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
Most rapes don't even take place like that. What my gripe is how a woman who is drunk almost always gets her case thrown out- even if, as in recent cases, the man has been a sober security guard assigned to protect her, or a taxi driver 35 years her senior. The assumption always seems to be that if the woman was drunk she must have wanted sex with the first man who came near her.
I appreciate that not every crime can be proven, I am not an idiot. However what makes my blood boil is the assumption that because the woman was drunk or wearing nice clothes she must have wanted it with any man who comes near her, even if, as in the previous two cases I mentioned, one was passed out in a corridor and the other was asleep in a taxi, both with long-term stable partners. It goes beyond what Carlito is trying to say- that's its always the word of one against the other- as there is so much secondary evidence that is never put anywhere near a court.
Carlito's "oh well, shit happens" attitude is the reason why 99% of people who are raped do not ever see justice. His pathetic attempts to drag up one mistake to show that an increase in conviction will inevitably send more innocent men to jail shows what his real belief is- that most women are actually lying.
Most victims don't even bother seeking justice, because they're intelligent enough to realise that there is absolutely no point. All they get is a big sack of shit from those who are supposed to be acting in their interests.
Was the only thing among what you just wrote that's a reply to what I asked.
What?!
I specifically said that wasn't my viewpoint, it was my interpretion of where the people represented in the Amnesty survey were coming from.
This whole thread is completely ridiculous. None of you have read what I or Iknowyourmum have said, or actually looked at the legal problems here, you're just lashing out because you're angry that anyone would dare to argue that the British public, police, judiciary, CPS are not inherently women-hating rapist sympathisers.
The only solution you have suggested is minor addition in the way that these cases are presented in court, one which is already partially implemented through the police, and which has only shown a slight increase in the conviction rate in the counties that it has already been implemented (including one notable miscarriage of justice).
Its all very well wailing and nashing your teeth and calling anyone who disagrees with you the living epitome of why the conviction rate is so low: but you aren't helping anyone. You aren't helping yourselves understand the complexities of the problem, you aren't contributing to any kind of significant change in the system, and you aren't helping the thousands of women and men who are raped every year.
Wrong. From Jim V's source:
"68.3% [of rapes] were perpetrated by someone who knew the victim. (Bureau of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey, 1997) 78% of women raped or physically assaulted since they turned 18 were assaulted by a current or former husband, live-in partner or date. 17% were victimized by an acquaintance, 9% by a relative other than a husband and only 14% were assaulted by a stranger."
"6 out of 10 sexual assaults occur in the home of the victim or the home of a friend, neighbor or relative."
http://sa.rochester.edu/masa/stats.php
No, the "assumption" (adherence to the law) is that if there is no evidence that consent was not given/denied, the case cannot be pursued. Those are the cases you are referring to (perhaps you might like to break the habit of a lifetime and quote us a source).
Again, that is not the assumption, but I'm not going to explain why for the 101st time for you to ignore it again.
I haven't heard anything about the second case: the first was obviously quite disturbing: but because the girl involved could not remember whether she had given consent, under the current law there was no option but to dismiss the case.
Thats not my attitude. And I don't see how its pathetic to point to a case ("drag up" :yeees: ) which illustrates how delicate the balance of rape cases is under the current law. And as I've said I don't believe most women are lying.
See my response, using Kermit and Jim's own source.
Because girls who dress up and drink when they go out want to have sex?
WTF?!?! :eek:
Not that I really think contracts would catch on, though.
No, not in the slightest.
It's a very hard point to express, but it must be hard in many cases for enough of the jury to believe the womans story over the mans with that background. I'm not saying it was right, I'm not saying she deserved it, all I'm saying is that if it comes down to one story against the other then getting to a point beyond reasonable doubt is going to be very difficult, and any implication of earlier enthusiasm from the woman is going to make getting beyond reasonable doubt harder.
But it is an everyday occurance, everyday 32 women report the fact thay have been raped, everyday only 1 person is found gultiy....
It's important people remeber they live in a society where rapsit are found innocent as a matter of course, that our legal system defends rapists and proctects them in a way no other legal system does in the entire world. Our legal system, due in part to our compicity and agreement, allows the aquictal of rapists at a rate thousands of percents beyond any other culture in the world.
We are indeed living in a rapaists paradise, one comparable to accepting slavery or ehnic cleansing, we have failed utterly to provide any legal equality in this country and are the very worst example to the world...
I know what you are getting at, but that is exactly my point. It is exactly because of the societal attitude that women who dress provocatively are doing it for men, that women who drink are all slags, that the rape conviction rate in this country is so abominable.
I am not saying that juries are anti-women or pro-rape or anything as cynical as that, but the attitude remains that if the woman was drunk or dressed attractively then she must have wanted sex. And she must have wanted sex with any man, even if it's a taxi driver 35 years her senior and she has a loving stable relationship. What she actually says in testimony (I was passed out, I was asleep, I awoke to find a stranger raping me) is completely disregarded at the altar of this inherent prejudice.
Simply saying "oh well, shit happens, what can you do?" as both you and carlito are doing is exactly why about one in one hundred rapists will be convicted. carlito goes beyond this by dragging up an exceptional case (I could use this to claim that all murder convictions are unsafe because "the balance of probabilities is so delicate") to try and claim that any increase in convictions will result in miscarriages of justice rather than, as I suspect, putting more rapists in prison where they belong.
His point was that
1) Setting off bombs is not an every day occurence
2) Setting off a bomb is never legal, whereas having sex with somebody is, the issue is consent
3) It is much easier to convict somebody for setting a bomb off, because there is much more evidence (witnesses, forensics, CCTV, etc)
Thus its a useless analogy.
Thats completely untrue. Maybe you're only talking about western democracies, bceause I could dig out dozens of countries with a much, much worse attitude to rape and legal framework for dealing with it than the UK. Iran, for one, springs to mind; where a woman who cannot prove she was raped faces the death penalty for adultery (recent cases include girls hung publicly from the guns of tanks).
Iranian teenager given 100 lashes for having sex (she claimed she was raped):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4295111.stm
Or maybe Russia, where the head of state makes jokes about the impressive virility of a man accused of rape ("we all envy him"):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6069136.stm
Let alone the fact that the man in question was the head of state of another country, Israel.
Unless we get rid of the need to get beyond reasonable doubt for rape cases it's going to be a problem.
Retrial for girl due to hang for killing rapist