permalink for this thread : http://search.catflaporama.com/post/browse/532522112
riverboat_captain Posted on 7/3 16:11
Amendment to ra-pe laws

I heard on the radio today, that the government are thinking of amending the ra-pe laws in order to protect drunken women from being abused. This would mean that a man must gain specific consent - that is, he must ask her and she must say yes - to have sex with a woman otherwise it could be construed as ra-pe. For me this is unworkable and is just another example of government interference because is this not saying to women, “you can go out and get so drunk that you don’t know what you’re doing and the law will protect you?” Surely it is up to each individual to take responsibility for themselves and if this means staying sober enough to be capable, then so be it.

If there is one thing about modern politicians that annoys me it is this phrase “sending out the right/wrong message.” This is just lazy politicking . Among today’s politicians there is a shortage of real thinkers; most of them are just business men who want their own way and they employ this phrase as a shortcut because they can’t make a real argument. Consider those who would reclassify cannabis up to class B because they think that making it class C is “sending out the wrong message.” There is a trickle of evidence that suggests that strong cannabis may cause psychosis or perhaps act as a trigger for those with psychotic tendencies. Even it this is true, we are actually talking about a tiny minority of the population. So for the vast majority of cannabis smokers (those for whom it is not addictive and does not trigger psychosis) what would reclassification to class B mean? Their drug of choice hasn’t changed. It hasn’t become more addictive or more dangerous, and yet it has moved a whole step closer to heroin and crack cocaine. This has the equivalent effect of downgrading Class A’s. Sending out the wrong message?

Anyway, to get back to the main subject. In this age of binge drinking among women, is this proposed amendment to the law not tantamount to providing a safety net for girls so that they can get as drunk as they like and not take responsibility for their own actions? And if so, is this not “sending out the wrong signal"? Finally, if a case like this ever goes to court, what if the bloke stands up and says “she didn’t ask me for sex either?”

the_broken_fridge Posted on 7/3 16:13
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

One viewpoint could be that women (and men, to think about it) don't let themselves get in such a drunken state. But this is a social change that needs to happen.

karembeu_ca Posted on 7/3 16:14
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

riverboat, I agree that it might be sending the wrong message in an age of binge drinking, but isn't basic consent the minimum requirement for consensual sex?

and a biger question, does this mean I would have to ask the wife after a few glasses of wine, or does the marriage mean inferred consent

borobadge Posted on 7/3 16:15
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

it'll be interesting to hear what the women on t'board think..

bozo68 Posted on 7/3 16:20
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

If i get too drunk to give verbal consent and then wake up next to a fat horror can i go to the police and cry ra-pe the next day to save face or does it only work the other way round?

zoec Posted on 7/3 16:21
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

It's unworkable - people do lie after the event and the most believable wins (not all, obviously, but either men who have been too "forceful" saying "she asked for it" or women who were fully up for it at the time, but cry ra*pe later as it suits them to say this for whatever reason). I'm presuming they're not calling for a written contract with 2 witnesses present.

karembeu_ca Posted on 7/3 16:23
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

dont even go there bozo, similar story to the Miss Black UK thread, you'll get crucified.

bozo68 Posted on 7/3 16:30
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

Must have missed that story karembeu_ca what happened?

mboro19 Posted on 7/3 16:32
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

To coin another phrase theres too large a 'grey area' with this law.

There's far too many ways this law could be twisted, and too many loop holes no doubt for real offenders to jump through to get away with their crime.

Law has to be black and white these days, right or wrong. Maybe's just dont cut it as there are too many people willing to do the wrong thing to get criminals off for whatever reason.

Borolass Posted on 7/3 16:33
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

To me it's unworkable. How do you prove/disprove she said yes or no. I think it's to try to protect women from having drinks spiked, but then I could be wrong.

karembeu_ca Posted on 7/3 16:34
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

see the thread now bozo, before it's gone - and recall that the whole board was made read only and almost imploded after a HEATED debate last week on the topic.

rutters Posted on 7/3 16:35
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

What if the bloke's drunk and forgets to ask? If she is then more than likely he will be too. Anyway he's been at the bar all night buying her drinks so he might as well get himself one in.

Or maybe this proposed law in saying that 'Men, when drunk, should be careful or else' and 'Women, when drunk, we will protect you cos your all very nice and lovely!!'

eh?

blotonthelandscape Posted on 7/3 16:36
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

There must be some ugly buggas about if they have to get women pissed as a fart to get their leg over.

rutters Posted on 7/3 16:37
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

do you know me?

moneypenny Posted on 7/3 16:38
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

The change in law should not really affect the wider population, to follow on from your example, the downgrading of cannabis had no substantial knock-on effect to the consumer IMO and so the reclassification to B should be the same. It serves simply to allow the law to raise their crime figures, convict/charge more drug dealers. As does changingthe r-ape law. It should not impact your regular one-night stands so long as you aren't out there looking for the drunkest woman in the room to take advantage of, if you are then you no longer have the back-up of your victim's case thrown out of court because she was too drunk to remember the precise details of the attack.
It also serves the man, a woman can't now 'be really up for it' and have to give specific consent as asked for by the man and then cry ra-pe the nect day 'cos it suits the to say it'. Being 'too forceful' is a different matter altogether, i think its called ABH

bozo68 Posted on 7/3 16:40
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

Not really but 4 smirnoff ice's smoothes the path to the difficult brown!

joseph99 Posted on 7/3 16:41
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

It's obvious to me. Single men on the sniff on a Friday night in Blue should carry around with them some form of a MOU, a confidentiality agreement, supply aggreement and a signed contract that clealy states consent for both parties. Does this mean that a witness needs to be present, hooray a sandwich.

Sorry but I cannot take this pap seriously.

Buddy Posted on 7/3 16:42
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

Is there a particular form of words to be used when obtaining consent? "You do not have to do anything but further action on your part will constitute an implicit acceptance of subsequent acts until specifically revoked"? Is there a point at which one has to get a form signed? Should there be witnesses?

Buddy Posted on 7/3 16:42
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

Damn you joseph.

Alastasia Posted on 7/3 16:43
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

I think it's to protect date-ra-pe victims but what the attraction is, screwing a zapped-out kipper, I'll never know.

karembeu_ca Posted on 7/3 16:46
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

the idea is admirable, but as stated, the implementation, and huge gray areas, make it patently untenable.

riverboat_captain Posted on 7/3 16:46
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

karembeu_ca, I agree that consent is a basic requirement but sometimes consent can be implicit. I would imagine that most members of this board have had sex without actually asking permission.

