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
Breathalysing and then signed consent forms seems to be the only fair way forward.
Now there's a way to kill a happy couples sex life.
Well I'm not sure about breathalysing, but to be honest signed consent forms are the only real solution I could see to the problem. Or perhaps "chip and pin." Of course, they're completely undesirable, but if people are concerned enough about getting rape conviction rates to near 100% that would be the approach I would advocate.
The only other solutions I could envision would be some kind of more sophisticated rape alarm distributed to women. Would have the alarm, obviously, then perhaps a recording device that could be activated to obtain evidence that consent had been denied that could be submitted to a court of law as an "electronic witness." Perhaps the "consent chip and pin" and a tracking device could be incorporated into it as well. Obviously a completely imperfect solution but then you can't get more imperfect than the system as it stands.
Which "extreme feminists"? Who are they?
I accept that some women do lie about rape, but I don't accept that 95% of them do. Do you think that 95% of women who report rape to the police are liars?
There is no such thing as a "lesser" kind of rape. Either you rape a woman or you don't. It's interesting that you mention spouse rape though- that only became a criminal offence 15 years ago, and that was because of a House of Lords decision. I think that says everything.
Carlito, race certainly does come into it, as it all fits in with jury stereotypes of what a rapist should be. Nice middle class banker man won't fit that stereotype and is accordingly more likely to get away with rape. Especially if the woman, shock horror, dared to have a drink or wear nice clothes.
Specialist prosecutors have been proven time and time again to get better results- in New York conviction rates went up by about 20%, and the top performing police forces in the UK all use speicalist rape teams. And yes, I do think that the CPS are incompetent with reasonable frequency- I've had the pleasure of witnessing enough of their cock-ups.
The law should be there to protect people, not be more lax because a woman might lie. That's bullshit... Sure it has happened, but I'm sure it's happened with racism charges or harrasment, theft or assult. Are the convictions going down for those so rapidly?
Such as?
What you're failing to mention here is that a woman's body is her own and any respectful man would cease the second she said "no" or "I don't feel comfortable". Women are not there to be abused by men's sexual desires, is that so hard to grasp?
It is sad if a man is convicted of rape and is innocent, it is also sad that a jury or the police would even dream that that woman at the table who is shaking and crying and black and blue would be making it up for attention or a grudge. You have to take these things seriously... If the DNA evidence is there then something should be done.
But you've aready admitted that there is.
In that case you are discussing racist and classist attitudes in the UK and not rape. Which, presumably, affect almost all criminal cases.
So this is the solution you advocate? Would you be happy with a with a 0.89% (top performing police/prosecution service in the UK, using specialists) rather than a 0.5% conviction rate, or would you still be posting a thread on rape every time it makes a BBC headline?
Any chance of answering the rest of my points? Or will you repeat the same platitudes and generalizations next time a rape thread comes up?
And I wouldn't be satisfied with that.
No its not: the poster was not saying that its "alright" to do that, just that it isn't as bad as other cases.
Why is that sad? Its their duty to scrutinise each case to prevent miscarriages of justice. If they didn't "even dream" that they could be making it up then EVERY rape allegation would result in a conviction, i.e. any person could imprison and totally destroy any other person simply by telling the police that they had been raped by them.
Obviously it should be taken seriously. But what do you mean "if there is DNA evidence something should be done"?! The issue is one of consent - the vast majority of the accused don't deny they had sexual intercourse with the accuser, but claim that consent was given. In which case DNA evidence proves nothing.
As for the rest of your drivel, I shan't be dragging the thread down into a debate about what crime is worse. Murder is murder and rape is rape- the physical and psychological damage to the victim doesn't determine how bad the rape is.
Sorry, I mispasted the figures.
But the point remains: if you aren't happy with that conviction rate what do you propose be done? What is the solution which I clearly do not care enough to see?
So again, what is your solution?
That was not even my point. If you arn't going to respond to my points I would expect any discerning reader of this thread to consider your credibility to be zero.
Never argued otherwise.
Why not? That would seem intuitive to me, its how every other crime is judged in this country. Why is rape such a special case that every act caught under the definition is considered to be morally equivalent? Thats not even the case for murder, which you accept is a worse crime.
