The problem with trying to create a hierarchy of rape (apart from the morally obvious), is that every single case is different.
But that is exactly what the courts must do. They start with the standard sentence for rape - irregardless of who committed it, and they then take into consideration the aggravating and mitigating factors that make some rapes worse than others. If you accept that every single case is different, then you must accept that some are worse than others. The differences must have some definitions for a court to be able to judge them.
MostWicked, you might think the examples you've given make a rape 'worse',
I was using some of the examples from the CPS sentencing guidelines, where a sentence would be longer due to the aggravating factors.
Many victims might see things differently. This is where the theorising becomes inane.
But they all have to be judged in court by the same standards. A victim is the only one who can define how the rape has affected them, but a victim who has recovered more quickly with few lasting affects, has not suffered any less a crime than someone who becomes long term depressed.
What is the need people have with wanting to diminish experiences?
By acknowledging that the aggravating factors makes some rapes worse, does not diminish the experiences of people who have been raped. By trying to claim that all rapes are the same, diminishes the experiences of people who have suffered aggravated rape.
When someone has shoved themselves into your vagina without permission, it's really annoying when other people want to pontificate about how traumatised you are allowed to be.
The court judgement is not about how traumatised you are. No-one has defined how traumatised you are allowed to be, but the court DOES have to define and judge, how serious the crime was.
I do not think you should be trying to rank them in that way because it's all so horrifically bad.
Yes, absolutely, ALL rape is horrific. but to suggest that because they are all horrific, they are all the same, is wrong. They are all horrific, but some are more horrific than others.
If your child was killed, would it be worse if they were strangled or hit by a drunk driver? Would you tell a woman who has a still birth that this was less serious than a woman whose child is killed by a car?
The CRIME is worse, not the affect of the event. This is all about judging the crime, not the victim.
People have jumped on this claiming that the victims are being judged, when that is never what was said in the first place. It isn't possible to rank crimes by the affect on their victims, because there is a vast range of suffering within every crime.
This is all about judging the severity of the crime. Some crimes are worse than others, and within every type of crime, there are different levels of severity.