“There was no mistaking the whoop of joy that rose outside Saket District Court on Friday, when word got out that four men convicted in last December’s horrific gang rape and murder had been sentenced to death by hanging,” nytimes.com reports. “People burst into applause. They hugged whoever was beside them. They pumped the air with their fists.“’We are the winners now,’ said a woman holding a placard. Sweat had dried into white rivulets on her face, but she had the look of a woman who had, finally, gotten what she wanted.” Justice? What was that quote about justice delayed? It’ll be quite some time before the convicted rapists swing, if at all. Meanwhile, the Times asks the obvious question: will capital punishment decrease the incidence of forcible rape in India? Some within the country hold that position . . .
“A base but very human part of me would like them to suffer as much as they made that woman suffer,” wrote Nilanjana S. Roy in The Hindu, noting that most rapists are not strangers. She went on to envision the result if convicted rapists were hanged consistently for a year: 10,000 neighbors, shopkeepers, tutors, grandfathers, fathers and brothers.
“I wish I could believe that this sort of mass public execution — if we agreed that this was the way forward — would do more than slake our collective need for vengeance,” Ms. Roy wrote. “But I don’t believe in fairy tales.”
Ms. Nundy, the Supreme Court litigator, said the real challenge lies in shaking up the criminal justice system, which is desperately short of judges and mired in outdated thinking about violence against women. Upon receiving a report of rape, she said, police investigators still routinely use a “two-finger test” to determine whether the victim has a prior sexual history; if the answer is yes, she said, the likelihood of a conviction plummets.
“Rape is not just something that is localized — you find these people, you wipe them out, you’re done,” she said.
So . . . how do you round-up these rapists for public execution? Unless you’ve got a department of pre-crime rousting proto-rapists—and what could possibly go wrong with that?—you have to ID the perps after they’ve raped. At that point, the damage is done. That’s if it was done.
Yes, there is that. A rush to judicially-sanctioned executions for rapists, combined with the public spectacle of a row of rapists dangling at the end of a rope, could easily create mass hysteria, leading to false accusations, wrongful convictions, state-sanctioned murder and mob rule.
Don’t get me wrong: a rapist swinging on a rope is one less rapist on the loose. But this “common sense” solution (i.e. one examined without critical thinking or relevant data) fails to address the nature of the crime or the criminals involved—many of whom would risk even the ultimate sanction to insert their genetic material into unwilling women.
Sorry, but it’s true. Rape involves violence, but it is not, as the victim industry would have you call it, “a crime of violence.” It is a crime wherein a bad guy attempts to procreate. And that, friends, is a serious genetic imperative. Serious enough for the rapist to risk his life to satisfy that base instinct? Abso-damn-lutely. As long as the prospect of death wasn’t both credible and immediate.
You knew I was going there. Where else could I go? A personal defense firearm is the best rape deterrent money can buy.
I’m not talking about women (in general) deterring rapists (in general) by the simple fact that they might be carrying a concealed weapon. If you look at the data for forcible rape in the U.S. by state there doesn’t appear to be any correlation between a state’s percentage of concealed carry permit holders and the incidence of rape (remembering that correlation does not equal causation anyway.)
I’m talking about the deterrent effect of a pistol revealed immediately prior to an attack. And/or the deterrent effect of a pistol fired at or into a potential rapist as he mounts his attack.
At the risk of falling into the same trap of relying on common sense to make my case (absent relevant data) it seems pretty clear that a defensive gun use is a far more effective rape deterrent than any judicial process. Oh, and that data could be forthcoming. Check this excerpt from the story from Indian women turn to firearms against threat of violence [via theguardian.com]
Gang rapes in the capital, New Delhi, are commonplace. One recent news magazine’s investigation revealed widespread misogyny among the city’s senior police officers, many of whom said the crimes were the fault of the victims.
“There are so many incidents, especially in Delhi. Women who are working or who are travelling should definitely have a gun,” said [Dr Harveen Kaur] Sidhu. She explained that changing lifestyles were making women more vulnerable, particularly single women working or coming home late at night. “Why should I be dependent on someone else, even my husband or the police, for my own safety? I should be independent,” she said. “Imagine all the problems and mishaps which could be avoided if women could defend themselves properly. The females have to be self-armed and protected and should send out a strong message that we are not taking this anymore.”
Funny that The New York Times missed that angle to the story. And notice that it’s self-armed and protected and sending out a message to rapists. In other words, Dr. Sidhu prioritizes personal defense over general deterrence. As she should . . .
