Rape

Remove all ads!

In that case, it may be possible to be unsure of his guilt if he has some mental problems. Anyway, I would still order sterilisation as a means of protecting the society, not just of punishing him. Plus, I don't really believe that any issues could fully extenuate culpability here. It's not like shooting your neighbour because you're paranoid and think he's a terrorist. Heh, perhaps one could imagine such an ilness pushing someone to rape another person, but I'm not aware of any such medical unit. I can only think of someone being drugged up without fault of his own, but this would require some intrigue on the part of some other people plus lack of awareness of the consequences on his own part... or maybe being told it's something else than it is. But this is just theory. It's not like any of those guys is really ignorant of the consequences of drugging yourself up or getting roaring drunk.

No matter how you put it, the rapist chooses to take a shortcut and ommit the consent part.

 

@ Joacquin- witnessing someone commit a crime, removing their fingerprints from the crime scene, or removing their DNA from a victim, a free admission of guilt, are all ways to prove, without a doubt, that a person committed a crime.

 

No it isnt, eye witnesses are extremely unreliable, DNA can get mixed up in the lab and even if it isnt there is still a chance, albeit an minuscule one that it is wrong and many a lunatic admits to all manner of crimes. That is one of the main reasons I am against the death penalty, it is irreversible and you can never ever be 100% that you have the right person. Even in a perfect case, with eyewitnesses, DNA and admission I doubt it would top 95% certainity. More than enough to put someone away but not enough to kill them in my opinion. There just is so many things that can go wrong in a criminal investigation and in a court of law, the human factor alone is huge.

 

Cameras don't lie or get confused. DNA is so rarely mixed up that it's (nearly) unheard of. Further, intelligent cops always hold back some detail of a crime that only the person who committed it would know, i.e. a woman's body is found with splinters inside her, she was raped by a tree branch and brutally murdered. Only the killer would know something like that if they kept it out of the evening news. They do this for the sole purpose of weeding out the lunatics. They can do incredible things with forensics these days. Do you have shows like Law and Order or CSI in Sweden? Maybe there is no way of being absolutely 100% sure of a person's guilt, but 99.99% is good enough for me. To be fair, if it was me being convicted of a crime I didn't commit, I'd be pissed to say the least.

Having said that, look at a person's history. Have they been convicted of violent sexual assaults in the past? Were they in the area at the time of the assault? Occasionally an individual may be convicted of a crime they didn't commit, but I have never heard of a serial innocent. Also, bragging about committing the crime and getting away with it, or being caught in the act of committing the crime are pretty much sure ways of determining a person's guilt.

[ March 04, 2005, 17:26: Message edited by: Ravynn ]

 

I believe joacqin might have been considering a situation where it can be perfectly documented that the person did indeed commit the act but we still didn't know about the internal circumstances, i.e. the extent of consciousness and willingness.

 

When do internal circumstances make any difference? Rape is rape is rape. Same with murder or any other crime. The only time i would ever have doubts about a person is if they did not know what they were doing, i.e. mentally challenged patients. I would only have doubts after 3 or more physicians indicated he wasn't acting. It doesn't count if they were on drugs at the time of committing the act. Does what I am saying make any sense? You mean trying to decide in court if she were really concious and willing? I do agree in some cases, a minority only, that it may be difficult to determine the extent of consent, but if there are marks on her, its rape. Period.

 

It doesnt matter if you stumble upon a person who stands above a bloodied corpse with blood on his hands and a bloody axe on the floor with his prints all over it and his seamen inside the woman.

He *could* ahve been having sex with the wmoan and then gone off to slaughter a pig and then come back all dirty and found the woman dead. Not likely but not impossible. I dare you to find me a single case where guilt can be ascertained to 100%, it is impossible. Which is why people are convicted if it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that they are guilty, not that it can be proven to 100% that they are guilty, it just cannot be done.

 

As you say, mental patients. If you have issues with aggression and someone is provoking you, for one? Sure, lots of guilt still remains, but is it enough guilt to warrant castration if the crime is rape? I say, investigate this too before ordering irreversible means shooting down someone's sex drive completely. Sterilisation could be ordered regardless - not as a punishment but as a means of protection.

