What she means is, the rapist will figure it’d be safer to kill the child in order to avoid the punishment
anotherNotMeAccount on
if the punishment is the same for the tape and for the murder, then you incentivize the murder because it is easier not having a victim around that might tell their story.
I think the comedian Louis CK made a joke about this years ago
feanornoldor666 on
Wjy stop with mere assault and rape when you’ll be punished the same? Shit like this will just incentivize pedos murdering their victims. Mark my words.
rollmeoneobiwan41 on
Does this mean we can extradite trump to China?
Melodic_Mulberry on
They killed Epstein. They could’ve gotten him to testify against his entire global sex trafficking network, but they killed him. Great job.
Ill_Animator_4437 on
So, when is china invading US and arresting it’s president for his crimes?
GroinReaper on
she means that if they are facing death, then it is in their interest to make sure there are no witnesses. Harsh penalties for a crime doesn’t usually make that crime occur less often. It does however lead to more murders as criminals work harder to cover their tracks.
So yes, laws like this endanger victims.
ihatepickingnames810 on
If the punishment for murdering and assaulting the child, the abuser is more likely to murder them. Plus, abusers are normally family members. Kids are discouraged from reporting their abusers if they know they’ll die
JonathanUpp on
The death penalty is always wrong, so the justification is irrelevant
heavyarms3111 on
After reading the title I’m glad all the comments aren’t insane.
EastCoastSr7458 on
A very intelligent man once said, that’s like people that want the death penalty for drug kingpins. Like they don’t live under the threat of death everyday. It doesn’t work. By the way it was Leo McGarry. IYKYK
Rizasur on
She is right, though. If someone gets the same sentence whether or not they kill the victim 9 out of 10 times they will also kill the victim because there will be one less testimony against them.
UAreTheHippopotamus on
“Death Penalty without leniency” is one hell of good way to get innocent people killed. Yes, child abuse is always bad, but justice systems are imperfect, people lie, corruption happens, and when you combine that with an authoritarian state where accountability is hard to come by for those in power then you have a recipe for disaster. “Protect the children” is frequently used as a justification to cause harm to others, and this is no different.
Fast-Visual on
This WILL eventually get weaponised against gay people.
She is correct. Automatic death penalty urges abusers and rapists to kill their victims.
dragonittes on
Having to convince a jury that someone should *die* is a lot harder than convincing them someone should go to jail.
Rape and sexual assault is already so hard to prove. If the rapists doesn’t decide to kill the child, it’ll be nearly impossible to sentence them.
thirdgen on
I’m a child sex assault prosecutor. I personally feel woodchipper feet first is going to easy. But this person is right. If the punishment is the same for rape and for murder, you might as well kill your victim and increase your chances of getting away with it from having one less victim.
LordFedoraWeed on
OP is media illiterate lol.
She is saying that rapists will now rather just rape and then kill their victim, since the punishment is the same but the chance to get away with it is better if no one is alive to tell about the crimes they committed.
flutergay on
You have an extremely shallow, optimistic and ignorant view of crime and the legal system altogether…
Wargroth on
Don’t feel bad for lacking reading comprehension OP
She isn’t wrong, but yeah, she should’ve fully explained the reasoning instead of leaving It open to interpretation
LTG-Jon on
It also means that children subject to family sexual assault are less likely to report the incident out of fear that they will be causing the death of a family member.
Lasoula1 on
She’s right and on the other foot there will be a lot of innocent people being executed because they were falsely accused
drewmana on
OP i think you misunderstand the concern. The issue is that this will motivate child rapists to not let their victims live, in case they turn them in and get them put on death row.
To use a pop culture reference, it’s like in movies when you hear criminals say “no witnesses” then you see someone make eye contact with them doing the crime and you know that person is dead. That’s the concern here.
eddy_brooks on
If the punishment for rape and murder are the same you might as well kill the victim while you’re at it.
That is what this person means and it’s absolutely true unfortunately
SKDI_0224 on
I’ve read the replies from the OP. And there is real anger at the lack of action against real monsters. This is legitimate. It is why I tend to not view all killing as immoral.
But when we tend to speak of the State using deadly force, and specifically capital punishment, the discussion changes. I won’t condemn a man whose daughter is assaulted dealing with the situation after walking in on it. But the use of deadly force by the state must be held to a different standard.
