if a rapist forcibly ejaculates into a woman he is knowingly engaging in behavior that can reasonably cause pregnancy. \nWe already have the same rule for murder. A person commits murder if they intentionally or knowingly engage in conduct that causes the death of another. If a killer intentionally shoots someone in the stomach, and that person dies, the killer can't claim \"I only meant to wound him.\""
] |
>
How do you know it's the rapist that conceived her and not her husband a week ago? Where are you getting his DNA from? | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of.",
">\n\nShouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population. \nHonestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society.",
">\n\nI agree, there was a rape incident in Korea (Cho Doo-soon incident). Due to poor law, he was freed after a short time despite causing too many injuries for the victim. After that every single people who lived near his house moved away. They should keep him in prison.",
">\n\nI could get behind this idea in the pragmatic sense that it could be a further deterrent from rape altogether, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make sense. Lying about birth control or intentionally tempering with it in order to impregnate a partner without/against their consent (or to be impregnated, since women can also do it) is a morally reprehensible in its own right, and furthermore can also carry legal repercussions, if it can be proven that the partners agreed to protected intercourse and one of them broke this agreement without the other's knowledge. One example is stealthing, which is a form of sexual abuse and was widely discussed a while ago. \nRape is having sex with someone without/against their consent for the act itself. Additional agreements like whether or not protection is used become irrelevant in this case. Pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely traumatic for victims, that is true, but rape itself is the crime that has been committed and if the victim happened to be on birth control or infertile that does not influence what has been done to them from the perspective of the crime itself.",
">\n\nI would prefer it if we instituted a policy that treats rape with potential conception this way, regardless of the actual results, in a manner similar to how we treat assault, aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon as different crimes. It wouldn't be any harder to prove than rape already is, while accounting for the additional reckless endangerment that comes from concieving a child through violence.",
">\n\nHe should pay child support to whoever keeps the child.",
">\n\nRapists aren't in control of the conception. If they get lucky and no child is conceived, that isn't because of anything in control of the rapist. People should be punished for things in their control, not let off for things outside their control.\nImagine a drunk driver. He gets in an accident because a child crosses the road in front of the car. But if the child had tripped just before the road and lives, that's not something we can give credit to the driver for.\nA rapist who is 'lucky' and doesn't get someone pregnant acted the same as a rapist who is 'unlucky' and did get someone pregnant. They created the same risk and should face the same punishment.",
">\n\nThe law does not work that way. In civil cases, a tortfeasor has to take his victim as he finds her. In other words, the asshole is responsible for whatever happens, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage. As another example, if a robber punches someone and that person ends up bleeding internally to death due to hemophilia, then that hemophilia is no defense to murder - the robber must take his victim as he found him. Criminal cases are similar - George Floyd's alleged physical condition was not a defense to the murder charges that Derek Chauvin was convicted of.",
">\n\nThe issue isn't with the harsher penalties but with the weaker penalties for rapes that don't result in pregnancy. Take two rapists. Rapist A impregnates his victim, while rapist B does not. Why should rapist B get a lighter sentence than rapist A? Are we implicitly saying that rape isn't as bad if there's no pregnancy? The actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?",
">\n\n\nThe actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?\n\nThis happens all the time. We consider the actions and the consequences of the actions in determining \"appropriate\" punishment very often.\nIf I shoot a gun blindly at a random house, that same action can have any number of consequences. Maybe the only consequences are breaking a window and putting a hole in someone's wall. Maybe it kills the family dog. Maybe the consequence is the bullet hitting someone and paralyzing them for life. Maybe the consequence is breaking a gas line that leads to an explosion that kills a dozen people.\nWhy isn't it reasonable to consider the outcomes of actions when determining the appropriate response?",
">\n\nThe comparison would be more like: you kill a person in each case, but in one, you also unintentionally break their leg. In the second case, should you be charged with a different crime? It's not like you didn't intend harm and by chance harm was caused. Harm is caused in both rape and rape with pregnancy. The act isn't different at all. It's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)",
">\n\nI don't think we need to quibble about whether it's an apt comparison. Based on what the person I responded to said, I think it is (i.e. same actions + different consequences).\n\nThe act isn't different at all.\n\nNot saying it isn't. What I'm saying is that the same act can have different consequences, and we very often apply different repercussions/punishments based on differences in consequences for the same act.\n\nIt's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)\n\nGetting raped and becoming pregnant by your rapist is worse than getting raped and not becoming pregnant by your rapist. That seems pretty uncontroversial to me.",
">\n\nSo... for example, given the exact same circumstances and actions, a woman on birth control is somehow less raped than a woman without who becomes pregnant? And a woman who miscarries or aborts a rape baby is somehow then less raped than she was while she was pregnant?",
">\n\nI feel this would cause an issue where, if the victim really wants to hurt their rapist the most, they have an incentive to remain pregnant even if they don't really want to.\nAlso, should this also apply to situations in which it is the rapist who gets pregnant and not the victim?",
">\n\nJesus.. keeping your rapist's baby so they serve a harsher sentence is a level of spite that I don't think anyone could sink to.",
">\n\nIf you touch my daughters you’d better hope the cops find you first cuz there’s a reckoning upon you if I am first and I’ll gladly sit in a jail for taking a predator to meet the Godess. \n To the point , fuck yes a rapist should have to provide child support. Rapist shouldn’t be allowed to rot in jail , make them work and pay for 18 years like non rapist dads do. And when they fall behind it’s incarceration and forced labor. \nFor far too long our mother, daughter , wives , sisters, aunties and grannies have faced unfair systematic societal oppression. End it by embracing a new paradigm of true human dignity and equality.",
">\n\nFirst of all. I hop on bored with Ben Shapiro when he says to physically castrate rapist, pedophiles, predators, etc. But I like to add my spice to things and add a prison sentence just like they do now. Then add pay for the damage they've done. Example would be. If your caught raping a woman. The woman chooses abortion. He pays for the abortion and following. COunceling sessions through the state to the agency. Or if she keeps it. Then guess who paying a child support for 18 years? Rapist. Just one of many examples I'm sure we could conjure. But by all means tear this idea apart, or let's build from it.",
">\n\nDisagree. It makes no difference if he causes the worst possible damage (pregnancy, std infection, PTSD etc) or minimal damage (although I don't know what that would be). The punishment should be severe, regardless of the consequences. Otherwise some men will get off lighter simply because they were 'lucky'",
">\n\nTo clarify your position, are you asking for a broader range of available punishment in the event of a pregnancy or are you advocating for a higher minimum punishment?",
">\n\nBoth, honestly. There should be automatic sentence enhancements as well as additional restitution.",
">\n\nI would counter then and suggest that if you are going to aggravate the charge based on causing pregnancy, it should only be to broaden the possible punishment range, not increase a mandatory minimum. \n\nMandatory minimums have a long history of causing more problems. Yes, rapists deserve to go to prison, but have you considered how many less would take a plea bargain because it would require x versus y years in prison? These are the types of cases that prosecutors lose more often than any other and cause the most trauma and stress to the victims. Mandatory minimums have the effect of making harder-to-prove cases get ignored meaning less overall justice. It would be better for those difficult cases to still see some type of punishment versus more acquittals or dismissals.",
">\n\nIt's the same crime whether she ends up getting pregnant. If she does, though, I do think the convict should be held responsible for the child/abortion costs and have no parental rights whatsoever, but not more jail time for the same crime.",
">\n\nNo, I think the punishment should be the same either way. Give the man a choice of castration or death. \nBut I get where you're coming from. I think the penalty for attempted murder should be the same as for murder. Just because you're incompetent or the victim was fortunate enough to survive, you get off easier? Doesn't make sense to me. Your actions were the same, even if the result was different.",
">\n\nI get that there should be more restitution, but who would more prison time help? The rapist did the exact same thing in either scenario.",
">\n\nYes! Twice the emotional damage.",
">\n\nI'm going to do the devil's advocate here.\nDoes that mean that a rape done with a condom will be less punished?\nHow about a rape done with a stick?\nFor the sake of argument : if rape was punished by death, how would you punish rape that leads to pregnancy? Do you kill them twice?\nIf a rape happens, the victim should immediately get an treatment to abord any possible baby, of if te rape is reported later on abortion should be an option available for victims.",
">\n\nLike child support whether or not the baby is delivered? I’d support that although faked rape cases gonna soar pretty high for men with lots of dough",
">\n\nSomeone probably mentioned this but I found out last year that rapists actually have rights to the child!!!",
">\n\nStrongly agree",
