"Some rapes are worse than others"

[durhamleft]

What are people's thoughts on this? In the UK there has been a big fuss about this since Ken Clarke said it about a year ago.

It re-emerged as an issue a few weeks ago with the comments made by Galloway.

There was a lot of criticism of Clarke's comments at the time from the left in the UK, particularly if I remember rightly the SWP.

I'm going to nail my colours to the mast and I say I agree - some rapes are worse than others. For example, I would argue that someone who 'takes advantage' of a drunken person is committing a serious offence, and they deserve to be imprisoned. However, it is not as serious in my view as someone who breaks into a person's house during the night, and performs a brutal and violent rape over a period of time. They deserve a more lengthy sentence in my view than the first case. Maybe 5 years in the first case, 10+ in the second.

Does anyone disagree with me on this? It strikes me that it should be similar to murder. If you kill someone by stabbing them in a fight, you deserve a lesser sentence than if you torture someone to death then eat them or whatever. They're both serious, but one is worse than the other.

[RedAnarchist]

Rape is rape, and a rape victim is a rape victim. There are no grades, no levels, no traffic light systems with green being the least and red the worst kind of rape. No rape victim should ever feel that their ordeal was lesser than that of another rape victim.

[#FF0000]

I think it's a pretty callous way to put it. Certainly a crime of one sort can be carried out in a more heinous way than another similar crime. I don't think it's really helpful to say it like that, though. It can easily be construed as "some rape isn't that bad" or something like that.

[Yuppie Grinder]

It's in incredibly bad taste to say anything like that. It's like arguing whether the holocaust or American slave trade was worse. You just don't say shit like that.

[#FF0000]

It's in incredibly bad taste to say anything like that. It's like arguing whether the holocaust or American slave trade was worse. You just don't say shit like that.

Unless you're in court or something and the specific circumstances warrant consideration or whatever

[Ostrinski]

Even if you could evaluate something like that, I'm not sure what purpose it could serve other than playing into the hands of those that try to downplay rape. Certainly it's not constructive for those not interested in such an agenda.

[Lynx]

There are always mitigating circumstances that affect the sentence a rapist might receive. "May the punishment fit the severity of the crime"

We no longer have Draconian laws, which supposedly made no distinction (ie. all crimes were punishable by death)

[Камо́ Зэд]

I agree that it's in bad taste to say something like this, although I don't know that it's technically inaccurate. It may be that someone may come from a particularly brutal rape more severely injured than someone victimized in a less overtly violent way, but I really don't see the point in making the distinction. Rape is a heinous kind of violence, even if the victim comes away with no serious physical injury.

Tangentially, I'm reminded of Whoopie Goldberg's comment with regards to one Roman Polanski and accusations of statutory rape levied against him. She said something to the effect of "Well, it was rape, but it wasn't rape rape!" Very few things have been said that are stupider than that.

[doesn't even make sense]

The process of actually taking a rape case to trial is bad enough for victims as it is without making "how bad" the rape actually was an item of debate. Can you fucking imagine?

Besides, in the latter scenario that you mention there are already additional crimes committed besides rape which would compound the severity of the sentence.

Conceptualizing the problem in the manner that you described it seems to me a way to justify playing down the severity of the crime of rape in and of itself, much like the conservative preoccupation with distinguishing between rape as such and "forcible rape".

[durhamleft]

Rape is rape, and a rape victim is a rape victim. There are no grades, no levels, no traffic light systems with green being the least and red the worst kind of rape. No rape victim should ever feel that their ordeal was lesser than that of another rape victim.

So you believe that regardless of the circumstances of the rape and how it was committed, the punishment should always be the same? Surely 'the ordeal' for some rape victims is worse than it is for others?

For example, in the UK, were a 16 year old to have consensual sex with a 15 year old, it is legally a rape. Now I would argue that the vast majority of people would suggest this is as 'severe' as it would be for a person to 'violently rape' another person.