I will put it out, I am opposed to capital punishment. But even if I grant it for those whose guilt is beyond any reasonable doubt, I would still restrict it to murder with special circumstances. The simple fact is most crimes are never prosecuted. Most violent crime goes unreported and unresolved. The amount of sexual assaults that end with a perpetrator in jail is extremely small. Even if the crime is reported, getting a conviction is damn near impossible. Police and the system will look for any reason to discount survivors and believe perpetrators. That is what happened with Epstein. Cops said they didn’t find the survivors credible.
But a body is different. Bodies require investigations. They are more likely to get serious attention. And while the rates here are still abysmal, the rates of these being solved is higher.
At the moment if a person commits a sexual assault, they are extremely unlikely to be reported. Even if they are, they are unlikely to see the inside of a jail cell. Judges can be kind to those who assault teens. Most will see a few months or maybe a year or two. So low risk. But if the penalty is the same as for murder, then it becomes far more appealing to remove a witness and destroy evidence.
ThisIsNotMyBurner69 on
OP not too late to delete this
currently_pooping_rn on
OP, you benefitted from no child left behind, didn’t you?
MathorSionur on
This is actually true, omfg. Capital punishment is usually a terrible idea because you’re telling the criminal “you’re fucked now might as well go the whole way”.
Also it causes issues: sexual abusers often have groomed or are related to the abused child, so you’d be asking a kid that, due to a lot of reasons, might still care about their abuser to testify to kill that person.
Kids are already pressured not to speak up a lot, and now you can just tell them “if you say they did that to you, they’ll die.”
Capital punishment is, nearly wothout exception, the stupidest legal decision you can take. It makes criminals ruthless, puts victims at risk, makes it so, if you got the wrong guy, you can’t walk back on your mistake.
Also no government should have an easy access to a ‘kill people’ button. If they say “child abusers must be killed”, what happens if they start saying “muslims are child abusers! Gay people are abusers!” ?
Elegant_Individual46 on
She’s not wrong actually. That’s why sex offences don’t get capital punishment in most western states. It removes the incentive to let the victim live, leading to increased murders. Criminologists have been studying this and it’s unfortunately a thing
YDoEyeNeedAName on
shes not wrong. its the same concept of “if the hostage taker lets you see their face, they arent planning on letting you live”
if the the penalty for the assault is the same or worse as for the murder, they will think they are better off leaving no witnesses.
this isnt a defense of predators or pedophiles, its just a fact. It has been proven time and again by extensive studies that the death penalty does not actually deter crime it just makes perpetrators go to more extreme lengths to cover up the crime.
romansamurai on
How do 800 people not understand what is clear and obvious and the reason has already been explained by so many others here that I won’t bother – but how is it not clear…
theasciibull on
she’s right, no witnesses
whater39 on
Same logic of saying drug dealers will be killed. Well gives incentive of drug deals to use weapons against people trying to arrest them we saw that happen in the Philippines.
PieOk6887 on
Also how a lot of victims has their perpetrator be their relatives, family friend etc, aka someone who the kid obviously might care and trust and wouldn’t want them to suffer due to how they might believe that it’s their fault and that maybe their family members will also grieve the perpetrators if they’re related.
wooden_soldier on
Murderers murder even with the death penalty. However, with abusers thinking there is a grey area to their actions, I think there’s some net benefit to making it crystal clear how heinous these crimes are and that there is zero tolerance for this abuse.
Spicymayoshi on
OP your heart is in the right place but the other commenters are unfortunately right. Harsher punishments on rapists is a good thing, but there’s a cutoff point where it ends up putting victims in even more danger because a violent rapist, when faced with the decision between death and murdering a victim to keep them quiet, will often choose the latter.
The truth is that effectively stopping rape culture involves *not only* increases on the penalty, but also efforts across the board to prevent sexual assault from happening in the first place by targeting the misogyny that leads to it. It involves creating systems that protect women (victims can be any gender, but let’s be clear, due to the system of the patriarchy we are the primary target) and remove systems of oppression that empower the people who commit sexual assault to get away with it.
NorthNorthAmerican on
She’s really making two points, and I recognize this is an awful subject, but the second point is still valid:
1. victims will be killed to prevent witness testimony
2. child sexual abusers are almost always victims of child abuse themselves, it’s a bad cycle that’s tough to break
There will be deaths in both sets.
Aureggif on
She is right though….
Linzic86 on
She could have worded it better. But the general theory is that if a rapist is gonna get killed anyways… then just murder the person they are raping. Like in Florida, kids are gonna start popping up dead soon as that law goes into effect
FluffyBebe on
They’re saying that harsher crimes makes for more HIDDEN crimes. Which may involves shady deals or worse killing the victim.