If the perpetrator had been on drugs counts so long as he hadn't been at fault in getting in that state. This may sometimes be the case. We won't likely be talking about no liability here, but it will be severely reduced. Again, as above - sterilisation yes castration not really.

But internal circumstances can be investigated to some extent, anyway.

And sometimes there will be marks from consensual intercourse or from something completely unrelated. Of course, with the current state of medicine, injuries can still be examined to some extent for their origin.

 

Are you just talking about rape, or would you like me to include other crimes as well?

A man is driving home drunk, for arguments sake, let's say his BAL is 4x the legal limit. He is the only person in the car. He hits and kills someone. Are you trying to tell me that the devil grabbed his steering wheel? Get serious, Guilty, 100%.

Be serious for a moment. "It doesnt matter if you stumble upon a person who stands above a bloodied corpse with blood on his hands and a bloody axe on the floor with his prints all over it and his seamen inside the woman." If it's pigs blood on him and the axe, I would have doubts. And further, the key words here are REASONABLE DOUBTS. Which means WITHIN REASON. Your example is not reasonable, you said so yourself: It's unlikely: therefore it is inadmissable, you have no case, and there is no reasonable doubt, provided the blood is not a pig's and the wounds on her body match an ax.

I challenge you to tell me about one case that had DNA evidence etc. of a persons guilt and he got off.

 

And you dont seem to understand what 100% certain means, it means that there is no doubt whatsoever. That there isnt the tiniest bit of uncertainty. Nothing is 100% certain, especially not a criminal case. Even if you could create a perfect case it would never ever be more than 99.99999999999999999999% certain, that is not 100%. Your cardrive example it could be a simple case of malfunctioned breathalizer or bloodtest mishap. The car he hits was perhaps struck by another car which drove off but which killed the person before the drunk smashed into it and so on and so on. Is it likely? No. Is it within reasonable doubts? No. Is it impossible? No. 100% is 100%, any possible doubt no matter how small makes it less than 100%.

 

You make a valid point, I must agree. All right, tell me one case where an innocent man was convicted for a crime where, during his trial, he admitted to committing the crime, there was physical evidence of his guilt, and an eyewitness. The likelyhood of something like this happening is there, I will admit, but it is so remote as to not even be worth mentioning. And if one innocent man is punished in the way I describe, so what, if it means 10,000 guilty men are taken off the street.

I feel I owe you an apology, Joaquin. After reading my last post, I think I came on as an &&&hole. That was not my intention. This kinda thing really gets to me.

 

Re: castrating rapists - this will not stop a truly dangerous rapist. They will use their fingers, sticks, rocks or other foreign objects instead. For some of these people (nay, most), rape is not about sex; it is about power, domination and control.

If you're that one man, or someone you know is that one man, I imagine it makes a hell of a big difference.

The issue is not whether someone is convicted after a false statement. Most of the time, matters do not go to trial; they may not even reach the committal stages before the charge is pulled, the accusation retracted or the case dismissed. This is a lot more complex than simple guilt or innocence. Pressure to plead guilty, incompetent investigations or lacklustre defence lawyers can all deny someone their guaranteed right to a fair trial. When it gets into an issue as thorny as rape, you have to deal with people's assumptions and frequently, their misconceptions about what is and is not rape. That's leaving aside the interplay between the lawyers and the influence it will have on the jury, their ability to make someone look better or worse, or even to destroy the alleged victim on the stand with intrusive and painful questioning (which can make the victim look less credible as well as traumatising them).

Hang on, did I say that was simple? My apologies.

Even if you can demonstrate guilt, you've got the new problem of determining just how culpable someone is and what sentence is deserved. That's why juries aren't allowed to determine sentence in this country; they will not consider the same range of factors as a trained and experience judge. To use the "culpable driving" incident above: is this man more or less guilty than a 22-year-old man who gets in the car with his mates, drives like a maniac at 20 or 30 over the speed limit and ends up t-boning another car, killing the passenger in the other car?

Justice isn't black and white, and neither should the punishments be. If you want these things to be enacted in law, you must be willing to accept partial responsibility for what happens as a result. So (getting back to the topic), how do you deal with a situation where it's largely going to be "he says, she says" despite being almost certain within yourself that the guy is guilty? If you do decide to be aggressive in your approach, do you have the courage of your convictions to stand by your beliefs and actions if something goes wrong?