When you are in a position like that, you rely on instinct.

bozo68 Posted on 7/3 16:46
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

A photo of the lady on your mobile giving you the thumbs up while playing the turquoise tuba will be accepted in a court of law i expect!

--- Post edited by bozo68 on 7/3 16:47 ---

boroboy75 Posted on 7/3 16:47
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

Turquoise?
You need to see a doctor.

bozo68 Posted on 7/3 16:48
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

What about the blue veined flute?

Alastasia Posted on 7/3 16:48
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

That's a fair point, Riverboat. Come to think of it, I've never, ever actually asked. Strange.

bozo68 Posted on 7/3 16:48
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

Or the purple polaris missile?

rutters Posted on 7/3 16:49
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

what about some protection for the men who have their names splattered over the papers even tho they didn't do it? And what about naming the malicious women who falsely accuse men but keep their anonymity? Men should be protcted form these types.

joseph99 Posted on 7/3 16:49
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

Sorry Buddy - I didn't ra-pe you on purpose though!!

boksic Posted on 7/3 16:50
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

I'm not a criminal lawyer but I think whoever is bandying this around seriously misunderstands the mens rea required for a conviction of this crime.

riverboat_captain Posted on 7/3 16:50
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

joseph, when we talked about this at work one bloke suggested that condom backets should carry small contracts inside.

boro_steve Posted on 7/3 16:53
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

This is patently unworkable.

A sensible introduction would be that accused has their name kept secret until proven guilty, just as his accuser has their name kept secret.

rutters Posted on 7/3 16:56
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

yeah but shouldn't her name be published if she has falsely accused? Then men can be aware of her.

boro_steve Posted on 7/3 16:57
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

As it currently stands she can be named if convicted.

joseph99 Posted on 7/3 16:57
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

Surely there are degrees of ra-pe. Comparing an horrific attack at knife-point on an unsuspecting child is not the same as a drunken well respected spunk bucket deciding to retrospectively call ra-pe on one of her many partners. Perhaps someone with a legal brain can advise.

onthemap Posted on 7/3 17:07
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

Does this apply to Gays - now that will cause some bitchin.

boro_steve Posted on 7/3 19:31
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

R_ape can only be committed to a woman.

borobadge Posted on 7/3 19:47
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

thats a ....

Link: myth....

jax_1 Posted on 7/3 20:23
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

It is every womans responsibility to keep herself safe from getting into situations like that. I think we would all agree that where a woman has been attacked and r* -**d, then the perp should be sentenced severely.

However, there have been far too many cases where guys have been dragged through the courts after being maliciously accused just because the woman doesn't want to admit that she slept around.

If you take a guy back to your house, or you go to his, you know fine well what's going to happen, if that's not what you want, don't go! It's as simple as that.

When Mike Tyson was charged with r-*pe, I'd have given him a not guilty, as when that girl went into his bedroom she must have known what was on his mind. He was in a big enough hotel suite that there was no need for her to go into his bedroom unless it was for that reason.

Too many girls sans common sense out there.


Silly rivals swear filter!!! Grrrrr

boro_steve Posted on 7/3 22:22
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

The legal definition of r_ape involves a woman borobadge!

Keyboard_Worrier Posted on 7/3 22:28
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

No it does not.

boro_steve Posted on 7/3 22:35
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

Ah yes, sorry it was changed in 1994, sorry, had forgotten about that.

Keyboard_Worrier Posted on 7/3 22:48
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

And again in 2003. You would not believe what now constitutes ra-pe. It involves the penetration of vagina, anus or mouth by penis

boro_steve Posted on 7/3 22:50
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

There was no real need to change it to be r_ape as it was still a sexual assault and the punishment would have been the same, smacks of being seen to do the right thing instead of doing the right thing!

Keyboard_Worrier Posted on 7/3 22:56
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

Agreed, changed for the sake of politics when the reality of the situation still is that the good sense of a Jury decides it. If a woman has had a skinful and gone back to a man's house there has got to be something else really untoward happen before a jury will accept it. I also reckon other women a sterner critics of drunken women than men.

--- Post edited by Keyboard_Worrier on 7/3 22:57 ---

boro_steve Posted on 7/3 23:01
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

Indeed, unfortunately the law must be very strict concerning r_ape cases (why is Rivals censoring this word?!) to prevent miscarriages of justice.

Better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man lose his liberty.

Feminists will no doubt scream and shout, but if the boot were on the other foot they'd immediately scream for tighter laws.

It's a difficult area but I feel currently that the burden of proof is sufficient and should not be relaxed.

red_rebel Posted on 7/3 23:05
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

It is not just the law that needs clarifying over the implications of drunkeness and consent. It is public perception too, and that currently seems to be locked somewhere in a dark and backward past where if she was drunk "she was asking for it."

And why do people throw in that old tabloid smear that hundreds of women are going around changing their mind the night after and reporting people for revenge? That must have been some bad shag.

Why would anyone voluntarily subject themselves to embarrassing medical examninations and interrogation let alone hostile questioning about your lifestyle should it get to court? It is ludicrous to suggest anyone does that lightly.

One of the reasons the law is being changed is because generally it is one person's word against another and so is very hard to prove. That is a challenge to the law as much as anything.

The chances of successful prosecution are slim. That means a lot of peopel are getting away with barbaric behavior.

If you believe that situation should continue because the tabloids have dug up a few salacious cases where there have been malicious allegations then you need to examine your priorities.

boro_steve Posted on 7/3 23:09
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

To reverse the situation and simply take a woman's word for it would result in innocent men being sent off to jail.

At the moment it's down to who is believed most by the jury, can the woman sufficiently convince them that she did not consent? If not the guy must walk and that is how it must be, to be any other way implies we are prejudging the situation.

--- Post edited by boro_steve on 7/3 23:10 ---

Keyboard_Worrier Posted on 7/3 23:12
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

Do'nt get me wrong. I acknowlege the legal difficulties and I understand about the ordeals of trial but there are arguments for both sides.
Imagine the girl who sleeps with a man whilst drunk, wakes up and regrets it, realise she will have some explaining to do to husband/fiance/boyfriend etc. Regrets the incident and feels the bloke has taken advantage. Makes a complaintof ra-pe

She has two choices if it was not r-ape either go along with the prosecution or admit to those closest to her that it was all a horrible mistake. Not an easy choice and sadly some just go along with the court case and try to convince themselves.

Those few make it so much more difficult for the genuine victims to prove their cases.

