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 ✨

how to deal with rape cases

2

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yep I know that as well, but it can still scare a few and make them remove their fake claim...

    Well you've gone and blown that possibility now haven't ya :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Balddog wrote:
    Indeed....but which is the better scenario? a rapist not being punished after the crime has been committed or an innocent man having his life destroyed?

    Both are shit scenarios. But at the moment too many women are having their lives destroyed because they don't get justice or a man who shoud have been locked up is free to rape again.

    A system which doesn't convict the guilty is just as fundamentally flawed as one that convicts the innocent
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well you've gone and blown that possibility now haven't ya :D

    ooops...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    Both are shit scenarios. But at the moment too many women are having their lives destroyed because they don't get justice or a man who shoud have been locked up is free to rape again.

    A system which doesn't convict the guilty is just as fundamentally flawed as one that convicts the innocent

    Indeed..but whats the point of changing it to something that we know is equally flawed?

    Also id argue that a woman who gets raped will have her life destroyed whether or not the guy gets convicted...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    \
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    sophia wrote:
    Yes but the whole point is that if he isn't convicted, he's free to ruin god knows how many more women's lives, isn't he?

    Thats making the assumption that hes a serial rapist and in the vast majority of cases that isnt true..

    The rapist who gets away with it MIGHT rape again - someones life is destroyed
    The man who gets wrongly convicted WILL have his life destroyed.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    sophia wrote:
    Yes but the whole point is that if he isn't convicted, he's free to ruin god knows how many more women's lives, isn't he?

    Despite the fact that quite a few people accused are probably average people who aren't like that.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Balddog wrote:
    Indeed..but whats the point of changing it to something that we know is equally flawed?

    Also id argue that a woman who gets raped will have her life destroyed whether or not the guy gets convicted...


    Yes, but its a lot easier to rebuild if there's some justice afterwards - and it also prevents other women having theeir lives destroyed.

    But you seem to be missing the point. i'm not arguing for something which automatically locks up the guilty - i am arguing that the current system is so badly flawed its incapable of locking up the guilty and it needs to be reformed - not so that it locks someone up on just a woman's say so, but to ensure more guilty men don't get away with it. Any system where only 5% of rapes lead to a succesful prosecution is so totally on the side of the accussed as to not be blind justice at all.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    The problem with this attitude, of course, is that you do not have to say no to not consent to sexual intercourse.

    Which is why I used quotations and mentioned other evidence.
    No, I'm not.

    Yes you are, the assumption being that she did not consent, therefore unless the man can prove otherwise then he is guilty of rape. That is asking to prove his innocence, something which goes against the supposed principle of our justice system.
    Unless, of course, you believe that 95% of rape claims are false?

    I am not sure where tha came from because I don't think that I have ever given that impression. I might well ask you if you think that 95% are true?

    Point is that we have a system which requires a "beyond reasonable doubt" verdict. We need to find a way to ensure that we are able to come to those verdicts without predjudicing the case against the defendant who is the person who is protected by the "justice" part of our penal system.
    Those who have committed perjury are prosecuted for it, as witnessed by the woman who falsely alleged rape against the Hamiltons.

    But not the cases involving many other public accusations?
    Do you believe that 95% of women who claim rape are liars who cheated because they were "dumb bitches" who can't keep their legs shut?

    Why is it one or the other with this issue? Why can you not see that we have a duty to protect the innocents in false claims too?

    The easy response would be the kneejerk "hang'em high" approach, but that would mean that people like Craig Charles, Paul Weller, the Hamiltons and several footballers would now be behind bars. What I am suggesting is that it isn't always black and white.
    Of all the people I know who have been raped- and the number is higher than it should be- none of them have reported it to the police because they face these attitudes.

    What attitude has my post suggested?
    If they were wearing a nice skirt and were a bit drunk- like they were- they know everyone will just assume that they were a silly drunk tart, even if their entire history shows otherwise.