 

Perhaps. Oh, and I left out cutting off the bastards hands. See if he can use foreign objects then. The only reason I would rather have this done to a rapist is because I would want him to suffer for a long time for doing such a terrible thing, instead of having a (relatively) quick and painless death. Edit: If I were that one man, I would know that I would be exonerrated in the afterlife. If you pay enough attention to the case and the backgrounds of the alleged attacker and victim, I am sure you would not find it that hard to be convinced of someone's guilt or innocence. I say this with no experience in such cases, so I may be wrong. Regardless what we do to them here, I hope there is a special place in hell for these people. If by courage in my convictions you mean would I do it myself? Absolutely. And I would also take responsibility for any mistakes I made, though that is far easier to say here than to do. It is sad that we are even talking about this kind of thing. People really suck.

@Joacqin- I think you should read RuneQuester's post in Juvenile Executions thread. Guilty, 100 %. All of em.

 

1. Castration or sterilisation will at least prevent the rapist from impregnating another victim.

2. Rape is always about sex. For plain domination, power and control, there is always beating up, torturing and all kinds of humiliating. Rape does involve twisted sex drive.

Innocent people who plead guilty because they want a lower sentence and don't see any hope for acquittal are a problem.

Yes, but the alleged victim wants the alleged offender sentenced, so questionning is unavoidable. You will most probably agree 100% with me that facilitating conviction to make it conviction on suspicion would suck a great deal.

Well, being judged by a jury of one's peers is supposed to be a privilege over being judged by a single professional lawyer, isn't it?

From what I know, I think jury trials help keep in touch with the society's sense of justice and filter out such bull**** as people being accused of assault or bodily harm over defending themselves or their fellow citizens, which happens all too often in non-jury trial countries.

Although sometimes one's peers can come up with strange ideas, I agree...

I don't believe in the "there is a crime, so there must be a conviction" rule. I believe judges, prosecutors, the police and other people all too often fall in the error of believing that someone simply has to be convicted if a crime has taken place. Presumption of innocence needs to be taken seriously. I am totally distrustful towards convictions on words alone.

 

That is what I meant - and I am glad to see your response to that, Ravynn. I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on a lot of this, although I second your sentiments about the corner of Hell reserved for some of these bastards.

@ Chev:

I don't see impregnation as the key issue; I see the violence and humiliation of the victim as central. Different perspectives, I guess - if non-insemination is the goal, then castration is pretty effective, if ethically fraught.

I did say "truly dangerous" rapists - the majority are not. In a substantial proportion of cases, yes, I think rape is primarily about sex. In plenty of others, it is not; I can give a couple of examples:

* some of these links are pretty distressing; no visual media but not for the faint-hearted *

- War crimes
http://www.newint.org/issue244/rape.htm
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/LAW/10/27/rape.darfur/
http://www.beyondintractability.org/m/war_crimes_general.jsp

- Fetishists & serial rapists
http://www.totse.com/en/law/justice_for_all/srrapist.html
http://www.sacbee.com/static/archive/news/projects/rape/profiles.html

I'm not disagreeing with you that rape is still about sex, but in the case of "twisted" people, there is a lot more going on than just their libido.

Yes, but justice systems and personnel that encourage this attitude are a bigger problem. There are caseloads and backlogs to manage, but people should not be made to believe that submission is better than resistance if they're innocent.

And you'd be right. However, I was contending that how a jury will construe something as rape (or not) will hinge on prejudices and assumptions at least as much as tangible evidence or argument. That's leaving aside the consideration of jury bias or jury stacking, which is controllable to a degree, but in an adversarial system it is to both parties' advantage to have a favourably-inclined jury. Justice doesn't have **** to do with that.

The jury is still essential to determine guilt or innocence; it just shouldn't have the power to determine the punishment. Recommendations, maybe, but not authority. Judges, on the other hand, have years of experience and are less susceptible to community attitudes and values that might compromise basic principles of justice. While I do not doubt that the majority of juries would be relatively balanced, I think it is easier to control or direct judicial reasoning than community thought on matters of justice, parsimony and proportionality. In this way, you retain a measure of accountability (in addition to having an appeals system).

