From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Clarifications on Rape in any form ...
Date: 25 Jul 92 20:02:34 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Jul25.211049.22713@a.cs.okstate.edu>, boggs@a.cs.okstate.edu (BOGGS RICHARD GRAN) writes:
> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
> 
>>The trouble with what you advocating is it encourages a person to, while
>>committing a crime, take it to the maximum. The reason we have additional
>>time for crimes where is firearms or violence is ised is that we want to
>>encourage people to co the least amount of harm in their actions. If someone
>>can get away with what they want (money, rape, speeding) and have a choice
>>between risking penalty X, or doing more harm to society and receiving
>>five times penalty X, a certain percentage will opt for the less risks.
> 
> Gotta disagree with you here, DC.  There is a certain measure of justice in 
> having different penalties for different severities of the same crime, but 
> there is also merit in having the maximum penalty for the crime regardless of
> the severity.
> 
> I speed (when the wind is behind my ol' Subaru and I'm going downhill) occation-
> ally, knowing that if I'm caught I will have to pay a $76 or so fine.  However,
> I would choose not to speed if the penalty for it was death.  The little time
> I'd save speeding would never be worth risking my life for.  Extreme example, 
> but I think it makes the point.
> 
> I think that if there was just one penalty for rape, regardless of severity,
> the frequency of lesser classes of rape would drop off sharply.  When a guy 
> hears a woman say no, he would have to realize that if he proceeds, he stands
> chance to suffer from the worst possibly penalty for rape (whatever that may
> be in our fantasy world).
> 
> This type of justice system might be harsh, but it would certainly make men 
> more attentive to their "partners" in the deed.

Well, at one time, ALL crimes were death penlty. By the 1600s and we relaized
that didn't work, there were between 300 and 600 crimes, all hanging offenses.

Would you hang someone for stealing a loaf of bread?

Neither would the juries. For every hundred cases that were brought to trial, 3
ended in convistions. Juries simply will not convict if the penalty is too
harsh for the crime. (Recent example is marijuana cases before Reagan.
Prosecutors could porve that the defendant had the stuff, but the jury would
acquit as the penalty (years in jail) was too harsh.

We have intermediate sentences as a jury, if forced to choose between no
penanlty or one far too severe, will acquit.

>>That benifits everyone, as their is no 'might as well do it all' attitude.
> 
> Some people might opt to go ahead and go the whole nine-yards (where did that
> expression come from?  What is nine-yards long? [No rude comments here, please])
> in their criminal behavior, but I think this number few enough to give serious
> thought to the idea of one-crime-one-fine.

That sounds good in theory, but there are studies that show people will not
carry a gun because of the additional penalty. This applies to other crimes as
well. COmmon sense fall flat when dealing with the human psyche about to commit
a crime.

DC