">\n\nYou only talk about abortion, but there is also the morning after pill to prevent conception which (to most women) is a lot less traumatising than abortion.\nGiven this, you are proposing to punish someone based on the actions of someone else if you're suggesting to punish the rapist more based on whether or not a child is born. That goes against every principle of what the rule of law and a fair trial is about.\nAlso, on a practical note, that would mean you can't try any rape case until 9 months after the rape. There is already a huge backlog and issues around women not feeling able to report rape. I can only see this additional requirement making things worse.",
">\n\nThey do. If you go into prison with bad paperwork, you will be in a living hell.",
">\n\n\nespecially if the mother carries the child to term.\n\nNo. Abortion has far lower physical risks and does not cause a child to come into existence.\nEverything up to the conception is caused by the rape, but thereafter the woman has control of her body again, and choosing to continue rather than abort the pregnancy is her own choice, so are the consequences.\nSo there should be no difference depending on the choices of the victim, only on those of the criminal. This includes inflicting a pregnancy, but not how to deal with it.",
">\n\nI actually do like this idea, I’m just wondering is there any equivalent for if a male or AMAB person was raped. They are not able to get pregnant so this same law wouldn’t carry out for them. It would only apply to female and AFAB persons.",
">\n\nBecause the asshole forced that choice on her in the first place, that's why.",
">\n\n\nShe might have religious beliefs that proscribe abortion (such as being Catholic)\nAbortion can be just as traumatic\nThe rapist may not have a say in the abortion, but he had a say in the conception. He could have avoided that problem by not raping her in the first place.",
">\n\nThat would fall under “take your victim as you find her.” The enhanced sentence would happen whether the victim aborts or not.",
">\n\nThe charges would be based off of actual outcomes, not possibilities. If a fertile woman is raped but does not conceive, then the aggravating factor would not apply.\nThe goal behind this is to act as a deterrent in light of opposition to abortion. Certain people have religious objections to abortion even in the event of rape (mainly because the child is not at fault). Even if she aborts, there is still a lot of trauma involved.",
">\n\n\nThe goal behind this is to act as a deterrent in light of opposition to abortion\n\nYou could just generally increase the prison term for rape and have more of a deterrent against all kinds of rape. I'd say that's a much more favourable outcome.",
">\n\nWhat if he want the victim to abort, but the victim said no/unable to do so? \nIf you lighten his punishment, all rapish would tell the victim to abort\nIf you make it harsher, it mean a child would be born with both parent hated him/her\nAlso, what if the victim drop the child in a safe heaven? Is he allowed to meet the child?",
">\n\nToo bad, so sad for the rapist. As I said before, he would have to take his victim as he found her. If she chose not to abort, then that’s the asshole’s problem.",
">\n\nI’m talking about a CHILD who is about to be raised up without anyone care or want him!",
">\n\nWhy not make them pay child support in addition to the normal sentence? Failing to pay child support already had some insane consequences.",
">\n\nI said something in the OP about additional child support or restitution (as in a greater percentage of income than usual) - enough to leave one destitute for life.",
">\n\nRight, but putting them in jail longer means they aren't working which means they aren't paying child support.",
">\n\nIf they're in prison, then they're doing convict labor. In that case, you can simply use the (meager) wages from that labor as restitution for the duration of the sentence.",
">\n\nYou know that can be as little as $1 a day right?",
">\n\nI know. In that case, the victim should get all of it.",
">\n\nAll $300 a year? That isn't even a good chuck of a rent payment.",
">\n\nIt's barely enough for a month's diapers.",
">\n\nI wholeheartedly agree! He could've worn a rubber. If anyone is harmed during the commission of a crime, that criminal is held responsible. We should follow suit with new litigations for pregnancy as well.",
">\n\nThis wouldn’t make sense it then criminalizes pregnancy.",
">\n\nI think that some rape to hurt and some could want the outcome to be fertilization. Either way it’s pretty much a crapshoot. Can you show intent?",
">\n\nI’m saying that specific intent shouldn’t matter. A rapist should have to take his victim as he finds her.",
">\n\nWell, they is clearly a difference between being charged with murder or attempted murder. The punishment is not the same.",
">\n\nI think OP is applying the eggshell rule wrong and missing the point of mens rea. OP should instead be advocating for an intentional or knowingly standard to apply in this case. If a rapist knowingly engages in conduct that is likely to cause an outcome, he should be punished more harshly for doing so. In other words, if a rapist forcibly ejaculates into a woman he is knowingly engaging in behavior that can reasonably cause pregnancy. \nWe already have the same rule for murder. A person commits murder if they intentionally or knowingly engage in conduct that causes the death of another. If a killer intentionally shoots someone in the stomach, and that person dies, the killer can't claim \"I only meant to wound him.\"",
">\n\nNot very common but what if a woman rapes a man and the woman get pregnant? Should she be punished harder?"
] |
>
Prenatal paternity tests are a thing. Getting the rapist’s DNA is a nonissue if he is already in custody. | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of.",
">\n\nShouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population. \nHonestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society.",
">\n\nI agree, there was a rape incident in Korea (Cho Doo-soon incident). Due to poor law, he was freed after a short time despite causing too many injuries for the victim. After that every single people who lived near his house moved away. They should keep him in prison.",
">\n\nI could get behind this idea in the pragmatic sense that it could be a further deterrent from rape altogether, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make sense. Lying about birth control or intentionally tempering with it in order to impregnate a partner without/against their consent (or to be impregnated, since women can also do it) is a morally reprehensible in its own right, and furthermore can also carry legal repercussions, if it can be proven that the partners agreed to protected intercourse and one of them broke this agreement without the other's knowledge. One example is stealthing, which is a form of sexual abuse and was widely discussed a while ago. \nRape is having sex with someone without/against their consent for the act itself. Additional agreements like whether or not protection is used become irrelevant in this case. Pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely traumatic for victims, that is true, but rape itself is the crime that has been committed and if the victim happened to be on birth control or infertile that does not influence what has been done to them from the perspective of the crime itself.",
">\n\nI would prefer it if we instituted a policy that treats rape with potential conception this way, regardless of the actual results, in a manner similar to how we treat assault, aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon as different crimes. It wouldn't be any harder to prove than rape already is, while accounting for the additional reckless endangerment that comes from concieving a child through violence.",
">\n\nHe should pay child support to whoever keeps the child.",
">\n\nRapists aren't in control of the conception. If they get lucky and no child is conceived, that isn't because of anything in control of the rapist. People should be punished for things in their control, not let off for things outside their control.\nImagine a drunk driver. He gets in an accident because a child crosses the road in front of the car. But if the child had tripped just before the road and lives, that's not something we can give credit to the driver for.\nA rapist who is 'lucky' and doesn't get someone pregnant acted the same as a rapist who is 'unlucky' and did get someone pregnant. They created the same risk and should face the same punishment.",
">\n\nThe law does not work that way. In civil cases, a tortfeasor has to take his victim as he finds her. In other words, the asshole is responsible for whatever happens, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage. As another example, if a robber punches someone and that person ends up bleeding internally to death due to hemophilia, then that hemophilia is no defense to murder - the robber must take his victim as he found him. Criminal cases are similar - George Floyd's alleged physical condition was not a defense to the murder charges that Derek Chauvin was convicted of.",
">\n\nThe issue isn't with the harsher penalties but with the weaker penalties for rapes that don't result in pregnancy. Take two rapists. Rapist A impregnates his victim, while rapist B does not. Why should rapist B get a lighter sentence than rapist A? Are we implicitly saying that rape isn't as bad if there's no pregnancy? The actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?",
">\n\n\nThe actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?\n\nThis happens all the time. We consider the actions and the consequences of the actions in determining \"appropriate\" punishment very often.\nIf I shoot a gun blindly at a random house, that same action can have any number of consequences. Maybe the only consequences are breaking a window and putting a hole in someone's wall. Maybe it kills the family dog. Maybe the consequence is the bullet hitting someone and paralyzing them for life. Maybe the consequence is breaking a gas line that leads to an explosion that kills a dozen people.\nWhy isn't it reasonable to consider the outcomes of actions when determining the appropriate response?",
">\n\nThe comparison would be more like: you kill a person in each case, but in one, you also unintentionally break their leg. In the second case, should you be charged with a different crime? It's not like you didn't intend harm and by chance harm was caused. Harm is caused in both rape and rape with pregnancy. The act isn't different at all. It's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)",
">\n\nI don't think we need to quibble about whether it's an apt comparison. Based on what the person I responded to said, I think it is (i.e. same actions + different consequences).\n\nThe act isn't different at all.\n\nNot saying it isn't. What I'm saying is that the same act can have different consequences, and we very often apply different repercussions/punishments based on differences in consequences for the same act.\n\nIt's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)\n\nGetting raped and becoming pregnant by your rapist is worse than getting raped and not becoming pregnant by your rapist. That seems pretty uncontroversial to me.",