No easy answers to this but tinkering with the law will acheive nothing.

rutters Posted on 7/3 23:18
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

and she can get any man she doesn't like into life changing trouble whilst keeping her anonymity. But the bloke is named..blindingly wrong!!

boro_steve Posted on 7/3 23:22
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

Yes, the only change that should be made right now is anonymity for the accused until proven guilty.

red_rebel Posted on 8/3 0:26
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

It is a fundemental aspect of English law that justice is seen to be done. That means the accused is tried in public and is named. That applies to all charges (except for minors under 16).

The victim is generally named in the charge "that you did willfully call Mr Fatswell Shepherd a doyle and did beat him with a Lowcocks bottle causing actual bodily harm".

The only two exceptions are rpe cases and blackmail. The logic for that is simple, without that protection victims are unlikely to come forward. It is a protection that should stay.

Another thing to be remembered when peopel talk about evil women making accusations on a whim is that is not the victim who is bringing the charge but the crown.

It comes to court only after extensive forensic and investigative work and goes to court after consultation between the police and the CPS. A frivilous case should not get to court. A case is only brought if the crown believe there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest.

You can't overturn the basis of the law and a practice in these cases that is based on good logical and time tested methodolgy just because of a handle of voyeuristic and misogynistic tabloid stories that probably only have a nodding acquanitence with the truth.

--- Post edited by red_rebel on 8/3 0:33 ---

boro_steve Posted on 8/3 1:16
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

Justice is seen to be done as well as actually being done if the men are named when convicted. To be honest I'd extend this to any charge, innocent till proven guilty, anonymous till proven guilty.

jax_1 Posted on 8/3 1:25
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

"

It comes to court only after extensive forensic and investigative work and goes to court after consultation between the police and the CPS. A frivilous case should not get to court. A case is only brought if the crown believe there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest "

If 2 peeps have had sex there is bound to be evidence. The trouble is, too many girls change their minds later and retract
their consent retrospectively. You can not do that to people. Thosae who do should be named, shamed and jailed.


Meant to add, that, women who do that do the rest of us no favours whatsoever. If anything it makes it harder to get a genuine case heard.

--- Post edited by jax_1 on 8/3 1:27 ---

burrah Posted on 8/3 1:37
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

there are very few cases where it is provan that the accusation is malicious, those that are result in prosecution for wasting police time. the fact is that r**e is a notoriously under-reported crime, and conviction rates very low. this amendment is to do with whether a woman who is very drunk, either of her own volition or due to the spiking of drinks, can give consent. not a bit tipsy and up for it, but incoherent. if she can't say yes or no, the man must assume no.

jax_1 Posted on 8/3 1:41
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

The whole thing is Burra, as a woman, you have a responsibility to yourself to not get in that state in the first place.


Not all women that have brought malicious cases have been prosecuted or named afterward.

boro_steve Posted on 8/3 1:47
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

So how does the man tell if she's too drunk? Is he expected to carry a breathaliser? Make her stand on one leg and touch her nose?

It's unreasonable and unworkable.

burrah Posted on 8/3 1:49
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

i entirely agree that women have to act responsibly and to not create difficult situations for themselves, however being very drunk is no more an invitation to r**e than it is to murder. in addition the advent of rohypnol, one of the date r**e drugs, does mean that young women are at much greater risk of ending up in an incoherent state than when i was young.

boro_steve Posted on 8/3 1:50
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

burrah: explain how a man is supposed to know with certainty whether she is too drunk to give consent!

burrah Posted on 8/3 1:54
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

if she can't say either yes or no, the assumption should be no.

onthemap Posted on 8/3 2:07
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

Anyone with anything classed as a date rpe drug is without defence.
But Rebel please dont assume that the police are not driven by conviction numbers.

boro_steve Posted on 8/3 2:07
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

But even a very drunk woman can still speak! The issue is surely competency not ability to speak the words! Competency is difficult for professionals to judge, never mind the man on the street who may be slightly intoxicated himself.

burrah Posted on 8/3 2:18
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

it isn't about good judgement, the purpose of this amendment is to protect women who do not give consent, are r*ped and then are denied justice because the perpetrator uses as defence that she didn't say no. i really don't think that decent men will have to face this as an issue, the situation will simply not arise. i know there is a feeling that women use the accusation of r**e as a way of being wicked and vile to men, but in reality those numbers are miniscule, far greater are the number of attacks which are not reported to the authorities.

boro_steve Posted on 8/3 2:28
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

Sorry, but it's not only about malicious allegations but there is potential here for very real danger. Say a woman is so drunk she does not know what she's agreeing to, are we expecting that in every case the man will realise this? What if he's drunk too?

In every other offence being drunk is no defence, why should it be available to someone wanting to make an accusation?

burrah Posted on 8/3 2:51
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

i do see your point, but have to trust in justice to make the right decision. there is always a possibility in every crime that the wrong judgement will be made, but this does not mean that the laws should not exist. this amendment is not designed to make r*pists out of innocent men, merely to recognise that there are changes in society which have resulted in more young women being vulnerable and needing of protection. if the publicity surrounding this case make young men and women more likely to think twice, surely that affords protection to both.

boro_steve Posted on 8/3 2:53
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

Not really as you're still expecting men to be able to tell if a woman is too drunk to give a valid consent, in some cases it might be obvious, but in others not so obvious. Unless her drink has been spiked the lady in question knows how much she has had to drink and must take some responsibility for acting in a reckless manner. I'm not saying she deserved it but simply that she placed herself in a difficult situation by drinking.

Whatever happened to personal responsibility?!

Woodymfc Posted on 8/3 2:59
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

Its all getting crazy as hairs are being split over and over again with this issue. Is it not simple If a woman says no and the gent doesnt respect that then he is in poooooooo
The whole problem is it can never be solved as so many cases lies are told from both sexes for what ever reason

burrah Posted on 8/3 3:01
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

these issues are not mutually exclusive, the point is that if a woman has been r*ped then her drunkeness is not relevant. i am not advocating that women who have not been r*ped have a way of claiming they have.

boro_steve Posted on 8/3 3:02
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

Woody the issue here is if she consents whilst drunk and whether that should be a valid consent. Should a woman who says yes when drunk be able to say when sober I didn't consent as I was incomptetent (the legal term) during the act?!

I'd say that's flatly wrong.

borojap Posted on 8/3 3:06
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

At present the statistics show very clearly that even in the cases the CPS think are strong ones, they very often (many times more often than most other offences) fail to get convictions for r-pe. This suggests pretty strongly that an awful lot are getting off when they shouldn't be. Not sure if this amendment is the right one, but certainly something needs to be done.

Woodymfc Posted on 8/3 3:08
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

agreed on that 100%

boro_steve Posted on 8/3 3:09
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

It doesn't show lots of people are getting off who are guilty, it shows that juries don't see the same strength in the case as the CPS.