    And people wonder why nearly all rapists get away with it.

    Rapists get away with it because it's difficult to prove that rape happened, in a huge number of cases. I agree with you that some of the defences are complete shite and that the jury (which is the real problem here) should disregard the evidence about clothing, sexual history etc. You don't solve that by the presumption of guilt.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes you are, the assumption being that she did not consent, therefore unless the man can prove otherwise then he is guilty of rape. That is asking to prove his innocence, something which goes against the supposed principle of our justice system.

    But all defendants have to prove their innocence, really. They have to rebut the prosecution case with their own evidence, but their evidence doesn't need to be as strong.

    What I am saying is that her saying "I passed out, I don't remember anything" is not tantamount to her saying she said yes, and far too many times in court it is being taken to mean that.
    Point is that we have a system which requires a "beyond reasonable doubt" verdict. We need to find a way to ensure that we are able to come to those verdicts without predjudicing the case against the defendant who is the person who is protected by the "justice" part of our penal system.

    If a jury decides that she didn't prove it beyond reasonable doubt then I accept that.

    Too many times it is a case that because the woman says she can't remember saying no, because she had passed out, then a judge unilaterally decides that there is no case to answer. Incompetent prosecution lawyers just go along with it. That is what angers me.
    Why is it one or the other with this issue? Why can you not see that we have a duty to protect the innocents in false claims too?

    The rate of false reporting of rape is about 4%, which is in line with other crimes.

    It isn't black-and-white, but the simple fact of the matter is that if I raped your wife or your daughter I would get away with it. I agree with balddog in that it is better to have rapists get out of court free than it is to see innocent men go down, but increasing the conviction rate wouldn't see innocent men go down for something they didn't do.

    The conviction rate is so low because the prosecution system we have is inept when it comes to these cases. Prosecutors never meet the victims- unlike defence lawyers who meet the defendants every week- and that shows when it comes to court. Defence lawyers know what to ask to get their man off, but the prosecutor doesn't have a clue. Other countries with specialist rape prosecutors have increased conviction rates dramatically, and it isn't because they are hanging the innocent.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    men make and enforce laws that suit them. women will lead men on, rape trial stands uncofortably inbetween.

    I think, the adversarial system works quite nicely for all.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    men make and enforce laws that suit them. women will lead men on, rape trial stands uncofortably inbetween.

    I think, the adversarial system works quite nicely for all.

    Whatever do you mean?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    \
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    sophia wrote:
    Glad you asked that, I was just wondering the same thing.
    Me too.:confused:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The thing is, not all rape cases are the same, so you can't just say that you're going to do the same for every one. Like, you wouldn't give the same sentence.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    men make and enforce laws that suit them. women will lead men on, rape trial stands uncofortably inbetween.

    I think, the adversarial system works quite nicely for all.


    you could argue, as has been put before by many feminist thinkers, that all men are rapists. rapists make or tollerate their own laws to suit their ends. The objectification of women as a man's property could be seen up until 1991. Those studying law will tell you that up untl 1991 in the UK a man could rape his wife on the grounds that marriage was viewed as irrevocable consent; that a wife was her husband's property. See R v R 1991 (Marital Rape) on google.

    The adversarial system is the system of justice we have in this country (ie not like other european countries). each party prepares his/her own case for the trial, there is a judge who hears evidence and decides on the legal issues.

    In france and most of europe, the system of justice is known as an 'inquisitorial' system of justice where the police don't collect evidence for the prosecutors, the judge gathers evidence pretrial for both parties in a dossier.
    The courtroom is basically confirmation of what is in that dossier - questions are asked but there's no hot contest where expensive lawyers can make parties look silly or bring their reputation into disrepute.

    Like Kermit said, when you look at the practicalities of rape trials in england, there is theoretically a winner and a looser.