I was talking about my profession with a store owner the other day. She was a beautiful woman of a certain age. “I really should get a gun,” she said. “There’s never been any trouble but I’m sometimes alone in here at night and, well, there could be a first time.” I asked her why she hadn’t applied for her CCW permit, especially now that Texas has reduced the number of mandatory training hours.
“I want to get mine too,” her colleague chimed in.
“Let’s do it together,” the owner said.
I reckon women are the anti-gunners’ weak point. If we can get women to get comfortable to own, shoot and carry a gun, we can begin to roll back the cultural bias that’s been eroding gun rights in liberal enclaves throughout America.
I believe that defense against rape is the best “argument” for female concealed carry, stronger even than defense of children. We should not hesitate to bring-up the subject whenever we raise the right to keep and bear arms.
Do you believe women have the right to defend themselves against a rapist? Isn’t a gun the best way for a woman to defend themselves against rape? Why would you deny them that right? In fact, why wouldn’t you actively promote armed self-defense for women?
Why indeed.
I’ve thought for a long time that the best way forward with gun rights is to get the point across that armed self-defense is also a women’s issue, same as reproductive rights, equal pay for equal work, etc. Not a purely feminist issue, but a women’s issue, as in you have the right to chose whether you have a career or stay home with the kiddos, as you also fully have the right to arm and defend yourself, or not, as you see fit.
Disabling a woman’s right to arm and defend herself is tantamount to telling a rape victim to lay back and take it.
Because too many liberal feminists who are indoctrinated to believe that guns are bad believe that “less violent” means of defense are viable options to defend against rape. Take those silly gimmicky “anti rape condoms” as an example. Some people believe that those would actually prevent rapes if all women wore them. In reality, proliferation of those devices would just mean that rapists would simply carry around a cucumber or banana to check for and remove the device before rape. Proliferation of guns, on the other hand, is a completely different story. Rapists, and other criminals, would be best deterred if they thought that their potential prey was packing heat. Any criminologist could confirm this.
We just have to fight the stereotypes and teach people that gun owners aren’t crazy loons.
As Penn Jillette said: “Guns don’t kill people, and women don’t kill people. Men kill people.”
It has always been a great source of frustration and irony for me that the primary demographic of gun owners and concealed carriers (Old Fat White Guys) is also the demographic that statistically needs the least protection from violence, while those who are most often victims (women, minorities, elderly, disabled) are the least likely to pack heat. It needs to change, and I believe that the movement is finally starting to see that and is actively incorporating diversity into our subculture.
Didn’t John Lott in “More Guns, Less Crime” postulate that when concealed carry passed in Pennsylvania the rape rate in all but Philadelphia County dropped precipitously? Philadelphia did not because the CCW law exempted the county. If true, wouldn’t that be a causal relationship?
Ah, but facts count for nothing when your opponent persists in making only an emotional argument.
I looked and did not find any decline in Pennsylvania that was significantly different than in other states (admittedly, this was a cursory look). Did the author speculate that this would happen, or was there evidence that this did happen? Could you link to this information? Thanks, I would truly appreciate your help.
Teeth are a damn good deterrent also.
Except your average sick-o rapist has no compunctions about smashing his fist / club into a woman’s mouth to knock out her teeth, or worst, break her jaw.
I meant trick the a-hole into a bj.
Come on, dude. I’m here. Of course I think women should carry.
I am not sure about your claim that rape is a crime motivated by the desire to procreate. The particular crime that the article centers around was a gang rape–why rape with others, which would lower the procreative probabilities of every participating rapist?
Yes, that’s a pretty stupid idea. It’s unfortunate, because the author usually has good and insightful things to say. That was not one of them. Perhaps he will reconsider, having considered that rape involving victims that obviously are beyond childbearing age, or involving sexual acts that cannot result in conception, are not uncommon.
I don’t thnk he meant it was a rational, logical thought process, where the rapist tries to figure out who amongst the potential victims is most likely to become pregnant and least likely to have an abortion. I took it as meaning a rapist is acting in a sick and twisted way on an instinct, without giving it much if any rational thought.
It doesn’t change the danger, the level of evil inherent in the act, or the appropriate defense, but if he’s right, it may mean that it’s harder to deter the criminal than if it was a more logical root cause. Now, I’m not sure if I agree with the idea or not, but I think I understand where he’s comin from. Or not.
To be sure, even if he is right, the standard model of wanting to dominate another human being is still a huge part of it.
Haven’t seen a lot of traction for guns as self-defense tools among people outside the US. Specifically, India.
Nobody I polled after I got to know them saw guns as anything but tools that criminals carry. That mindset is just too locked in, and I’d argue it persists even after people immigrate here. Rural poor or urban affluent, my Indian friends thought I was nuts for my guns, and no, why would these guys ever need one?