That said, you can get some pretty crazy judges too...

Again, no argument with you. The whole point of this thread, as I see it, has been to ask if there is a better way that the current system. Since consent invalidates rape completely, this is what the majority of cases hinge on. You can't convict someone on another's word against theirs, but why would the complaint be made if nothing happened? The nature of rape trials are such that the majority of the accused are not convicted, and a disproportionate number who are convicted are stranger rapists. This is not because they were more violent or more aggressive (necessarily), but because we still have a great many preconceptions about what is and is not rape, and unless you can prove it, you can't justify jailing someone for 10+ years. Belief is not enough; for that response, proof beyond reasonable doubt is needed.

That is what I see as being at the heart of the issue and argument here. You can't just take one side, and you can't just sit on the fence because not taking a side is taking the side of the status quo.

[ March 10, 2005, 06:10: Message edited by: NonSequitur ]

 

I don't see an ethical problem here.

A rapist knows he is doing something wrong. Someone who isn't immediately repelled by the evil of it needs medical treatment and not punishment. Therefore, a rapist decides to go against the rights of another person and against the law. The legal status quo has been violated. Whether this is the balance being disturbed or a certain order being breached doesn't really matter here - the violation has taken place and subsequent violations need to be prevented. By going against the law, the rapist doesn't waive all his rights, but he surely lessens the weight of his claim to protection by the law. In the very least, his rights become inferior in importance to the rights of his current and future victims. Notwithstanding the punishment, means of protection from him can be taken that limit his rights.

Looking more closely on insemination, if he has no right to claim sex, he has no right to inseminate. Preventing him from insemination isn't therefore any sort of limitation of his rights. Only taking from him the ability to inseminate does limit his rights, although it is necessary to prevent the evil he has already done from being done again. As he deserves no credit, this means is necessary unless he's going to be physically restrained from interacting with people (life-long confinment perhaps).

At any rate, the victim's right not to be inseminated by him overrides by far all his rights, including his right to life. Yes, I believe the right not to be raped overrides the rapist's own right to life.

Why insemination, you would ask. You surely have heard about women having to bear such children. As I don't believe abortion is the way (I oppose it on moral grounds) and emergency contraception is typically late and typically potentially abortifacient, the best way seems to be sterilising the rapist.

Agreed, although it's always more than just libido when rape happens. Guys who just can't hold it, go to a prostitute or resort to their manual abilities.

Agreed 100%. I believe it's obstruction of justice to suggest pleading guilty if the person isn't.

That's free and informed concern and this can be challenged.

I've been accused of beating up people I didn't really know and sort of molesting girls who didn't turn me on at all. What gives? People are strange creatures. Malice, envy, hunger for sensation or fame, desire of importance, genuine head problems...

That should be true for all convictions, if you ask me. The only thing that should ever be applied without proof beyond reasonable doubt is non-punitive preventine measures and only in case of grave danger and a good but not yet perfect probability.

Agreed. My solution is put an end to conviction on suspicion, give real punishment to proven rapists, prevent them from reoffending - and so long as they are proven rapists, I don't really care about their rights, so long as they aren't subject to anything unnecessary.

 

You don't see a problem with cutting someone's testicles off?

The sort of person you could sanction doing that to is typically the more violent rapist; a "typical" rapist is a relative, a friend, a boyfriend or a social acquaintance. If a person's assumptions about what is and is not rape are reinforced by persistent social mythologies, and form the basis of mistaken belief of consent, they may not fit into the "evil offender" stereotype. Yes, they're still rapists, but there are a host of other factors which are relevant and cannot be discounted for the majority of alleged offenders, especially when the sanction is so severe.

Make no mistake, I'm not defending rapists; I'm just saying that there are degrees of "evil" in offending, and rape is a particularly difficult and dangerous area to generalise about.

And so we come to the criminological dilemma: if someone doesn't know that what they are doing is rape, are they any less guilty? Well, no. But it isn't that simple; since consent is a concept that has been defined through socially pervasive norms and beliefs, it cannot just be taken at its legal definition.

Given what I've argued above, is it justified to castrate the majority of rapists? Can you punish someone to prevent them from re-offending? Yes, that's what prison is for (supposedly). Is it justified to permanently and irreversibly deny someone that option? What if they reform? After they are released from custody, what if they want to raise a family and become a model citizen? I realise I'm talking about a minority of a minority of rapists here, but it's possible.