[durhamleft]

It's in incredibly bad taste to say anything like that. It's like arguing whether the holocaust or American slave trade was worse. You just don't say shit like that.

No, I don't see that - as a comparison.

In the UK there has been a big debate in recent years about sentencing for sexual offences - and so within that context there have been cases where rapists have had sentences of around 4 years.

I think it is a legitimate point to raise, that while their offence (Im thinking of the Sheffield United player who was done, forgot his name) was serious, and worthy of the four years he got, because it wasn't a violent, brutal rape (the woman was too drunk to consent), he did not deserve the 10 year sentence + which other rapes would deserve.

[durhamleft]

The process of actually taking a rape case to trial is bad enough for victims as it is without making "how bad" the rape actually was an item of debate. Can you fucking imagine?

Besides, in the latter scenario that you mention there are already additional crimes committed besides rape which would compound the severity of the sentence.

Conceptualizing the problem in the manner that you described it seems to me a way to justify playing down the severity of the crime of rape in and of itself, much like the conservative preoccupation with distinguishing between rape as such and "forcible rape".

See, I don't think it 'downplays' rape at all. You aren't trying to suggest that some rapes are not a serious offence, you are merely saying that some rapes are worse than others. In every other aspect of law more or less, within the same offence, there will be times when it committed and it is worse or not as bad as others, why should rape be treated differently?

[#FF0000]

Surely 'the ordeal' for some rape victims is worse than it is for others?

that is largely a subjective and personal thing, though. Some people can cope with extremely traumatic events extremely well, and others will have trouble.

[durhamleft]

Another example would be sexual assault.

In the UK, if you slapped a woman on the bottom, that constitutes sexual assault.

If you rip her clothes off etc etc then that would also be a sexual assault.

Both are offences, rightly, but one is 'more serious' in my view than the other.

[durhamleft]

that is largely a subjective and personal thing, though. Some people can cope with extremely traumatic events extremely well, and others will have trouble.

Yes, agreed.

[Will Scarlet]

So you believe that regardless of the circumstances of the rape and how it was committed, the punishment should always be the same? Surely 'the ordeal' for some rape victims is worse than it is for others?

For example, in the UK, were a 16 year old to have consensual sex with a 15 year old, it is legally a rape. Now I would argue that the vast majority of people would suggest this is as 'severe' as it would be for a person to 'violently rape' another person.
Statutory rape is a different crime because there is consent, and obviously a case like the one you mention is hardly likely to result in criminal charges.

I don't really see the point in making distinctions between one type of rape and another. Rape is a violent act, whether you've got broken the victims legs and are holding a knife to her throat or she's passed out drunk, but the latter scenario is pretty much as likely to have been engineered by the rapist. And even if not, it is what it is. It's not just a matter of what's in good taste to say.

I've never been raped, I have been beaten up and it's no fun, but I would think that part of it would pale into insignificance compared to being raped.

[durhamleft]

Statutory rape is a different crime because there is consent, and obviously a case like the one you mention is hardly likely to result in criminal charges.

I don't really see the point in making distinctions between one type of rape and another. Rape is a violent act, whether you've got broken the victims legs and are holding a knife to her throat or she's passed out drunk, but the latter scenario is pretty much as likely to have been engineered by the rapist. And even if not, it is what it is. It's not just a matter of what's in good taste to say.

I've never been raped, I have been beaten up and it's no fun, but I would think that part of it would pale into insignificance compared to being raped.


You should see the mess UK law has got into itself over the age of consent. I know of a 17 year old who was imprisoned for having sex with a 14 year old at a party, when she lied and said she was 16, but apparently because he didn't 'research' enough, it therefore meant he was tried for statutory rape.. :rolleyes:.

