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 ✨
Options
How could you get 'a caution' for rape??
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4894726.stm
I mean, what kind of circumstances could possibly merit a caution? "Sorry, officer, I genuinely slipped on the wet pavement and fell on top of her, accidentally penetrating her"?
:rolleyes:
The number of rapists given a caution and freed instead of facing jail terms has more than doubled in the past decade, Home Office figures reveal.
In 2004, 40 offenders were cautioned for rape - compared with 19 in 1994.
I mean, what kind of circumstances could possibly merit a caution? "Sorry, officer, I genuinely slipped on the wet pavement and fell on top of her, accidentally penetrating her"?
:rolleyes:
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
I wonder if the 40 cases in question were statutory rape or something else.
They still go on the sex offenders register and I suppose the thinking is that's better than no punishement at all.
"It does not matter if the women in question is dominant or initiates sexual relations or is the aggressor sexually and it has nothing to do with whether or not the women stays 'stop' or 'no' as it is quite clear to every one that the new laws require either the women in question to say to the man 'i want to have sexual relations with you' or for the man to ask 'can we have sexual relations?' and the woman to respond 'yes' for it to not be rape. Any situation where those words are not spoken is rape no matter the circumstances."
Now, that is a very accurate quote to what i heard, and im sure that having to say those words would make consent very clear and obvious. But it cannot be the case that if those words are not said it is always rape can it?
So just to make it clear when my better half is getting frisky in bed I need to check that the reasons she's [XXXX - I'm not sharing the details with you lot] is because she fancies sexual intercourse? Do I need her to put it in writing?
It seems to me the irony is that the more the Government reduces the rights of the defendants and puts the onus on them to show consent rather than on the prosecution to show it didn't the less likely the jury is to convict. Perhaps there's a lesson there...
Ooooh! Feel the animal passion!
No such thing.
Basically cautions are offered where there's little chance of conviction- basically if the woman was drunk, wearing sexy clothing, or enjoying herself socially in any way, shape or form.
As for the rest of the bollocks in this thread, for fuck's sake, you can tell the difference between wanting it and not. If she's moaning and saying "ride me big boy" she wants a boning; if she's passed out on the floor she probably doesn't.
Nope, there's no such thing as statutory rape.
If you have sex with someone between the ages of 13 and 16 you are breaking the law by having consensual sex with a minor, but you are not a rapist, and the maximum tariff for that crime is three years.
If you have sex with someone under the age of twelve then you can still be having consensual sex, but children so young are not presumed to know what that consent means, so the maximum tariff is the same as for rape. But you're still not a rapist.
It's always been like that.
The law was tightened up in 2003 so that the issue of consent became largely irrelevant when it came to having sex with a child under the age of 13. Until 2003 it was possible to argue that a five-year-old child has consented to sex.
The law doesn't say that.
The law says that you must reasonably believe that the woman consented. So if the woman is passed out on the fucking floor you can't really say you reasonably believed she was saying yes.
It's even more ridicilous than the news this week that wife-beating scumbags could be let off if they say sorry for their activity. Aren't we supposed to be protecting men and women in this country? Why is the law increasingly given the impression to the contrary?
The thing is, if rapists were just given cautions all the time, then they'd probably carry on doing it, because they know that they can basically get away with it. (What I mean, they know they won't face a prison sentence)
Seems to me that the law is trying to protect the person who beat their partner up... :rolleyes:
Oh, and whilst building more prisons, they could also make sure criminals actually serve their sentences by abolishing the Early Release Scheme. This dangerous nonsense is responsible for judges having to lie every time they pass sentence, for the judge knows the criminal will serve nowhere near the amount their sentence decrees they must.
Normally because they did it 30 years ago, and they're now 80 and bed-ridden.
Personally I think the fucks should die in the nick, but hey ho. Apparently we should be compassionate to rapists.
That'd be because prosecuting people for it is pointless 9 times out of 10.
Even if the victims says they don't want to press charges, it is now policy to prosecute all cases of domestic violence. And if someone else witnessed it, well, even if the victim doesn't testify the perpetrator will be convicted.
All you do is drag someone to court, and the victim doesn't turn up. So either you waste court time- no witness, no conviction- or you convict someone against the wishes of the supposed victim.
:banghead:
Are you thick or something?
There is an early release scheme as a nice little incentive to make inmates behave whilst in prison. If you'd get out after x months regardless, why would you co-operate?
Also it helps with rehabilitation.
:banghead:
Yep, you are thick.
I shan't even bother to explain why your words are coming out of where the sun don't shine.