Re: insemination - Chev, I know you have deeply-held beliefs, and I won't argue about them. I am of the belief, however, that in most Western nations at least, if a woman becomes pregnant following a sexual attack and abortion is not legally available, if they do not wish to have the child they will seek other means. While I do not believe abortion should be a first resort, the human and moral consequences of opposing it do not (in my opinion) outweigh the potential suffering and difficulties that it could prevent. I know we won't agree on abortion, so I'll leave it at that - if there is a consequence to that belief in the hereafter, I will accept it.

Indeed, and as I've outlined above, the legal definition is insufficient to understand the social assumptions and factors that enter into consideration of "what is consent?" There have been cases where the accused has been acquitted because of a presumption that you can't be raped if you're wearing jeans, or the infamous "asking for it" line of reasoning about what women were wearing or how they behaved before the attack, or the victim pleads with her attacker to at least use a condom. Those are not cases of consent, but it was upheld as a defence. Unjust? I would say yes, but the issue remains. What is consent is not determined in a rape case by the letter of the law; it is determined by a jury who may have considerably different opinions.

This was more a general statement; some false allegations get made, but i think the general belief would be that if a claim of rape was made, the average observer would typically side with the victim. Of course, belief and proof are worlds apart in this case.

And so we return to the crux of the problem, Chev. People aren't typically convicted on suspicion, and Ravynn and joacqin's arguments about proof should be evidence enough that "absolute proof" can be hard to come by. The problem is getting a conviction, not necessarily what to do with them. How do you make the justice system fairer to rape victims without compromising the rights of the accused? I don't have any easy answers, but I think a lot of this discussion has gone the wrong way: you need the eggs to be laid before you can make omelettes out of them.

 

If someone is a 100% proven rapist and the cutting off is ordered by a legitimate judicial authority? No. It's only superfluous in case of life imprisonment, but that's it.

Still a rapist, so what's the difference? Especially if it's a relative, he totally deserves having his testicles torn away.

If it's a spouse or partner, we can allege a general sexual consent - i.e. if they normally sleep with each other and they got drunk on one night, it sort of looks silly if one of them claims to have been date-raped after waking up in the morning, doesn't it?

Or when a person is too shaken emotionally to give 100% free and informed consent, a steady sexual partner has the right to assume the general consent stands.

However, if it comes to physically restraining someone or not listening to no's, there's no way to call it else than rape - even if it's the woman's own husband.

Date rape pill does not make consent. Beating up into consenting isn't consent. Physically restraining someone doesn't make consent (although we're going to have some trouble with bondage fans). At any rate, whatever sort of incapacitating someone it is, it's obviously rape and I don't care about any "mistaken" cultural presumptions.

Rape is evil. I remember a doctor in law arguing the "he fell in love" mitigating circumstance, but that's rubbish. Unless we're taking about legally retarded people.

It takes a very, very thick line to cross to rape someone. When I sense any sort of tension or internal conflict, I instinctly take my hand away if it's resting on a girl's hand or shoulder. Let alone if it weren't a shoulder or if it weren't a hand.

One thing I am going to grant: If someone is "too afraid to say no" and there had been no active intimidation on the part of the "offender", then there is no offence.

Also, if someone doesn't say "no" because he/she is afraid to hurt whomever's feelings, it also doesn't make lack of consent.

Well, maybe one more thing: If we have two naked people just after foreplay and suddenly she told him to go away or even "take it out" of her, I surely wouldn't advocate the same kind of punishment as for "typical" rape.

Moreover, I wouldn't employ castration/sterilisation against guys who used a promise of some profit (money, privileges, promotion, social benefits etc) and failed to follow through. They did defraud someone for sex, so they look much like rapists in my eyes, but because of the "victim's" contribution, the necessity of castration/sterilisation for protection doesn't apply.

I think yes. I don't mean someone doesn't know rape is paragraph N of criminal law X, punishable with Y years in prison. But if someone in good faith assumes he has been given consent, he isn't raping. Even if the assumption is hardly reasonable, but if it is made in good faith, it excludes rape.

