Is rape worse than murder?

Murder is never justified. Self defense can be justified.
You're not baiting anyone you know.

Court martialled, DD, and imprisoned sure but killing them is a bit much.

What about war? Abortion? Euthanasia? Capital punishment? Terrorism? et cetera

If rape is worse than death, why isn't there a rape penalty?

There is a clear definition of murder which entails a moral judgment. Not all killing is murder. Some killings are justified and even welcomed like in a war. Others forms of killing can be unlawful and still not considered murder. So murder will always be worse than rape while killing won't be.
t. Lawyer

>A murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought. This state of mind may, depending upon the jurisdiction, distinguish murder from other forms of unlawful homicide, such as manslaughter. Manslaughter is a killing committed in the absence of malice, brought about by reasonable provocation, or diminished capacity. Involuntary manslaughter, where it is recognized, is a killing that lacks all but the most attenuated guilty intent (mens rea), recklessness.

That is different. You murder someone to stop them murdering others whereas raping a rapist does not accomplish anything.

Those have been looked at in courts over centuries and are decided on a case by casr basis of the events. If a murder is good to have occurred the person will be punished accordingly. If it is not murder by a lesser form of killing in the eyes of the court the person will be punished accordingly.

>Is nonconsensual sexual intercourse worse than killing?

>I can think of several situations in which killing may be justified, but I can't think of any situation in which nonconsensual sexual intercourse is justified.

Does that satisfy your pointless wordplay?

>when I do it it isn't murder
Legal fictions.

You do realize that rape already happens frequently in prisons, right? There's your rape penalty.

That's a loaded as fuck way to phrase the dilemma.

When we think of a killing as being justifiable, we no longer call it murder. Murder specifically means unjustifiable killing of an innocent, usually in cold-blood and with premeditation. Don't conflate killing in war or self-defense with murder. Even the law distinguishes this with charges of manslaughter and even then in degrees.

I hope you realize that everyone responding to you sees through your terrible attempt at trolling. Why bother going on.

Rape is wrong but is it really such a big deal?

Women claim it is traumatic but nowadays they willingly have sex with alpha males, black men and refugees after only just meeting them and have dozens of abortions. Physically it is the equivalent of a wet willy. Rape is a petty crime and we should not be wasting police resources on it, we will be able to lower taxes.

OP you know we can tell it's you when the ID counter hasn't gone up. This is really pathetic.

>my shitty lawschool taught me about mens rea and that it's not malicious if the state does it

That is his point I believe...

Wrong poster dipshit.

>OMG SOMEONE TOUCHED MY GENITAL WITHOUT PERMISSION AND COMPLETELY RUINED ME AS A PERSON

vs.

>dead

You're literally just saying that there are situations in which murder may be justified. The words you are using are just euphemisms for murder.

Doesn't count. Not an official penalty.

that is not the point I am making

there is the criminal

then there is police

the criminal rapes/murders because they are evil

the only reason the police do murders is to stop murder

there is a difference between practical murder and evil murder, OP does not distinguish between the 2 types

Is there practical rape and evil rape?

>but I can't think of any situation in which rape is justified.

What about traditionalistic ritual rape of virgins, you degenerate sjw cuck?

obiovusly not, however, people must be killed in certain circumstances to avert their negative actions ie, they are threatening people with a weapon

well, you answered your own question

No, I am saying murder is a legal term used to describe an intentional, unjustified killing. Manslaughter is a step down from that and usually accounts for intention (e.g. drunk driving).

There are degrees of killing that merit a range of punishments from life imprisonment to none at all.

Rape does not fit the same criteria. There are no degrees of rape (anything that does not include penetration is sexual assault, not rape). There are no circusmstances where one can rape in self-defence or the protection of others. There are no circumstances where one can rape accidentally.

The two are completely different and you're an autist for trying to conflate them either legally or morally.

There is no practical rape, but it doesn't matter because practical murder is not the same as evil murder and so isn't part of the comparison.

All you need to know is all evil rape is evil and all evil murder is very evil therefore (evil) murder is evil.

Also some would argue the definition of murder is evil killing but not practical killing.

This. Murder is a specific kind of killing, there is no such thing as e.g. "murder in self-defense." It's just not what the word means.

Yes user forced sex is worse than being killed, honestly women are so fucking stupid.

>le consent
What a fucking shitty meme. Hopefully liberals will get rid of it when the inevitable pedo rights movement becomes a thing

>police do murders
Police don't murder. They kill when necessary (in theory). OP does not distinguish between murder and killing. Murder is worse than rape. Killing is not necessarily worse than rape because it may be justified.

istrupo eh gostosow

This. If rape is so important then let the free market create a rape revenge para-military group paid by the rapees money then, just like it would happen if I could pay people to kill the killers of a friend or family member.

ITT: men who have never been raped. You guys are pieces of shit. Even I as a woman understand men are just as much victims of it.

