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.
Options
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
No, I didn't say it was. I'm saying that there are differences and that therefore they should be punished and treated differently. Do you disagree with that?
Edited: to some extent it is down to me, and every citizen, to judge which crimes are worse than others and how they should be punished. Thats how democracy works.
I recommend you read this.
Deborah Orr: How can juries understand rape unless the full horror is explained to them?
I was raped as a young woman. But I never went to the police. I was simply mute with the misery of it all
Published: 31 January 2007 - The Independent
One of the smaller ironies of the ongoing drama at the Home Office is that John Reid's latest struggle with the consequences of years of more frequent and longer custodial sentences is accompanied by the latest of many rounds in the campaign to get more people put away for rape.
Efforts to persuade more women to come forward when they fall victim to rape, first pursued seriously in the 1970s, have been crowned with success (if that's the word), and now almost 12,000 alleged rapes are reported to the police each year. Yet only about 12 per cent of these get to court at all, and only just under one in 20 results in a conviction. In 1977, the figure was one in three.
Tellingly, conviction rates vary widely from police force to police force. An ingenue might be told of Northamptonshire's 13.8 per cent conviction rate, and consider it to be pretty poor. But compared with Gloucestershire's 0.86 per cent, it's a veritable beacon of efficient victim advocacy. Northamptonshire's figure is the highest in the country.
Unless you believe that about 11,400 women report false allegations each year, and only about 600 true ones (and a surprising number of people seem keen to do so), you have to believe this force is doing something right.
One thing it does is to employ specialist prosecutors at the Crown Prosecution Service, who are trained to review cases involving allegations of rape, and put together the best possible case when one person's word is pitched against another's. A second thing is to offer robust support from various other local agencies, including local rape crisis centres, to those reporting rape. There's nothing to stop other forces doing this but for all the years of theoretical expertise, rape victims, despite the promise made to them, keep on being treated in the same old, sad ways.
Versions of both of the measures adopted in Northamptonshire are included in a series of suggested reforms from Solicitor General Mike O'Brien, who suggests among a raft of other possibilities, specialist prosecutors and victim advice by "independent sexual violence advocates". These have so far proved to be the least controversial of his posited interventions, which is a hopeful sign that both approaches could be rolled out quickly if the cash can be found.
But all those suggestions that involve court procedures have been greeted with hostility by judges, who remain implacably opposed to what they see as attempts to "influence juries". For years campaigners have been asking that expert witnesses should be called in court in order to dispel "rape myths". Judges tend to insist that rape is not a crime that needs to be explained by experts for the benefit of jurors. The trouble is, that for various reasons, it is.
That rape is a uniquely problematic crime is already enshrined in law, as the overwhelming demands of transparency are waived in the case of rape in favour of victim anonymity because it so often inspires shame in the person who has been attacked. It shouldn't, of course, but it does.
This has various implications for victims. They may not report their attack for days or weeks (on its website, the Northamptonshire force is again robust in advising the victims of rape to get along to the police as soon as they can). Yet, even having done so, and even having been given psychological support, rape victims may appear as poor witnesses simply because they find describing what happened to them in open court to be such an excruciating experience.
Often too, victims do feel a measure of guilt, not because they believe in any aspect that they deserved what had happened to them, but because they often regret being careless enough to place themselves in a situation of such vulnerability in the first place.
I don't know this stuff to be true because experts have told me so - though they do - but because I experienced exactly those difficult feelings when I was raped as a young woman myself. Almost 25 years later, I still feel them. I did put up a fight, I was punched half-senseless for my pains, and if anyone could have seen and heard what had happened they would have had no trouble in calling it rape.
But I never went to the police, and never told a soul what had happened for many weeks, because I was simply mute with the misery of it all. (This is why O'Brien also suggests waiving the prohibition of hearsay evidence in rape cases, so that family and friends can give evidence about what they were told prior to an approach to the police.)
Do those who have neither experienced rape, nor have had its psychological effects explained to them, really have an understanding of such symptoms and their implications? I don't believe that they do. It is perfectly sensible that juries should have the psychological effects of rape explained to them, and the judges who oppose such a measure simply display the depth of their lack of understanding.
The idea of telling strangers about what had happened to me not once, but again and again over a period of months, was unbearable to me, and it is in response to this particular problem that O'Brien has suggested it should be permissible in court for video screens to show the first interview of a rape victim with the police. Again, the judges are against this, not just because of their fears that juries might be "influenced" but for the repugnant reason that some people are particularly good at "faking distress". Presumably such people would be just as good at "faking distress" in the witness box as in a police station, so the suggestion is meaningless and insulting.
