Hammurabi Code in modern times

I always wonder about this. If you listen to what the sentencing judge said to Larry Nassar, the child rapists of perhaps over 200 victims, she said that if she could, she would essentially sentence larry nassar to be himself, sexually assaulted. This is very similar to the Hammurabi Code of conduct. And It must, it must be said at once! That as long as it’s a well regulated system, it could be carried out without violating the united states constitution.

I hold a similar view, that I do support such a theoretical justice system in which judges can use such a sentence on an offender SO LONG AS IT’S PROVEN BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT 100% guilt which is a step above reasonable doubt of 95% guilt.

My preference is that we ought to permit the justice system on the state level to carry out such sentencing, provided it’s regulated and only for the most heinous of offenses, and that it requires beyond a shadow of a doubt guilt.

Larry Nassar was actually convicted for producing child pornography when he filmed himself raping these children. (though this animal took a plea deal to possession, they gave him a production sentence anyways). This meets the standard of beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Rosemarie Aquilina: Our constitution does not forbid cruel and unusual punishment, she “would allow some or many people to do to him what he did to others.”

I for one agree, but I do not necessarily agree that sentencing this animal to be raped himself is considered cruel and unusual punishment. Considering we place the most heinous of murderers on death row, letting them languish in extreme isolation for decades before execution. Yet this is not considered cruel and unusual punishment. I believe we ought to allow for the rape of the most heinous child rapists. As long as it’s used in a well regulated fashion, I don’t believe it would violate the constitution.

It is in the civilised world, which I wouldn’t consider the US as part of.

No and you will not find support for this here, end of discussion.


No and you will not find support for this here, end of discussion.

Ok than get rid of the retarded death penalty than. It’s retarded that the most hidious killers get to be killed, but the most hidious rapists do not get to be raped. You people are fucking hypocrites.

The same Hammurabi’s Code that gave the death penalty for attempted suicides? In Hammurabi’s kingdom, then, the best way to commit suicide was to fail to commit suicide.


I fully support that, the death penalty should not be a thing.


So…who performs state sanctioned rape?

1 Like

But… The Code of Hammurabi has no age of consent laws. :grin:

1 Like

No one. Get rid of the retarded death penalty than. It’s so fucking retarded that the US supports the death penalty and defends it vigorously when it comes to the worst murderers, but yet opposes state sanctioned rape to the worst rapists. It’s blatant hypocrisy. Nassar deserves to be raped as much as a mass killer deserves to be put against the wall. Nassar gets raped AND the mass killer gets killed, OR neither get raped or killed.

“We need state-sanctioned rape!”


“Bruh, I hope I get one of those female molesters, I’m gonna beat that pussy up! WE FINNA RUN TRAINS ON THIS HOE!”

“I’m gonna make that little lady my BITCH!”

“I getting tired of this one, BRING ME A NEW HOLE!”

… So, you want to both punish and reward rapists?

Because I severely question what kind of human being would be ok with raping people unless they’re already rapists or really give no care for human consent to begin with.

It’s like vampire hunters using “God” as an excuse to satisfy their own killing urge, being murderers in the name of Christ or some such deity. Yes, I’m paraphrasing quotes by Beckett and LaCroix from Vampire the Masquerade.

1 Like

… So, you want to both punish and reward rapists?

If we are going to allow for state sanctioned rape, I want it only for the worst of the worst. Lassar is a man, so your example doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Almost every rapist who committed conduct so beyond the pale that I believe one could make an argument deserves to be raped is male with few examples here and there.

But if you want consistency without allowing for state sanctioned rape, just abandon the death penalty. I’m ok with either-or. I’m just pro consistency.

An eye for an eye leaves the world blind. One can look at Nassar did and rebuke and punish him without robbing him of his dignity. Imposing rape or torture as a criminal sentence indignifies the criminal justice system, just like the death penalty.

The role of the criminal justice system isn’t necessarily to punish the guilty, but to prevent future crimes and right the wrongs of those convicted. It is NOT a free pass to impose sick, twisted means of torture or to feed the beast in you that demands sacrifice or bloodlust.

You’re sick. And the judge in Nassar’s case ought to be censured for her comment about wishing to violate the 8th Amendment by imposing cruel and unusual punishment!


An eye for an eye leaves the world blind. One can look at Nassar did and rebuke and punish him without robbing him of his dignity. Imposing rape or torture as a criminal sentence indignifies the criminal justice system, just like the death penalty.

At least you are consistent. I see too many idiots who support the death penalty for the worst murders yet oppose for state sanctioned rape as a sentence to the worst rapists. I don’t care either way, just be consistent.

judge in Nassar’s case ought to be censured for her comment about wishing to violate the 8th Amendment by imposing cruel and unusual punishment!

I dont know if you know this or not, but that judge is considered an advocate to victims of abuse. She just makes exceptions for isolated cases to perpetrators who’s crimes are so egregious and beyond that one could make a very compelling rational argument could be made that he deserves to get what he did to others.

Where does that line begin and end? Because “worst of the worst” seems pretty subjective and ripe for abuse.

Also, “I want it only for the worst of the worst”… Do you genuinely believe that the law is going to start and stop precisely with where you want it to occur if this were to happen? What you think is the worst of the worst and what a court thinks are the worst of the worst may (and almost certainly will) be two entirely different things.