Police murder all the time. They may claim justification but that is not always and usually not true at all when evidence shows. Doesn't matter whatever fancy name they spin.

What part of "in theory" didn't you get?

You can (not always, but can) come back from rape. But once you're dead, that's it. No recovery.

Fuck off roastie

>If rape can never be justified...
false premise

>Merge history board with humanities board
>Shit like this happens

This April Fools Joke has gone too far

I'm actually defending male victims here but whatever you say.

Male rape pushes different psychological buttons than female rape does for the respective victims. The dominant themes of male rape are humiliation and loss of status, the dominant themes of female rape on the other hand are depersonalization and body horror. So in my opinion I can see how female rape is more innately traumatizing than male rape.

One caveat though is the rise of AIDS adds a dimension of body horror to male rape as well, but it's far too new a phenomenon in my opinion to have truly sunk into the male subconscious at this point.

I feel like maybe there sort of are degrees of rape or that you could rape accidentally.
Like a light tickling versus assfucking for degrees.
or if you genuinely thought she was into it but she wasn't, for accident.

Useful in establishing dominance and submission.

That's like saying sweatshop workers willingly work for practical slave-tier wages, so literal slavery isn't a big deal.

Human agency and freedom of choice is a very big deal. Perhaps one of the biggest deals.

>the justifiable nature of a crime is the sole factor determining how bad it is

What kind of shit logic is this? Murder is worse in terms of harm inflicted on another person and that's typically the metric which is used to define the gravity of any particular crime. It's why you might get let off with a warning for slapping someone but they cart you off to gaol or end your life if you're caught murdering another human being. The degree of harm is the difference between larceny vs. grand larceny, vandalism vs. arson and so on. You're completely off.

And even if you did accept the premise that the intent behind the crime (justification) is the sole determinant of the seriousness of a crime, there are cases in which rape is justified by the perpetrator. There was a case just recently where a daughter raped his lesbian daughter because he was trying to help her in his mind by showing her how pleasurable sex was with men in the hopes of turning her straight. One would imagine punitive rape of one degree or another could be justified by the perpetrator (say for example a man was raped by a woman for years and decides to brutally rape her back for revenge).
>but I'm not talking about individual justifications for rape, I'm talking about society on the whole finding a justification for the crime, perhaps through a court

Murder is, by definition, wrong in all cases and UNJUSTIFIED as defined by society, or else it would not be murder but perhaps killing in self-defense or perhaps manslaughter. If you are brought up on charges of murder, it is because you, in a premeditated, usually malicious manner, killed another human being. That is, in all cases, unjustified or at least not justified enough to get you off the hook, and you will be sent to prison or executed.

So why isn't my agency and free choice to not foot the bill for sluts also respected?

women are completely fine with getting themselves lathered in cum at a house party but all of a sudden it becomes "rape" when they discover one of the dozen guys jizzing on them wasn't on the football team, then they expect us to believe they are oppressed victims and divert limited welfare away from orphans, homeless and cancer patients to cater to them and their life choices

no, clearly murder is much worse than "rape"

>in which murder may be justified
It is worth noting that murder is defined as an unjustifiable homicide. Giving a criminal the death penalty isn't necessarily murder.

What if your peepee is hard and you want it to go away?

buy an onahole and help hiroshimoot

What about man-on-man rape? That's some psyche damaging shit. Men are supposed to be strong; if you can be overpowered in that way, are you even a man anymore? Maybe you let it happen, you didn't fight hard enough, maybe you're a faggot.

then the violence used is a crime and a basis for appropriate punishment

What if his buddy had a gun to your head and they didn't get particularly violent with you? Or would you be the hero who dies with a penis inside of you?
Are you denying force is ever used to rape women?

pulling a gun on someone for unjust reasons is a crime

>force used to rape women
in that case the force itself is most of the crime

A better example would be that scene in kill bill where a comatose Uma Thurman is raped, even in this case though they are taking advantage of a weak vulnerable person in hospital and I am pretty sure there are laws against that

Fair enough. But when it's a woman up against a man, it's not a fair fight. To a man, women punches are like butterfly kisses, but to women, man punches are like bowling balls.

/thread

Does it make you feel better that Tyrone's cock is state-provided?

What if I just straight got you in a full nelson and fucked you in the ass?

Like, I don't punch you, I don't pull a gun on you, the only force is from me holding back your arms and thrusting my penis.

How would you like such a crime to be punished?

Is rape on men justified?

>all this spooks

also:
shitting on someone's face also isn't justified in any case, but is it worse than murder

Wow all these fucking autists arguing about the definition of 'murder' ("well acktshully") and assuming OP is talking about 'crime' (an invention of the state of the same kind as jaywalking).

If you can't understand the plain meaning of the OP text just replace the word 'murder' with 'homicide' in OPs post. i.e.

>Is rape worse than homicide?

>I can think of several situations in which homicide may be justified, but I can't think of any situation in which rape is justified.

And answer that.