">\n\nSo... for example, given the exact same circumstances and actions, a woman on birth control is somehow less raped than a woman without who becomes pregnant? And a woman who miscarries or aborts a rape baby is somehow then less raped than she was while she was pregnant?",
">\n\nI feel this would cause an issue where, if the victim really wants to hurt their rapist the most, they have an incentive to remain pregnant even if they don't really want to.\nAlso, should this also apply to situations in which it is the rapist who gets pregnant and not the victim?",
">\n\nJesus.. keeping your rapist's baby so they serve a harsher sentence is a level of spite that I don't think anyone could sink to.",
">\n\nIf you touch my daughters you’d better hope the cops find you first cuz there’s a reckoning upon you if I am first and I’ll gladly sit in a jail for taking a predator to meet the Godess. \n To the point , fuck yes a rapist should have to provide child support. Rapist shouldn’t be allowed to rot in jail , make them work and pay for 18 years like non rapist dads do. And when they fall behind it’s incarceration and forced labor. \nFor far too long our mother, daughter , wives , sisters, aunties and grannies have faced unfair systematic societal oppression. End it by embracing a new paradigm of true human dignity and equality.",
">\n\nFirst of all. I hop on bored with Ben Shapiro when he says to physically castrate rapist, pedophiles, predators, etc. But I like to add my spice to things and add a prison sentence just like they do now. Then add pay for the damage they've done. Example would be. If your caught raping a woman. The woman chooses abortion. He pays for the abortion and following. COunceling sessions through the state to the agency. Or if she keeps it. Then guess who paying a child support for 18 years? Rapist. Just one of many examples I'm sure we could conjure. But by all means tear this idea apart, or let's build from it.",
">\n\nDisagree. It makes no difference if he causes the worst possible damage (pregnancy, std infection, PTSD etc) or minimal damage (although I don't know what that would be). The punishment should be severe, regardless of the consequences. Otherwise some men will get off lighter simply because they were 'lucky'",
">\n\nTo clarify your position, are you asking for a broader range of available punishment in the event of a pregnancy or are you advocating for a higher minimum punishment?",
">\n\nBoth, honestly. There should be automatic sentence enhancements as well as additional restitution.",
">\n\nI would counter then and suggest that if you are going to aggravate the charge based on causing pregnancy, it should only be to broaden the possible punishment range, not increase a mandatory minimum. \n\nMandatory minimums have a long history of causing more problems. Yes, rapists deserve to go to prison, but have you considered how many less would take a plea bargain because it would require x versus y years in prison? These are the types of cases that prosecutors lose more often than any other and cause the most trauma and stress to the victims. Mandatory minimums have the effect of making harder-to-prove cases get ignored meaning less overall justice. It would be better for those difficult cases to still see some type of punishment versus more acquittals or dismissals.",
">\n\nIt's the same crime whether she ends up getting pregnant. If she does, though, I do think the convict should be held responsible for the child/abortion costs and have no parental rights whatsoever, but not more jail time for the same crime.",
">\n\nNo, I think the punishment should be the same either way. Give the man a choice of castration or death. \nBut I get where you're coming from. I think the penalty for attempted murder should be the same as for murder. Just because you're incompetent or the victim was fortunate enough to survive, you get off easier? Doesn't make sense to me. Your actions were the same, even if the result was different.",
">\n\nI get that there should be more restitution, but who would more prison time help? The rapist did the exact same thing in either scenario.",
">\n\nYes! Twice the emotional damage.",
">\n\nI'm going to do the devil's advocate here.\nDoes that mean that a rape done with a condom will be less punished?\nHow about a rape done with a stick?\nFor the sake of argument : if rape was punished by death, how would you punish rape that leads to pregnancy? Do you kill them twice?\nIf a rape happens, the victim should immediately get an treatment to abord any possible baby, of if te rape is reported later on abortion should be an option available for victims.",
">\n\nLike child support whether or not the baby is delivered? I’d support that although faked rape cases gonna soar pretty high for men with lots of dough",
">\n\nSomeone probably mentioned this but I found out last year that rapists actually have rights to the child!!!",
">\n\nStrongly agree",
">\n\nYou only talk about abortion, but there is also the morning after pill to prevent conception which (to most women) is a lot less traumatising than abortion.\nGiven this, you are proposing to punish someone based on the actions of someone else if you're suggesting to punish the rapist more based on whether or not a child is born. That goes against every principle of what the rule of law and a fair trial is about.\nAlso, on a practical note, that would mean you can't try any rape case until 9 months after the rape. There is already a huge backlog and issues around women not feeling able to report rape. I can only see this additional requirement making things worse.",
">\n\nThey do. If you go into prison with bad paperwork, you will be in a living hell.",
">\n\n\nespecially if the mother carries the child to term.\n\nNo. Abortion has far lower physical risks and does not cause a child to come into existence.\nEverything up to the conception is caused by the rape, but thereafter the woman has control of her body again, and choosing to continue rather than abort the pregnancy is her own choice, so are the consequences.\nSo there should be no difference depending on the choices of the victim, only on those of the criminal. This includes inflicting a pregnancy, but not how to deal with it.",
">\n\nI actually do like this idea, I’m just wondering is there any equivalent for if a male or AMAB person was raped. They are not able to get pregnant so this same law wouldn’t carry out for them. It would only apply to female and AFAB persons.",
">\n\nBecause the asshole forced that choice on her in the first place, that's why.",
">\n\n\nShe might have religious beliefs that proscribe abortion (such as being Catholic)\nAbortion can be just as traumatic\nThe rapist may not have a say in the abortion, but he had a say in the conception. He could have avoided that problem by not raping her in the first place.",
">\n\nThat would fall under “take your victim as you find her.” The enhanced sentence would happen whether the victim aborts or not.",
">\n\nThe charges would be based off of actual outcomes, not possibilities. If a fertile woman is raped but does not conceive, then the aggravating factor would not apply.\nThe goal behind this is to act as a deterrent in light of opposition to abortion. Certain people have religious objections to abortion even in the event of rape (mainly because the child is not at fault). Even if she aborts, there is still a lot of trauma involved.",
">\n\n\nThe goal behind this is to act as a deterrent in light of opposition to abortion\n\nYou could just generally increase the prison term for rape and have more of a deterrent against all kinds of rape. I'd say that's a much more favourable outcome.",
">\n\nWhat if he want the victim to abort, but the victim said no/unable to do so? \nIf you lighten his punishment, all rapish would tell the victim to abort\nIf you make it harsher, it mean a child would be born with both parent hated him/her\nAlso, what if the victim drop the child in a safe heaven? Is he allowed to meet the child?",
">\n\nToo bad, so sad for the rapist. As I said before, he would have to take his victim as he found her. If she chose not to abort, then that’s the asshole’s problem.",
">\n\nI’m talking about a CHILD who is about to be raised up without anyone care or want him!",
">\n\nWhy not make them pay child support in addition to the normal sentence? Failing to pay child support already had some insane consequences.",
">\n\nI said something in the OP about additional child support or restitution (as in a greater percentage of income than usual) - enough to leave one destitute for life.",
">\n\nRight, but putting them in jail longer means they aren't working which means they aren't paying child support.",
">\n\nIf they're in prison, then they're doing convict labor. In that case, you can simply use the (meager) wages from that labor as restitution for the duration of the sentence.",
">\n\nYou know that can be as little as $1 a day right?",
">\n\nI know. In that case, the victim should get all of it.",
">\n\nAll $300 a year? That isn't even a good chuck of a rent payment.",
">\n\nIt's barely enough for a month's diapers.",
">\n\nI wholeheartedly agree! He could've worn a rubber. If anyone is harmed during the commission of a crime, that criminal is held responsible. We should follow suit with new litigations for pregnancy as well.",
">\n\nThis wouldn’t make sense it then criminalizes pregnancy.",
">\n\nI think that some rape to hurt and some could want the outcome to be fertilization. Either way it’s pretty much a crapshoot. Can you show intent?",
">\n\nI’m saying that specific intent shouldn’t matter. A rapist should have to take his victim as he finds her.",
">\n\nWell, they is clearly a difference between being charged with murder or attempted murder. The punishment is not the same.",
">\n\nI think OP is applying the eggshell rule wrong and missing the point of mens rea. OP should instead be advocating for an intentional or knowingly standard to apply in this case. If a rapist knowingly engages in conduct that is likely to cause an outcome, he should be punished more harshly for doing so. In other words, if a rapist forcibly ejaculates into a woman he is knowingly engaging in behavior that can reasonably cause pregnancy. \nWe already have the same rule for murder. A person commits murder if they intentionally or knowingly engage in conduct that causes the death of another. If a killer intentionally shoots someone in the stomach, and that person dies, the killer can't claim \"I only meant to wound him.\"",
">\n\nNot very common but what if a woman rapes a man and the woman get pregnant? Should she be punished harder?",
">\n\nHow do you know it's the rapist that conceived her and not her husband a week ago? Where are you getting his DNA from?"