Just because there is a low conviction rate we shouldn't necessarily go tinkering with the law, it's a difficult accusation to prove and making it easier for someone to prove it will just lead to innocent men going to jail as well as guilty men. Why should a woman's evidence be anymore believable than a man's evidence? They jury should weigh it up and decide who they believe on a case by case basis.

To do what they are suggesting is very dangerous and I doubt they have the support of the judiciary.

Woodymfc Posted on 8/3 3:15
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

I cant agree that when drunk that you have a total mental block ie
" eee i cant remember doing that" which is a classic comment of convenience.
I have been drunk many a time and can recall what i have been saying or doing no probs.

I have never refused anyway

borojap Posted on 8/3 3:18
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

So you're saying the CPS are pretty clueless, then?

There's an awful lot that juries aren't allowed to consider. Whereas the woman's sexual history can and always will be focussed on by the defence in whatever way is most advantageous to their case, plenty of jurors in r-pe cases have complained afterwards that they went for not guilty as they weren't certain, only to discover afterwards they let off someone with an appalling history they weren't allowed to know about.

--- Post edited by borojap on 8/3 3:18 ---

boro_steve Posted on 8/3 3:25
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

Sorry, I think you have to allow juries to decide who they believe, if a defendant goes after his accuser's past history then he can lose his "shield" and evidence about him can be introduced. In fact now evidence about his past can be introduced without him doing this now if the judge feels to do otherwise would prevent a fair trial, this includes previous allegations or acquitals.

I think at times the CPS is too keen to prosecute and might be better off taking more heed of counsel's advice.

Why are we so keen to increase conviction rates for a crime that is by its very nature incredibly difficult to prove?!

Lefty3668 Posted on 8/3 10:49
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

This is a very interesting thread. I thought long and hard about posting earlier on it.

There are a large number of very well made points on both sides of the argument - riverboat_captain, boro_steve, jax_1, red_rebel, borojap, burrah to name a few.

I know two female Scene of Crime Officers for the Police. Between them they are present at about half the 'alleged' ra-pes in Cleveland. A couple of years ago I had a conversation about this with them.

I wonder, of the number of ra-pe allegations they investigate, what percentage would you say they find to be false?

I am interested to know your guesses/knowledge, (particularly the people I have singled out).

Keyboard_Worrier Posted on 8/3 11:00
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

I guess about 30%

the_broken_fridge Posted on 8/3 11:03
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

I can't see it being more than 10 per cent. As somebody higher up said, why would ladies put themselves through the process of the ra ppe investigation unless it happened?

Lefty3668 Posted on 8/3 11:04
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

Interesting.

Thought you made some good points to Keyboard. I won't post the answer until a few more people make their guesses. I wonder if it will change anyones views.

red_rebel Posted on 8/3 11:25
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

Of all the rpe cases I have heard of over teh years I can only remember TWO in the papers where it had been a false accusation.

I would say (I would hope) the bobbies estimate of false allegations is 1% or under.

burrah Posted on 8/3 11:38
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

a difficult one to quantify, if we assume that conviction is the measure as to whether an accusation is true, then the suggestion is that in excess of 90% are false conviction in england being approximately 7.5%. however it is important that we recognise that a guilty verdict in any case has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. as it most frequently comes down to one persons word against another, it must be difficult to prove to that required level. it is right and proper that this level of proof be maintained.
as in so many areas of life, statistics can prove almost any point of view. calls to r**e crisis centres suggest that as many as 1 in 20 attacks remain unreported, the personal nature of examination of the alleged victim, both physically and mentally is sufficient to deter many women from complaining. when coupled with the unliklihood of conviction many will decide that it is simply not worthwhile putting themselves through the process. it is difficult to work out the motivation for a false claim, although no doubt they do happen. if personal anecdote has a place in this kind of discussion i would ask how many men do you know who have been the subject of a false claim? how many women do you know who have made a false claim? how many women do you know who have been s*xually assaulted? i would wager that the majority would answer none to the first 2 questions, but that (possibly more likely the women posters, cause we talk about these things to each other) the third question would elicit some yes responses. please note that i said some, not everyone, before i get shot down on that.

Lefty3668 Posted on 8/3 11:52
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

Just to clarify Burrah, I am talking about the number of allegations that they investigate that the SOCO's/detectives investigate and become sure are false quite quickly, not the number of cases that they feel may be ra-pe but there is no chance of a conviction or the number that go to court, but not guilty is the verdict.

Perhaps the debate will turn to unreported ra-pes in due course.

So what is your guess for clearly false allegations?

rutters Posted on 8/3 11:57
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

approx 5%

burrah Posted on 8/3 12:03
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

to be honest i wouldnt even like to hazard a guess at that, i would have thought that the polce are charged with finding the evidence of a case, on both sides, the decision regarding it's validity or truthfulness is the job of the CPS. in any crime the police cannot be held accountable for deciding guilt or innocence

squeaksqueak Posted on 8/3 12:09
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

red rebel you are talking out of ur a**e. my ex girlfriend earlier on this year shouted out to the rest of her housemates that I had raped her whilst we were together 18 months ago, i dont know where this came from but was completely shocked. I dont know why she said it but she did and its not a very nice thing to defend yourself against. Its all about belief, people dont even look at the evidence in cases like this, they believe what is cconvenient to them. Although I would agree that very few women are likely to take a false accusation to the courts, some may feel they have no choice but to, its gone too far and some actually get it into their head that it did happen. They should be named and shamed cos unfortunately unlike any other crime there is no concrete proof to show your innocence and people can tend to think guilty until proven innocent

squeaksqueak Posted on 8/3 12:11
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

and the actual rate for falsely reported crimes is 45%, i did my research on this matter

Lefty3668 Posted on 8/3 12:22
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

'i would have thought that the polce are charged with finding the evidence of a case, on both sides'

The very point I am making. The police willlook at the woman's story and then examine it forensically to see whether it stands up or whether it doesn't. This will include the 'scene' as well as the 'victim' and 'attacker'.

Take a guess. Of those that come forward alleging ra-pe, how many can the SOCO's rule out as false straight away?

If you don't want to commit to a figure, is it more or less than 1 in 2?

Lefty3668 Posted on 8/3 12:23
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

squeaksqueak, is that all crime?

red_rebel Posted on 8/3 12:24
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

squeaky:

I am not 'talking out of my a**e'. I am making a guess based maybe naively on the belief that people are fundementally good and would not make light of such a serious issue. I may be wrong but it would be for the right reasons.



--- Post edited by red_rebel on 8/3 12:27 ---

MrHard Posted on 8/3 12:34
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

A friend of mine was falsely accused of this a few years back!