I've never been raped either - but have been a victim of comparable crime, once, and the distinction around the offence committed against me I wouldn't find upsetting, or in bad taste. I think some assaults are worse than others.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Of course there are circumstances where the rape is worse than another. I remember a story of a girl who was kidnapped and raped multiple times everyday for a very long time, had like two babies from the attackers. I think that's a lot worse than what some people go through. What the hell is in bad taste with saying that?

[Yuppie Grinder]

Only those that have sentimental attachments to rape culture say shit like this. Are some rapes more brutal then others? Maybe. But it trivializes a dehumanizing experience to compare rapes this way.

[durhamleft]

Only those that have sentimental attachments to rape culture say shit like this. Are some rapes more brutal then others? Maybe. But it trivializes a dehumanizing experience to compare rapes this way.

How? As a victim of as I've said, an equally serious offence, I don't view it as 'trivialising' my experience if someone said 'The offence you were victim to was serious, but within the same offence there would have been ways it could have been worse'.

[Comrade #138672]

Obviously some people are more traumatized by rape than others, but that doesn't mean that some forms of rape are worse than others. It isn't right to differentiate between forms of rape, because that would only harm the rape victims.

[durhamleft]

Obviously some people are more traumatized by rape than others, but that doesn't mean that some forms of rape are worse than others. It isn't right to differentiate between forms of rape, because that would only harm the rape victims.

Do you agree with distinguishing between forms of other offences?

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Only those that have sentimental attachments to rape culture say shit like this. Are some rapes more brutal then others? Maybe. But it trivializes a dehumanizing experience to compare rapes this way.

How do you figure? It's like saying a beating is a beating, no matter how serious it is. It's true in the most abstract way, but getting a busted lip isn't as bad as getting all your teeth knocked out and getting a broken nose. It's still assault either way, one is obviously worse though.

I don't think I have sentimental attachment to rape culture because I think I'd rather get raped at a party while I'm passed out or on some date rape drug then get raped every singleday for years. I don't want to trivialize what people go through but some instances are worse then others, I think that's pretty obvious.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

I suppose you could say some rapes are worse than others based upon some type of physical criteria and not be wrong, but what purpose would this actually serve?

Furthering on that, it does trivialize some rapes, whether it's meant to or not. Look at the ranking scale for hurricanes, for example. If you've just heard about a Category 5 hurricane, you're more likely to internally trivialize a Category 1 to some extent.

[durhamleft]

I suppose you could say some rapes are worse than others based upon some type of physical criteria and not be wrong, but what purpose would this actually serve?

Furthering on that, it does trivialize some rapes, whether it's meant to or not. Look at the ranking scale for hurricanes, for example. If you've just heard about a Category 5 hurricane, you're more likely to internally trivialize a Category 1 to some extent.

LOL no it doesn't.

I think all murder is wrong and abhorrent but if you said that the the crimes of some serial killers were 'particularly horrific' or even more brutal than your average murder you aren't trivialising murder.


It's important because on talk shows and stuff people get asked why does our justice system give X rapist 4 years and Y rapist 12 years. What are people, and politicians meant to say?

The truthful answer is both were horrible offences, but rape Y was worse because of aggravating factors A, B and C.

But they say that and much of the feminist lobby slams them for it. They argue rape is rape. There should be no distinction between any form of rape and all rapes are as serious as each other. I honestly don't get it.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I suppose you could say some rapes are worse than others based upon some type of physical criteria and not be wrong, but what purpose would this actually serve?

Furthering on that, it does trivialize some rapes, whether it's meant to or not. Look at the ranking scale for hurricanes, for example. If you've just heard about a Category 5 hurricane, you're more likely to internally trivialize a Category 1 to some extent.