I don't think any sensible reader of this thread would consider the example (well made by somebody else) of a husband not withdrawing from intercourse with his wife when she tells him to stop as she picks up the phone (rape) to be morally equivalent to a man violently raping a relative (rape) or a stranger raping somebody at knifepoint (rape).
At the end of the day a man has no right to a woman's body and "no" is no. It is the humiliation and objectification of a woman (or of course, a man), it is forcing them in to an act of intimacy. Whether you have known somebody for the five minutes you followed them down the road, through a friend or whether you've been married to them for twenty years, rape is rape.
I don't see why it is so hard to grasp that a violation of anybody's body is completely wrong. Your body is your own, you have a right to it. Nobody has the right to make you do anything you don't want to to your own body, even if they've had sex with you twenty times.
Source?
I meant more so DNA and evidence, I just don't see why conviction rates will have fallen other than police attitudes, society's attitudes or the criminal system. It can't be because people have suddenly realised women lie about rape, that isn't the point.
This has been discussed: the point I made was that not all rapes are absolute moral equivalents. Some cause more harm than others, some are committed with more vicious or sociopathic motives, etc.
I've never denied that rape is always wrong. What I'm saying is that some are worse than others because they cause more harm than others. Thus I think that a husband who is having sex with his wife and doesn't stop when she says "stop!" is wrong, but should not be treated the same way as a man who holds a knife to a strangers throat and violently rapes her.
Well I don't really need a source: my point was that we are not discussing cases where evidence exists, of course they should be prosecuted and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. So if someone is stupid enough to rape somebody and deny having sex with her, of course they should be prosecuted using DNA evidence if it is available.
I'm not entirely sure what has caused the decrease in conviction rate either but I would say changes in society are at the root, these are factors I would suggest are important:
- De-formalization of relationships and liberalised attitude to sex
- Increase in alcohol and drug intake and "binge culture"
- Decline in communities
- Rise in general crime rates (more burden on police)
- Rise in availability of pornography, particularly extreme pornography (possibly)
But from another angle, I think its probable that the statistics are extremely misleading. There was probably a far higher incidence of rape 30 years ago than is reflected in the statistics, but the the norms and attitudes in society then meant that women were far less likely to report it to the police, or even tell anybody at all, including their families. See for instance, the article posted by Fiend by Deborah Orr earlier in this thread. I doubt its a coincidence that the rise in reported rape and the decline in successful prosecutions correlates exactly with the protection of the accusers' anonymity by law (1976). This is one of those things that people assume is a "new" problem because it is more visible now. But clearly, it has always been a problem, but in the past women had a much weaker position in society, and could thus not highlight or complain about the issue as much as they can now. So its now more visible and it is clearer how many rapes happen and how many rapists get away with it. So the recent empowerment of women has actually raised the issue and shown what an inherent problem it is in society, and probably human nature as well.
If you want to see how society has progressed, look at Iran, where women are stoned to death for "admitting" to being raped.
The law is quite clear- sexual intercourse without consent is rape. There are no shades, so why are you trying to claim that there are? No rape is "worse" than any other, in the same way no murder is "worse" than any other. Morals are subjective, too, I would consider a husband raping his wife or a friend raping his friend to be as morally abhorrent as the "stereotype" violent rape, if not more so, as she should be able to trust the people around her. Unlike murder, which can be triggered by provocation, you cannot rape someone in a fit of pique. Unlike robbery there are no shades of bodily invasion- either you raped someone or you didn't.
I don't think that 14% is the most that specialist prosecutors can achieve, and whilst I think a 100% conviction rate is unrealistic, in my opinion many more rapists should be getting sent to prison and they should be getting sent to prison for longer. It is important to educate that rape is rape is rape, and that the sterotype violent rape is not worse than a friend raping his friend and is not the only form of rape there is. People focus on the violent rapes as if other rapes are trivial or don't exist (you and yourmum and doing just that, as usual in his case) and as such it prevents women who don't fall into that category from getting justice.
The idea that violent rapes are "worse" is what is preventing justice from being done. And the idea that women who are raped should become quivering wrecks is preventing justice from being done. Credit to you for propagating both views, though, you should be proud.
Manslaughter 1st 2nd and 3rd degree murder ? makes a difference.
Killing someone in a fit of anger vs killing someone premeditated for money.
Arnt those different crimes ?
