Why doesn't rape grant a license to kill in self-defense?

“What if attempted rape gave a license to the victim to attempt to kill the assailant even well after the attack” That is not self defense, it’s a planned murder.

@Sneki95 That’s right. No matter the crime, no matter how disgusting the act, you are not allowed to go and murder people. Not for revenge, not for perceived necessity, not for anything.

If someone kicks you, you don’t get to knock on their door two weeks later and punch them claiming self-defense.

We as a society do not promote vigilante punishment.

Only in the old testament.

@zenvelo Maybe not legally, but doesn’t at least part of our society condone this? Certainly a lot of support is shown when someone posts a story online about a rape victim or a father of a murdered family member or abused child who has successfully attacked an assailant, illegal as it may be, and of course for reasons.

Oh, and also, it seems to me that there are abundant examples in films and TV of revenge and vigilante stories which glorify taking such action and which express extreme frustration at the legal arrangements we have.

(Note I am posting this mainly as a devil’s advocate type question, and a counterpoint to the question I linked.)

While I totally sympathize with the thirst for vengence, Hollywood memes don’t make an argument “abundant examples in films and TV of revenge and vigilante stories which glorify taking such action and which express extreme frustration at the legal arrangements we have”.
...e.g. “24” does not explain, justify, normalize torture just because it has that as a frequent dramatic element. It’s a story.

@Zaku yes, there is a vein of lawless justice that runs through the American psyche. The phrase “lock her up” which was common all of last year is a perfect example.

But popular doesn’t make it right.

You can use reasonable force to defend yourself from any kind of attack and depending on the circumstances this can include killing the attacker. Following an attack why not let the police deal with it? That’s what they are there for.

I don’t mean to come across as entirely arguing for what I’m asking about, but…

In a rape, generally the attacker attacks, overpowers and/or threatens/terrorizes the victim to submit – they likely with good reason fear for their life. Mostly what then happens is no that “the police deal with it” and the victim doesn’t have to worry about the rapist any more. So it may well occur for the victim like a case of “I nearly killed you for no good reason, and I may again”. Suppose the system fails to “deal with it” and the person is still free in your community and you or a family member is the victim.

By the way, this is a very common situation when the rapist is a family member, and most people are in denial about it.

I tend to think that our society is in denial about how common it is, and about how poorly our system does protect victims and “deal with” the perpetrators.

Not that vigilante justice or the idea I asked about are the solutions. But when I hear about a victim or victim’s parent attacking a rapist, I tend to think that’s better than letting the rapist continue, and don’t think the vigilantes really deserve more than counseling and probation assuming they don’t cause more collateral damage.

One very common but unaddressed issue is when a law enforcement officer is the molester in his own family. I know somebody this happened to. The court sided with the officer because he was a policeman, and he got off scott free. It wasn’t even classified as any sort of abuse!

This sort of situation is completely ignored because the court, social services, and other police maintain that “blue wall of silence”. The message they sent was, “Of course this didn’t happen. After all the guy’s a police officer!”

But that’s not how the kid or other members in the family see it. Nevertheless, that’s how the courts see It. The truth is that police officers are just like anybody else and some of them are real jerks and others are worthy of the profession.