A commenter also correctly pointed out : kids will be less likely to identify the perp because if it’s a relative/close one then they’re afraid of hurting them.
Imagine being a kid with a rapist uncle but that treats you “well” all in all (treats, trips, compliments etc), all of the sudden you’d be responsible for his death? Imagine the other relatives what might treat you/the family (which then will feel like you’re the one to blame)
TruchaBoi on
2 points to be made here.
1) It will make the abuser consider the option of murder as a way to cover their acts, putting a significantly more dangerous environment to those who experience or are to be abused.
2) Most cases of sexual abuse happen between close friends, family or guardians. If a child was to be abused by their uncle, do you think the child would act given that the person who WILL DIE is part of their family? If they do make a report, do you think that child would have an easier healing process knowing that they directly put someone they knew to death? How do you think the rest of the family would react, given that maybe their brother, nephew, father or son could be put to death?
Houdinii1984 on
Threatening to kill offenders makes them dispose of a body instead. As consequences increase, so does the desire to avoid said consequence.
The_Cavalier_One on
Someone made clear that the reason this kills victims is because the rapist is more likely to kill the victim after the crime in an attempt to get away with it.
There is evidence in Chinese society of this in motor vehicle law. In China, if you are guilty of an automobile accident, you are responsible for paying for the injuries and treatment of the other or others involved for as long as they need it. This has led to people actually going back and killing the victims because a lifetime in jail is a better outcome than having to possibly pay for medical bills for the rest of your life.
Raccoon_Ratatouille on
Thats not what the tweet means. If you think about it for 3 seconds, if childcare has the same penalty as murder, and you clearly don’t care about the child’s well being, then the assaulter has every reason to just kill the victim to cover up the crime for zero additional penalties.
Sparty_75 on
I vote the review and prosecution of the Epstein files be moved to china
Narsil_lotr on
Uhm I’m not sure she made her point very well but assuming this is what she means, she isnt wrong. That policy is bad ob multiple levels.
First, the hurting victims part. Sexual assault can easily become just assault and giving predators more reasons to “end” (note: word censorship hurting communication here) their victims and thus this law may hurt victims.
Second, the issue inherent in all capital punishment: it’s final and can’t be corrected if there was a mistake. Every justice system no matter how well intentioned, funded or staffed, makes mistakes. Wrongful convictions aren’t rare and thus, being able to correct a mistake years later is valuable. And let’s be honest, even if all child rapists were convicted (sadly and obviously especially these days), it isn’t their numbers that cause the prison overpopulation.
So yeah, these types of laws are showmanship to seem like the government is tough, it’d be alot more helpful to make sure that victims are encouraged and helped to speak out and then action be taken in a larger percentage of cases – though tbf, I don’t know how well this works in China.
49 Comments
What she means is, the rapist will figure it’d be safer to kill the child in order to avoid the punishment
if the punishment is the same for the tape and for the murder, then you incentivize the murder because it is easier not having a victim around that might tell their story.
I think the comedian Louis CK made a joke about this years ago
Wjy stop with mere assault and rape when you’ll be punished the same? Shit like this will just incentivize pedos murdering their victims. Mark my words.
Does this mean we can extradite trump to China?
They killed Epstein. They could’ve gotten him to testify against his entire global sex trafficking network, but they killed him. Great job.
So, when is china invading US and arresting it’s president for his crimes?
she means that if they are facing death, then it is in their interest to make sure there are no witnesses. Harsh penalties for a crime doesn’t usually make that crime occur less often. It does however lead to more murders as criminals work harder to cover their tracks.
So yes, laws like this endanger victims.
If the punishment for murdering and assaulting the child, the abuser is more likely to murder them. Plus, abusers are normally family members. Kids are discouraged from reporting their abusers if they know they’ll die
The death penalty is always wrong, so the justification is irrelevant
After reading the title I’m glad all the comments aren’t insane.
A very intelligent man once said, that’s like people that want the death penalty for drug kingpins. Like they don’t live under the threat of death everyday. It doesn’t work. By the way it was Leo McGarry. IYKYK
She is right, though. If someone gets the same sentence whether or not they kill the victim 9 out of 10 times they will also kill the victim because there will be one less testimony against them.
“Death Penalty without leniency” is one hell of good way to get innocent people killed. Yes, child abuse is always bad, but justice systems are imperfect, people lie, corruption happens, and when you combine that with an authoritarian state where accountability is hard to come by for those in power then you have a recipe for disaster. “Protect the children” is frequently used as a justification to cause harm to others, and this is no different.