Even here, I don’t think even the idea of a woman capable of defending herself outweighs the negative associations on guns to the hoplophobes. Your gun control advocates will just shrug if you bring it up and say “call 911” or “carry pepper spray”.
I always carried a gun. One day many years ago I had to walk at night on a dark country road. A car stopped and a man told me to get in. I said no. The man was not taking no for an answer. He got out of his car, I put my hand in my purse and went into my stance, no gun. I quietly said take one more step and I ‘ll put a hole in you big enough for me to walk through. He left. I was lucky. I always carry legal or not.
I had a first cousin(biker trash with a history of violence and prison time) who died proving you can’t rape a .38. Done. The end on his medical records.
The lady that killed him got her gun back from the police after the investigation and inquest. I don’t know what her views on feminism, womans choice, equel work for equel pay were. But I know what her views on attempted rape were.
I don’t believe executions deter future miscreants. But they sure cut down on repeat offenders.
Cases like your cousin’s are even more effective than the death penalty, because they are immediate and much less likely to punish an innocent man.
My cuz was the hollywood stereo type biker. Big, burly, hairy and nasty. Had his intended victim been armed with anything less than a gun she would have been just another stat. Anti gunners just don’t seem to be able to make this connection. Without a gun very few people, men or women, would have had much of a chance against him in a one on one.
thats how it should be hanging
Sorry, but it’s true. Rape involves violence, but it is not, as the victim industry would have you call it, “a crime of violence.” It is a crime wherein a bad guy attempts to procreate.
Uhh…no.
Rapists generally have a mental issue of some type. They have some sort of unhealthy obsession with a class of people or a specific person, or the desire to control, or the urge to knock a woman (either a specific one or just one in general) down a peg due to some perceived slight, or see the victim as a trophy to claim, etc. You could consider some of these a corruption of the desire to procreate in the minds of the unstable, but few, if any, rapists think, “Man, I’d sure like to have a kid. I think I’ll go rape somebody.”
If rape is about procreation, then why do so many rapes involve the following:
* children (unable to procreate),
* male victims (unable to get pregnant),
* sodomy (wrong spot for procreation),
* murder (corpses make poor mothers),
* women the rapists know are on birth control (the magic pill prevents babies),
* condoms (condom use is already significant and increasing among rapists)
That jumped out at me as well. Suspect premise Robert.
Most women’s rights activists are loyal Democrats first, women’s rights activists second. That was illustrated in Technicolor when NOW circled the wagons around Bill Clinton. Probably the only thing they have credibility is on no limits on abortion (not that I find defense of late-term abortion to be moral, but at least they are consistent on that). There will be nothing but opposition from most women’s rights groups. Any appeal will need to be made directly to the public, and expect NOW and similar orgs to counter the message at every turn.
“A rush to judicially-sanctioned executions for rapists, combined with the public spectacle of a row of rapists dangling at the end of a rope, could easily create mass hysteria, leading to false accusations, wrongful convictions, state-sanctioned murder and mob rule.”
That already happened in the United States when thousands of black men were lynched.
Feminists are against women using guns to defend themselves against rape, not only because they are progressives who oppose individual self-defense, but because feminists reject the legal definition of sexual assault. According to the definition of “rape” feminists use, it does not require force or a threat of force that would justify armed defense. Google “sexual coercion” or “enthusiastic consent” if you would like a bizarre explanation how it’s still rape even if a woman says “yes”.
Further, feminists do not accept that rape is caused by pathological criminals. Instead, they believe that rape is caused by “rape culture” — a tool used by a deliberate system of oppression called the “patriarchy” to keep all women in a perpetual state of fear. As such, guns would be no use in preventing rape, since one cannot shoot an invisible force emanating from a non-existent entity.
Once upon a time, in the face of violence, men fought and women surrendered. Now men have been brainwashed into surrendering, but have women been trained to fight? Very few, I’m afraid. But on balance, I’d rather have an armed woman covering my six than a male Democrat.
BOOM
True that.
+1
Maybe the biggest farce of what passes for liberalism now is the con-job that they are for helping women or minorities. Take a look at what they did to Sarah Palin, Clarence Thomas, and Miguel Estrada. They will utterly destroy a woman or a black or a Hispanic that does not advance their so-called progressive agenda, which really means progressing over the cliff of total state control.
Women who protect themselves from rapists with guns do not advance total state control.