But this problem only applies to persons who don't say a clear "no" or who sometimes mean "no" when they say "no" and sometimes don't. Or to persons who don't really remember what happened. This is hardly "castratable", so to say. After all, it's nothing like "beyond reasonable doubt".

Yes, that's true. The public would be affected by a misguided sense of compassion and would consider the accused person guilty on mere accusation.

Well, I know how it feels to be falsely accused by a female and have everyone believe her. I don't wish this on anyone, even if in my case it has been just unwanted advances and beating up (separate cases). It sucks a great deal. Judges and even prosecutors and defence lawyers should stay away from such prejudice.

And I really seriously thing that a mala fide accusation of rape (i.e. a knowingly false one) should be a crime with a hefty punishment.

@Beren:

But isn't that the "we have a corpse so we must have a murderer" kind of reasoning? I mean, does the court really need to take one party's side?

There is plenty of options, insufficient proof being the most eminent one. It sucks to be released without being ruled innocent, but it would also suck to stand trial for false accusation just because you couldn't come up with enough evidence.

I don't think the court has to believe either party and decide between their two statements. The truth often lies in the middle and sometimes it can't actually be reached at all. So I don't think anyone should be convicted of rape just because he's been leading an immoral life. As a defence lawyer, I would oppose a "he raped before so he raped in this case too" kind of reasoning, although as a judge I would have to consider it and as a prosecutor I would have to come up with it. It's just the truth is the most important thing in a trial. There is no justice without truth, no matter the rulings.

I think we need to get over the desperate need to find someone guilty, even though it sucks to see the crime go unpunished. We always need to bear in mind that our ruling doesn't make anyone physically guilty, nor does it make one legally guilty (invalid ruling = not legally guilty), it's only something along the lines of legally considered guilty... hardly a statement of fact. Just a statement of our knowledge. So if our knowledge is insufficient, I would say we had better stay away from punishing people.

Edit:

From the article:

"She's lying" is a valid argument to consider. Sorry, but no matter what feminists say, I'm not going to dispense with the benefit of doubt resting with the accused, with the presumption of innoncence and with the right to fair trial. They likely would be happy to see every man accused of rape go to prison even without trial, but that's not justice.

First thing that looks fishy: Someone is making up new terms - "victim blame". This is a fishy agenda.

Second thing that looks fishy: Someone obviously has an agenda against "traditional gender roles".

Third thing that looks fishy: "Negative attitudes toward women, feminism" - negative attitude towards women is not the same kind of thing as negative attitude towards feminism, as someone would have us believe. For one, I have a positive attitude towards women and a negative one towards feminism (the militant feminism which demands abortion "rights", quotas for women in parliaments and government positions, conviction on suspicion of rape and so on).

"all women want to be raped" - many women have sexual fantasies connected to rape, including rape by a stranger or gang rape; men don't have such fantasies

"no woman can be raped against her will" - this is physically false because of the difference in physical power and because of the reality of such things as gun point threat; however, in a relatively small number of cases, victims actually might stop resisting and start believing they've done their job resisting and start to "actually enjoy it" - the probability is low, but remember we're talking about sending someone to prison for a couple of years

"if you’re going to be raped, you might as well relax and enjoy it" - someone please introduce him to Bubba, our 400 lbs homosexual friend with attitude problems relating to self-control...

Let's face it: women who wear extremely revealing or tight sexually provocative clothing and behave (move, talk etc) in a sexually provocative manner while surrounded by a number of tipsy men from uncertain social backgrounds... well, those women aren't really acting reasonably, so to say.

Note: Some people will want to kill me for saying this, but sometimes a woman's clothing or behaviour can enter into connection with a more or less subconscious sexual fantasy relating to rape. Someone who normally enjoys bondage or sado-maso may end up in this corner without knowing.

Possibly yes. I don't know first-hand. Rapist are supposed to be saying things like "I'll show you your place", but this is largely the way they are protrayed in movies. There is some ugly desire for power and domination, but there is also some wrongly directed sex drive here.

Note: Some people will again want to kill me, but guys with attitude problems about power and domination may be teased into raping with some creativity. I have seen women use various kinds of teasing. Sometimes teasing resembles the "cat and mouse" game, or the "a big brute of a horny guy and a weak innocent girl" kind of game. Some women do enjoy testing men's limits. I'm not saying this happens often or excuses the guy (like totally), but it surely serves as a mitigating circumstance in a rape trial. Or at least it should.