] |
> | [
"Wouldn't this involve trying them twice for the same crime?",
">\n\nNo; \"Rape causing pregnancy\" would be different from simple rape, just as \"DUI causing death\" is different from simple DUI. The pregnancy would be an aggravating factor.",
">\n\nWhat about \"rape causing an std\", \"rape causing PTSD\", \"rape causing trust issues for life\" \"rape causing the breakdown of a marriage\".... I could go on.",
">\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions. The latter is no longer a cause of action except in a handful of states (this is called \"alienation of affection\").",
">\n\nMy point is is that rape causing a pregnancy is not so much worse than all the other effects it can/does have. It's one of the many possible tragic effects it can have. And considering it's only chance that determines if she gets pregnant I don't see how it should receive any different a sentence.\n\nI think the first two can be considered aggravating factors because they are clearly diagnosable conditions\n\nSo, should these rapusts get a separate law/sentence for their crime?",
">\n\nIf you mean an enhanced sentence, then yes. We enhance sentences for aggravating factors all the time. It's like how the use of a weapon in a robbery increases the sentence - armed robbery is considered an aggravated form of robbery.",
">\n\nSo now we have... \"rape that results in any diagnosable condition should receive a harsher punishment than those that do not\"?",
">\n\nWithout trying to sound glib: why not? That sounds like an improvement on the current system, frankly. Rape resulting in emotional damages/PTSD, loss of earning for the survivor, pregnancy, destruction of marriage, all of those are things we don’t actually address when we prosecute rape but they’re very real outcomes for a lot of survivors. This OP might be changing my views instead of vice versa.",
">\n\nIn which case, deal with all rapes the same. It seems ridiculous to me for a court to try and put either financial or term length determinations on women's different experiences as a result of rape. \nHow well a woman deals (or not) with the fallout from a rape shouldn't influence the penalty for the crime.",
">\n\nI don’t entirely agree actually. There’s plenty of people (men get raped too) who deal differently with rape. Some have PTSD and years of earning loss/therapy, some don’t. I know we might just end up agreeing to disagree here, but I don’t think this is such a bad idea.",
">\n\nIn order to do this, the woman would have to disclose to the court whether she was impregnated, prove that the rapist was indeed the father and then tell the court how she decided to proceed regarding the pregnancy. Sorry, but none of that stuff is anyone's business unless she wants to make it their business. Otherwise, this is just adding trauma to trauma.\nPregnancy is a well-known side-effect of a penis in a vagina. Rape punishment should already take that into consideration. There is no need to drag a victim's personal, private decisions or even their basic health information (such as they have already gone through menopause) in front of a jury or their alleged assailant.\nNo. You don't make punishment dependent on a bunch of stuff that is completely private. The victim can file a civil suit if she wishes.",
">\n\nThis is all assuming the man was the rapist. How would you proceed if the man was the victim?",
">\n\nSimply apply ex turpi causa non oritur actio (out of immoral action, no cause arises) in that case. If a woman rapes a man and impregnates herself as a result, then she should be barred from any recourse - she brought it upon herself.",
">\n\nI think they were asking if the female rapist deserves a harsher punishment for the rape resulting in their own impregnation.",
">\n\nI think that being barred from any recourse such as child support or state support fits that bill.",
">\n\nBarring them from resources doesn't punish the rapist, it punishes the child.",
">\n\nIn that case, the child is better off as a ward of the state. Of course, the state doesn’t want to be on the hook for that child either.",
">\n\nYou seem to be implying the father\\victim wouldn't have the option to take custody, or any family involved on either the victim or mothers sides. That said, the state wants what would be best for the child, so circumstance plays a part there. Are you saying that the mother\\rapist automatically loses custody? Barring them from public resource only punishes the poor. If the rapist is well off, that doesn't effect either the parent, or the child.",
">\n\nHe could have the means, but I don’t think a minor father is in any position to take custody.",
">\n\nCan't assume though can we,? The parents may be available and willing to help.",
">\n\nInvert the argument and what you're suggesting is that a rape that does NOT result in pregnancy is a lesser crime as shown by the fact that it receives a lesser punishment... hard to see that being well received (esp. in cases where the victim is incapable of bearing a child)",
">\n\nYou could apply that logic to any crime though.\nWhy should a drunk driver who accidentally kills someone get a lesser punishment than someone who intricately plans out a murder? The victim is dead either way. The families and friends will suffer all the same. But we have to make judgements about the severity of a crime based on damage and intention. The damage of a rape can be brutal. The damage of a pregnancy can be life-threatening. I’d say that makes it more severe.",
">\n\ni think the better analogy would be a drunk driver that doesn't hit someone vs the drunk driver that does. In both cases we're essentially talking about the two statistical outcomes of the same crime and imo there's pretty good reasons to punish both the same (even if that isn't the case now) simply because both put others in an equal amount of danger",
">\n\nThis is even more evident in the case of a gun jamming when the instigator pulls the trigger to kill.\nThe attempted murder vs murder charge is based on the result of their actions rather than the action itself. Which of the two charges they get is based on factors outside of their control",
">\n\nWhy not treat all rapes with the idea that it could have resulted in conception? I don't see a need to have a \"lesser\" punishment",
">\n\nAgree with this",
">\n\nInstead of punishing them more if a child is born. I think I'd rather, if they're convicted of rape and a child is born. They automatically have no rights to the child whatsoever along with their family.",
">\n\nI would think most rapists wouldn't want rights to the child in the first place? Taking them away would even be beneficial to them",
">\n\nYea that is one example and there is many others, but unless I missed where the artlice states otherwise I would still guess that MOST rapists don't want custody",
">\n\nThis seems like it might create an unintentional increase in sodomy.",
">\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence. \nAnother issue is that a law like this would suggest that rape of a woman who becomes pregnant (and refuses to get an abortion, based on her own reasons) is worse than rape of a man OR of a woman who cannot/did not get pregnant. Additionally, it would suggest that rape of a woman who became pregnant and got an abortion is less harmful to that woman than to a woman who was raped and did not get an abortion. It would also suggest that rapists who had a vasectomy are not as bad as those who have not. None of these suggestions are true and making a law that leans this way would not solve any problems with rape. \nFinally, making a rapist destitute creates a person dependent on society or, even worse, someone who is so desperate that future crime to get back in prison would be more likely. And there is no evidence that serving a longer sentence makes a person less likely to commit crimes after release.",
">\n\n\nOne of the biggest problems with this is that conception is rather random. A harsher sentence, either restitution or prison time, would mean that a rapist would randomly get a harsher sentence.\n\nThat's how the Eggshell Skull doctrine works - you take your victim as you find her. If she was fertile when you raped her, that's your problem. If you don't want to risk that possibility, then don't rape her. Simple as that.\nIt's no different from a robber punching someone in the stomach and causing that person to bleed to death internally due to hemophilia. It doesn't matter that the robber didn't know about his victim's condition; he is responsible for whatever happens.",
">\n\nYeah, no. I'm not talking about the rapist, but the victim. A victim that is a man is worth less than a woman victim who got pregnant?",
">\n\nIn the case of causing a pregnancy (whether that pregnancy be in the rapist or the rape victim^1 ) there is a secondary victim - the conceived child. And the suffering caused to that victim is worthy of consideration.\n1) Female rapists choosing to carry the child of their victim is far from unheard of.",
">\n\nShouldn't rapists in general be punished harder? Convicted rapists, like pedophiles, have an extremely high chance of reoffending compared to the general population. \nHonestly, when it comes to rape, murder, and pedophilia, I see no reason why we should ever let these people out of prison. They've proven themselves to be extreme dangers to society.",
">\n\nI agree, there was a rape incident in Korea (Cho Doo-soon incident). Due to poor law, he was freed after a short time despite causing too many injuries for the victim. After that every single people who lived near his house moved away. They should keep him in prison.",
">\n\nI could get behind this idea in the pragmatic sense that it could be a further deterrent from rape altogether, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make sense. Lying about birth control or intentionally tempering with it in order to impregnate a partner without/against their consent (or to be impregnated, since women can also do it) is a morally reprehensible in its own right, and furthermore can also carry legal repercussions, if it can be proven that the partners agreed to protected intercourse and one of them broke this agreement without the other's knowledge. One example is stealthing, which is a form of sexual abuse and was widely discussed a while ago. \nRape is having sex with someone without/against their consent for the act itself. Additional agreements like whether or not protection is used become irrelevant in this case. Pregnancies resulting from rape are extremely traumatic for victims, that is true, but rape itself is the crime that has been committed and if the victim happened to be on birth control or infertile that does not influence what has been done to them from the perspective of the crime itself.",
">\n\nI would prefer it if we instituted a policy that treats rape with potential conception this way, regardless of the actual results, in a manner similar to how we treat assault, aggravated assault and assault with a deadly weapon as different crimes. It wouldn't be any harder to prove than rape already is, while accounting for the additional reckless endangerment that comes from concieving a child through violence.",
">\n\nHe should pay child support to whoever keeps the child.",
">\n\nRapists aren't in control of the conception. If they get lucky and no child is conceived, that isn't because of anything in control of the rapist. People should be punished for things in their control, not let off for things outside their control.\nImagine a drunk driver. He gets in an accident because a child crosses the road in front of the car. But if the child had tripped just before the road and lives, that's not something we can give credit to the driver for.\nA rapist who is 'lucky' and doesn't get someone pregnant acted the same as a rapist who is 'unlucky' and did get someone pregnant. They created the same risk and should face the same punishment.",
">\n\nThe law does not work that way. In civil cases, a tortfeasor has to take his victim as he finds her. In other words, the asshole is responsible for whatever happens, even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage. As another example, if a robber punches someone and that person ends up bleeding internally to death due to hemophilia, then that hemophilia is no defense to murder - the robber must take his victim as he found him. Criminal cases are similar - George Floyd's alleged physical condition was not a defense to the murder charges that Derek Chauvin was convicted of.",
">\n\nThe issue isn't with the harsher penalties but with the weaker penalties for rapes that don't result in pregnancy. Take two rapists. Rapist A impregnates his victim, while rapist B does not. Why should rapist B get a lighter sentence than rapist A? Are we implicitly saying that rape isn't as bad if there's no pregnancy? The actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?",