Well Im not realy going to debate that, in my opinion a man who continues sex for a minuet after getting a request to stop is not a quilty as someone who never had permission to start and physically forces sex despite pleeding for him not to.
Also If a couple are just about to have sex and the phone rings...... Ive said this before are you realy trying to tell me thats the same as violently dragging a women into a house and forcing her to have sex despite begging and pleeding not to, no its not.
And as for "a woman's body is her own"
Ok it is so then is a mans body in fact everyone owns their own bodies, so everyone has an equal right not to have it violated right ?
If I punched a large young man in the face cause he was rude to me would you consider it the same crime as punching an old lady in the face cause she was rude to me, no difference is there ?
"One feminist, Wendy Kaminer, stated that "it is a primary article of faith among many feminists that women don't lie about rape, ever; they lack the dishonesty gene."
John O'Sullivan, a left-wing social scientist, discovered a widespread defense of the belief that "no woman would fabricate a rape charge. Feminists themselves admit as much."
Law Professor and left-wing political activist Susan Estrich stated that "the whole effort at reforming rape laws has been an attack on the premise that women who bring complaints are suspect."
Zepezauer wrote that, "Some feminists believe that even defending that premise [of false rape complaints] is in itself a sex crime."
Well-known Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz once said that he was accused of sexual harassment by female students for discussing in class the mere possibility of false rape allegations.
Zepezauer concludes his indepth study with this: "Believing the self-proclaimed victim of sexual misconduct has thus evolved from ideological conviction to legal doctrine and, in some jurisdictions, into law. California now requires that jurors be explicitly told that a rape conviction can be based on the accuser's testimony alone, without corroboration. Canada is proposing that a man accused of rape must demonstrate that he received the willing consent of a sexual partner."
The contention of that line from the OP was three pages ago, and was an attempt to illustrate that this issue is more complex than you suggest, as I explained. There have been three pages of points made by me since then, none of which you have answered. Calling them shit doesn't mean you have answered them, it means you have ignored them.
Again, didn't say that they weren't important.
Well the law isn't really clear: but as I've said several times yes, rape is rape, sex without consent is rape, and all rapes are wrong.
There are shades, as I've pointed out, and as you've admitted some rapes have worse consequences than others. Asserting otherwise again does not advance the debate. Some "murders" are worse than others, as is clear from the law: and indeed the distinction within the law by different types of killin, murder, manslaughter, murder with extenuating circumstances, disproportionate self defence, etc.
There are always shades to every moral question.
Right, now we are getting somewhere. Yes, morals are subjective. In a democracy everyone must hold an opinion and help to decide the law with their opinion. Although I don't understand your robbery analogy: in you're logic there are no shades in that either, you have robbed somebody or you haven't.
Its my subjective opinion, and I would hope of any reasonable person, that a husband having sex with his wife who does not withdraw his penis from her when she answers the phone and says stop is not morally equivalent to a knife wielding violent rapist, and that they should not be treated the same (life imprisonment as you and Fiend are advocating).
Meaningless. Thats my opinion and everyone else opinion. Of course more rapists should be getting sent to prison, the problem is how they get there.
Yes, more education is needed. Again, no one is going to disagree with that. And I haven't suggested that any other rape except "stereotype violent rape" is trivial.
As I've already explained to you, and you have ignored: the reason that women raped by acquaintances etc do not get justice is in the vast majority of cases a lack of evidence: it is one person's word against another, which is hardly ever strong enough evidence to convict in a British court.
I don't see how. According you to you I am an ignorant rapist sympathiser: but if I was in a jury deciding the verdict in a rape case of the "non-sterotypical" type and there was evidence beyond reasonable doubt that there was no consent, I would convict.
i.e. presumption of guilt.
Personally I would not be opposed to this on principle: as long as contracts were supplied by the government to every citizen which had to be signed by each party before physical contact, detailing each sex act acceptable to either partner.
But I'm not sure many other people would.
Not in this country they aren't. And interestingly the minimum sentence for murder is life imprisonment, so the law makes no difference in terms of sentence, either.
Manslaughter is not murder- manslaughter is unintended death as a result of an action. And obviously distinctions are drawn there because battering someone and killing them is an entirely different crime to not bolting something properly and killing someone.