Ideally, rape victims would not need anonymity, and it is only because of the cruelty of the mental distress rape causes that they do. Yet this concession to the effect on the psyche of the violent sexual robbery of self-determination and corporeal independence is also widely used in order to suggest that women who "cry rape" are doing something duplicitous and shady. Sometimes women are mad and bad enough to deliberately make false accusations, but the degree to which this slender possibility "influences juries" is again a consequence of the understanding of rape as a physical more than a psychological violation.
Juries tend to consider what it would be like to be a victim of a crime, and also to consider what it would be like to be falsely found guilty of one. It would be quite natural for male jurors, in particular, to find it much more easy to empathise with the idea of being wrongly convicted of rape, than to understand the continued abuse that undergoing rape, then police investigation, then CPS investigation, then trial, then rejection of the veracity of the initial violation entails. It's only fair that all this, or at least some of it, should be explained to juries. At the moment they, and the judges directing them, are making decisions about a crime they do not understand.
Differences in the harm done to the victim, the intention and awareness of the perpetrator, whether violence is used, the chance that the perpetrator will rape again, the nature of the rape, etc.
Things that would be taken into account in almost every other crime.
It shouldn't. A rapist is a rapist at the end of the day. Regardless of how many times they do it.
I know. Like the whole "it was a one off" kinda thing. How are people to know thats what it was? Just because it's the first one to go to court, doesn't mean it's the first time they've committed crimes of that nature.
Yet you were using it as an example of a rape case which wasn't so harmful for the victim.
A rape is always violent- that's the thing. Different kinds of violent maybe, but still always massively violent.
This is what i find confusing, you say that but then you did put an example of a rape case not being so harmful making assumptions that some situations aren't as bad as others (ie: being raped by someone who is familiar).
It's either rape, or it's not. Either she said yes, or you forced her. It's not shades of grey.
Thanks, interesting article.
I'm sure no one believes that all those women whose cases do not result in a conviction are lying: the difficulty is in distinguishing those who are from those who aren't, without any other evidence than their testimony.
As for making a decision on about a crime they don't understand - I don't see how Orr has shown that is really any different, in terms of proving guilt, than any other? Except what I have pointed out and everyone realises, that its usually one person's word against another's. Orr's one suggestion: usuing "expert witnesses" to help juries decide who is telling the truth, may seem reasonable but it doesn't resolve the underlying dilemma. It may slightly push up the conviction rate (as where it is used in Northhamptonshire) but it almost certainly pushes up the miscarriage of justice rate as well.
Also, why is she so dismissive of the judges' opinions on this matter? Do she know more about the legal system and its nuances than her?
Because its a factor in how every other crime is punished. If someone is likely to commit rape again put them in prison for longer, and give them more treatment.
So they should all recieve the same sentence? They should all be locked up for life?
I've already said I think all types of rape are abhorrent. I find it odd that you seem to think that every rapist should be punished in exactly the same way. You don't find that with any other crime.
Other things I don't like is that because I self-harmed, it wouldn't be rape, because secretly self-harming means I want men to force me to copulate with them.
Lol thanks. I know what you mean though. It's like saying that because you like sex, then you should automatically like and want sex with everyone. Total crap.
In 2007 1 in 20 rape complaints resulted in a conviction
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6314445.stm
I find that a truely horrible statistic, and I think the increasing knowledge of how to avoid a conviction from prosecutors means there does have to be a reassment of how cases are handled to end what is simply a appaling and unacceptable abuse of the basic right to justice for those who are raped.
The fact is that if the woman is shown to be promiscuous the rapist will be believed unless she was raped at knife-point in a back alley.
Non-violent rapes from family members or friends tend to be more damaging for the victim. I'll try and find the link later, but the complete betrayal of trust is more damaging than the physical assault. Certainly in child victims it tends to be the betrayal of trust that causes the most damage and is hardest to rectify.
As for carlito's pathetic attempt to derail the thread, murder is murder is murder- it matters not if you murder one person or gas six million, its the same crime with the same result, you've just done it six million times. Equally rape is rape is rape- it matters not if your victim was 5 or 35 or 95, its still rape. The shades are not in the crime. And you put the 1-5 numbering in, not me, mate.