I don't know, I just thought it was painfully obvious, a no-brainer, a stupid question. The only way you could make the argument is if you abstract all the horribleness of the actual act and say rape is rape. As for different sentences for different cases, I don't know how I feel about that and how I would distinguish between different severities. I'm not a genius when it comes to law but I think in general to have laws where the severity of the crime is not taken into account is just stupid, it's how people get life in prison for a petty crime if they already had three strikes before. And think of it like this, should a father who rapes his daughter year after year get the same punishment(only a few years in the states I think) as someone who decides they're going to rape a girl passed out at a party?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Does anyone disagree with me on this? It strikes me that it should be similar to murder. If you kill someone by stabbing them in a fight, you deserve a lesser sentence than if you torture someone to death then eat them or whatever. They're both serious, but one is worse than the other.

First it's pointless to compare traumas because individuals can have different reactions at different times in different ways to similar kinds of trauma.

Second, from a class struggle standpoint, the problem of rape is not the violence or individual suffering (though this is not to deny how serious and traumatic this can be for individuals), but that rape by either strangers who use brute force or acquaintances/friends/relatives who used coercive force is a function of sexism and general repression of women. Stranger rape (which to my understanding, is more rare and often more about the violence/dominance than the sex for the perpetrator) and pressured rape by peers or (I don't know what you'd call this) "creepy-rape" with passed out people all come from the same social place: the role of women is to cater to men. This fits into the class struggle by demoralizing a huge section of the non-ruling class population and placing them in a subordinate position. If women's real value socially is her body either through giving birth or in attracting/sexually pleasuring men, then her labor really isn't important - "we don't have to pay teachers or nurses that much because these professions are populated largely by women and their "natural" role is taking care of people and being nurturing, so they'll work for shit and if they strike we'll say: 'they don't care about children, they don't care about sick people - only money, how unwomanly!"

Both better and more fulfilling sex(ual liberation) as well as the success of the working class depend on the ability of the class to begin to combat sexism in both structural aspects as well as in more generalized attitudes.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Rape is rape, it's quite simple.

Whilst there might be different circumstances - and subjectively it may be intuitive that some things intensify the pain of the victim i.e. the highest levels of violence, gang rape etc. - it is a basic point that this does not make some rapes 'less bad' than others. There is a minimum level of seriousness that a rape can be, and that bar is set extremely high, whatever the circumstances.

Besides, what good is it trying to differentiate different 'types' of rape? Most lawmakers are men, most judges are men, so are we going to allow groups of middle class, middle aged white men with little empathy to tell women which types of rape they should fear more or less? Fuck no!

[doesn't even make sense]

I already mention that in an exceptionally violent sexual assault its likely that more crimes were committed than just rape. And then there is the fact that any half decent judge is likely to hand out a much harsher sentence for a brutal gang rape (and oftentimes in the real world a slap on the wrist, if anything, for something that isn't "rape-rape").

So I'm just not sure why we're even having this discussion.

[Igor]

It's not a false statement per se. I mean, there are worse murders, worse muggings, worse assaults than others, more excessive violence can be used which of course is a bad thing. This is true re: rapes, too. But using that shit to marginalize other people's experiences is just a dick fucking thing, and there's absolutely no point in discussing what's the worst kind of rape because they're all pretty fucking bad.

"oh your dad got killed well my dad got killed even worse so i'm not seeing your problem here"

[Quail]

I don't think it's really constructive to compare rapes and try to say which is worse. All rapes are horrible experiences for the victims, some victims react better or worse than others and people end up with varying levels of trauma. For example, consider a rape committed while the victim was under the influence of drugs, and one where the victim was tied up using physical force and raped. Using your criteria, the latter probably sounds "worse" on paper, but if the victim of the former went on to develop PTSD and the victim of the latter didn't, which would be worse then? Trying to compare the two automatically downplays the experience of one of the victims as "not as bad" even though to that person it was probably one of if not the worst thing that ever happened to them.

[La Comédie Noire]

I think there should be a minimum sentence for those convicted of rape with additional time or further punishment for those who it could be argued were especially cruel.

So that way we recognize a zero tolerance policy of rape, rape is rape. While also realizing there are circumstances that call for more punishment.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The idea that there are worse rapes than others is not a victim-centred approach.