It made his life hell. He was the one that rang the police but they did nothing with his allegation, they only acted on her later allegation. She ended up doing a bunk from where she lived, whilst my friend had to go through the ringer for months.

She got away scot free with her false statement. Whilst he is still struggling with the stress of it all.

She should have been named and shamed.

squeaksqueak Posted on 8/3 12:38
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

ok, you are quite naive then if you think people are fundamentally good and wouldnt do such a thing cos there are a lot of screwed up people in the world. I was pretty much told the same thing if i made a complaint they wouldnt do anything with it so just informed the university about it instead

Lefty3668 Posted on 8/3 12:47
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

Squeak, is that all crime? Including insurance fraud presumably?

borojap Posted on 8/3 13:06
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

Lefty, what do you mean by 'find to be false'? Do you mean that they personally judge to be false? Or do you mean cases where they find some compelling, irrefutable evidence that the case is false? And what do mean by false? False, as in "she's lying thru her teeth, no-one's even touched her" or false, as in "no way this is ever going to stand a chance in court"?

As well as not knowing any of the above, I've also no idea what kind of people the 2 officers you mentioned are, so obviously no way of having any idea how they do their job, how they judge people or what the "answer" is.

Anyway, whatever it is, it's irrelevant here. Quite apart from the fact that they're only 2 people, how many cases the authorities responsible for investigation and prosecution don't think are worth pursuing isn't the issue: the issue here, and what the govt are trying to act on (whether in the right way or not, I don't know) is the number of cases the police and CPS think ARE good cases. Because the number of these that fail the court hurdle, in spite of the time and effort spent getting past the evidential hurdles, is shockingly high. The CPS and police are not all idiots. It's conceivable that they might send some dubious cases to court, but not 90 odd % of the cases.

BTW, squeaky, how far did your ex take it? Did she go to the police? Did it go to court? Did she take out a civil case against you? (The civil case is actually the only way the woman can take it to court herself - it's the CPS decision in a criminal case)

boro_steve Posted on 8/3 13:08
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

So we should take the police and CPS' word for it?! We don't live in a police state yet.

FFS jury trial is the only way to resolve this and enough evidence is already admissable.

borojap Posted on 8/3 13:11
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

So are you suggesting that in over 90% of r-pe cases the police and CPS really have got it wrong?


--- Post edited by borojap on 8/3 13:14 ---

boro_steve Posted on 8/3 13:14
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

Are you suggesting that in over 90% of cases the jury has got it wrong?

borojap Posted on 8/3 13:35
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

Steve, sorry, mate, you're missing the point. You seem to think the judge just sends the jury off saying, "right, do you think he did it or not, off you go". Not that simple. You don't really think like that, do you?

Of course juries decide what they consider are facts beyond reasonable doubt, but they also have to decide according to the rules that are set.

As the law on murder stands, the defendant must have intended to at least cause GBH to the victim. The jury decide accordingly (amongst other things)- did s/he intend to cause GBH or worse to the victim? So, hence the defendant saying, "but I didn't want him to die" doesn't necessarily get off.

But imagine that was different, and that for a murder conviction the defendant had to have been absolutely certain that death, not just serious injury, would result. If that were the case, juries would find an awful lot of murder cases not guilty, because it would be such a difficult defence to disprove. And if the jury said that they couldn't be certain he knew the victim would die, the judge would then DIRECT them that they MUST find him not guilty.

In that case, the juries wouldn't be getting it "wrong", they'd just be doing as they were told by the judge and the law. The problem would be that the bar for securing a conviction would be set insanely high, and lots of murderers who should be off our streets would be walking them.

The same applies in this issue.

--- Post edited by borojap on 8/3 13:37 ---

Lefty3668 Posted on 8/3 14:47
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

Again, some good points.

Borojap, I am referring to two female forensic science officers. Although employed by the Police they are civilians. Furthermore, SOCO's are actually independent experts although most people are unaware of this.

If there is a ra-pe alleged they attend. Both they and the detectives are trained in questioning techniques for delicate situations like ra-pe or talking to children in child abuse cases. They look at the woman's story and look for the forensic evidence to back this up.

This may include examining the woman and finding no evidence of sexual intercourse, examining the man and finding no evidence of say crossmatching minute pieces of clothing fibres, examining the scene and finding that the evidence at the scene is either also not there or conflicts with the womans story. Further questioning can often result in the woman changing the story to one which stands up even less, or questioning the man can produce an alibi even.

So by proved to be false, I mean just that. Not where the evidence is conflicting and where it goes to a senior officer or the CPS to decide whether to take it forward.

So what is your estimate of the proportion of ra-pe allegations that these frontline forensic officers attend that they can prove as being false and a waste of police time. I repeat, I make a distinction between this and the number of cases that go to court but prosecution is unsuccessful.

So far we have 1%, 5%, <10%, 30%, perhaps 45% and perhaps 90% although I think that is answering adifferent question.

boro_steve Posted on 8/3 14:49
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

I don't really get it? I think I probably have far greater experience of the legal system than you!

The strict rules are there to protect the defendant's right to a fair trial.

I do have a law degree, I do understand the system. The simple fact of the matter is, however, we must prevent miscarriages of justice, changing the the law concerning r_ape so that the burden of proof rests with the man, which is effectively what this is doing, is incredibly dangerous.

Innocent till proven guilty, right to a fair trial, burden of proof rests with the prosecution.

If there is any doubt as to guilt a person must be acquited.

The problem with this charge is it is one person's word against another most of the time as the evidence to show sexual intercourse does not necessarily prove r_ape.

MsCurly Posted on 8/3 14:50
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

Kerrrrching!

borojap Posted on 8/3 15:28
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

"I think I probably have far greater experience of the legal system than you!", you say, Steve. Why do you think that? Is it because you have a law degree?!

Where did you do your law degree? Because you've misunderstood burden of proof. This amendment would not put the burden of proof on the defendant at all. The prosecution would still have to prove beyond reasonable doubt and convince the jury that the man failed to gain consent. And you're not calling the jury stupid, are you?
Just like in a murder case, where the burden is not on the defendant to prove that he didn't intend GBH, it's up to the prosecution to convince the jury that he did.


Lefty, thanks for the clarification. No idea, I'm afraid, and I'm not guessing because as I said, it's irrelevant to this argument about the cases which the authorities DO think worth pursuing and go to court. If you have some point to make about this figure you've been told, maybe best just make it.

Lefty3668 Posted on 8/3 15:46
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

OK.

The SOCO’s I know put the number of alleged ra-pes that they can rule out early as false, following the examination and questioning, at more than 9 out of 10.