This WILL eventually get weaponised against gay people.
I hate pro death penalty liberals, man
[The death penalty is not a deterrent to violent crime.](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evidence-does-not-support-the-use-of-the-death-penalty/)
She is correct. Automatic death penalty urges abusers and rapists to kill their victims.
Having to convince a jury that someone should *die* is a lot harder than convincing them someone should go to jail.
Rape and sexual assault is already so hard to prove. If the rapists doesn’t decide to kill the child, it’ll be nearly impossible to sentence them.
I’m a child sex assault prosecutor. I personally feel woodchipper feet first is going to easy. But this person is right. If the punishment is the same for rape and for murder, you might as well kill your victim and increase your chances of getting away with it from having one less victim.
OP is media illiterate lol.
She is saying that rapists will now rather just rape and then kill their victim, since the punishment is the same but the chance to get away with it is better if no one is alive to tell about the crimes they committed.
You have an extremely shallow, optimistic and ignorant view of crime and the legal system altogether…
Don’t feel bad for lacking reading comprehension OP
She isn’t wrong, but yeah, she should’ve fully explained the reasoning instead of leaving It open to interpretation
It also means that children subject to family sexual assault are less likely to report the incident out of fear that they will be causing the death of a family member.
She’s right and on the other foot there will be a lot of innocent people being executed because they were falsely accused
OP i think you misunderstand the concern. The issue is that this will motivate child rapists to not let their victims live, in case they turn them in and get them put on death row.
To use a pop culture reference, it’s like in movies when you hear criminals say “no witnesses” then you see someone make eye contact with them doing the crime and you know that person is dead. That’s the concern here.
If the punishment for rape and murder are the same you might as well kill the victim while you’re at it.
That is what this person means and it’s absolutely true unfortunately
I’ve read the replies from the OP. And there is real anger at the lack of action against real monsters. This is legitimate. It is why I tend to not view all killing as immoral.
But when we tend to speak of the State using deadly force, and specifically capital punishment, the discussion changes. I won’t condemn a man whose daughter is assaulted dealing with the situation after walking in on it. But the use of deadly force by the state must be held to a different standard.
I will put it out, I am opposed to capital punishment. But even if I grant it for those whose guilt is beyond any reasonable doubt, I would still restrict it to murder with special circumstances. The simple fact is most crimes are never prosecuted. Most violent crime goes unreported and unresolved. The amount of sexual assaults that end with a perpetrator in jail is extremely small. Even if the crime is reported, getting a conviction is damn near impossible. Police and the system will look for any reason to discount survivors and believe perpetrators. That is what happened with Epstein. Cops said they didn’t find the survivors credible.
But a body is different. Bodies require investigations. They are more likely to get serious attention. And while the rates here are still abysmal, the rates of these being solved is higher.
At the moment if a person commits a sexual assault, they are extremely unlikely to be reported. Even if they are, they are unlikely to see the inside of a jail cell. Judges can be kind to those who assault teens. Most will see a few months or maybe a year or two. So low risk. But if the penalty is the same as for murder, then it becomes far more appealing to remove a witness and destroy evidence.
OP not too late to delete this
OP, you benefitted from no child left behind, didn’t you?
This is actually true, omfg. Capital punishment is usually a terrible idea because you’re telling the criminal “you’re fucked now might as well go the whole way”.
Also it causes issues: sexual abusers often have groomed or are related to the abused child, so you’d be asking a kid that, due to a lot of reasons, might still care about their abuser to testify to kill that person.
Kids are already pressured not to speak up a lot, and now you can just tell them “if you say they did that to you, they’ll die.”
Capital punishment is, nearly wothout exception, the stupidest legal decision you can take. It makes criminals ruthless, puts victims at risk, makes it so, if you got the wrong guy, you can’t walk back on your mistake.
Also no government should have an easy access to a ‘kill people’ button. If they say “child abusers must be killed”, what happens if they start saying “muslims are child abusers! Gay people are abusers!” ?
She’s not wrong actually. That’s why sex offences don’t get capital punishment in most western states. It removes the incentive to let the victim live, leading to increased murders. Criminologists have been studying this and it’s unfortunately a thing
shes not wrong. its the same concept of “if the hostage taker lets you see their face, they arent planning on letting you live”
if the the penalty for the assault is the same or worse as for the murder, they will think they are better off leaving no witnesses.
this isnt a defense of predators or pedophiles, its just a fact. It has been proven time and again by extensive studies that the death penalty does not actually deter crime it just makes perpetrators go to more extreme lengths to cover up the crime.
