Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

AlexanderReidRoss wrote (edited )

They're not going to be tortured for the rest of their lives, that wouldn't be on the table. I'm simply concerned that you want to take the victim's power away further. Who better than them to decide if a murderer / rapist can be forgiven?

1

sudo wrote

But that's exactly what I'm asking you. If a rape victim said they wanted their rapist to be tortured forever, would you allow it? It's not out of the question - some people will be so overcome with hatred and disgust that they might ask for something like this, without thinking it all the way through. I don't want to "take away a victim's power," I want to prevent a second atrocity from being committed in response to the first.

Who better than them to decide if a murderer / rapist can be forgiven?

A neutral third party would be a better judge of if the murderer/rapist should be forgiven (especially if it's a murderer - the victim of murder can't make that decision, because they're dead). For a rapist, let's say they've been in a socialist prison for a long time, and their counselor has gotten through to them - they now understand that they did commit rape, and they feel remorseful. They want to make reparations to the person they harmed, and return to society. But, according to your rule, the rape victim gets to choose their punishment. When they see their rapist again, all the memories come flooding back, and they can't see that the rapist has been reformed. They choose to keep him in prison. That would be the wrong decision to make, but they can't see that, because they are (understandably) biased against the rapist. It should be an unbiased, objective (as far as that is possible) person making the decision.

0

AlexanderReidRoss wrote (edited )

No because that's cruel and unusual punishment and furthermore you'd need a prison to keep the person in, guards, torturers, etc and I don't support prisons or prison keepers to not turn into Soviet gulags or capitalist private prison industrial complexes. Once you have an institution like that established, it's going to need to be fed more and more inmates to justify its existence.

But if the victim wants the person executed/released, they shouldn't be told by some representative of an external power that it isn't their decision to make. Taking power away from victims ensures they'll be traumatised for life. It's important that they have their power restored.

The choices on the table to the victim should be limited. For rapists: mind alteration, branding, community service or death.

Edit: and they should also have the option of allowing someone else to decide the punishment. To me, branding makes the most sense because it forces the abuser to wear the scars on his face for the rest of his life, the same way the victim has to in her mind.

2