Sensible Topic Richard Dawkins, right or wrong?

Rape is rape end of....... :(

So, you would argue that rape by someone known to the victim is the same as rape by a stranger where the victim survives and is as bad as rape where the victim dies?

Seems an odd stance?
 
You can see where he is coming from with regards to rape, rape at knife point is far worse than a pissed up one. However it does not detract from the fact that both are wrong and should be punished by a severe prison sentence in both cases. But then you can open up the other argument of how long each sentence should be?

Regarding paedophilia there is no case to answer, just string them up!

I think the fact that he posted it on twitter was his downfall as only certain tweets will have been read and his point not taken as intended?..?...?

What's YOUR thoughts @Him Her?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You can see where he is coming from with regards to rape, rape at knife point is far worse than a pissed up one. However it does not detract from the fact that both are wrong and should be punished by a severe prison sentence in both cases. But then you can open up the other argument of how long each sentence should be?

Regarding paedophilia there is no case to answer, just string them up!

I think the fact that he posted it on twitter was his downfall as only certain tweets will have been read and his point not taken as intended?..?...?

What's YOUR thoughts @Him Her?

I think he meant that there should be a degree in sentencing. Like you @MH I'd like to see paedophiles strung up but there are degrees in sentencing. The paedophile who abuses a child is sick, the paedophile who abuses a child and kills them is both sick and dangerous. One might be helped, the other might be best 'removed from our misery'.

I believe Dawkins was trying to express that but Twitter was probably not the best place given too many people shoot and never think.

If every 'bad' crime was punished by hanging would we ever resolve the problem?

That's not to suggest that rape has a 'good' part, more that rape can have WORSE parts. A minimum sentence for rape seems reasonable plus a greater sentence for the WORSE parts such as beating prior to rape, murdering the victim etc.

Personally, that's what I believe the Professor was suggesting.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No rape and rape where someone dies is a different crime. That would be rape and murder and yes that is worse because someone lost there life.
Being pissed up is no excuse or should it offer any mitigation.
 
@IANB, that's not the argument I believe.

Rape resulting in death would be treated as murder/manslaughter.
I think what he was referring to is at the moment Rape is classed as one crime, I think what Dawkins is suggesting is that it should no longer be classed as one crime but punishment based on severity. Without diluting the current punishment currency but potentially increasing it depending on severity.
Being pissed is no excuse, I agree.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dangerous subject.

I would just hope that people take the trouble to read carefully what he actually said before making their minds up.

It's obvious from trawling reaction on t'internet that this doesn't seem to be happening.

I would agree with MH about the wrong medium being used.
 
A few lines from the article goes a long way to putting the statement in context.
Prof Dawkins began his Twitter musings by lecturing his 987,000 followers on syllogisms. “X is bad. Y is worse. If you think that’s an endorsement of X, go away and don’t come back until you’ve learned how to think logically.”
I'm sure its probably a view shared by every crown court Judge otherwise there would only be one sentence handed down for any kind of rape..
 
in my humble opinion I think Dawkins ballsed the comparisons up, he said rape by knifepoint is worse and Ive got to be honest I'd put my neck on the block here by saying that no woman who has ever been raped has thought to herself 'well ive been violated there, but at least he never had a knife/weapon' it also by suggesting that one is worse than the other dilutes the crime of rape and gives it tiers of severity, but as an earlier poster said rape is rape. even if the victim survives or dies it is still rape the only difference is that if the victim dies there will be an additional charge for the dirty so and so of manslaughter or murder. However the drunk argument is something that seems to have connotations within our society, when someone is 'vulnerable' it seems they're fair game, take for example whats just happened in Rotherham, the victims of that where vulnerable girls and the rhetoric seems to be i feel from radio phone ins etc that they where fair game, because the parents didnt care about them and they where care of the state their seems to be an acceptance amongst the general public that they where expendable, however contrast that with what has happened in scholls etc there seems to be more of a public outcry. some may disagree with what I've said there but i can only call it as i see it.
 
in my humble opinion I think Dawkins ballsed the comparisons up, he said rape by knifepoint is worse and Ive got to be honest I'd put my neck on the block here by saying that no woman who has ever been raped has thought to herself 'well ive been violated there, but at least he never had a knife/weapon' it also by suggesting that one is worse than the other dilutes the crime of rape and gives it tiers of severity, but as an earlier poster said rape is rape. even if the victim survives or dies it is still rape the only difference is that if the victim dies there will be an additional charge for the dirty so and so of manslaughter or murder. However the drunk argument is something that seems to have connotations within our society, when someone is 'vulnerable' it seems they're fair game, take for example whats just happened in Rotherham, the victims of that where vulnerable girls and the rhetoric seems to be i feel from radio phone ins etc that they where fair game, because the parents didnt care about them and they where care of the state their seems to be an acceptance amongst the general public that they where expendable, however contrast that with what has happened in scholls etc there seems to be more of a public outcry. some may disagree with what I've said there but i can only call it as i see it.