How do 800 people not understand what is clear and obvious and the reason has already been explained by so many others here that I won’t bother – but how is it not clear…
she’s right, no witnesses
Same logic of saying drug dealers will be killed. Well gives incentive of drug deals to use weapons against people trying to arrest them we saw that happen in the Philippines.
Also how a lot of victims has their perpetrator be their relatives, family friend etc, aka someone who the kid obviously might care and trust and wouldn’t want them to suffer due to how they might believe that it’s their fault and that maybe their family members will also grieve the perpetrators if they’re related.
Murderers murder even with the death penalty. However, with abusers thinking there is a grey area to their actions, I think there’s some net benefit to making it crystal clear how heinous these crimes are and that there is zero tolerance for this abuse.
OP your heart is in the right place but the other commenters are unfortunately right. Harsher punishments on rapists is a good thing, but there’s a cutoff point where it ends up putting victims in even more danger because a violent rapist, when faced with the decision between death and murdering a victim to keep them quiet, will often choose the latter.
The truth is that effectively stopping rape culture involves *not only* increases on the penalty, but also efforts across the board to prevent sexual assault from happening in the first place by targeting the misogyny that leads to it. It involves creating systems that protect women (victims can be any gender, but let’s be clear, due to the system of the patriarchy we are the primary target) and remove systems of oppression that empower the people who commit sexual assault to get away with it.
She’s really making two points, and I recognize this is an awful subject, but the second point is still valid:
1. victims will be killed to prevent witness testimony
2. child sexual abusers are almost always victims of child abuse themselves, it’s a bad cycle that’s tough to break
There will be deaths in both sets.
She is right though….
She could have worded it better. But the general theory is that if a rapist is gonna get killed anyways… then just murder the person they are raping. Like in Florida, kids are gonna start popping up dead soon as that law goes into effect
They’re saying that harsher crimes makes for more HIDDEN crimes. Which may involves shady deals or worse killing the victim.
A commenter also correctly pointed out : kids will be less likely to identify the perp because if it’s a relative/close one then they’re afraid of hurting them.
Imagine being a kid with a rapist uncle but that treats you “well” all in all (treats, trips, compliments etc), all of the sudden you’d be responsible for his death? Imagine the other relatives what might treat you/the family (which then will feel like you’re the one to blame)
2 points to be made here.
1) It will make the abuser consider the option of murder as a way to cover their acts, putting a significantly more dangerous environment to those who experience or are to be abused.
2) Most cases of sexual abuse happen between close friends, family or guardians. If a child was to be abused by their uncle, do you think the child would act given that the person who WILL DIE is part of their family? If they do make a report, do you think that child would have an easier healing process knowing that they directly put someone they knew to death? How do you think the rest of the family would react, given that maybe their brother, nephew, father or son could be put to death?
Threatening to kill offenders makes them dispose of a body instead. As consequences increase, so does the desire to avoid said consequence.
Someone made clear that the reason this kills victims is because the rapist is more likely to kill the victim after the crime in an attempt to get away with it.
There is evidence in Chinese society of this in motor vehicle law. In China, if you are guilty of an automobile accident, you are responsible for paying for the injuries and treatment of the other or others involved for as long as they need it. This has led to people actually going back and killing the victims because a lifetime in jail is a better outcome than having to possibly pay for medical bills for the rest of your life.
Thats not what the tweet means. If you think about it for 3 seconds, if childcare has the same penalty as murder, and you clearly don’t care about the child’s well being, then the assaulter has every reason to just kill the victim to cover up the crime for zero additional penalties.
I vote the review and prosecution of the Epstein files be moved to china
Uhm I’m not sure she made her point very well but assuming this is what she means, she isnt wrong. That policy is bad ob multiple levels.
First, the hurting victims part. Sexual assault can easily become just assault and giving predators more reasons to “end” (note: word censorship hurting communication here) their victims and thus this law may hurt victims.
Second, the issue inherent in all capital punishment: it’s final and can’t be corrected if there was a mistake. Every justice system no matter how well intentioned, funded or staffed, makes mistakes. Wrongful convictions aren’t rare and thus, being able to correct a mistake years later is valuable. And let’s be honest, even if all child rapists were convicted (sadly and obviously especially these days), it isn’t their numbers that cause the prison overpopulation.
So yeah, these types of laws are showmanship to seem like the government is tough, it’d be alot more helpful to make sure that victims are encouraged and helped to speak out and then action be taken in a larger percentage of cases – though tbf, I don’t know how well this works in China.
She’s 100% correct