    What's to be done. trial by ordeal? i believe that the victim need not even be present in court. the jury assumption can make no assumption on her looks, hair colour, manner of dress, her accent her mannerisms. Yet the defendant, 'well he didn't smile proper and didn't look like the jailer liked him', and ooh whatabout those dark bags under his eyes, perhaps he's had a few late nights alone.' ok i've trivialised the point. any thoughts
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Plenty, thank you. I was, and still am, omostly wondering what you mean/meant by "women will lead men on"?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    katralla wrote:
    Plenty, thank you. I was, and still am, omostly wondering what you mean/meant by "women will lead men on"?
    That was the bit I was wondering about.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    isn't 'leading him on' a woman's way of finding what kind of reaction he gives, and then on the basis of that deciding a course of action, will i, wont i.

    seriously
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So do you mean that if a woman flirts with a man, or 'leads him on' as you put it, she has given her consent to have sex? :eek2:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So do you mean that if a woman flirts with a man, or 'leads him on' as you put it, she has given her consent to have sex? :eek2:

    If so, that is crap...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So do you mean that if a woman flirts with a man, or 'leads him on' as you put it, she has given her consent to have sex? :eek2:
    Any person who would answer "yes" to that question has truly got a warped mind.

    I remember reading Kermit's reply back on page one, and also reading back to one of my old threads on a similar issue. I have little else to add, other that I'd be in favour of anonymity on both sides until any trial is finished. You've got to bear in mind that, once the media have the name of an alleged rapist, they will start tearing him to shreds. Remember when John Leslie was accused? His name was smeared and trashed. He was torn to pieces through an utterly disgusting smear campaign being orchestrated by The Sun and the Daily Mail. It was then found there was no evidence prove he'd done any of this, therefore was in the eyes of the law innocent. Have they since apologised for dragging his name through the gutter? Nope! I understand not every man who's accused of rape is famous, but this is merely one of the more famous examples of what can happen.

    As for persons found guilty of rape, and persons who make false accusations of rape, (by that I mean the women who make a complaint, then confess they made it all up) I have no sympathy for them. The media can shred them to pieces for all I care.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote:
    As for persons found guilty of rape, and persons who make false accusations of rape, (by that I mean the women who make a complaint, then confess they made it all up) I have no sympathy for them. The media can shred them to pieces for all I care.

    Totally agreed
    It was then found there was no evidence prove he'd done any of this, therefore was in the eyes of the law innocent. Have they since apologised for dragging his name through the gutter? Nope!

    Can't the said papers be sued for something like this?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sofie wrote:
    Can't the said papers be sued for something like this?
    Not unless you have a hell of a lot of money. I'm not sure legal aid would be easy to get when it comes to matters involving the media. Bear in mind most media organisations are massively powerful and have huge legal departments to fight any such action. All too often, people can't take them on, because they simply don't have such enormous resources.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So do you mean that if a woman flirts with a man, or 'leads him on' as you put it, she has given her consent to have sex? :eek2:

    no leading him on would be deciding the i will course of action then changing her mind. no those circumstances are not any justification for rape. and no most men arn't rapists and will seethe and walk away tsk tsk!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    no leading him on would be deciding the i will course of action then changing her mind. no those circumstances are not any justification for rape. and no most men arn't rapists and will seethe and walk away tsk tsk!
    This does raise a few questions, though. (1) How does a man make absolutely certain he's received consent before having sex with a woman; and (2) how can he prove that in a court of law?

    The first question... all I can suggest is he asks explicitly for consent before they get up to anything. The second I find much harder to answer.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote:
    (2) how can he prove that in a court of law?

    It's her word against his, so unless forensics prove it, then it's hard to prove that the man thinks the woman consented.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sofie wrote:
    It's her word against his, so unless forensics prove it, then it's hard to prove that the man thinks the woman consented.

    so then the burden of proof isn't satisfied and the man walks free. so men make laws that suit men.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    so then the burden of proof isn't satisfied and the man walks free. so men make laws that suit men.

    Care to explain exactly how you reached that conclusion?
Sign In or Register to comment.