It's also tough on men when the woman says that she was too drunk to know what she was doing. I'm not saying that that isn't still in some cases rape, but it's puts a potentialy unfair responsibilty on a guy (drunk or sober) to ascertain whether or not she's sober enough to be making a decision.
No one else was there and there's no way to prove either way whether or not it was consensual. It's a tough one to solve whilst retaining the innocent until proven guilty stance.
However there have been too many cases where the woman has testified quite clearly that she was passed out and woke up to find someone having sex with her. How a passed out person can give consent is beyond me. Those cases continue to be disregarded and dismissed before trial. Even if the odd one gets to trial, useless prosecutors and moronic judges are tossing the cases out.
One particularly pleasant case in Aberystwyth saw a drunk woman have her rape trial thrown out even though she said she had passed out- the man who had sex with her was a sober security guard assigned to take her safely home. He had sex with her in a corridor, half in her room and half out of it. As she couldn't remember saying no (she had passed out, after all) she "might have said yes", and so the case was dismissed without putting the defendant to proof. Putting the defendant to proof and clamping down on incompetent prosecutors won't "increase the chances of miscarriage of justice", unless you think that jailing rapists is a miscarriage of justice.
The whole rape law in this country is a joke. The worst thing is, even if you're convicted you get a pathetic sentence. Four or five years for rape , serve half and you're out after 18 months. If it wasn't for practical reasons I'd bring back the death penalty for the cunts.
I mentioned the "Duke Rape" case in America before, in this case its is basically proved now that no rape took place but that hasn’t stopped a lot of people insisting a rape did take place, but mostly those who were insisting a rape happened are now silent, and haven’t retracted their statements.
How can this attitude benefit women who are the victims of rape, as it really weakens a case if you insist a rape took place when it’s proved it didn’t (or subsequently proved) then next time you say a rape took place?
Reading that article in the Independent it appeared that that case failed not due to anything in the law or due to a “presumption of innocence” rather that a “presumption of guilt” but due to failings in the police and court procedure failing to gather proper evidence and do a bit of necessary investigation, and then failure to at least make a start on a criminal case, present some initial evidence.
I would appose any changes in the Law that removes the presumption of innocence.
And yes I would say there are circumstances where one kind of rape is a lesser crime than another.
Legally speaking if a husband and wife were about to have sex and the phone rang the wife says hang on let me answer it but the husband ignores her and commences sex anyway, by law this is rape, but I would say a much lesser crime than a violent stranger rape. Like wise if a woman’s having sex and changes her mind asks the man to stop but he doesn’t straight away, also legally this is rape but again a lesser crime than other kinds of rape. Likewise if the woman says no sex with out a condom and the man lies and says Im wearing one or just ignores this request then that’s rape but a lesser crime.
Well if thats aimed at me, no, as I said before, all rapes are rapes. And who brought race into it? :eek:
So the problem is that everyone in the legal profession except you is useless and moronic. What a very nuanced position that is.
Prosecutors and judges work on the basis of the law as it stands. So unless anyone here accepts the presumption that Kermit is actually the only person who knows how to interpret the law and run a court, and that all of the prosecutors and judges are incompetent morons, the issue is with the law.
But those aren't the "facts" Kermit, thery are more generalizations. As for police officers being more likely to be aquitted: that probably has a slight basis in truth, but for all crimes, but for the reason that their testimony is more likely to be considered truthful in a court of law.
You keep asserting that all that needs to be done for an acquittal is to claim that the woman who has been raped is promiscuous, but this is total bullshit. It may be a tactic used by defence lawyers to try and discredit a testimony, but it is a totally ineffective one if there is evidence that consent was denied. If so the the case is likely to (or should) result in a conviction.
Ok, so you agree that some rapes are more harmful (or "worse") than others then.
Ok well not wanting to derail the thread further I'd simply direct you international law which makes a legal distinction between the two. And I don't think anyone except you would consider Hitler and a man who murders his wife to be moral or legal equivalents.
One who is equally drunk!
And as for Kermits thing about passing out, that's not as clear cut as it might be. I have several friends who have in what they thought was complete honesty apologised profusely to me for passing out on me the night before (we're all girls but I tend to stay sensible and competant and look after those who drink too much) when in fact they hadn't at all, they'd just got no memory of parts of the evening.
Right, so what is your solution?
No one here is denying that there is a clear and disturbing problem.
So perhaps you can help me out by telling me the answer to this whole business? If the whole rape law is a joke how should it be changed without changing the consent laws?