Rehashing a debate about rape
The issue that we had, and the point that it boiled down to is basically this. When was justice served? When the rapist, was raped in prison, or when the rapist was imprisoned.
Option 1 Rapist gets raped in prison = Justice
Option 2 Rapist gets imprisoned = Justice
Also if you'd like to check those debates, for some insight the link is here.
To be perfectly honest, I'm banning Sitara out of spite mostly, but she's also a fool, and I don't want that clouding the issue.
Option 1
Side Score: 3
|
Option 2
Side Score: 11
|
|
|
|
No arguments found. Add one!
|
It is a type of justice. Victims to a crime may not feel justice was served because the criminal pays the penalty to the authorities rather than to the victim. This can leave some victims feeling as if their end of the ordeal is without closure. As for the issue of hypocrisy that has been popping up in this subject...It is hypocritical of a judicious system to punish a crime committed for one person but to turn a blind eye to the same crime based on who the victim is. Side: Option 2
I guess you are right, I feel I should clarify, by Justice I mean legal and usable in all cases. What the parents of the child are feeling, is perfectly fine to feel, and if they wished rape on the rapist no one would blame them, however if they saw to it happening, that would not be justice, that would be vengeance. Side: Option 1
I feel that once the rapist was imprisoned justice was served obviously. Anything further than that is cruel and unusual punishment. His sentence for raping the child was to be imprisoned, a sentence he was carrying out. For the guards to stand by idly as he was raped does not equal justice, it equal a new crime, one that is no longer related to the rapists' victim. Side: Option 2
1
point
|