">\n\n\nThe actions of the rapists are the same in all other ways, so why does rapist B get off with a lighter sentence just because luck was on his side?\n\nThis happens all the time. We consider the actions and the consequences of the actions in determining \"appropriate\" punishment very often.\nIf I shoot a gun blindly at a random house, that same action can have any number of consequences. Maybe the only consequences are breaking a window and putting a hole in someone's wall. Maybe it kills the family dog. Maybe the consequence is the bullet hitting someone and paralyzing them for life. Maybe the consequence is breaking a gas line that leads to an explosion that kills a dozen people.\nWhy isn't it reasonable to consider the outcomes of actions when determining the appropriate response?",
">\n\nThe comparison would be more like: you kill a person in each case, but in one, you also unintentionally break their leg. In the second case, should you be charged with a different crime? It's not like you didn't intend harm and by chance harm was caused. Harm is caused in both rape and rape with pregnancy. The act isn't different at all. It's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)",
">\n\nI don't think we need to quibble about whether it's an apt comparison. Based on what the person I responded to said, I think it is (i.e. same actions + different consequences).\n\nThe act isn't different at all.\n\nNot saying it isn't. What I'm saying is that the same act can have different consequences, and we very often apply different repercussions/punishments based on differences in consequences for the same act.\n\nIt's important to also note that this would make rape of a woman who became pregnant worse than rape of a man or a woman who can't become pregnant (which is the vast majority of women on any given day)\n\nGetting raped and becoming pregnant by your rapist is worse than getting raped and not becoming pregnant by your rapist. That seems pretty uncontroversial to me.",
">\n\nSo... for example, given the exact same circumstances and actions, a woman on birth control is somehow less raped than a woman without who becomes pregnant? And a woman who miscarries or aborts a rape baby is somehow then less raped than she was while she was pregnant?",
">\n\nI feel this would cause an issue where, if the victim really wants to hurt their rapist the most, they have an incentive to remain pregnant even if they don't really want to.\nAlso, should this also apply to situations in which it is the rapist who gets pregnant and not the victim?",
">\n\nJesus.. keeping your rapist's baby so they serve a harsher sentence is a level of spite that I don't think anyone could sink to.",
">\n\nIf you touch my daughters you’d better hope the cops find you first cuz there’s a reckoning upon you if I am first and I’ll gladly sit in a jail for taking a predator to meet the Godess. \n To the point , fuck yes a rapist should have to provide child support. Rapist shouldn’t be allowed to rot in jail , make them work and pay for 18 years like non rapist dads do. And when they fall behind it’s incarceration and forced labor. \nFor far too long our mother, daughter , wives , sisters, aunties and grannies have faced unfair systematic societal oppression. End it by embracing a new paradigm of true human dignity and equality.",
">\n\nFirst of all. I hop on bored with Ben Shapiro when he says to physically castrate rapist, pedophiles, predators, etc. But I like to add my spice to things and add a prison sentence just like they do now. Then add pay for the damage they've done. Example would be. If your caught raping a woman. The woman chooses abortion. He pays for the abortion and following. COunceling sessions through the state to the agency. Or if she keeps it. Then guess who paying a child support for 18 years? Rapist. Just one of many examples I'm sure we could conjure. But by all means tear this idea apart, or let's build from it.",
">\n\nDisagree. It makes no difference if he causes the worst possible damage (pregnancy, std infection, PTSD etc) or minimal damage (although I don't know what that would be). The punishment should be severe, regardless of the consequences. Otherwise some men will get off lighter simply because they were 'lucky'",
">\n\nTo clarify your position, are you asking for a broader range of available punishment in the event of a pregnancy or are you advocating for a higher minimum punishment?",
">\n\nBoth, honestly. There should be automatic sentence enhancements as well as additional restitution.",
">\n\nI would counter then and suggest that if you are going to aggravate the charge based on causing pregnancy, it should only be to broaden the possible punishment range, not increase a mandatory minimum. \n\nMandatory minimums have a long history of causing more problems. Yes, rapists deserve to go to prison, but have you considered how many less would take a plea bargain because it would require x versus y years in prison? These are the types of cases that prosecutors lose more often than any other and cause the most trauma and stress to the victims. Mandatory minimums have the effect of making harder-to-prove cases get ignored meaning less overall justice. It would be better for those difficult cases to still see some type of punishment versus more acquittals or dismissals.",
">\n\nIt's the same crime whether she ends up getting pregnant. If she does, though, I do think the convict should be held responsible for the child/abortion costs and have no parental rights whatsoever, but not more jail time for the same crime.",
">\n\nNo, I think the punishment should be the same either way. Give the man a choice of castration or death. \nBut I get where you're coming from. I think the penalty for attempted murder should be the same as for murder. Just because you're incompetent or the victim was fortunate enough to survive, you get off easier? Doesn't make sense to me. Your actions were the same, even if the result was different.",
">\n\nI get that there should be more restitution, but who would more prison time help? The rapist did the exact same thing in either scenario.",
">\n\nYes! Twice the emotional damage.",
">\n\nI'm going to do the devil's advocate here.\nDoes that mean that a rape done with a condom will be less punished?\nHow about a rape done with a stick?\nFor the sake of argument : if rape was punished by death, how would you punish rape that leads to pregnancy? Do you kill them twice?\nIf a rape happens, the victim should immediately get an treatment to abord any possible baby, of if te rape is reported later on abortion should be an option available for victims.",
">\n\nLike child support whether or not the baby is delivered? I’d support that although faked rape cases gonna soar pretty high for men with lots of dough",
">\n\nSomeone probably mentioned this but I found out last year that rapists actually have rights to the child!!!",
">\n\nStrongly agree",
">\n\nYou only talk about abortion, but there is also the morning after pill to prevent conception which (to most women) is a lot less traumatising than abortion.\nGiven this, you are proposing to punish someone based on the actions of someone else if you're suggesting to punish the rapist more based on whether or not a child is born. That goes against every principle of what the rule of law and a fair trial is about.\nAlso, on a practical note, that would mean you can't try any rape case until 9 months after the rape. There is already a huge backlog and issues around women not feeling able to report rape. I can only see this additional requirement making things worse.",
">\n\nThey do. If you go into prison with bad paperwork, you will be in a living hell.",
">\n\n\nespecially if the mother carries the child to term.\n\nNo. Abortion has far lower physical risks and does not cause a child to come into existence.\nEverything up to the conception is caused by the rape, but thereafter the woman has control of her body again, and choosing to continue rather than abort the pregnancy is her own choice, so are the consequences.\nSo there should be no difference depending on the choices of the victim, only on those of the criminal. This includes inflicting a pregnancy, but not how to deal with it.",
">\n\nI actually do like this idea, I’m just wondering is there any equivalent for if a male or AMAB person was raped. They are not able to get pregnant so this same law wouldn’t carry out for them. It would only apply to female and AFAB persons.",
">\n\nBecause the asshole forced that choice on her in the first place, that's why.",
">\n\n\nShe might have religious beliefs that proscribe abortion (such as being Catholic)\nAbortion can be just as traumatic\nThe rapist may not have a say in the abortion, but he had a say in the conception. He could have avoided that problem by not raping her in the first place.",
">\n\nThat would fall under “take your victim as you find her.” The enhanced sentence would happen whether the victim aborts or not.",
">\n\nThe charges would be based off of actual outcomes, not possibilities. If a fertile woman is raped but does not conceive, then the aggravating factor would not apply.\nThe goal behind this is to act as a deterrent in light of opposition to abortion. Certain people have religious objections to abortion even in the event of rape (mainly because the child is not at fault). Even if she aborts, there is still a lot of trauma involved.",
">\n\n\nThe goal behind this is to act as a deterrent in light of opposition to abortion\n\nYou could just generally increase the prison term for rape and have more of a deterrent against all kinds of rape. I'd say that's a much more favourable outcome.",
">\n\nWhat if he want the victim to abort, but the victim said no/unable to do so? \nIf you lighten his punishment, all rapish would tell the victim to abort\nIf you make it harsher, it mean a child would be born with both parent hated him/her\nAlso, what if the victim drop the child in a safe heaven? Is he allowed to meet the child?",
">\n\nToo bad, so sad for the rapist. As I said before, he would have to take his victim as he found her. If she chose not to abort, then that’s the asshole’s problem.",
">\n\nI’m talking about a CHILD who is about to be raised up without anyone care or want him!",
">\n\nWhy not make them pay child support in addition to the normal sentence? Failing to pay child support already had some insane consequences.",
">\n\nI said something in the OP about additional child support or restitution (as in a greater percentage of income than usual) - enough to leave one destitute for life.",
">\n\nRight, but putting them in jail longer means they aren't working which means they aren't paying child support.",
">\n\nIf they're in prison, then they're doing convict labor. In that case, you can simply use the (meager) wages from that labor as restitution for the duration of the sentence.",
">\n\nYou know that can be as little as $1 a day right?",
">\n\nI know. In that case, the victim should get all of it.",
">\n\nAll $300 a year? That isn't even a good chuck of a rent payment.",
">\n\nIt's barely enough for a month's diapers.",
">\n\nI wholeheartedly agree! He could've worn a rubber. If anyone is harmed during the commission of a crime, that criminal is held responsible. We should follow suit with new litigations for pregnancy as well.",
">\n\nThis wouldn’t make sense it then criminalizes pregnancy.",
">\n\nI think that some rape to hurt and some could want the outcome to be fertilization. Either way it’s pretty much a crapshoot. Can you show intent?",
">\n\nI’m saying that specific intent shouldn’t matter. A rapist should have to take his victim as he finds her.",
">\n\nWell, they is clearly a difference between being charged with murder or attempted murder. The punishment is not the same.",
">\n\nI think OP is applying the eggshell rule wrong and missing the point of mens rea. OP should instead be advocating for an intentional or knowingly standard to apply in this case. If a rapist knowingly engages in conduct that is likely to cause an outcome, he should be punished more harshly for doing so. In other words, if a rapist forcibly ejaculates into a woman he is knowingly engaging in behavior that can reasonably cause pregnancy. \nWe already have the same rule for murder. A person commits murder if they intentionally or knowingly engage in conduct that causes the death of another. If a killer intentionally shoots someone in the stomach, and that person dies, the killer can't claim \"I only meant to wound him.\"",
">\n\nNot very common but what if a woman rapes a man and the woman get pregnant? Should she be punished harder?",
">\n\nHow do you know it's the rapist that conceived her and not her husband a week ago? Where are you getting his DNA from?",
">\n\nPrenatal paternity tests are a thing. Getting the rapist’s DNA is a nonissue if he is already in custody."
