system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
A 2 strike system should be used for (violent and brutal) rape. The first offense we try and rehabilitate the rapist, the second we execute them. CMV

While it's still rape and very serious, this wouldn't apply to someone who had sex with a drunk girl or guy where consent may be misunderstood. This would only apply to premeditated rape or cases where violence or extreme force was used and the rapist was not under influence of drugs or alcohol.
 
 
 
 

 &nbsp; 
 
 
The part above  isn't to discredit rape when the offender is drunk or under drugs, which should still be severely punished, but execution would be used not as a punishment but to keep dangerous people off the streets so it should only be used against rapists who are likely to re-offend.
 
 
 
&nbsp; 
 
The main criteria would be a need for a lot of evidence against the rapist to minimize the chance of innocents being convicted and the 1st strike with rehabilitation is to see whether it was a one time offense or a serial rapist. It would also help protect innocents as the chance of being innocently accused for something twice is lower than being innocently accused once.
gpt
>but execution would be used not as a punishment but to keep dangerous people off the streets

This can be accomplished by life incarceration.

Furthermore, you justify execution on the grounds that it keeps dangerous people off the streets.  Why restrict this to rape?  Shouldn't we do this for murderers, or violent assaults?

>The main criteria would be a need for a lot of evidence against the rapist to minimize the chance of innocents being convicted 

It seems like you are looking for a new burden of proof.  We have "probable cause" for civil cases, "beyond a reasonable doubt" for criminal cases, and "no possible way this could be wrong" for this special case.  If a rape conviction meets the second, but not the third level, will the person be sentenced conventionally?