What Can I Give My Dog For Tooth Pain?
Animals & Nature1 min ago
Rape laws in need of reform?
Only 5% of reported rapes leads to a successful prosecution. And only a quarter of rapes are reported. The UK has the lowest conviction rate of any other european country. Some countries convict 12 times as many as we do.
The low conviction rate is blamed on:
- Scale of false allegations over-estimated
- Subjective judgements made about victims' credibility
- CPS has no criteria for specialist rape prosecutors
- Detection rates vary between 22% and 93% for different police forces
- Inconsistency over the way forensic doctors examine victims
- Lack of training for frontline officers
- Authorities must challenge claims of consent "more vigorously"
- Police and prosecutors should make better use of evidence showing defendant's "bad character"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7090065 .stm
Can this terrible situation be improved? Can our society be made to change?
The low conviction rate is blamed on:
- Scale of false allegations over-estimated
- Subjective judgements made about victims' credibility
- CPS has no criteria for specialist rape prosecutors
- Detection rates vary between 22% and 93% for different police forces
- Inconsistency over the way forensic doctors examine victims
- Lack of training for frontline officers
- Authorities must challenge claims of consent "more vigorously"
- Police and prosecutors should make better use of evidence showing defendant's "bad character"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7090065 .stm
Can this terrible situation be improved? Can our society be made to change?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Gromit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Rape is a very difficult case to prove - because rape is so many different things, usually in the presence of only the victim and the perpetrator.
I believe there is a world of difference between a man pouncing on an unknown woman being extremely violent to the point that she is in genuine fear of her very life and forcibly raping her perhaps leaving her with internal and external injuries as well as the emotional trauma;
and the girl who says 'no' halfway through intercourse with her date and he takes no notice.
Yet both these examples are rape.
I would like to see all rapists bought to justice and imprisoned for a very long time - but I do think 'rape' needs to be re-classified. In many other countries the female in my second example would not be able to claim she had been raped, which may account for some of the discrepancies in the statistics you quoted.
I believe there is a world of difference between a man pouncing on an unknown woman being extremely violent to the point that she is in genuine fear of her very life and forcibly raping her perhaps leaving her with internal and external injuries as well as the emotional trauma;
and the girl who says 'no' halfway through intercourse with her date and he takes no notice.
Yet both these examples are rape.
I would like to see all rapists bought to justice and imprisoned for a very long time - but I do think 'rape' needs to be re-classified. In many other countries the female in my second example would not be able to claim she had been raped, which may account for some of the discrepancies in the statistics you quoted.
Unless, I was half battered death and left unconscious and rape was obvious or it was witnessed I wouldn't bother reporting a rape. How many other men and women think like that. Its gotta be worse amongst men too.
It's amazing that in 1970 1 in 3 rapists were convicted. You would have thought it would have got better. If you were genuinely raped, and you had your life dragged through the courts, probably a lot of stuff about your past and how free you have been and then the guy gets off. YOu are branded a liar and all your personal life out there. I dont fancy that scenario much.
It's amazing that in 1970 1 in 3 rapists were convicted. You would have thought it would have got better. If you were genuinely raped, and you had your life dragged through the courts, probably a lot of stuff about your past and how free you have been and then the guy gets off. YOu are branded a liar and all your personal life out there. I dont fancy that scenario much.
-- answer removed --
Trigger, judges have the ability to put some rapists away for life. We only hear about the remarkably long or remarkably short sentences. On average a rapist goes to prison for 7 years and one month. 75 percent go inside for more than 5 years. I would think that rape is possibly a prime crime for rehabilitation apart from those who must have committed heinous crimes to be receive life sentences (which is 10 % of all convictions by the way). Im not suggesting these are long enough but its not really the issue. Only 7 percent of reported rapes were reported by men, now I don't believe that for a minute either. Its just too l ow.
I dont think sentencing or longer sentences will act as a deterrant. Its getting women to come forward and back the victim more, encourage them to report it and stick by it.