] |
This is exactly why The Batman (2022) is probably one of my favorite superhero movies. I feel like it's been so long since I've seen a hero I can take seriously. The batmobiel in it was just bad ass, it looked like something a shut-in millionaire could get his hands on and the same with almost all his gear. Don't get me wrong, I do love some of the Marvel movies like gaurdians of the galaxy for example, because they knew exactly what they were going for and nailed it. | [] |
>
It’s billionaire. Millionaires are so last year. | [
"This is exactly why The Batman (2022) is probably one of my favorite superhero movies. I feel like it's been so long since I've seen a hero I can take seriously. The batmobiel in it was just bad ass, it looked like something a shut-in millionaire could get his hands on and the same with almost all his gear. Don't get me wrong, I do love some of the Marvel movies like gaurdians of the galaxy for example, because they knew exactly what they were going for and nailed it."
] |
>
See personality I don't think they're goofy enough. Hence why nothing will top the og spiderman movies. Give me more bombs that turn people into skeletons and the green goblin pretending to be a babushka in a burning building | [
"This is exactly why The Batman (2022) is probably one of my favorite superhero movies. I feel like it's been so long since I've seen a hero I can take seriously. The batmobiel in it was just bad ass, it looked like something a shut-in millionaire could get his hands on and the same with almost all his gear. Don't get me wrong, I do love some of the Marvel movies like gaurdians of the galaxy for example, because they knew exactly what they were going for and nailed it.",
">\n\nIt’s billionaire. Millionaires are so last year."
] |
>
Sam Rami is really good at that style. You should check out his other movies if you haven’t.
I think a movie can be good or bad regardless of tone or color pallet. I just like diversity. | [
"This is exactly why The Batman (2022) is probably one of my favorite superhero movies. I feel like it's been so long since I've seen a hero I can take seriously. The batmobiel in it was just bad ass, it looked like something a shut-in millionaire could get his hands on and the same with almost all his gear. Don't get me wrong, I do love some of the Marvel movies like gaurdians of the galaxy for example, because they knew exactly what they were going for and nailed it.",
">\n\nIt’s billionaire. Millionaires are so last year.",
">\n\nSee personality I don't think they're goofy enough. Hence why nothing will top the og spiderman movies. Give me more bombs that turn people into skeletons and the green goblin pretending to be a babushka in a burning building"
] |
>
This is why I like the Taika Waititi Thor movies, they are cheesy and campy and its great. | [
"This is exactly why The Batman (2022) is probably one of my favorite superhero movies. I feel like it's been so long since I've seen a hero I can take seriously. The batmobiel in it was just bad ass, it looked like something a shut-in millionaire could get his hands on and the same with almost all his gear. Don't get me wrong, I do love some of the Marvel movies like gaurdians of the galaxy for example, because they knew exactly what they were going for and nailed it.",
">\n\nIt’s billionaire. Millionaires are so last year.",
">\n\nSee personality I don't think they're goofy enough. Hence why nothing will top the og spiderman movies. Give me more bombs that turn people into skeletons and the green goblin pretending to be a babushka in a burning building",
">\n\nSam Rami is really good at that style. You should check out his other movies if you haven’t. \nI think a movie can be good or bad regardless of tone or color pallet. I just like diversity."
] |
>
Funny, that’s why I hated the Taika Waititi movies. I hated how cheesy and campy it and felt it was awful. People are different from each other and enjoy different things I guess.
I prefer my comic book movie to take it’s self seriously. But I prefer it to be like the comics. | [
"This is exactly why The Batman (2022) is probably one of my favorite superhero movies. I feel like it's been so long since I've seen a hero I can take seriously. The batmobiel in it was just bad ass, it looked like something a shut-in millionaire could get his hands on and the same with almost all his gear. Don't get me wrong, I do love some of the Marvel movies like gaurdians of the galaxy for example, because they knew exactly what they were going for and nailed it.",
">\n\nIt’s billionaire. Millionaires are so last year.",
">\n\nSee personality I don't think they're goofy enough. Hence why nothing will top the og spiderman movies. Give me more bombs that turn people into skeletons and the green goblin pretending to be a babushka in a burning building",
">\n\nSam Rami is really good at that style. You should check out his other movies if you haven’t. \nI think a movie can be good or bad regardless of tone or color pallet. I just like diversity.",
">\n\nThis is why I like the Taika Waititi Thor movies, they are cheesy and campy and its great."
] |
> | [
"This is exactly why The Batman (2022) is probably one of my favorite superhero movies. I feel like it's been so long since I've seen a hero I can take seriously. The batmobiel in it was just bad ass, it looked like something a shut-in millionaire could get his hands on and the same with almost all his gear. Don't get me wrong, I do love some of the Marvel movies like gaurdians of the galaxy for example, because they knew exactly what they were going for and nailed it.",
">\n\nIt’s billionaire. Millionaires are so last year.",
">\n\nSee personality I don't think they're goofy enough. Hence why nothing will top the og spiderman movies. Give me more bombs that turn people into skeletons and the green goblin pretending to be a babushka in a burning building",
">\n\nSam Rami is really good at that style. You should check out his other movies if you haven’t. \nI think a movie can be good or bad regardless of tone or color pallet. I just like diversity.",
">\n\nThis is why I like the Taika Waititi Thor movies, they are cheesy and campy and its great.",
">\n\nFunny, that’s why I hated the Taika Waititi movies. I hated how cheesy and campy it and felt it was awful. People are different from each other and enjoy different things I guess.\nI prefer my comic book movie to take it’s self seriously. But I prefer it to be like the comics."
] |
Certainly the landlord can put a claim into the dead man's estate when it's probated, but the landlord can't just send them a bill and expect them to pay. | [] |
>
And, just like that, his reputation just went down the gutter. Think before you act, kids! | [
"Certainly the landlord can put a claim into the dead man's estate when it's probated, but the landlord can't just send them a bill and expect them to pay."
] |
>
The picture is the father of the dead. The landlord is some incredibly sleazebag property manager. | [
"Certainly the landlord can put a claim into the dead man's estate when it's probated, but the landlord can't just send them a bill and expect them to pay.",
">\n\nAnd, just like that, his reputation just went down the gutter. Think before you act, kids!"
] |
>
Did no one tell him that's what the damage deposit is for. | [
"Certainly the landlord can put a claim into the dead man's estate when it's probated, but the landlord can't just send them a bill and expect them to pay.",
">\n\nAnd, just like that, his reputation just went down the gutter. Think before you act, kids!",
">\n\nThe picture is the father of the dead. The landlord is some incredibly sleazebag property manager."
] |
>
Clearly wasn’t planning to return it anyways. | [
"Certainly the landlord can put a claim into the dead man's estate when it's probated, but the landlord can't just send them a bill and expect them to pay.",
">\n\nAnd, just like that, his reputation just went down the gutter. Think before you act, kids!",
">\n\nThe picture is the father of the dead. The landlord is some incredibly sleazebag property manager.",
">\n\nDid no one tell him that's what the damage deposit is for."