First, I wasn’t talking just about Lassar. A law won’t be created and conveniently ignored for one person, it opens the door to being used by those who come after.

Second… I’m sorry, this thing about “male rapists are usually worse than female ones” thing is legitimately pissing me off. It doesn’t matter the genitals of the rapist or molester, that person is still ruining another person’s life. To say “it’s usually men that are worse”, well, thank you for belittling those who were sexually assaulted by women. To you, it’s probably not that bad, but to the victim, it’s not so simple. For example, one of the members of KORN was molested as a child and he wrote a song to try to cope with it, culminating in him having a mental breakdown, screaming into the mic that she ruined his life then him audibly crying into the recorder while his band was frozen in shock and horror and it broke my heart to hear that. But to you, I’m sure it “wasn’t as bad as what Lassar or a male rapist” would do. Women can be rapists and just because something isn’t as bad to you is disrespectful to the victims who have to live with what these women have done to them. This is what I meant by “worst of the worst” is incredibly subjective. It might not be a big deal to you, but it is to other people. This is subjective, see the first part.

Next part, branching off of the other two, yes, the logical conclusion is that you are arguing that women should be raped. They’re causing mental harm to those who sex abuse their victims. Because guess what? What you think is “worst of the worst” is going to vary, and I’m sure the women who do sexually assault other people are going to appear to be evil incarnate to certain people. So answer my question, are you ok with tying a woman down and having a bunch of men force themselves on her?

Also, what about people who sexually assaulted others as children (one such child used scissors on her brother if I’m remembering correctly)? Would they be subject to being molested themselves? Or would it only wait until they turn 18 until they get sexually assaulted? Would you be ok with adults sexually abusing children/barely legal adults as punishment?

Anyway, to make my questions clearler:

  1. Where does the line begin and end with “worst of the worst”?
  2. Why do you think this law is going to start and stop with what you consider to be acceptable?
  3. Are you or are you not arguing for women to be held down and raped if they sexually assaulted someone else?
  4. Are you or are you not arguing for those who sexually assaulted others as children to be molested/sexually abused themselves? (Such as immediately, or if they legally become adults, then it becomes ok to subject them to this state-sanctioned rape?)

Where does that line begin and end? Because “worst of the worst” seems pretty subjective and ripe for abuse.

Serial child rapists. Or single Child rape involving extraordinarily levels of brutality and abuse such as rupturing of internal organs. All child rape is incredibly heinous, but serial or especially violent ones should be subjected to the worst of the worst. Woman or man who engages in serial child rape ought to be subjected to state sanctioned rape under the proposed system. For whatever reason, there are more child rapists who are men than women, but yes, women should not be shielded just because they used a pussy instead of a penis.

Just as Nassar deserves to be raped, there are women rapists out there who DO deserve to be raped. Women who commit serial child rape deserve just as much as men who commit these despicable crimes. Now, does this mean I want the government to institute this? It’s one thing to believe serial killers deserve to die, it’s another to want to give the state the power to take a life. It’s possible to hold that view towards the worst child rapists.

Why are you bringing up CHILDREN perpetrators? Yeah I’m not interesting in legitimizing fucking child rape even on bad children. Keep in mind that many children who commit these vile crimes themselves had been subjected to this abominable abuse themselves and continue a cycle of abuse. As someone stated earlier, in this case, you want to investigate who abused that child, could be a baby sitter, nurse, teacher, or some garden variety predator.


And you believe the courts will magically stop here… Why?

First, what you consider the worst of the worst isn’t what everyone does.

Second, the courts are still run by human beings, and another post here talked about a judge who put a guy on the sex offender registry, not for being tricked into sleeping with a minor, but because, “I don’t like hookup culture” now imagine someone like that having the power to condemn people to be sexually violated if they felt like it.

Third, if it’s believed, “Yeah, state-sanctioned rape reduces recidivism in criminals”, you can bet people are going to start looking into it as a means to take care of other people. Went to prison for grand theft auto again? Well, time to get threatened with sexual assault.

Like how some rapists believe their victims deserved it for provoking them somehow? You’re saying the same thing, only it’s coming out of your mouth instead of Lassar or one of those female rapists.

I know who you’re talking about, and I’ll say the same thing to you as I said to them. The adults you want to punish very well may have been in the same positions as those children you want to defend. For the ones who were abused themselves as children, the only real difference is that they’re being found later in life as opposed to earlier in life. As one person said, “All the negaives of being an adult but none of the positives?”

The law isn’t perfect, I agree. Thing is, most of the people on this site don’t seem to be Pro-Death Penalty… I have mixed feelings personally about the Death Penalty, as innocent people can be put to death and it feels strange for someone to decide if you should live or die.

But on this forum as a whole, the general consensus seems to be “No” to the death penalty. So in a sense, your answer to “state-sanctioned rape” is also generally going to be no, as it’s consistent with the beliefs on this forum.

Also… No developed country is going to legalize this, lest they become the laughing stock of the rest of the world.

The only time that I would possibly support the death penalties is for spies during wartime, never for domestic issues. Even then, that’s to prevent them for spilling the beans to their masters, and not for any intangible sense of “morality”.

If she truly were an outspoken advocate of victims of abuse, she’d know better than to wish to impose that type of suffering on anybody, let alone a perpetrator of abuse. The problem here isn’t the man, it’s the action taken against another and its debilitating and damaging effects.
Playing with fire will leave you burned.