I dont think sentencing or longer sentences will act as a deterrant. Its getting women to come forward and back the victim more, encourage them to report it and stick by it.
A couple of questions spring to mind....
How does anyone know that 'only a quarter of rapes are reported'? If theyre not reported how can anyone know about them? Obviously there cant be any official figures to prove this statistic so it must just be someone's guess.
'in 1970 1 in 3 rapists were convicted'. If they were not convicted of a crime then they are not rapists.
How does anyone know that 'only a quarter of rapes are reported'? If theyre not reported how can anyone know about them? Obviously there cant be any official figures to prove this statistic so it must just be someone's guess.
'in 1970 1 in 3 rapists were convicted'. If they were not convicted of a crime then they are not rapists.
Rape helplines, document a lot of this. I suppose they can ask a focus groups in the country questions confidentially.
I think its plainly obvious that most rapes are not reported, by in large those that are reported are by people under 18. Probably because they h ave one angry parent backing them up.
and Twenty, in 1970 (when date/aquaintance/relationship rape wouldnt even have really been acknowledged as a crime by many people, esp the women involved) so we are talking stranger rape or rape where grooming has been involved, say 300 rape cases went to court, do you believe 200 women lied or were they mostly let down by the judicial system or nt enough evidence.
Thanks for clarifying why I would never report a rape though. You just reinforced it all, if I went to court after getting raped and he got off I Would be a liar and he wouldnt be a rapist.
I think its plainly obvious that most rapes are not reported, by in large those that are reported are by people under 18. Probably because they h ave one angry parent backing them up.
and Twenty, in 1970 (when date/aquaintance/relationship rape wouldnt even have really been acknowledged as a crime by many people, esp the women involved) so we are talking stranger rape or rape where grooming has been involved, say 300 rape cases went to court, do you believe 200 women lied or were they mostly let down by the judicial system or nt enough evidence.
Thanks for clarifying why I would never report a rape though. You just reinforced it all, if I went to court after getting raped and he got off I Would be a liar and he wouldnt be a rapist.
SP, the new rape laws are the same for men and women as the victims with the introduction of the anus and mouth as opposed to just the old definition with the vagina being the only orifice worthy of a rape charge.
Many rape cases therefore have a male victim. The confusion lies is ONLy men can be rapists as a penis must be present.
Regarding the law, I agree there should be a reclassification like USA muder laws with different categories.
It changed very recently (though the definition remained the same) insofaras as a drunk person can give consent.
I along with 99 percent of men have therefore been a rapist in the past. Who hasn't sha66ed a drunk woman??
But, regardingthe law it will open up a can of very unsavoury worms if we start meddling with the principle of law. ALL crimes have to be in the public interest (rape of course is) and be proved beyond ALL reasonable doubt.
The vast majority of rapes simple come down to "She said Yes" "No I didn't, I said NO".
If we meddle with rape laws, entire jurisprudence theory will need to change. Assaults would be defended by "Yes hit me" (consent is a defenbce to assault)
Theft, "he said I can have it" (theree has to be dishonesty in theft) etc etc etc.
Also it can be argued that DNA advances have actually made rape harder to prove. Yes, twith he stranger rape it is excellent, but now DNA can actually help prove consent WAS given.
The male penis when swabbed in custody may have saliva or downstairs fluids, only normally found in consensual penetration.
Finally, the punishment for proven false allegations IN ALL CRIMES, should reflect what the innocent person would have got if found guilty. Therefore silly girls crying rape should get 7 years.
Many rape cases therefore have a male victim. The confusion lies is ONLy men can be rapists as a penis must be present.
Regarding the law, I agree there should be a reclassification like USA muder laws with different categories.
It changed very recently (though the definition remained the same) insofaras as a drunk person can give consent.
I along with 99 percent of men have therefore been a rapist in the past. Who hasn't sha66ed a drunk woman??
But, regardingthe law it will open up a can of very unsavoury worms if we start meddling with the principle of law. ALL crimes have to be in the public interest (rape of course is) and be proved beyond ALL reasonable doubt.