] |
>
It's at line .666 in the lease. | [
"Certainly the landlord can put a claim into the dead man's estate when it's probated, but the landlord can't just send them a bill and expect them to pay.",
">\n\nAnd, just like that, his reputation just went down the gutter. Think before you act, kids!",
">\n\nThe picture is the father of the dead. The landlord is some incredibly sleazebag property manager.",
">\n\nDid no one tell him that's what the damage deposit is for.",
">\n\nClearly wasn’t planning to return it anyways."
] |
>
you know we can 🎶 | [
"Certainly the landlord can put a claim into the dead man's estate when it's probated, but the landlord can't just send them a bill and expect them to pay.",
">\n\nAnd, just like that, his reputation just went down the gutter. Think before you act, kids!",
">\n\nThe picture is the father of the dead. The landlord is some incredibly sleazebag property manager.",
">\n\nDid no one tell him that's what the damage deposit is for.",
">\n\nClearly wasn’t planning to return it anyways.",
">\n\nIt's at line .666 in the lease."
] |
>
Cross complain for unsafe conditions, failure to disclose... | [
"Certainly the landlord can put a claim into the dead man's estate when it's probated, but the landlord can't just send them a bill and expect them to pay.",
">\n\nAnd, just like that, his reputation just went down the gutter. Think before you act, kids!",
">\n\nThe picture is the father of the dead. The landlord is some incredibly sleazebag property manager.",
">\n\nDid no one tell him that's what the damage deposit is for.",
">\n\nClearly wasn’t planning to return it anyways.",
">\n\nIt's at line .666 in the lease.",
">\n\nyou know we can 🎶"
] |
>
Yet another reason not to rent.
In any case, I wouldn't pay it on principle alone. | [
"Certainly the landlord can put a claim into the dead man's estate when it's probated, but the landlord can't just send them a bill and expect them to pay.",
">\n\nAnd, just like that, his reputation just went down the gutter. Think before you act, kids!",
">\n\nThe picture is the father of the dead. The landlord is some incredibly sleazebag property manager.",
">\n\nDid no one tell him that's what the damage deposit is for.",
">\n\nClearly wasn’t planning to return it anyways.",
">\n\nIt's at line .666 in the lease.",
">\n\nyou know we can 🎶",
">\n\nCross complain for unsafe conditions, failure to disclose..."
] |
>
In any case, I wouldn't pay it on principle alone.
It is for the estate's insurance to pay.. | [
"Certainly the landlord can put a claim into the dead man's estate when it's probated, but the landlord can't just send them a bill and expect them to pay.",
">\n\nAnd, just like that, his reputation just went down the gutter. Think before you act, kids!",
">\n\nThe picture is the father of the dead. The landlord is some incredibly sleazebag property manager.",
">\n\nDid no one tell him that's what the damage deposit is for.",
">\n\nClearly wasn’t planning to return it anyways.",
">\n\nIt's at line .666 in the lease.",
">\n\nyou know we can 🎶",
">\n\nCross complain for unsafe conditions, failure to disclose...",
">\n\nYet another reason not to rent. \nIn any case, I wouldn't pay it on principle alone."
] |
> | [
"Certainly the landlord can put a claim into the dead man's estate when it's probated, but the landlord can't just send them a bill and expect them to pay.",
">\n\nAnd, just like that, his reputation just went down the gutter. Think before you act, kids!",
">\n\nThe picture is the father of the dead. The landlord is some incredibly sleazebag property manager.",
">\n\nDid no one tell him that's what the damage deposit is for.",
">\n\nClearly wasn’t planning to return it anyways.",
">\n\nIt's at line .666 in the lease.",
">\n\nyou know we can 🎶",
">\n\nCross complain for unsafe conditions, failure to disclose...",
">\n\nYet another reason not to rent. \nIn any case, I wouldn't pay it on principle alone.",
">\n\n\nIn any case, I wouldn't pay it on principle alone.\n\nIt is for the estate's insurance to pay.."
] |
Not sure how to calculate percentage or anything like that. It is from this website and has gateron browns. | [] |
>
How do I purchase this from the link provided? | [
"Not sure how to calculate percentage or anything like that. It is from this website and has gateron browns."
] |
>
I’m not sure. My friend bought the pieces in bulk then a group of us put them together. I’ll see if he can divulge his secrets. | [
"Not sure how to calculate percentage or anything like that. It is from this website and has gateron browns.",
">\n\nHow do I purchase this from the link provided?"
] |
> | [
"Not sure how to calculate percentage or anything like that. It is from this website and has gateron browns.",
">\n\nHow do I purchase this from the link provided?",
">\n\nI’m not sure. My friend bought the pieces in bulk then a group of us put them together. I’ll see if he can divulge his secrets."
] |
Build:
FFKB from Fingerpunch
3d printed case by chewiedies
Mint chocoloate chip switches
BOW MT3 Keycaps | [] |
> | [
"Build:\nFFKB from Fingerpunch\n3d printed case by chewiedies\nMint chocoloate chip switches\nBOW MT3 Keycaps"
] |
Creepy uncle and the probably once abusive grandparents make a court case to try to force the children to see them? That’s a red flag in itself. There’s probably a reason both mom and dad want nothing to do with them. | [] |
>
I frequent the r/raisedbynarcissists reddit, and yeah this is easy to decode.
Parents go No-Contact with abusive family members, abusive family members outrage at the loss of control/scapegoat. So they first rage, then try to hoover back with lovebombs, then when all that fails, they try to sue for their 'right to see their grandchildren'.
It's not even interesting on abuse reddits, it's just a repeating cliche... a known pattern like gaslighting, FLEAs, projection, reversal, and triangulation. | [
"Creepy uncle and the probably once abusive grandparents make a court case to try to force the children to see them? That’s a red flag in itself. There’s probably a reason both mom and dad want nothing to do with them."
] |
>
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 62%. (I'm a bot)
The ruling from the supreme court of cassation relates to an appeal by the parents of two children against the decision of a lower court which had forced the youngsters to spend time with their paternal grandparents.
The grandparents won in both the juvenile court and the Milan court of appeal, which in 2019 ordered meetings between them and the children in the presence of a social worker, while warning the parents of the potential psychological damage to the children from depriving them from seeing their relatives.
The court ruled that the interests of the children must prevail over those of the grandparents and that "An unwelcome and unwanted relationship" cannot be imposed, even more so if the children are "Capable of discernment" and have reached the age of 12.
Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: court^#1 children^#2 grandparents^#3 parents^#4 ruled^#5 | [
"Creepy uncle and the probably once abusive grandparents make a court case to try to force the children to see them? That’s a red flag in itself. There’s probably a reason both mom and dad want nothing to do with them.",
">\n\nI frequent the r/raisedbynarcissists reddit, and yeah this is easy to decode.\nParents go No-Contact with abusive family members, abusive family members outrage at the loss of control/scapegoat. So they first rage, then try to hoover back with lovebombs, then when all that fails, they try to sue for their 'right to see their grandchildren'.\nIt's not even interesting on abuse reddits, it's just a repeating cliche... a known pattern like gaslighting, FLEAs, projection, reversal, and triangulation."
] |
>
You are not entitled to see someone elses children. Ever. | [
"Creepy uncle and the probably once abusive grandparents make a court case to try to force the children to see them? That’s a red flag in itself. There’s probably a reason both mom and dad want nothing to do with them.",
">\n\nI frequent the r/raisedbynarcissists reddit, and yeah this is easy to decode.\nParents go No-Contact with abusive family members, abusive family members outrage at the loss of control/scapegoat. So they first rage, then try to hoover back with lovebombs, then when all that fails, they try to sue for their 'right to see their grandchildren'.\nIt's not even interesting on abuse reddits, it's just a repeating cliche... a known pattern like gaslighting, FLEAs, projection, reversal, and triangulation.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 62%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe ruling from the supreme court of cassation relates to an appeal by the parents of two children against the decision of a lower court which had forced the youngsters to spend time with their paternal grandparents.\nThe grandparents won in both the juvenile court and the Milan court of appeal, which in 2019 ordered meetings between them and the children in the presence of a social worker, while warning the parents of the potential psychological damage to the children from depriving them from seeing their relatives.\nThe court ruled that the interests of the children must prevail over those of the grandparents and that \"An unwelcome and unwanted relationship\" cannot be imposed, even more so if the children are \"Capable of discernment\" and have reached the age of 12.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: court^#1 children^#2 grandparents^#3 parents^#4 ruled^#5"
] |
>
They said they don't want to so your comment makes no sense | [
"Creepy uncle and the probably once abusive grandparents make a court case to try to force the children to see them? That’s a red flag in itself. There’s probably a reason both mom and dad want nothing to do with them.",
">\n\nI frequent the r/raisedbynarcissists reddit, and yeah this is easy to decode.\nParents go No-Contact with abusive family members, abusive family members outrage at the loss of control/scapegoat. So they first rage, then try to hoover back with lovebombs, then when all that fails, they try to sue for their 'right to see their grandchildren'.\nIt's not even interesting on abuse reddits, it's just a repeating cliche... a known pattern like gaslighting, FLEAs, projection, reversal, and triangulation.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 62%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe ruling from the supreme court of cassation relates to an appeal by the parents of two children against the decision of a lower court which had forced the youngsters to spend time with their paternal grandparents.\nThe grandparents won in both the juvenile court and the Milan court of appeal, which in 2019 ordered meetings between them and the children in the presence of a social worker, while warning the parents of the potential psychological damage to the children from depriving them from seeing their relatives.\nThe court ruled that the interests of the children must prevail over those of the grandparents and that \"An unwelcome and unwanted relationship\" cannot be imposed, even more so if the children are \"Capable of discernment\" and have reached the age of 12.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: court^#1 children^#2 grandparents^#3 parents^#4 ruled^#5",
">\n\nYou are not entitled to see someone elses children. Ever."