This may or not be related, but a woman and her partner were attacked in Seattle.
http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2021826833_doublestabbingxml.html
Sexual assault may or not be the motivation for the attack, but according to the article the woman was attacked first, stabbed multiple times. The guy she was with tried to intervene and ended up getting stabbed in the neck, died from the stab wounds. The attacker was still standing over their bodies when the cops finally arrived and the woman is in serious condition.
“It is a crime wherein a bad guy attempts to procreate.”
This is so wrong I could hardly believe I was reading it here. Rape has nothing to do with procreation; it doesn’t even really have to do with sex. Rape is a brutal act if DOMINATION. That’s all it is, all it’s ever been.
Hello obvious.
Full agreement William. . . Rape is a crime of violence not of passion nor even born of the same drives that lead to procreation. It’s more akin to a destructive impulse than any creative one.
It is a bit disturbing to see it presented as it was here. . . well here. I’ll suggest a better definition in keeping with what I hope was the author’s intent:
“Rape is a crime where by a mentally disturbed person forces themselves sexually on another as a form of dominance and violence.”
Absolutely. Rape has nothing whatsoever to do with procreation. It’s about subjugation and dominance.
Sorry but rape is also about sex. Like a Murder, different offenders have different reasons to commit such crimes. Some do it just to have the power over another person, some do it because of poor impluse control, some do it because it is their way of getting off as sick as it is, etc. One blanket reason for every offender is just wrong, that is the way gun grabbers think.
Many jurisdictions only recognize male on female rape as a crime, female on male rape, male on male rape, and female on female rape are not even considered rape in many parts of the world even in parts of the US and that is how some feminists want it to be. Ultra feminists (a femnazi) view every male as a rapist and some even blog about killing off the whole male gender to improve society. Some even preach any intercourse between a man and a woman is automatically rape, not the type of people you want to stand with.
“Yes, there is that. A rush to judicially-sanctioned executions for rapists, combined with the public spectacle of a row of rapists dangling at the end of a rope, could easily create mass hysteria, leading to false accusations, wrongful convictions, state-sanctioned murder and mob rule.”
Femnazis would love this. Anytime a woman gets mad at a male, just accuse him of rape and he is as good as dead. This kind of thing can already ruin a man’s life even if it is proved the woman lied.
Wrong, wrong and irrelevant.
So according to you crimes are comitted for one reason then LOL. Guess you are just another misandry supporting man. Sadly no one talked about how India is a very anti-male country. Just take a look at their gender biased laws. Heck the total number of males keeps going down, hmmm.
In the end, many feminists are as anti-gun as they are anti-male, a poor choice of allies.
http://avoiceformen.com
We weren’t talking about “crimeS”, sonny… we were talking about RAPE. About which you are also wrong.
India is “anti-male”? Nice of you to offer supporting evidence. Son.
“Sorry, but it’s true. Rape involves violence, but it is not, as the victim industry would have you call it, “a crime of violence.” It is a crime wherein a bad guy attempts to procreate. And that, friends, is a serious genetic imperative. Serious enough for the rapist to risk his life to satisfy that base instinct? Abso-damn-lutely”
You better fix this. It’s wrong on more than one level.
I am going to jump on the WHATWEREYOUTHINKING?! band-wagon, here, on your ‘rape is not a crime of violence/bad guy attempts to procreate’ comment.
I take it that you have not known, or met, the victim of a violent sexual act. If you had, you would know that rape is violence–the worst sort of violence short of murder. The rapist reduces the victim to the status of object, of non-human, of non-being, and violates the sanctity of his or her most precious possession.
Rape has absolutely nothing to do with procreation, but everything to do with violent domination.
Your comments are indefensible.
Truly indefensible. Take your breath away indefensible.
if the gun grabbers have their way, we’ll be back to survival of the fittest, which is as nature intended. Sorry old, weak, and infirm. You’re going to to have to depend on your would be attackers being “civilized”.
I have nothing against survival of the fittest. Not that you can do anything about a law of nature. I just want law-abiding people to be the fittest; hence easy access armed self-defense.
Your real problem in appealing to women with Second Amendment stuff is the idiotic Third Wave feminists who get all “instead of telling women to get a gun to defend themselves from rape, tell men not to rape” and deride self-defense as “victim blaming.”
The first time I heard that line of thought, I realized why /pol/ refers to becoming libertarian as getting “redpilled”.
If you think rape is about sex then rent the movie Irreversible. It’s has the most horrific and compelling X rated depiction of what a brutal rape is all about. It’ll leave you shaking and angry, pissed off and wanting to kill any son of a bitch that would dare to do that to someone.
I know what rape is all about – control and degradation. But thanks for the movie tip; I’ll put it on my Amazon wish list.
Comments are closed.