Had a very interesting discussion in our tute today. Our tute asked the question, what do we consider a worse crime, rape or murder?

For the most part I took rape to mean, 'real rape', ie: break into someones house and rape them or where the guy clearly knew she wasn't consenting but did it anyway.

Obviously it's not black and white, some murders are clearly worse than some rapes, but it also works the other way around, so we spoke about them in general terms.

My view was to look at the question in light of the offender themselves - I argued Rapists have something inherently wrong with them whereas generally speaking murderers don't. Generally most murders are crimes of passion, where there are clear circumstances which led to the murder. Rape on the other hand don't usually have these sorts of understandable circumstances.

I also begged the question, who would you rather be friends with, a rapists or a murderer? (Note: I got all the girls in the tute on my side with that one)

Anyway, the alternative view that said murder was worse, was based upon freedoms & liberty. The law is to protect peoples freedom and liberty, and the peak of taking away someones freedom is killing them. Therefore murder is worse. It basically looked at the victim, and said, which one is inherently worse for the victim? In this light the tutor argued that murder was a worse crime.

What do you guys think?

murder from a purely philosophical perspective since you're taking *everything* from a person, and probably taking the person from others as well. also there's no chance of recovery.

yea that's the thing. I think the argument should really be looked at in two ways as which ones "worse"

Worse 1: Worse effects.
The effects of murder is probably considered worse to most and thus is a worse crime.

Worse 2: Worse offender.
Which offender would be considered a less desirable person after they have committed the act? Or, a worse human being by committing their crime? I'd argue that this is where people find rape is worse. That is, the rapist is seen by many people to be worse human being, a lesser human. Which is why I asked the question, who would you rather as a friend?

I'd say it becomes difficult here because couldn't you say that if you find the offender of rape worse, then that makes rape a worse crime? I mean, if you're saying you'd rather a murderer around you than a rapist... how is that not saying you see rape as worse?

i'd say once you add any believable (and non-extreme) details to both of them, rape may start looking worse.. but imagining details and cause/effect relationships is the last thing one should do when trying to remain objective <3

so i suppose we could say most non extreme case rapists may be more undesirable persons than murderers. but if there is only pure philosophy and no details, the consequences of murder are more srs.

and yes literally noone likes standard rapists. even their place in like prison subcultures and shit is at the absolute bottom. this is said to be the reason some pedo rapists voluntarily go through chemical castration as an alternative treatment, because they know what they'd be getting at the bottom in a prison. this almost never applies to murderers.

Yeah that's the problem. To answer the question you have to look at it through a subjective lens. Because the concept of murder isn't an objective one, it's a subjective creation. I mean it's even considered differently in different places.

Being purely philosophical you're just begging the question, what's worse the killing of another human being or the raping of another human being which doesn't really help answer the question ironically because it is objective.

Are you retarded?

Many girls happen to live just fine having been raped in the past, it's just not the ones you'll "hear from" usually.

Not saying this is a casual nor easy thing to live with but it's not automatically a destruction of the person like medias (that tend to exagerate everything) make you believe.

murder is obviously worse, would you rather die or get raped? also the fact rape was ok in most of the world until 200 years ago whereas murder is considered a crime since just about the beginning of time is a good hint


but yeah I can just picture now a packed class of young australians coming up with the weirdest bullshit to look "ON THE GIRLS SIDE BABY B)))))"


:cripes:

ah yes regarding the subjectivity, i keep forgetting there are systems where there are mandatory additional elements on the subjective side when defining murder in comparison to manslaughter.

...

so like is this some kind of full on retarded chunky way to try and prove law isn't a scrub tier subject? because so far you are failing spectacularly