I am sure there are more than a few jaws just dropped. I was staggered myself at the time. So much so that I brought the subject up a few weeks later in case they had just been having a bad day, but they were both adamant that their estimate that at least 90% (and probably nearer 95%) of the alleged ra-pes were false was still about right.

However, it did transpire from our 2nd chat that 3 or 4 out of ten of these allegations were what they termed ‘bilking’, which is prostitutes reporting punters for not paying. Technically ra-pe I know, but not the same degree of damage to the individual.

This still leaves say 53 out of every 60 reported rapes as bogus.

Borojap, you questioned the ‘sample’ size. It is only two SOCO’s but actually there were only about 5 female ones to cover Middlesbrough and East Cleveland so between them they will have attended 40%+ of all the ra-pes in the area which is a pretty good sample size.

So to go back to riverboat_captain's original point, anyone change their view?

borojap Posted on 8/3 16:11
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

Not really that surprised lefty, mate. You had dropped a few hints

I'm sure there are plenty of other offences where lots of time wasting complaints have to be initially cleared out the way. Not ideal, of course, but it happens.

As for the 53 out of 60 - well that's only the reported ones and THAT'S the problem. How many are unreported? If only a third were reported, then that could feasibly be 53 bogus claims out of nearly 200 rather than 60. And I think most estimates of the number not reported suggest it's much higher than two thirds. And given how unlikely a victim who has genuinely been r-ped is to see their attacker convicted in court, those high estimates of people thinking it's not worth reporting surely seem well plausible. Is that not an issue that needs addressing?

Incidentally, a few have mentioned the idea of the defendant's name being kept secret until and unless convicted. If it was workable, I'd say that's fair enough. Ironically though, perhaps the poor conviction rate actually devalues a not guilty verdict. Is there a bit of a stigma of 'yeah, he got off, but everyone knows he did it' because so many do get off? Dunno?

rutters Posted on 8/3 16:20
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

I find that a staggering proportion..I'm very surprised..just shows there's a lot of women out there that men should be protected from.

I believe that the situation comes about because there a growing number of feminist power brokers around (Vera Baird et al) and a lot of men who are either apologists or afraid of being labelled 'sexist'

There is a pervasive feeling that men must be punished and women supported..just look at prostitutes and kerb crawlers!

borojap Posted on 8/3 16:27
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

You could also say it show how few women who've been genuinely raped actually report it.

And if the bogus ones are weeded out that early, then perhaps us men don't have as much to worry about as some are suggesting. As from what lefty says, it seems like they're dismissed pretty early on in the process. There are plenty of women and men who make all kinds of unnecessary allegations on all kinds of stuff, and they too mostly get weeded out at an early stage.

Interesting vaguely related situation in Japan re train gropers. Here I think a disturbing number of innocent men really are getting a rough deal. Police started to crack down on what was a problem. But there have also been cases of clearly false allegations. Trouble is, in Japan, the police do f-all in the way of evidence gathering or proper investigation - it all hangs on the confession, and if you don't confess, they just keep you longer. So there've been some cases of men who could either confess, pay a fine & go home or stay in the cells longer while they protested their innocence. At least in Britain, it's very, very rare for the frivolous cases to ever get as far as court or someone being detained.

--- Post edited by borojap on 8/3 16:35 ---

burrah Posted on 8/3 16:44
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

the actual number of reported s xual crimes in middlesbrough for January 2006 is 14. of these 6 were sanctioned detections, ie those resulting in a charge, summons, caution or other formal sanction. the remainder are those which have not yet received sanction detection status, either due to the perpetrator not having been caught, or there being insufficent evidence to charge the alleged attacker, this certainly has the potential to include some incidence of the alleged attacker having been falsely accused.
6 sanctioned detections from 14 reports certainly belies the notion that 90-95% are false allegations.
the naming of the alleged culprit is consistent with all crimes, the exception made is where the accused is under 16, although not in all cases. to not make public the acused name in a r**e case would require a distinction between that crime and for example someone charged with murder. is the stigma greater? anonimity is conferred on the alleged victim as a means to encourage reporting, as previously mentioned on here. where a false accusation is made, the accuser loses that right to anonimity.

--- Post edited by burrah on 8/3 17:16 ---

squeaksqueak Posted on 8/3 17:27
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

she hasnt done anything since coming out to the rest of her house and making these allegations, this was about a month ago now. The 8 other people living in her house are part of my social group though so some of them have had to decide who to believe and its about 50-50, people are scared to speak up against her though they just end up siding with her or trying to keep out of it. All you can do is just get on with your life and not let things get to you even if u do keep getting evil looks from her coursemates and so forth

squeaksqueak Posted on 8/3 17:29
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

oh yeah and she has since changed it to coerce whatever thats supposed to mean.

boro_steve Posted on 8/3 17:30
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

Well borojap it's not only my law degree but my court experience both during and after it that would suggest I'm more experienced.

This very much puts a burden of proof on the defendant to prove that she gave a valid consent. This ammendment will essentially say drunken consent is not valid and it will be up to the man to prove she wasn't drunk, very difficult if she's had a few drinks, drink affects different people differently.

Don't be fooled, juries are fairly stupid, I'd be scared stiff myself of a jury trial. The evidence they should be allowed to see is rightly restricted.

Also you have no evidence to suggest that simply because many reported rapes are bogus that there are many unreported rapes that are real.

borojap Posted on 8/3 23:01
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

Well, Steve, you obviously jump to conclusions very easily about other people. You have no way of knowing about my experience or knowledge of the matter and you never bothered to ask - you've just assumed what you think.

Before you were saying trust the jury, now you're saying juries are stupid. Feck me, if you're a lawyer, then let you be on the prosecution if I'm ever in court.

The amendment will not say that at all. You make it sound like it'd be made a strict liability offence - where TF does it say that drunken consent would not be valid?! Ditto my previous comment to you on burden of proof. Evidence? There's plenty of strong evidence to suggest that. Obviously, if some people don't believe it, that's up to them.

And you never answered my question about the CPS.

boro_steve Posted on 8/3 23:30
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

I did, simply because the CPS believes it is a strong case, it is not necessarily a strong case, they may have more information than a jury gets but there's a bloody good reason for that and I'd suggest if you'd spent anytime in court you'd be wary of a jury too. The problem with juries is you never get the people you want, a judge I was speaking to last year believes we end up with juries of low intelligence because those of moderate to high intelligence are able to avoid jury service because of their jobs, in my experience, he as a serious point.

This proposal is saying be sure of a woman's consent or risk a r_ape trial, however, they're also considering whether a drunken consent is not a valid consent. Now enters the whole problem area, how drunk is drunk? What steps must the man take to confirm she is not too drunk to consent, IMO an incredibly dangerous step.