In your hypothetical situation it would only be rape if the victim considered it rape and reported it as such. There's more chance of Heathrow having to land a squadron of low-flying pork than that, if its all as "hey whatever" as your assumptions state.
Which comes back to my point of taking more notice of what victims think and feel.
It is the same crime- ABH.
What's your point?
One whole feminist? :eek2: If this woman (whoever she is) said that then she's wrong.
I note you didn't answer my question though. Do you think 95% of women are liars?
Carlito, I don't draw distinctions in terms of the crime, and I don't think distinctions should be drawn in terms of sentence. The differences I point out are the reactions of victims- and that is a terrible premise to base sentencing on as it means a mentally strong victim would receive less justice than one who crumbles into depression. I would also point out that torture and battery are separate crimes that should be separately punished; yes, a man who did that should get a longer sentence, but only because he committed more crime.
I also appreciate that not every acquaintance rape will provide a conviction- it would be hard to prove that a husband raped his wife, for instance- but there should be steps taken to try and overcome the pitiful conviction rate. Specialist prosecutors are one suggestion, I would also agree with expert witnesses. More than anything we need a change in direction in the CPS and judiciary- if a woman testifies that she did not consent because she was passed out she shouldn't see her rape trial get thrown out because she "may" have said no. I think defendants should be put to prosecution cross-examination. This isn't to prove that they didn't do it, the burden should remain with the prosecution, but the prosecution should at least be able to have a go at proving that they are liars.
The biggest problem is that the jury will always believe a fine upstanding young man ahead of some slattern girl who was pissed and in her finest clubbing gear. I'm not really sure what we can do about that sort of attitude- when 60% of people questioned reckon a drunk girl "partially deserves" to be raped, then of course drunk girls who are raped will not see justice.
Thats a fair point: my opinion is that a catch all life sentence for all rape is also unfair. Having said that, its the duty of the law to protect the victim above the perpetrator, which is why I agree with you that those proven to have committed rape should be given longer sentences.
But a catch all life sentence does not distinguish between the varying spectrum of rapes committed (as I say, all of which are harmful) and is inhumane. After all, rapists are people too, even if they have committed a terrible crime. This point I suppose comes down to peoples' personal opinions on the purpose of prison/incarceration: punishment, retributive, rehabilitative, preventative, etc. Or more likely, a combination depending on the specific case in question.
I think everyone would agree that specialist prosecutors, police, support groups etc are a good idea.
However, its going to take some pretty special prosecutors to solve the central problem here, which I've highlighted several times. The vast majority of these cases are one person's word against another's. That is almost never enough to convict somebody in a British court of law. SO you have to have prosecutors somehow clever enough to turn a defendant from saying "she said yes" to "she said no." Not even that, since the accused can simply claim that they had a reasonable belief that the other party consented to sex - i.e. were conscious and did not object. Having the best prosecutor in the world is unlikely to change a testimony in that way, the defence lawyer simply needs to advise the accused to keep his cool and stick to his story. Not much that can be done about that I'm afraid.
Alright, well lets assume that there is no contention on this issue (which there is - strong contention - as I think iknowyourmum pointed out). This type of case comprises of an extreme minority of rape cases (I'm not sure exactly how many) and even if all were proven to not have consented would only push the conviction rate up a couple of percent, at most.
I think that statistic is slightly dubious (depends on the wording of the question, etc).
But as I pointed out before, thats not the reason (or at least necessarily the reason) that they would acquit in those examples. The reason is because if it is one person's word against another's, the balance of the law favours the defendent ("beyond reasonable doubt") so it would be reckless and irreseponsible for a jury to convict without other evidence, which in the vast majority of cases, does not exist. Those cases which do result in convictions are usually those where there is evidence beyond the two parties' testimonies: other witnesses, taped evidence, confessions etc, which are very uncommon for obvious reasons.
Anyway as a side note, if you were on a jury for the example you mentioned ("fine upstanding gentleman vs slattern girl who was pissed in her finest clubbing gear") with opposing testimonies from each of them and no other evidence, would you convict or acquit? I hope you wouldn't let your prejudice on the matter sway your legal judgement...
I am not sure a victim's 'opinon' can really be counted. In whatever way I was violated, I would consider the experience crushing ...
It was based on a random survey of 1,095 adults and was conducted by ICM.