Is that woman sane? She rejects the "all women" generalisation and herself immediately makes an "all men" one. I would take offence if I knew her.

And all men are rapists.

Oh dear... Is that serious? Though there is one true thing: we have a lot of talking about rape in our culture. Women universally fear it. But it's not like men universally threaten to do it.

Never seen a "French [white - chev] woman for everybody" transparent in Africa?

There is a cross-culture domination thing in this and especially if it comes to cultural clashes, but come on.

OK, I've never been there, but that sounds as quite an exaggeration.

Majority men want to assure they hold their power and minority men want to assure they can have the power if they want. So? Any difference? To me both are doing the same. Put them behind the bars for a long time but each for the same time.

What the fudge? Bible tales? Has that person ever read the Bible? Rape was punishable by death and is condemned every time it's mentioned in the Bible and always leads to God's great displeasure and a great evil further coming (near-destruction of the Levi tribe, civil war between David and Absalom), even if the attempt is not successful (e.g. Lot's guests and daughters).

Maybe. But the same article mentions using rape accusation to keep people in place. So if rape accusation can be a tool, no wonder if accusers' credibility isn't 100% trusted.

Stop! Not offenders. Accused. That quote sounds like all men accused are guilty and this is nonsense.

I have to agree here.

What if a male had been supposedly raped by a female? Wouldn't the same be done? Someone is seeing things, IMHO.

Agreed.

Well, but why stay with him?

Well, that indeed sounds like doing one's best to blame the victim. However, there must always be proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Sorry, but we can't make an exception and put guys to prison on women's word.

If we are to put someone behind the bars for several years on a person's word, we ought at least to make sure the person is credible. I say we shouldn't be putting anyone in prison on someone's word to begin with.

That's a fallacy. The speaker has some gender roles agenda here. We aren't taking gender roles to the court, remember? We're taking rape there. And rapist. Not male domination and a man.

How many women falsely accused of sexually assaulting a guy or anyhow physically assaulting a guy does one know?

We need to find out if the thing really happened and if there really was no consent.

And what's wrong with this? Are officially delusional people as credible as your average person?

Natural consequence. If so much burden lies on the victim's word, it must heavily rely on the victim's credibility. This credibility is affected by mental records, sorry.

And how often do we see people accuse the spouse of sexual child abuse to get a divorce? No false accusations of children against parents at all, hmm...?

Someone with raging hormones is not fully credible on any matters relating to sex, sorry.

I have been accused of unwanted advances by girls with raging hormones who not only didn't turn me on but actually turned me off. It's not hard for me to imagine such a woman coming up with a rape charge. To show a guy his place, for example (pun intended).

Teenage girls are more likely to be filing false complaints.

Of course, we need to examine the accused's actions, first of all. The problem here comes from giving so much weight to the victim's words as to put the accused in prison on mere word sometimes. So high standards of credibility are a natural consequence.

Sorry, but I will never agree to putting a guy in prison just because he had sex with a teenage girl who is now accusing him of rape. The act of rape must be proven. It's not enough to prove sex. The lack of consent must be proved. The burden of proof is with the victim.

That's bad, I agree. But if someone is quick to consider an accused guilty just because he's accused, then such a person isn't really a credible witness. Need to bear this in mind. Just in case.

Let's face it: Relevant details need to be admissible. That's because they are relevant. If something can help determine whether the act did take place or whether the consent was really not given, then it must be examined by the court. No matter how tough and sad this is for the victim.

Sorry, but compassion for victims shouldn't lead us to convicting accused people on mere word of the victim.

An old rule of fair trial is the the advocate's error can't work against the defended person. So if defence lawyers use unfair strategies, it doesn't mean that defendants should have to pay for it.

First article done.

From the second article:

Depends what kind of jeans, but yeah, in most cases it will be impossible to remove them if the victim is struggling with all her might. If she isn't struggling, question is why.

That woman is making things up. It was not gang rape, it was not a large rapist overpowering a small woman and the girl was not loaded with Rohypnol. And there was no gun or knife. What is she thinking? That the 45 year old instructor is responsible for all large rapists, gun holders, gang rapist etc and should be made a scapegoat? Is that woman actually thinking?