An honest and reasonably held belief that consent was given is a fair and just test, IMO.

boro_steve Posted on 8/3 23:31
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

Oh and about the drunken consent:

"one of the Government's law officers revealed that the Home Office is also considering a change in the r_ape laws to require juries to decide whether a woman who had consumed alcohol was too drunk to give her consent."

Link: Drunken consent

borojap Posted on 9/3 0:18
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

You didn't answer it at all. I asked if you were suggesting that the CPS got it wrong in 90% of cases. Where did you answer that?

The fundamental principle of English law that the prosecution must prove wrongdoing would be unchanged. They would have to prove he didn't seek consent or did so at a time when she was unable to give or refuse it. The people who might have something to fear would be those who said they just assumed with little or no reason for that assumption. With you doing this again in your above post, perhaps I can see why it might touch a nerve

FWIW, if you're arguing that the jury system is flawed and that juries are easily manipulated, then you'd find plenty of common ground with me. But that's not the issue here, and it IS extremely funny how much of an about turn that is compared to what you'd said before about leaving it to the jury. It rather sounds like you're saying 'let's leave it to the jury' if it's likely to go the way you want, but then if you're not so sure, you change to 'juries are stupid'.

You never said where you did your law degree either. And please tell us about that court experience.

boro_steve Posted on 9/3 0:28
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

The CPS do not prosecute believing every case will win, they prosecute if they think it stands a reasonable chance of being sucessful. By it's nature it's a very difficult charge to prosecute, a CPS worker may believe the woman, the jury may believe the man, the CPS worker may have information about the man that the jury do not and should not have.

I still believe it should be down to the jury as to who they believe in what is essentially one person's word against another, however I do question the ability of juries to be swayed by certain pieces of evidence, and this is why they are prevented from being introduced. Just because they may be of relatively low intelligence, it does not mean that they cannot decide, having heard both sides, which side they find the most plausible.

The proposal changes the law significantly in that even though he may have sought consent, that consent, because of intoxication, is invalid.

My law degree is from Liverpool, I have spent countless hours in court both on work experience with both solicitors and barristers and on several marshalling schemes with judges. In addition to this I have spent quite a large amount of my own free time in the public gallery observing trials.

--- Post edited by boro_steve on 9/3 0:30 ---

borojap Posted on 9/3 1:33
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

And the reason why you felt the need to bring your law degree and/or court experience into your argument - I'll have a think about that one.

Seriously though, I never said the CPS did believe they could win every case. But whether or not you think the CPS decision to prosecute is wrong in over 90% of cases is what I asked and what you still didn't answer.

Part of the r-pe law already states that a man who gets a woman drunk just so he can shag her as she won't be in a state to refuse consent can't get away with it. That's the theory, but obviously in practice her drunkenness is going to be quite a hindrance to the prosecution's case as regards other evidence. IMO, this change would be similar as it'd be saying a man who FINDS a woman drunk and thinks he can shag her as she's in no state to refuse can't get away with it that easily. Likewise, in practice, her drunkenness isn't going to help the prosecution's case as regards other evidence, so it isn't going to result in a flood of extra convictions.

IMO, the real aim of the proposed change is not more convictions per se, it's fewer cases happening in the first place. Lots of law is passed primarliy for the effect it has on behaviour. To go back to the original question here - is this saying to women that they can get as drunk as they like, because the law will protect them? Well, I can't imagine there are many who'd breathe a sigh of relief that if they get raped, he'll at least get sent down. It's surely more likely that they'd rather not be attacked in the first place.

Blindingly obviously, anyone (woman or man) who acts in a way which makes them more prone to becoming a victim of crime is not doing themselves any favours. But that doesn't mean the other side bears no responsibility. Leaving your keys in your softtop sports car all day in the summer wouldn't be very bright either - but the guy who nicked it isn't going to get off by saying you didn't say he couldn't have it. So if anything the proposed change isn't a message to women at all, but a message to the man who's not bothered whether she wants it or not that he has to take just a little bit more responsibility. If people want to argue that this message should be combined with a separate message to binge-drinking women to take a bit more care and try to avoid getting into the situation in the first place, then I'd agree very much with that.


Anyway, steve, I think we've both made our positions clear and that we see some things differently that we're not going to agree on - there are points where I think you're wrong, but I respect your reasoning - fair enough, mate. Interesting argument though it's been, they sometimes can go a bit too far and banter gets a bit too below the belt - I'm guilty of that a few times. Other threads suggest to me that you seem a decent bloke and it might be an idea if we just agree to differ before that happens.

boro_steve Posted on 9/3 1:44
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

Since it was a debate about the law, one's experience with the law is relevant.

And yes, I do believe in some cases the CPS is wrong in bringing cases forward, but not in 90% of cases, just because 90 odd per cent are unsuccesful it does not mean that all are without merit.

Unfortunately I do not trust this government to tinker with such a difficult and delicate law in the way you obviously do.

Clearly we are never going to agree, so we agree to disagree and move on.

borojap Posted on 9/3 2:02
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

Yep, fair comment, it is relevant; just that the thought had crossed my mind that you might possibly have mentioned it to try and strengthen your case a little. Coulda done the same myself, but I didn't feel the need.

Trust this govt to get it right? No, I never said that. Not certain they'll get it wrong either. As I said earlier in the thread, I think there's an issue that needs addressing and that some change in the law is appropriate. Whether this is the best one, I don't know, as I said above. I do agree with you that it's a tricky area though and that caution needs to be exercised when changing the law.

Assuming I have a 9 hour time difference advantage here, I'd better let you get your beauty sleep. Good night or o-yasumi nasai as they say here.

means_the_world Posted on 9/3 2:05
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

when riverboat complains about the practically zero rate of conviction rates against this crime I'll believe he actually cares about this issue.

typical post that makes out that it is women who are the reason they get raped, rather than blaming rapists.

boro_steve Posted on 9/3 2:32
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

Are you boro_bliss in disguise?!

means_the_world Posted on 9/3 3:07
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

No.

Not sure though that because you are a lawyer it gives you the best perspective.

I'm not saying that this is you but I've never really understood how lawyers go home at night satisfied that they are paying their bills being employed by people who are rapists or murderers.

I know that people deserve a defence and all that - but (actually in all seriousness) how do people really justify it?

--- Post edited by means_the_world on 9/3 3:39 ---

boro_steve Posted on 9/3 3:41
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

In exactly that way, everyone deserves a defence and everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Lawyers do not decide who is guilty, the jury do.