At least three things to consider here (apart from understanding syllogism):

1- Rape
2 - Self-protection
3 - Rotherham

Rape

Part of the problem would be sentencing surely? The degree to which a victim is affected must play a part IMHO. So, an aggravated rape would be worse than a 'fumble' that went too far? Both, technically being rape. Incidentally, if your wife says 'no' and you do anyway then that's rape too.

Self protection

I live in a quiet area. Nevertheless I know areas I would NOT be happy being at, say, 2am. While there would be no excuse for a crime, equally it would be sensible not to be there.

Rotherham

Not really anything to do with the OP is it? More a sad reality?
 
Dawkins was commenting that there are recognisable levels of horrible events, some being worse than others. ie. Hitlers attempted genocide of the Jews in WW2 was truly horrendus and the natzi party will be revilled throughout history, in comparison the british total genocide of tasmanian aborigines goes largely unmentioned.
X is bad Y is worse but that doesnt mean that anyone condones X...
 
You are right, Rotherham was just being used as a current example of how certain sections of society are considered fair game to use another, if a prostitute is raped does it make it any less of a crime because for want of a better phrase it's a hazard of her chosen vocation? Is as much emphasis given by the authorities to catch the perpetrator of a crime in this instance than say the rape of a middle class housewife living in a leafy suburb somewhere. I suppose the point I'm trying to make in a hap hazard way is that once you start having different degrees of a crime you then open it up to interpretation wereas having one binding catch all 'law' the victim of a truly heinous crime will hopefully receive justice. As for the cases of the 'fumbles that went to far' that will always smack of the old'she was asking for it guv' excuse that gets spewed out a lot ( I imagine). When in reality in my opinion it is no excuse at all.
 
You are right, Rotherham was just being used as a current example of how certain sections of society are considered fair game to use another, if a prostitute is raped does it make it any less of a crime because for want of a better phrase it's a hazard of her chosen vocation? Is as much emphasis given by the authorities to catch the perpetrator of a crime in this instance than say the rape of a middle class housewife living in a leafy suburb somewhere. I suppose the point I'm trying to make in a hap hazard way is that once you start having different degrees of a crime you then open it up to interpretation wereas having one binding catch all 'law' the victim of a truly heinous crime will hopefully receive justice. As for the cases of the 'fumbles that went to far' that will always smack of the old'she was asking for it guv' excuse that gets spewed out a lot ( I imagine). When in reality in my opinion it is no excuse at all.

Then there's NO room for interpretation? You get deliberately pushed and graze your knee but it's fixed with a dab of Germolene and a plaster OR you fall badly and break a leg. They are the same crime?
 
Then there's NO room for interpretation? You get deliberately pushed and graze your knee but it's fixed with a dab of Germolene and a plaster OR you fall badly and break a leg. They are the same crime?
I see your point completely however I don't think it's a fair comparison and it only serves to dilute the severity and seriousness of rape. The top & bottom of it is this, what if it was your wife/sister/daughter would you still be as liberal and pragmatic in your rationale? or regardless of the situation in which it occured would you want the maximum sentence allowed . Would you feel justice is done if the perp got it a bit lighter due to a technicality knowing that all they've left behind is suffering for you & your family. I know which side of the fence I'd sit on.
 
I see your point completely however I don't think it's a fair comparison and it only serves to dilute the severity and seriousness of rape. The top & bottom of it is this, what if it was your wife/sister/daughter would you still be as liberal and pragmatic in your rationale? or regardless of the situation in which it occured would you want the maximum sentence allowed . Would you feel justice is done if the perp got it a bit lighter due to a technicality knowing that all they've left behind is suffering for you & your family. I know which side of the fence I'd sit on.

You missed the point so I'll explain.

If my daughter got raped I would want the perp to die, if she died as a result I would want to tear them apart then die, if she was tortured then died I would want to tear them apart SLOWLY then die.

Does that clarify?
 
I agree on this point with Him Her, rape is clearly a vile crime and as a so called civilised society it should be punished harshly. There should be a mandatory sentence for rape that is unduly heavy so as to be a deterrent with additional time added on for violence, abuse of positions of trust etc..
 
Back
Top