If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
A couple of months ago, my sister went on a night out with a mate of hers. I'd been asked to go and bring her home that night. When I saw her, it was blatantly clear that one of her drinks had been spiked. I could see it from a mile off. There were quite a few "dodgy" characters around. I daren't wonder what might have happened if I hadn't gone to get her that night. You never know what people are capable of, depressingly.
And you'd be right if you said that the fact she was wearing a short skirt, or had had a few drinks, shouldn't be relevant. Sadly however, we don't live in some kind of utopia. One surely has to consider the circumstances which led up to a rape, but I'd agree that wearing skimpy clothing is in no way "asking" for trouble.
I quite agree.
If you'd kept your sister chained to the kitchen sink there was 0% chance of her getting raped whilst out.
Rape is about the rapist, not about the victim. Offering advice on personal safety isn't the same as saying that women shouldn't wear short skirts or drink alcohol.
The problem is that a lot of people consider a drunk woman wearing sexy clothes to be partially responsible for rape.
This is disturbing.
Education on safety will only ever prevent some women from being attacked. Even education for boys about the importance of consent won't stop rape totally.
In the worst case scenario, where a rape does happen, there is obviously a need for either more careful vetting of potential jurors, or specialist rape juries.
Far too many women feel like they can't proceed because even in this enlightened age they know their dress and the state they were in may count against them.
That just shows the type of ignorance that is out there, and common sense tells me those attitudes don't get left outside the door of the jury room.
The fact is rape doesn't happen because of "confusion", that might cause an embarrassing scuffle, not a rape. Rape happens when the man knows she has rejected him and goes ahead anyway, or when he knows she is incapable of consent through drink or drugs, and still goes ahead.
i liked the idea of prepping juries before the trial of how rape victims can feel, also in getting the police to deal with victims betters, it's diabolical atm
they should also add the 'arsewipe' verdict for people who try their luck when the other person is drunk even if they consent so the person is officially an arsewipe and unable to enter all drinking establishments for a year - applying to men and women all over romford
the thing about blameis that, in a case where they both agree they had sex but one says there wasn't consent - it's going to happen, question is how to deal with it
I'd also put in more restrictions about what a defence barrister can ask. If the defence wants to raise questions about the victim's sexual past or clothing then they must seek the permission of a judge first. Any barrister who doesn't should not get paid for their work and should be struck off.
The worst thing I have ever read about was a young woman who was raped. When it went to court she was forced to hold up the knickers she was wearing and explain how they came to be taken off her. I believe the attacker was convicted (and sentenced to about five years in prison); the victim killed herself shortly afterwards.
There's a very good piece in today's Guardian about the whole matter.
I agree with all of these suggestions. But the worst thing I ever heard was a rapist who elected to defend himself and cross examined the victim in court. Can you just imagine being in that woman's shoes? Having to stand up in court and recount your rape to the very bastard that raped you?
I think I would go over the edge at that stage, and either kill him or myself. I think that particular rapist got a life sentence though, which serves him damn well right.
You mean those accused of rape, don't you?
Bit of both, really.
I think that most men charged with rape actually did it, but proving it is something entirely different.
Would that make any difference to the issue of him cross examining her in court????
Either its an intolerable burden for a woman who has been raped, or it is a stupid decision by an innocent man, which will give him zero credibility in the eyes of the jury.
If it has been outlawed then that is an entirely good thing.
Because men are abhorrent evil predators by nature and if a woman says she was raped by one, she must be telling the truth?
Loading the dice against the accused is becoming more and more acceptable when it comes to rape and i'm uncomfortable with it. It's a process that's shifting us away from the presumption of innocence which I think is pretty important, personally.
How does preventing an accused man from cross examing his alleged victim load the dice against him? That is a silly view. If anything it evens the score all round. You cannot see that for yourself??????
Relax, I wasn't actually referring to that in particular.
OK. I am relaxed. Given that the conviction rate is slightly under 6%, what exactly were you referring to?
The conviction rate is low because in many cases the jury, quite reasonably, can't establish whether consent was given or not. I read a while back that a woman can withdraw her complaint and the CPS will nevertheless go ahead with a prosecution. They can use her initial statement in court which she doesn't deliver herself and she isn't there to swear that she's telling the truth. And she can't be cross-examined on her statement because she has dropped her complaint. Or the fact that the accuser can have annonymity whereas the accused can't. Wee things like that.
perhaps the suggestions that the standard of proof be reduced from "beyond reasonable doubt" to "on balance of probabilities"
Wee things like that??? They are two very different things though, are they not? The CPS using a statement from a woman who has dropped her complaint - that results in how many convictions? I thought the rules of this forum were that you had to produce sources to back up your claims.
The right of anonymity for the woman must be kept, or no woman would ever come forward to report a rape, unless she was extraordinarily brave. The right of anonymity for the accused? Is this such a big issue? Fine, give anonymity to the accused. Not that it will make any difference. Craig Charles was acquitted of rape and his name was public, did it affect his career?
No. He went on to make a further series of Red Dwarf, followed by Coronation Street, interspersed by lots of chummy, little laddish chat shows where all the boys sympathised with his terrible experience at the hands of the horrible, obnoxious female sex.
And no, I have no sources to back that up with, but I am sick of hearing off male friends that Charles' experience is proof that women cry rape all over the place. The fact is that it is a very traumatic and humiliating experience for any woman to stand up and give evidence in a court against a man who raped her. It would take a truly warped woman to fabricate a rape charge and take it that far.
Most women are not warped. So why are so many of them reporting rapes, do you think? Are they all lying?
Somebody making a suggestion is not going to load the dice against the accused. You live in a land of free speech. Some people make daft suggestions, get over it.
I was merely providing an example of how "Loading the dice against the accused is becoming more and more acceptable" - this was receiving serious attention on radio 4
Sounds like misogynistic paranoia as far as I'm concerned. Like some stupid crap on Radio 4 is comparable to what actually happens in the courts. And what actually happens is that about 94% of men accused of rape get acquitted. So how the hell is the dice being loaded against the accused?
Unless you think women are a pack of pathological liars, it means that an awful lot of guilty men are getting off scot free.