Home Politics & Debate
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 ✨

Chance of rapist going to jail is less than 1%

2»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    where does a drunken mistake become rape though? It's a blurry line. Obviously if she was paraletic and the guy was in control of his faculties and took advantage that seems to be clear cut rape. But if they were both drunk, and without violence or coercion (so, much as a normal sexual encounter would occur, except without the proper thinking skills because of the drink), is it rape? As someone has pointed out before, people sometimes wake up next to someone after a night out and dont actually remember what happened - male and female. Do they rape each other? Or do you just chalk it up to experience?

    Of course, and especially in a court the line between drunken sex and rape is very easy to blur.

    In the cases I know of both of the women were far too drunk to be expected to resist or give consent - one specifically said no and tried to resist, the other only has hazy memories of it because she was passed out.

    Obviously in terms of the actual crime it is different, but to me if a man doesnt know it is what she would want if sober then its on very dodgy ground.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Personally i've always argued the drunk woman consenting to sex then claming rape but one thing is certain. Any decent bloke would never have sex with a woman to drunk to consent, i never have and never would.

    When someone is drunk they will consent to something they later regret, so who is in the wrong?

    Rape is very unclear because of consent.

    Lads should do themselves a favour, be sensible and don't get a woman drunk to have sex with her, it's immoral and you'll go to jail not to mention you could give someone a scarring experience.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Let's also keep one thing in mind - the law doesn't say two drunk people having sex is rape - it says that someone who feels that they have been raped should be allowed to have the case investigated.

    There needs to be a sense of rape or that something has happened without their consent - the law isn't persecuting everyone who drunkenly cops off with someone else and it sometimes feels in these debates that this is what people think these laws are doing.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You're right JimV but it does happen that people (rightly so) get investigated in those circumstances which might account for a fair percentage of unprosecuted rape accusations.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Rape will always have a significantly lower % of convictions because of the lack of evidence and the number of malicious allegations made. This number will also be made lower as a result of people misunderstanding the meaning of rape.

    Two people drunkenly willingly having sex isn't rape, however much one party can't really believe they thought it was a good idea in the morning.

    Rape convictions aren't high enough, but it's a very hard statistic to deal with because of the unique circumstances usually surrounding the 'incident'.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Investigation is of course fine, the issue is that everyone - police, government, interest groups - all feel that the conviction rape is a long, long way from the actual number of rapes being committed.

    I don't think anyone is saying cases shouldn't be investigated or guilt should be assumed, but something is going very wrong with the system we're using here.

    Just to clarify as well - there is absolutely zero evidence that malicious claims of rape are any higher than for any other offense. The issue with the conviction rate isn't that England's is low - it's that it is appallingly low compared to nearly every other similar nation in the world. Our conviction rates aren't reflective of general problems in convicted people for rape - they are reflective of specific problems in the UK convicting people for rape.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Does anyone know what we do differently?

    I would hazard a guess that the recent binge drinking culture among young adult women isn't helping but surely that can't just be it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Does anyone know what we do differently?

    I would hazard a guess that the recent binge drinking culture among young adult women isn't helping but surely that can't just be it.

    I would argue that the media inspired and ill-informed view of 'binge drinking' is something that is a major part of the problem. I don't think women drinking is a problem - I think the underlying message of the reporting of women drinking is.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So the questions is, what's different? Are we just more vigilant at making sure there is enough evidence for a strong conviction and other countries prosecute people off the bat? Do we have a bad attitude towards rape here or something?

    I think our binge drinking culture may play a part. Maybe our conviction rate is so low because more rape here gets reported than other countries where it goes unnoticed or notified.

    We're a very developed country it should be the opposite.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote: »
    Just to clarify as well - there is absolutely zero evidence that malicious claims of rape are any higher than for any other offense. The issue with the conviction rate isn't that England's is low - it's that it is appallingly low compared to nearly every other similar nation in the world. Our conviction rates aren't reflective of general problems in convicted people for rape - they are reflective of specific problems in the UK convicting people for rape.

    Actually I'm not sure that's fair. I've seen plenty of stuff which suggests that the we have a low conviction rate, but one of the reasons is that there is a much greater willingness to report 'date' rape because they'll be a serious investigations. In many other countries the police just laugh it off so people don't report it.

    http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/law_order/factcheck+rape+conviction+rates/1038382
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think everyone should read that article before they post. That's a good find.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    there was of course the case of a woman that had 8 men convicted of rape before the 8th had an alibi and she was exsposed I thinks its a very tricky area and comes down to ones word against anothers unless there is a whitness.

    the causes need to be addressed but i think they are very complex and are rooted deeply in todays society altogether.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote: »
    I would argue that the media inspired and ill-informed view of 'binge drinking' is something that is a major part of the problem. I don't think women drinking is a problem - I think the underlying message of the reporting of women drinking is.

    The problem the binge drinking culture (and as part of that culture I include the general opinions society of it) is that if a 'victim' has been out binge drinking and then reports a rape most juries will see her as an unreliable witness because she was hammered. Many people have woken up with hazy memories of the night before, and relatively few people will take a the report of an evenings happenings as gospel truth from someone who was completely hammered.

    I'm not saying that it's a womans own fault for getting raped if she decides to go out and get rat arsed, however in the case where there were only 2 people present and neither was sober a victim retelling what happened while she was hammered is going to struggle to be believed beyond reasonable doubt without some other evidence.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Actually I'm not sure that's fair. I've seen plenty of stuff which suggests that the we have a low conviction rate, but one of the reasons is that there is a much greater willingness to report 'date' rape because they'll be a serious investigations. In many other countries the police just laugh it off so people don't report it.

    http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/law_order/factcheck+rape+conviction+rates/1038382

    Very interesting, and especially important where specialist rape victim centres have been set up. As I understand it when you report a rape there you are able to just give a DNA sample and details of the attack but not be pressured into going further.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i think another reason for the conviction %being this low

    is because many times, or always really. the "warm and nice" group police interrogation can be far more damaging then the attack in itself.
    the attack ends, you remain in shock but it's mostly blocked and it's at least done,
    but complaining will bring everything up, then there is the chance you wont be believed,
    and then of course to top it all out, the nice policemen diminish you and make you feel like ..more then nothing.

    perhaps this is why? just a thought.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    This thread is four and a half years old! It's an interesting conversation, though. And your points are relevant, I think, kittyhugs.

    Maybe start a new thread on the issue?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    oh :/ I need to pay more attention to dates. just new to this sort of rules.

    no, subject is dead. I tremendously dislike talking about those subjects.

    thank you.
  • **helen****helen** Deactivated Posts: 9,235 Supreme Poster
    kittyhugs wrote: »

    no, subject is dead.

    You're right, no subject is dead, but some threads are - people's thoughts move on and so it's good to give them a chance to start afresh rather than being reminded of what they said many years ago. :)
This discussion has been closed.