jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (9 posts)

How is it that drug dealers get more prison time than many rapists?

  1. peeples profile image94
    peeplesposted 5 years ago

    How is it that drug dealers get more prison time than many rapists?

  2. profile image0
    JThomp42posted 5 years ago

    Great question peeples. I have often wondered about our legal system. The reason being is because it is broken. How can a person who robs a bank and does not harm anyone, get more time than someone who kills someone? Something is terribly wrong with this picture.

    1. peeples profile image94
      peeplesposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Yes. Very very wrong!

    2. MickS profile image73
      MickSposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      The US legal system is rooted in the English system, which is rooted in Roman law, the English system is more comcerned with crime against property than against the person, robbing a bank is a crime against property, and effects society.

    3. beverleejb profile image59
      beverleejbposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Scarey but true.
      I don't understand the laws and when is it going to change?
      You are right on this issue.

  3. MickS profile image73
    MickSposted 5 years ago

    Whilst rape is a horrendous crime it generally effacts one person, the victim, whereas one drug dealer has many victims, and is breaking down society.  That is not excusing or condoning rape, but the two crimes are quite different and are effecting diferent areas of society.

  4. MizBejabbers profile image89
    MizBejabbersposted 5 years ago

    We have gone back to the 1980s where many good people had their reputations ruined and freedom threatened by false accusations. Most of these came about simply because someone was angry with them, and unless the accuser recanted, the charges stuck. Many of these innocent people are forced into plea bargains by zealous prosecutors by the threat of 20-year to life sentences if they lose at trial. A person accused of rape, especially if it involves a child, is GUILTY in the eyes of society until proven innocent, which is difficult to do under today's court systems. Even with only circumstantial evidence such as the accusers say-so or no evidence at all, the not guilty still has a great chance of losing. I would like to see only real evidence, such as DNA or an injured victim, not just unsubstantiated accusation allowed to be considered at rape trials. Many "rapists" get minimal time because of lack of evidence to support their convictions of guilt but the prosecutor in trying to make a name for himself/herself is not going to give in and drop the case. If the prosecutor can force a plea, he/she is still a winner. he poor innocent accused is the loser. As a former reporter, I saw too much of this, and I am seeing it happening again. Please don't get me wrong, I am for throwing the book at a rapist in a case where there is strong evidence of guilt.

    1. peeples profile image94
      peeplesposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      While I get where you are coming from if it was done your way almost every incest case would go no where. There is almost never physical proof because those victims have it happen so often that they don't think to not shower before telling.

  5. bethperry profile image91
    bethperryposted 5 years ago

    Good question peeples!
    I imagine hardcore anti-drug people would say because drugs affect more than one individual victim. Personally, I'd like to see more drugs made legal for the sole reason of keeping the death rate lower; too many innocents have been killed in the cross-fire of drug sale wars. Rape is indeed a heinous crime, but a murder is worse. Once you're dead can't come back to demand justice.