] |
>
Theyre saying its sad for the grandparents that the kids want nothing to do with, pretty much ignoring the point of "why dont the kids want any interaction with them to the point of getting courts involved"
It kinda feels like a leftover of thr old fashioned "well they're old and family so we have to be nice to them and make them happy" mentality. | [
"Creepy uncle and the probably once abusive grandparents make a court case to try to force the children to see them? That’s a red flag in itself. There’s probably a reason both mom and dad want nothing to do with them.",
">\n\nI frequent the r/raisedbynarcissists reddit, and yeah this is easy to decode.\nParents go No-Contact with abusive family members, abusive family members outrage at the loss of control/scapegoat. So they first rage, then try to hoover back with lovebombs, then when all that fails, they try to sue for their 'right to see their grandchildren'.\nIt's not even interesting on abuse reddits, it's just a repeating cliche... a known pattern like gaslighting, FLEAs, projection, reversal, and triangulation.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 62%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe ruling from the supreme court of cassation relates to an appeal by the parents of two children against the decision of a lower court which had forced the youngsters to spend time with their paternal grandparents.\nThe grandparents won in both the juvenile court and the Milan court of appeal, which in 2019 ordered meetings between them and the children in the presence of a social worker, while warning the parents of the potential psychological damage to the children from depriving them from seeing their relatives.\nThe court ruled that the interests of the children must prevail over those of the grandparents and that \"An unwelcome and unwanted relationship\" cannot be imposed, even more so if the children are \"Capable of discernment\" and have reached the age of 12.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: court^#1 children^#2 grandparents^#3 parents^#4 ruled^#5",
">\n\nYou are not entitled to see someone elses children. Ever.",
">\n\nThey said they don't want to so your comment makes no sense"
] |
>
As per your second paragraph- I hate that concept. Old people aren't somehow better or good because they got old. | [
"Creepy uncle and the probably once abusive grandparents make a court case to try to force the children to see them? That’s a red flag in itself. There’s probably a reason both mom and dad want nothing to do with them.",
">\n\nI frequent the r/raisedbynarcissists reddit, and yeah this is easy to decode.\nParents go No-Contact with abusive family members, abusive family members outrage at the loss of control/scapegoat. So they first rage, then try to hoover back with lovebombs, then when all that fails, they try to sue for their 'right to see their grandchildren'.\nIt's not even interesting on abuse reddits, it's just a repeating cliche... a known pattern like gaslighting, FLEAs, projection, reversal, and triangulation.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 62%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe ruling from the supreme court of cassation relates to an appeal by the parents of two children against the decision of a lower court which had forced the youngsters to spend time with their paternal grandparents.\nThe grandparents won in both the juvenile court and the Milan court of appeal, which in 2019 ordered meetings between them and the children in the presence of a social worker, while warning the parents of the potential psychological damage to the children from depriving them from seeing their relatives.\nThe court ruled that the interests of the children must prevail over those of the grandparents and that \"An unwelcome and unwanted relationship\" cannot be imposed, even more so if the children are \"Capable of discernment\" and have reached the age of 12.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: court^#1 children^#2 grandparents^#3 parents^#4 ruled^#5",
">\n\nYou are not entitled to see someone elses children. Ever.",
">\n\nThey said they don't want to so your comment makes no sense",
">\n\nTheyre saying its sad for the grandparents that the kids want nothing to do with, pretty much ignoring the point of \"why dont the kids want any interaction with them to the point of getting courts involved\"\nIt kinda feels like a leftover of thr old fashioned \"well they're old and family so we have to be nice to them and make them happy\" mentality."
] |
> | [
"Creepy uncle and the probably once abusive grandparents make a court case to try to force the children to see them? That’s a red flag in itself. There’s probably a reason both mom and dad want nothing to do with them.",
">\n\nI frequent the r/raisedbynarcissists reddit, and yeah this is easy to decode.\nParents go No-Contact with abusive family members, abusive family members outrage at the loss of control/scapegoat. So they first rage, then try to hoover back with lovebombs, then when all that fails, they try to sue for their 'right to see their grandchildren'.\nIt's not even interesting on abuse reddits, it's just a repeating cliche... a known pattern like gaslighting, FLEAs, projection, reversal, and triangulation.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 62%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe ruling from the supreme court of cassation relates to an appeal by the parents of two children against the decision of a lower court which had forced the youngsters to spend time with their paternal grandparents.\nThe grandparents won in both the juvenile court and the Milan court of appeal, which in 2019 ordered meetings between them and the children in the presence of a social worker, while warning the parents of the potential psychological damage to the children from depriving them from seeing their relatives.\nThe court ruled that the interests of the children must prevail over those of the grandparents and that \"An unwelcome and unwanted relationship\" cannot be imposed, even more so if the children are \"Capable of discernment\" and have reached the age of 12.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: court^#1 children^#2 grandparents^#3 parents^#4 ruled^#5",
">\n\nYou are not entitled to see someone elses children. Ever.",
">\n\nThey said they don't want to so your comment makes no sense",
">\n\nTheyre saying its sad for the grandparents that the kids want nothing to do with, pretty much ignoring the point of \"why dont the kids want any interaction with them to the point of getting courts involved\"\nIt kinda feels like a leftover of thr old fashioned \"well they're old and family so we have to be nice to them and make them happy\" mentality.",
">\n\nAs per your second paragraph- I hate that concept. Old people aren't somehow better or good because they got old."
] |
Rass Role | [] |
>
Slow. Clap. | [
"Rass Role"
] |
>
Aww. Poor dog. Do you have friends who are dog people who might be interested in adopting the dog from you? | [
"Rass Role",
">\n\nSlow. Clap."
] |
>
Good opinion. Cats are superior. Get a cat. | [
"Rass Role",
">\n\nSlow. Clap.",
">\n\nAww. Poor dog. Do you have friends who are dog people who might be interested in adopting the dog from you?"
] |
>
Lol. Cats are pretty sweet. Wish I wasn’t allergic. :-( | [
"Rass Role",
">\n\nSlow. Clap.",
">\n\nAww. Poor dog. Do you have friends who are dog people who might be interested in adopting the dog from you?",
">\n\nGood opinion. Cats are superior. Get a cat."
] |
>
Ohh... have you considered not being allergic? | [
"Rass Role",
">\n\nSlow. Clap.",
">\n\nAww. Poor dog. Do you have friends who are dog people who might be interested in adopting the dog from you?",
">\n\nGood opinion. Cats are superior. Get a cat.",
">\n\nLol. Cats are pretty sweet. Wish I wasn’t allergic. :-("
] |
>
Lol. Yes. I’ve tried but I usually start to have a hard time breathing. | [
"Rass Role",
">\n\nSlow. Clap.",
">\n\nAww. Poor dog. Do you have friends who are dog people who might be interested in adopting the dog from you?",
">\n\nGood opinion. Cats are superior. Get a cat.",
">\n\nLol. Cats are pretty sweet. Wish I wasn’t allergic. :-(",
">\n\nOhh... have you considered not being allergic?"
] |
>
Don't own a dog then idk what to tell you. | [
"Rass Role",
">\n\nSlow. Clap.",
">\n\nAww. Poor dog. Do you have friends who are dog people who might be interested in adopting the dog from you?",
">\n\nGood opinion. Cats are superior. Get a cat.",
">\n\nLol. Cats are pretty sweet. Wish I wasn’t allergic. :-(",
">\n\nOhh... have you considered not being allergic?",
">\n\nLol. Yes. I’ve tried but I usually start to have a hard time breathing."
] |
>
I inherited it 😭 | [
"Rass Role",
">\n\nSlow. Clap.",
">\n\nAww. Poor dog. Do you have friends who are dog people who might be interested in adopting the dog from you?",
">\n\nGood opinion. Cats are superior. Get a cat.",
">\n\nLol. Cats are pretty sweet. Wish I wasn’t allergic. :-(",
">\n\nOhh... have you considered not being allergic?",
">\n\nLol. Yes. I’ve tried but I usually start to have a hard time breathing.",
">\n\nDon't own a dog then idk what to tell you."
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.