And what exactly does wearing a scrap of denim have to do with this? It's not about the type of fabric one wears but about how constricting some kinds of garments are and how difficult to remove without the wearer's help. It could have been anything else than jeans but just constricting.

However, I can't say the jeans were tight because I don't know. Un-tight jeans like guys wear can be removed this way.

For a moment, let's imagine the scene. To remove tight jeans one seems to need both hands, especially if the victim is resisting. Pinning a healthy adult woman with just one hand and partly removing tight jeans from her with just one hand all the time with her resisting?

It would be extremely difficult to achieve without a gun or a knife and the guy isn't reported to have had any. Maybe he beat her up into submission, but there is no account of that. Everyone would notice if she had been beaten up and it would have been mentioned during the trial. The charge would have been different if beating her up had been associated with the rape.

Then what? The factor of his being a teacher, able to screw up her life, also able at least to give her a heavy beating should she refuse? Well, maybe. But she has to prove that, not he. He doesn't have to prove anything. She has to prove there was sex and there was no consent. Lack of consent can't be alleged just because he is older and a teacher etc.

The girl wasn't rendered unconscious by Rohypnol. This woman is clearly trying to make that Italian teacher responsible for all rapists using Rohypnol etc, likely for all rape that has ever taken place. In her mind, the "trial" doesn't involve a certain Italian girl and her teacher, but it's a judgement of all rape and all rapists. The Italian teacher is just a representation of the latter in the author's mind.

She wasn't.

She was 18, the attacker was 45 and there was only one attacker.

She didn't have her jeans cut off.

And the case is stated to this particular victim and this particular accused. We aren't judging all rapists on the face of the planet in this one guy. And he isn't guilty just because he is accused. Can't the woman understand this?

The defence's job is to defend. This is a possibility to examine. I don't see a problem unless the defence lawyer was knowingly lying (i.e. proposing this version if he had known the guy did rape her in fact).

The century has nothing to do with the fact that rape either has taken place or not. Is it a cool and trendy thing to declare people guilty on accusation now?

What does that speculation have to do with his guilt or lack thereof for supposed rape?

We are taking a supposed rape case to the court, not this woman's trouble with social gender roles and sexual standards.

One point where the woman is right.

What does that have to do with the problem whether he really did it or not, pray tell?

It's not like all accused are guilty and courts are deciding to let them get away with it or to put them behind the bars depending on their mood. The author assumes the accused was guilty and she's now making a political problem of letting the guilty man get away with his crime instead of punishing him. But let's take a step back and return to the last unresolved question: did he really do that? Does this really matter for the author?

So the teacher should be sent to prison regardless of his guilt to make all those people feel better?

Goals and effects can be considered when deciding punishment. But not when determining guild, for goodness' sake! Does the woman really think people should be ruled guilty or innocent depending on the projected social impact?

Yeah, you have no hands to use, no mouth to scream, no people to accompany you, and everyone is out to rape you. And when you are wearing jeans, you are doing it to prevent yourself from being raped. Sure.

So instead we should send guys to prison on mere accusation without examining it? You know, examining the accusation is already an affront to the victim!

Good. How about staying offline?

[ March 10, 2005, 20:15: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

I applaud you Chev. I actually read that entire article too, but the author is no doubt a militant feminist. I didn't see the need to debunk her entire arguement as you did, and quite frankly, couldn't be bothered spending so much time on it. The basic problem I see is this. Her basic principles are:

1. All women are victims
2. All men are guilty
3. Keep all the good stuff and special status women held before women's lib, and give us everything we didn't have as well.

For 3, sorry but it doesn't work that way. If you want to be equal in all regards, then I am completely supportive of you being treated equally IN ALL REGARDS. This also means that just because you accuse someone of rape doesn't mean they automatically did it, that you had nothing to do with it, and that the guy should go to prison, no questions asked. Being treated equally in this case, means that there is no need (or even logical reason) why the women's version of the events should take presedence over the man's.

And don't even get me going about potential delusional accusers. Wouldn't any reasonable person say that someone who is delusional may not have the same credibility as some one who is not?