Plenty of lawyers have plenty of sleepless nights, but you have to take the rough with the smooth as in every job, the one case where u get someone off a murder charge, who you know to be innocent, makes up for the countless days of defending people you think are guilty.

You've totally misinterpreted RC by the way!

means_the_world Posted on 9/3 3:46
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

how does getting one innocent charged person off make up for acting on behalf of someone who has perpetrated a terrible crime against another innocent person?

what is RC?

boro_steve Posted on 9/3 3:48
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

RC is riverboat_captain

Better that 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man to be convicted.

Also you assume that lawyers know for certain that their client did certain acts, that's rarely the case.

means_the_world Posted on 9/3 4:00
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

having seen 'this life' i suspect you are right on the last bit and that it is a more accurate portrayal of lawyers' relationship with their clients than 'perry mason'

I think the sad thing for lawyers is that you start to define 'guilt' as a legal rather than a moral term. it's a cop out to blame things on the jury when you are the ones getting paid for defending evil acts.

this '10 guilty men' argument works insofar as you judge it against your profession's code but it must be sickening at times.

jax_1 Posted on 9/3 9:08
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

MTW Are you saying then that everyone who has had their collar felt for a serious crime should just be sent away regardless of whether or not they are guilty?

Cobain_94 Posted on 9/3 9:27
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

The laws should be amended the other way. It's far too easy for a girl to cry wolf and ruin someone's reputation.

rutters Posted on 9/3 13:13
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

I agree and from what we have heard in this thread, it looks like there are far more false accusations than real rapes (heresay I know) Men have just as much right to be protected fromn wrongdoing as women but, as I said previously, there are too many bad imposed female MPs and power brokers out there that have no qualms about representing 'womens issues' A male MP doing likewise would be labelled a misogynist, chauvinist or dinosaur.

Lefty3668 Posted on 9/3 15:27
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

Burrah,

Regarding your point about the statistics that you quoted.

‘6 sanctioned detections from 14 reports certainly belies the notion that 90-95% are false allegations.’

When I read this I thought ‘yes, I always thought that was high and I was looking forward to resuming discussions with my friends to poo poo them.’

But actually, if anything your stats back them up I think. 6 out of 14 reported sexual crimes were detected. That is 57% which have not resulted in a charge. But isn’t this ALL sexual crimes? So this will include such things as sexual harassment, downloaded child porn, Kerb crawling etc. All of these are offences where the incident occurs at the same time as the detection/charge (and we know that there is a zero tolerance policy with regard to street prostitution). These will skew the overall stats quite badly.

Add to that the fact that your sample is just for January. What if there was a flasher? There was an incident on the Monday, another on the Tuesday. On the Wednesday the police were waiting for him and he was nicked. That is 3 offences all detected in one go. What does that do to the stats?

The point is that your sample size is a) too narrow and b) not specific enough.

My friends were talking about their experience over if not their career then in the previous year or two. They are female SOCO’s. Why would they make such a claim if they did not believe it to be true? They gain no bragging points, do they? Could they be wrong? I would say there is a margin for error, certainly, which is maybe 8 out of 10 or 7 at a push that are false claims. If it were 57% or less, would they not just say that for every genuine ra-pe we get, there is a false one.

They simply could not be that far out.

riverboat_captain Posted on 9/3 15:50
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

means_the_world: My initial comment concerned the creeping trend in this country,that people are less and less prepared to take responsibility for their own actions. We are trying to build a world where somebody else is always to blame.
A kid breaks his arm at school, so his parents request compensation. Then schools start banning competitive sport. That kind of thing.

I'm not saying that ra-pe isn't a terrible crime; of course it is. All I am saying is, with a government that says that we can't binge drink, we can't take drugs, we can't smoke, this piece of legislation does little to discourage girls from getting helplessly drunk in the first place.

And there is at least one inteligent girl on this thread, agreeing with me.

Lefty3668 Posted on 9/3 16:01
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

Rutters, I'm not sure I would go as far as to say that there are more false reports of ra-pe than cases of ra-pe because we really do not know how many unreported ra-pes there are. Borojap makes the point that perhaps only 1/3 of ra-pes are reported. That may mean that there are more false claims of ra-pe than genuine ra-pes in total or it may mean that for every false report, there are 3 rapes of which 2 go unreported.

riverboat_captain Posted on 9/3 16:11
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

It's so difficult to put figures on this. There was an item on TV a while ago which stated that in the vast majority of cases where a girl had claimed to have been date raped, no drugs were detected and the victim was mearly drunk. But then, how can you tell how many had their drinks spiked?

Lefty3668 Posted on 9/3 17:30
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

For what it is worth R_C, I pretty much agree with your posts on here.

The main point is, I think, that whatever the proportion of genuine claims to false ones, there are a significant number of false allegations.

This is not the public perception. Reading Rebels early posts they would have been exactly my thoughts several years ago before talking to my SOCO friends. It is obvious why the Police do not publicise this sort of imformation though. It is difficult enough getting genuine victims to come forward.

Borojap makes a good case that there would more likely be more convictions in the cases that go to court. However, whether this is a good law change (quite apart from the equality arguments etc.) would depend, I would think, on whether it led to more false convictions, which is Boro_Steve’s argument.

Among the very good points on this thread is what Jax says about the false claims. My SOCO friends said that there are a vast number of different circumstances why false claims are made. I think it may be useful to detail some of them again here.

Very often it is young girls who have just lost their virginity and later claim that they were ra-ped. This in itself may be for many reason’s such as simple overwhelming regret in the cold light of day, regret because it was an unpleasant experience, regret that they went along with a boyfriend’s persuasion against their better judgement.

Sometimes a girl may cry ra-pe because they were under the impression that they would gain a boyfriend, either through self delusion or being lied to.

Sometimes the woman will claim they were ra-ped when caught out in some infidelity by the husband/boyfriend. They may accuse their lover in such circumstances or they may not.

And sometimes a girl will claim ra-pe as a cry for attention. There may not have even been any sex but they will accuse an unseen attacker who pushed them down an alley, a teacher, boss, colleague, neighbour or friend.

I would ask people to consider three things in each of the above.

1. Would a purpose be served by prosecuting the woman for the false allegation or should some sympathy/discretion be used?
2. What contribution might alcohol have genuinely had in the scenario?
3. In a change to the law, how might alcohol be used by a false claimant in such a scenario?

rutters Posted on 9/3 17:49
re: Amendment to ra-pe laws

My point remains that although women need protecting from predatory men, men also need protecting from falsely accusing women (the consequences of which can be just as dire). It's just that there are no people with real power who are campaigning for mens right therefore they (men's rights)are never considered.