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 ✨
Aged 16-25? Share your experience of using the discussion boards and receive a £25 voucher! Take part via text-chat, video or phone. Click here to find out more and to take part.
Options
Comments
so the woman regrets a stupid action (i.e saying yes not no but not putting up a fight and letting it happen) the mornign after. no one ever does that do they.
OK, sorry, it was the scenario.
However I have a feeling that under British law, if someone is intoxicated then they are deemed as being unable to give consent. Could someone confirm/deny this?
But my original point was this - to paint all "sex attackers" as being the same and being all similarly incapable of redemption is an obvious nonsense.
And with rape cases, I seriously doubt that wrong people would be jailed, when they can't even jail most rapists anyway.
Negligence rarely classifies as rape, unless the man was indifferent to the issue of consent, and would have had sexual intercourse regardless of consent.
As a general rule rape is rape is rape, and rapists have no place on God's green earth. The only reason why I wouldn't kill them in reality is because death is the easy way out. Let them spend their lives in solitary.
I have a feeling it does in the eyes of the law. At least their was plans to make it that way in a recent sexual offences bill.
Look - I'm not defending rapists obviously, but there are differing circumstances, they're not all the same. And some people are capable of redemption.
There have been some plans to tighten up the issue of intoxicated women in rape cases, but I don't believe anything came of them. If a woman has little cerebral function due to intoxication- such as with "date rape" drugs- then she cannot give informed consent. It has to be a high level of intoxication, and even then a lot of juries acquit because, obviously, by getting drunk the woman deserved to be rape.
There was an excellent article on this in today's Daily Mirror.
There are differing circumstances, I quite agree. It is largely impossible to rape by negligence, and I would only have some sympathy with rapists who have been convicted of negligent rape, and only then if it was reasonable negligence and not indifference to consent.
I'm sure some people are capable of redemption, I don't dispute that. They shouldn't be given the opportunity to redeem themselves though. They steal years of a woman's life, making her too scared to do anything, and regardless of how sorry they are they can rot in a dark cell as far as I am concerned. They deserve it.
No, I don't think people who rape with intent should be treated with any dignity or respect. I would kill them if it wasn't better for them. They deserve to spend their lives in misery.
I don't think most rapists do deserve to be treated with any respect. Most victims know their rapist- something that is often forgotten- and I think that makes the men who do it even more evil, and even more deserving of being treated like the lowest pond-scum that they are.
For most people I will at least attempt to see the "rehabilitation" argument, but rapists are beneath being treated like human beings. I have very personal reasons for thinking that, and I don't think rapists are human.
I fully understand your feelings. Someone very close to me has been raped. However I know that some sex-offenders are fully capable of redemption. I'm working with one at the moment. I believe (and so does his probation officer) that he genuinely wants to change his life (it wasn't rape, it was sex with a minor, I'm not posting the circumstances however). I think that people should be given the chance to redeem themselves in certain circumstances. Merely condemining all sex offenders as the same is ridiculous.
nah i was being serious, i'm just saying i'd have a little bit of sympathy with the drunk person who didn't know exactly what he was doing or something like that..most are vile though without a decent bone in their body...
I took that point on board at the beginning, and changed and clarified what I meant. Attacking someone is different.
In all seriousness, I do definitely agree that some sex attackers are more than capable of "redemption". Knowing how destroying being raped at knife-point is, however, I don't think that these people should ever be given the privilege of having a second chance. If I could get away with it I would hold a gun to the head of the rapist I'm thinking of, and I would pull the trigger.
I guess it's why emotion and justice are not bed-fellows.
No - I'll use my own words and I haven't said they're all equally bad, or that they all have the same likelihood of reoffending. I've said they're all sex offenders and I think they should all be jailed for good because psychologists and probation officers get it wrong.
There's a trade off clearly - some people who have changed and no longer pose a risk will remain jailed, but on the other hand we'll have no new victims of released reoffenders. I'm happy with the trade and believe that a truly honest and repented former rapist or paedophile would be too.
Another question for people who shouldn't even be in prison...
Suppose this has to do with whether prison is a punishment foremost or a deterrant. I can see where Kermit is coming from.
Saying probation officers and psychologists get it wrong isn't that strong an argument as the flip side is so do the courts occasionaly.
I can see a good argument for keeping people locked up for life as a punishment but if you are arguing that they are only kept there to stop reoffence then it isn't fair to have people who have sorted themselves out and won't reoffend to be locked up still. (It's late and I'm tired so I wont correct spelling and grammer in this post yet)
So its even worse than saying they're all equally bad .......anybody who commits any sexual offence whatsoever should be incarcerated for life, without any distinction.
That certainly sounds like fascist sentiment to me.........
Not any sexual offence - I've only named rapists and paedophiles. My view is keep em in - yours presumably is let em out knowing that some will reoffend.
What does fascist mean?
No - the flipside is that people who wouldn't reoffend are kept inside with those who would. I've said that's a better trade than people reoffending and creating new rape victims and abused children. Get with it BM..
But by that logic anyone who ever committed a crime would be locked up forever, some of them will definately offend again, and some of them may leave prison and rape someone.
Thats how I read it, you are proposing all those convicted of rape are kept in prison for ever, regardless of the fact that some will never do it again because you know some will re-offend. Therefore by that logic you must keep all prisoners in jail forever, which is nuts.