I'm sure hetero victims of one-on-one heterosexual rapes feel just as horrific as a heterosexual male gang-raped by a group of other males.

[Lynx]

Right. Lets see how the humanist approach, with its emphasis on rehabilitation rather than punishment, will be victim-centered.

[Peoples' War]

I think the problem is suggesting that rape without physical violence to go with it, is not rape, or that rape itself has degrees. Rape isn't about whether you stuck it in a women passed out at a party, or if you pinned that same women down while she was awake and forced yourself on her.

The point, is consent. Where consent is lacking, rape is present. If you blackmail someone into sex: rape. If you stick your penis into a passed out women's vagina: rape. If you pin a women down and force yourself into her, whilst hitting her and choking her: rape.

Now, the question I believe, is whether we charge that person who committed rape whilst pinning, hitting and choking his victim should be charged with rape AND another crime, such as aggravated assault. Perhaps this would prevent the trivializing of rape, but would also serve to dish out "justice" to the more violent offender.

I don't know if this would serve any purpose, negative or positive. I'll leave it to the comrades to discuss.

[RedAtheist]

It makes sense for the distinction to be made in the legal arena, but not in the cutural arena. Let lawyers argue over the details of specific rape cases to determine what the punishment should be, but don't make this part of the cultural mentality surrounding rape or this could contribute to victim blaming.

For example, someone might assume that if raping a drunk women is "less severe" than raping a non-drunk women that means that women who get drunk are somehow giving consent to be raped making the action 'less of a rape'.

By contrast, there are different forms of murder, but crime shows do not make a big deal about such distinctions. They do not go into how a particular murder is way worse than some other murder. Even though the sentences received by the murderer at the end of the show may vary, the culture does not create huge moral distinctions in the minds of viewers between different forms of murder. I don't see why we can't do the same for rape.

[Mao_O]

I think it's just going to give rapists more creative ways to rape someone. For example if raping a woman without causing bruises on her body is considered less of a crime, such as 3-5 yrs less time in jail than it is to rape her and caused bruises on her body, than rapists will just try to find ways to rape women without causing bruises so that they can get less jail time. There will also be instances where the judge may deem a case "not a big deal" compared to other cases, and the rapist just gets off just doing community service even though he was found guilty.

[Niall]

I see where the OP is coming from but its a difficult one. Rape, in any guise, is a horrible horrible crime and no-one would want to say one victim is more of a victim than another but maybe there should be different levels of punishment

[Niall]

been thinking about this. Rape shouldnt be compared at all, its a heinous crime and should carry life. The example in the OP, the second one, the "worse" example. Surely the guy who done that would get time for the other crimes on top of the rape?

[Doflamingo]

Rape is rape, no matter how politicians try sugar coat it.

[Luís Henrique]

Right. Lets see how the humanist approach, with its emphasis on rehabilitation rather than punishment, will be victim-centered.

Or, let's discuss whether a "victim-centered" approach is a reasonable approach... or, for that matter, since this is a political left board, whether a "victim-centered" approach is compatible with leftism in general.

Luís Henrique

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Don't know if it's been brought up, but here in US, at least, plenty of people go to prison for statutory rape, to which I will say: Sex with an unwilling 18 year old is worse thank that with a willing 17.

Obviously this line of thinking is still quite suspect, to say the least, just trying to answer the OP's rather ridiculous question.

[officer nugz]

trigger warning for people who have been sexually assaulted


I guess it's kinda how people react to rape and what they can emotionally get through. it's a weird dichotomy to draw with some being "worse" than others, not because it's not necessarily true (it could be true for some victims and not true for some victims, kinda how people react), but because it's an odd thing to focus your attention on. but I mean when it comes down to it, it's probably emotionally easier to deal with to have been taken advantage of while too wasted to give informed consent than it is to have had someone tie you up and rape you at knifepoint when you were a kid. but it's a weird scale to have regardless.