The vast majority of rapes simple come down to "She said Yes" "No I didn't, I said NO".
If we meddle with rape laws, entire jurisprudence theory will need to change. Assaults would be defended by "Yes hit me" (consent is a defenbce to assault)
Theft, "he said I can have it" (theree has to be dishonesty in theft) etc etc etc.
Also it can be argued that DNA advances have actually made rape harder to prove. Yes, twith he stranger rape it is excellent, but now DNA can actually help prove consent WAS given.
The male penis when swabbed in custody may have saliva or downstairs fluids, only normally found in consensual penetration.
Finally, the punishment for proven false allegations IN ALL CRIMES, should reflect what the innocent person would have got if found guilty. Therefore silly girls crying rape should get 7 years.
It is such a complex subject and an interesting question, thank you Gromit.
The defence seem to be able to base a large part of their argument on the background of the person who was raped. Therefore those who have had a more active sex life with various partners may feel that on the weight of this it would be an unfair hearing. But this does not mean that they were not raped.
But as said previously, the sentences should reflect the crime and equally so with the individuals who accuse a person of rape when it was not.
Years ago I am sure many wives would have been what is now seen as raped by their husbands, because it was their conjugal right and many women would not have said anything. In society now there seems to be less morals and bigger grey areas - she said no but she meant yes, or sex being consented to whilst drunk. Society needs to take a long hard look at itself, its morals and what respect mean. Perhaps longer sentences would mean that this is an area that people should be more careful with whom they have sex.
The defence seem to be able to base a large part of their argument on the background of the person who was raped. Therefore those who have had a more active sex life with various partners may feel that on the weight of this it would be an unfair hearing. But this does not mean that they were not raped.
But as said previously, the sentences should reflect the crime and equally so with the individuals who accuse a person of rape when it was not.
Years ago I am sure many wives would have been what is now seen as raped by their husbands, because it was their conjugal right and many women would not have said anything. In society now there seems to be less morals and bigger grey areas - she said no but she meant yes, or sex being consented to whilst drunk. Society needs to take a long hard look at itself, its morals and what respect mean. Perhaps longer sentences would mean that this is an area that people should be more careful with whom they have sex.
BB
A well thought out set of points...but I have to take issue with your last statement:
Finally, the punishment for proven false allegations IN ALL CRIMES, should reflect what the innocent person would have got if found guilty. Therefore silly girls crying rape should get 7 years.
You surely aren't being serious???
A well thought out set of points...but I have to take issue with your last statement:
Finally, the punishment for proven false allegations IN ALL CRIMES, should reflect what the innocent person would have got if found guilty. Therefore silly girls crying rape should get 7 years.
You surely aren't being serious???
SP1814.
I certainly think that someone who cries rape and admits to lying should get some form of punishment.
Once case which I know of when a 17 year old girl went to the police at a rock festival to say she had been assaulted. She became parted from her friends, she had been drinking and met a guy who offered to help her find her friends, via his tent. She started to have sex with him, but changed her mind, but so as not to dissapoint him she started to perform oral sex on him, which she didn't want to do either, at this point his girlfriend came back to the tent.
Now how would this be classified?
I certainly think that someone who cries rape and admits to lying should get some form of punishment.
Once case which I know of when a 17 year old girl went to the police at a rock festival to say she had been assaulted. She became parted from her friends, she had been drinking and met a guy who offered to help her find her friends, via his tent. She started to have sex with him, but changed her mind, but so as not to dissapoint him she started to perform oral sex on him, which she didn't want to do either, at this point his girlfriend came back to the tent.
Now how would this be classified?
SP, totally serious.
If somebody has gone to the police and given testimony under oath in Court and it is proved to be totally fictitious, then the person lying should face at least the same sentence as what the innocent person would have got.
Yes, perjury (under oath) is dealt with severely, but with regards to rape, if a woman (or indeed a man) makes up a staggeringly false account and is willing to see the man go down for 7 years and be on the sex offenders register for life, then they should be punished the same.
