With respect to the poster above, this position strikes me as unthinking hysteria.
Yet, this isn’t the first time I’ve come across the ‘rape is worse than murder’ position.
To me it seems self-evident that Murder is the worst crime there is; to take someone’s life, all of it, to remove all potential, all possibility, all experience, all hope, all loss, to take all choice from them, has to be the most horrendous crime.
A rape victim can still live and breathe, can experience, can choose if she continues and how she does so, can move on. Even if he or she is emotionally damaged, they still have a chance of recovery.
I’d say murder was worse than rape - but I agree with the poster quoted above. There are circumstances where murder, while still wrong, is a lot more understandable on the part of the murderer. Rape isn’t like that. If you snap and murder an abuser, for example - or murder someone due to psychosis, mental illness, etc - well, I don’t think that necessarily makes you a bad person, or someone I no longer want as a friend. If you rape someone, that says something about you, as a person, that I want nothing to do with.
Thanks JohnnyMac. Like the OP, I may not have understood that “rape worse then murder” refers to the perpetrator and is an assesment of character. And since most people may see how someone might want/need to murder, but not rape, rape is worse.
But looking at it from the victims POV, I think most people would still agree that, faced with the choice, they would rather be raped then murdered, right?
Still, even while I understand the position described by **JohnnyMac **better, I think there are too many exceptions to that rule. Statutory rape? Gray area rape? Girls in consensual relationships that are forced to cry rape by family unaccepting of her choice? These are all cases of rape where I wouldn’t think too bad of the ''rapist".
Even if he bragged about it, while I can’t think of any redeeming words to say, I can still chalk that up to not thinking things through, caving to peer pressure, lack or empathy and in general being young and stupid.
Murder, however…without a really, really good reason…I think it is worse. Especially for the victims loved ones.
The statement is meaningless. “Worse” in what way? They’ve both reprehensible, but without context they can’t be compared in any useful way.
This isn’t the Pit, so I won’t make any comment on the poster of the quoted bit in the OP, but suffice to say I would avoid him/her and don’t find the line of thinking compelling.
If one is ‘worse’, than the other, then the opposite reference frame would be that one is ‘better’ than the other. I don’t really think ‘better’ is an apposite word for either.
On a case-by-case basis, I guess there could be circumstances where a situation could drive someone to kill, and for some reason, this might not get classed as manslaughter. I still won’t call that ‘better’, but it might be less nearly impossible to forgive than rape.
Nope, rape is not worse than murder. Rape can be recovered from. Murder, not so much.
A closer comparison might be - which is worse, ‘vanilla’ rape (so no actual GBH resulting) or torture (that does not involve anything sexual - say, waterboarding). I’d say the torture.
I disagree. It is the result that counts, not the crime type. The people that, to make a profit, enslaved Chinese workers. Or the melanine forged milk scandal, that caused 60,000 babies to get seriously sick. Or the Bhopal incident, in which eight employees were convicted of creminal negligence, causing a poisin gas leak from a factory, causing the death of 16.000 people.
Such crimes are more heinous, to me, then either rape or murder.
However, I don’t know of any victims of attempted murder who later committed suicide. Sometimes rape victims do commit suicide, because they just can’t go on. I’ll grant that I haven’t searched for any studies of attempted murder victims who later committed suicide to being with. And, of course, victims of successful murders can’t commit suicide.
Rape is typically “not as bad” as murder I think; but only in a “which hand would you prefer to have cut off, your left or your right?” sort of way.
However, most murderers as I understand it kill someone only once; their goal is accomplished, their target is gone. Rape is appetite-driven, not goal-driven; once they rape someone, the reasons they raped are still there so they are likely to rape again, and again, and again. So while rape may not “be as bad”, rapists themselves are more dangerous than most murderers.
That’s a good way to put it. Case by case you could make determinations of which is worse. But overall, in principle, murder is considered worse because it is irreparable.
It’s sort of like taking two groups of people, 10 people in group A, 12 in group B. Given a choice of which is worse, killing everybody in group A or everybody in group B, you can make a simple statement that B is worse because more people will die. But what if group A was all children and group B was all terminally ill people? You can’t resolve a general question on the subject without all those qualified distinctions, and even then it’s difficult to get a consistent answer.
Rape could be called “worse” than specific cases of murder, but not murder as a concept. In large part, this is because there are legally justifiable homicides, but not justifiable rapes.
There will thus be cases in which a person is convicted of murder, and a reasonable person can look at the facts of the case and argue that the killing was justified, or at least that the moral wrong was mitigated by circumstance. As an example, Jerome Ersland, the Oklahoma City pharmacist who legally shot a robber, then retrieved another pistol and deliberately killed the man when he was no longer an imminent threat. I would call a rape worse than what Ersland did.