30% of respondents thought a woman being drunk makes her in some way responsible for being raped. 4% feel a woman being drunk makes her totally responsible, 26% feeling it makes her partial responsible for being raped.
28% percent thought a woman behaving in a flirtious manner makes a woman partially responsible for being raped. 6% felt it makes them totally responsible for being raped.
8% felt like a woman was totally responsible for being raped if she failed to clearly say no.
20% felt that a woman wearing sexy or revealing clothes makes a woman partially responsible for being raped. 6% felt this made the woman totally responsible for being raped.
8% felt that a woman who had had many previous sexual partners was totally responsible for being raped.
Of course the vast majority don't agree with these views - but it only takes someone with a view like this, and a good defence lawyer to make it impossible to get a conviction.
New measures would seem to need to address fundamental misconceptions about rape in order to present a fair case. I certainly can't imagine it would be fair for a case involving a Black man to be allowed to exploit predujices on the part of the jury, as directly as rape cases do the same.
Link to the full report (Word doc, about 450k)
anyway other than introducing a lesser offence, or lowering the burden of proof so someone can get thrown in jail on someone elses word for rape, there isnt much you can do
I could think of plenty of suggestions, from teams of first point of contact raspe specialists to collect evidence, immediate and fully funded counsellors, specialist prosecutors, pre-rape trial information to jurors, investigation of particular predujices on the part of judges, massive increases in funding for forensic teams only paid to investigate rape cases, expansion in the number and size of rape, a complete review of all members of the Crown Prosecution Service - looking at conviction rate and reasons fro refusal to go to trial, a complete change to the jury system for rape trials, changing the way all evidence is presented in rape trials.
I'm not saying I agree with those suggestions but there are a million changes that could be made if the political will is there (and thankfully it is to some degree on the part of the government if not judges) but the statistics speak for themselves.
32 rapes will be reported today
4 will go to trial
It's likely 1 or 2 will result in a conviction - and in 1 case that will be because the rapist pleads guilty.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4296433.stm
If 32 people a day were reported for setting of a bomb, or for shooting someone and only 1 person was convicted each day this country would tearing itself apart with outrage.
Rape isn't graffiti or shoplifting, a crime that causes problems but most cases just can't be delt with because theres bigger things to worry about. It's an absolute attack upon someone else, a violent sociopathic act that imposes the power of one person on another in the most initmate and invasive way.
We have teams of people running around investigating gun crime, weapons use, anti-social behaviour, terrorism and yet, right in the very heart of our legal system, we fail and we fail absolutely.
I certainly can't see how we can justify a penny for trident, for the olympics, for wembley, until we can prove we are a country that is capable of dealing with this continuing human rights outrage.
Does anybody know how Britain compares to other countries in how rape cases are dealt with?
from this - http://sa.rochester.edu/masa/stats.php
The US looks to have a 46% conviction rate - I'll look around tomorrow for evidence of other countries - although looking on the web lots of places list other countries in the context of 'have a much higher conviction rate' - so I would expect if anyone can find the evidence it won't be far away from the US stat.
The problem is judges that are stuck in their ways, juries that are stuck in their ways, and a trial system which basically allows defence lawyers to fling as much muck as possible at a vulnerable and confused witness to make her look like a liar. When you have cases where the victim of a violent rape (not even an acquaintance rape) has her underwear shown in court, there is something seriously wrong. It's little wonder that particular victim went and killed herself not long after the trial.
I am not stupid, I appreciate the difficulties in certain types of rape, but I'm not even talking about two close friends who have sex and then allege rape. I'm talking about women who are assumed to have hopped into bed with anyone- a police officer, a security guard, a taxi driver 35 years their senior- simply because they went out and got drunk. The assumption is always that the woman is lying, and that she's a bow-legged slut, and that she only did it to explain away bruises and bumps. When a copper gives a woman 30 different bruises and still gets acquitted because the victim allegedly made jokes about lesbian sex two hours before, it shows that something is very very wrong.
I think a conviction rate of 50% is very much achievable with the right will, but now you have a judiciary that is blocking every single reform.
It's my law firm's annual party tomorrow. The sad fact is that any man here could go and rape any woman here and they have a 99% chance of getting away with it. It makes me so angry my blood boils.