I see no reason why not. (in fact I think they should get the death penalty, but that is a seperate issue).
Our legal system is based on honesty and integrity. When these two fundamental principles are broken, severe justice must be served.
How bad must a man feel being accused of rape all because some silly teenage girl falls pregnant or he dumps her causing her some hurt? To me the act of sending somebody away to prison for a crime they did not commit, is worse than rape.
It is also these silly people which give rape a bad detection rate.
If somebody has gone to the police and given testimony under oath in Court and it is proved to be totally fictitious, then the person lying should face at least the same sentence as what the innocent person would have got.
Yes, perjury (under oath) is dealt with severely, but with regards to rape, if a woman (or indeed a man) makes up a staggeringly false account and is willing to see the man go down for 7 years and be on the sex offenders register for life, then they should be punished the same.
I see no reason why not. (in fact I think they should get the death penalty, but that is a seperate issue).
Our legal system is based on honesty and integrity. When these two fundamental principles are broken, severe justice must be served.
How bad must a man feel being accused of rape all because some silly teenage girl falls pregnant or he dumps her causing her some hurt? To me the act of sending somebody away to prison for a crime they did not commit, is worse than rape.
It is also these silly people which give rape a bad detection rate.
SP further,
The figure you requested, I do not have the information to hand.
From memory and a now guesstimate, I would say REPORTED rapes with a male victim are between 1-5 percent only.
The true figure I would say (including rape in prisons) would be about 15-20 prcent of all rapes, vastly due to forced fellatio (which is now rape) that is very common in prison .
The figure you requested, I do not have the information to hand.
From memory and a now guesstimate, I would say REPORTED rapes with a male victim are between 1-5 percent only.
The true figure I would say (including rape in prisons) would be about 15-20 prcent of all rapes, vastly due to forced fellatio (which is now rape) that is very common in prison .
Bewlay Bros,can you please explain this statement you made in one of your replies
"The male penis when swabbed in custody may have saliva or downstairs fluids, only normally found in consensual penetration."
What if the assailant had forced his penis into the mouth of the victim?,there would then be saliva on it,also the vagina isn't a completely dry environment in an unaroused woman so there would inevitably be "downstairs fluids" present as well unless a condom was worn.
"The male penis when swabbed in custody may have saliva or downstairs fluids, only normally found in consensual penetration."
What if the assailant had forced his penis into the mouth of the victim?,there would then be saliva on it,also the vagina isn't a completely dry environment in an unaroused woman so there would inevitably be "downstairs fluids" present as well unless a condom was worn.
The point I am making is the DNA can equally be proof of consent.
It will bring up questions of why he or she didn't bite it off, lack of blood in forced penetration etc.
As said the whole debate is on consent and can it be reasonable proved beyond ALL doubt.
As wonderful as DNA is, it can also save the offender as well by casting even more shadows of doubt.
If the male admits to having sex (which most rapists do) the swabs can equally be used in defence as well as in prosecution.
The more seeds of doubt in a jurors mind, the better his chances of getting off.
Hope that makes sense.
It will bring up questions of why he or she didn't bite it off, lack of blood in forced penetration etc.
As said the whole debate is on consent and can it be reasonable proved beyond ALL doubt.
As wonderful as DNA is, it can also save the offender as well by casting even more shadows of doubt.
If the male admits to having sex (which most rapists do) the swabs can equally be used in defence as well as in prosecution.
The more seeds of doubt in a jurors mind, the better his chances of getting off.
Hope that makes sense.
If I was ever unlucky enough to be raped and the assailant forced his penis into my mouth i doubt very much I would bite it as i'd be worried about getting my skull caved in for doing so. Also I think I would be very unlikely to report it at all.If it was just forced sex then i'd get over it,if however I was beaten up as well then I would report it.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles11 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles27 mins ago
Travel28 mins ago
ChatterBank32 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.