I've never understood why rape would be worse than murder. Psychologically more damaging, maybe, but only because getting murdered means that the victim no longer has a psyche to damage.

I honestly believe rape should be legal between a boyfriend and girlfriend along with husband and wife.

I mean seriously if your wife denies you sex it means she doesnt really want to be your cum dump for eternity which is the point of marriage.
Anal rape is a form of torture honestly so it should be a crime while vaginal rape shouldnt if it is done on reproductively ready humans.

Is this the thread where we just argue semantics?

I can't think of a situation where shitting in someone's chimney may be justified yet that doesn't make it worse than murder.

Clearly you're an idiot.

this

Murder is the crime of killing another person. If the killing is justified, it's not a crime and can't be murder.

Based on this, murder is always worse than rape, but killing may not be.

Vaginas don't self-lubricate without foreplay.

If you're going to whine about getting fucked with no lube, you shouldn't be surprised when skirts do too.

Shitting in someone's chimney isn't an act done to a person, it's an act against done to some bricks bricks.

It is a property crime for which there is no equivalent in a non-criminal context.

OP makes the point that murder (i.e. killing someone) may be okay under certain circumstances and I brought a counter-example of a completely trivial crime that may not be okay because there is no non-criminal application.

You might as well say that tax evasion or masturbating in public is worse than murder under the same premise - which is simply faulty, because the severity of the crime does not depend on whether the action (or something that involves the action) is okay under different circumstances.

>crime

There's that word again.

What are we talking about if not crime? Are rape and murder not criminal acts?

Justified murder is just self-defence. Justified rape is just sex.

They would be morally wrong even if they weren't crimes e.g. in a state of anarchy. Law is not morality.

There is no such thing as absolute morality and I'm fairly certain most people would object to shitting down their chimney so you'd be doing them wrong.

So you can judge the severity of the acts if someone legislates against them, but you can't judge the severity of those same acts in the absence of legislation on them? You're full of shit and using tautological wordplay to evade the question. How could they even be legislated against if they couldn't be judged on their severity.

>So you can judge the severity of the acts if someone legislates against them, but you can't judge the severity of those same acts in the absence of legislation on them?
I told you that there is no absolute morality. You can judge severity as much as you want, but you can't claim to do it based on some global scale that is the same for everyone else.

All judgement of severity is nothing but convention, there is nothing absolute at play here.

This is all besides the point however. The point remains that the fact that killing someone may at times be judged okay by some (e.g. in self-defence) does not make it the less severe 'act' in comparison with something that has less practical usage.

You might think otherwise, but as I told you already: all judgement is based on convention and most people would disagree with you because murder has throughout history always been judged as the worse crime than rape.

>morality isn't absolute
>by the way you're not allowed to even discuss morality because morality is the absolute static judgment of convention that magically pre-exists all discussion of itself and cannot change ever, as I already explained

Yep I'm getting trolled.

Are you a burger? Your tax dollars don't pay for abortion, if that's what you're referring to.

Where did I say you're not allowed to discuss morality? The fact that I told you that it's a matter of convention should tell you the complete opposite.

The point is that your metric of severity ("an act is worse than another if there is no application for it which we would not judge morally wrong") does not work out as there are acts that regarded wrong and which have no otherwise application which are however never going to be considered worse than murder. Examples given were shitting down someone's chimney, tax evasion or public masturbation.

Ending a life prematurely doesn't even come close to ruining it entirely. Also, rape can never be justified, there is no manslaughter, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree charges for rape because, at the end of the day, it is all the same hurtful crime.

That's just fucked up proto-human shit

Yet it's arguably the largest reason many men would rather not go to prison. It's like the older punishment of exile - yeah, you're not technically being murdered by the state, but there's a good chance you'll die of exposure, animal attack, banditry or some other misfortune.

It's a stupid punishment if you think about it.

>be relatively good guy
>get convicted of insider trading
>get passed around the cellblock

>be crack dealing pavement ape with over 300 confirmed drive-by shootings
>gangs have your back
>you get to fuck white bois

Like, it only happens if you're not a gang member.

>It's a stupid punishment if you think about it.
Perhaps. I'd say it's "good enough" in the sense that it probably keeps a few people from wanting to commit crimes. That's highly debatable though.

how is ending a life not the same as ruining it entirely?

>Ending a life prematurely doesn't even come close to ruining it entirely

Not that user, but:

>"The dead can no longer suffer."

>one awful experience is worse than not existing

>Law is not morality

Eh, they are mutually reinforcing. An immoral law can't be accepted by the public at large and has to be changed to be in line with new conceptions of morality (decriminalization of sodomy, gay marriage, etc., current movement to legalize weed) and while morality isn't always put into law especially with regards to certain social conventions it certainly runs parallel to the law. Laws against murder, rape, theft, etc. (and the definitions of the crimes themselves) are based on certain moral axioms, namely 'do not harm others'. This isn't an amoral concept.

>Throttling a small child doesn't even come close to getting drunk and fucking on a Friday night

Almonds = activated