[I]Proposed anti-rape laws (UK) - probably controversial
Gary N
couldnt stand up properly and I think he raped me" (after she'd gone back
to his place)
At what point does a drunken f**k become rape?
And at which point do the words "Personal Responsibility" cease to be
relevant.
Please understand that I do _not_, in any way, shape or form, condone rape.
But when the proposed laws are intended to "Increase the prosecution rate"
of accused rapists I find it of concern.
Of course this, emotionally charged, intended change to the law was
released on the same day that Gordon got slaughtered in the House over the
illegal donations to Labour.
How Very Convenient.
gary
--
"If Americans had longer attention spans, who knows the follies they could
have wrought."
Jack Womak
Eric Jarvis
ga...@scaryriders.com says...
> The Merkin woman on the BBC News 24 report said "I was so drunk that I
> couldnt stand up properly and I think he raped me" (after she'd gone back
> to his place)
>
> At what point does a drunken f**k become rape?
>
> And at which point do the words "Personal Responsibility" cease to be
> relevant.
>
At no point. Which means that when faced with the choice of whether or
not to have sex with somebody who is drunk you have the responsibility to
decide whether they are in a state to meaningfully consent. "Personal
Responsibility" cuts both ways.
> Please understand that I do _not_, in any way, shape or form, condone rape.
> But when the proposed laws are intended to "Increase the prosecution rate"
> of accused rapists I find it of concern.
>
Since I know several women who claim, convincingly, to have been raped
and who did not report the rape to the police because of fears about how
they would be treated in court, I'm inclined to suspect that the plans
are very sensible indeed.
We have an adversarial system of justice in the UK. Which means that the
crux of the matter in court is how well the accusation of rape holds up
when the victim is cross examined. Having been subjected to hostile
questioning in court about a matter of some emotional intensity I can
assure you that it isn't something to be undertaken lightly no matter how
clear cut the case. So I'm strongly in favour of allowing at least some
form of video evidence. There have long been well established concerns
about the way rape accusations are investigated. Again there is good
reason to at least look at possible changes to police procedures.
I'd say it's sensible and long overdue, at least in principle. Of course
after a few months of sensational and inaccurate reporting, and the
inevitable emotional blackmail by various campaigning and lobby groups,
who knows what sort of mess will result. However that's a problem with
how the political establishment currently operates in practise, a reason
to ignore the hype and speculation in the media and to vote against any
politicians pandering to it, not a reason to ignore real problems.
--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Puck
> At what point does a drunken f**k become rape?
Hard to say. I live on a college campus and have been to some parties
where you'll see utter bastards hovering over girls, refilling their
drinks at every opportunity in what can only be described as an attempt
to get them horizontal one way or another.
If a guy takes advantage of a girl who is too wasted to make rational
decisions then you'd better believe it's rape. I know some people will
say that the girl should have known better then to drink so much, but to
me that sounds like the arguments you get in the Middle East where a
rape victim was "asking for it" by showing her ankles. A victim is still
a victim. Yes, it's stupid to walk down a dark alley in the middle of
the night, but if you get mugged then the mugger is the criminal, not you.
The problem with drunkenness (indeed, with any sort of substance abuse)
is that it's a gradual process. Having a couple of drinks probably won't
make you dopey enough to sleep with a stranger, but it might be enough
to convince you that *another* couple of drinks is a fine idea, and your
rationality slides downhill from there.
To me the only problem is how to interpret it when /both/ participants
were intoxicated. If a wasted guy goes to bed with a wasted girl, and
then she claims she was raped, then what? I doubt the courts will listen
if the guy says she raped him, but if neither of them could think
straight then what would the new laws say?
--
Sic Semper Segfaults - Programmer's Motto
Daniel Orner
> The Merkin woman on the BBC News 24 report said "I was so drunk that I
> couldnt stand up properly and I think he raped me" (after she'd gone back
> to his place)
>
> At what point does a drunken f**k become rape?
>
> And at which point do the words "Personal Responsibility" cease to be
> relevant.
>
> Please understand that I do _not_, in any way, shape or form, condone rape.
> But when the proposed laws are intended to "Increase the prosecution rate"
> of accused rapists I find it of concern.
>
> Of course this, emotionally charged, intended change to the law was
> released on the same day that Gordon got slaughtered in the House over the
> illegal donations to Labour.
>
> How Very Convenient.
>
> gary
Having never been drunk, I'm probably in no position to really comment
on this. But drunk driving laws are in effect pretty much everywhere, so
obviously being drunk doesn't absolve you from responsibility. If you're
going to get drunk, I suppose you'll need to either a) make sure you
don't get so tanked you're no longer aware of your actions, or b) lock
yourself in a room until the pink elephants go away.
Daniel Orner
> The Merkin woman on the BBC News 24 report said "I was so drunk that I
> couldnt stand up properly and I think he raped me" (after she'd gone back
> to his place)
>
> At what point does a drunken f**k become rape?
>
> And at which point do the words "Personal Responsibility" cease to be
> relevant.
>
> Please understand that I do _not_, in any way, shape or form, condone rape.
> But when the proposed laws are intended to "Increase the prosecution rate"
> of accused rapists I find it of concern.
>
> Of course this, emotionally charged, intended change to the law was
> released on the same day that Gordon got slaughtered in the House over the
> illegal donations to Labour.
>
> How Very Convenient.
>
> gary
Oh, I misread who was responsible for what here. X-X That's an entirely
different kettle of fish. Yes, I certainly believe that if the woman can
barely stand up, she can't give consent and therefore it's rape. If it's
someone you don't know well and she's had a few, leave her alone.
I'm really reaching here, though, having had no experience in this
field either. 8-)
Eric Jarvis
says...
>
> Having never been drunk, I'm probably in no position to really comment
> on this. But drunk driving laws are in effect pretty much everywhere, so
> obviously being drunk doesn't absolve you from responsibility. If you're
> going to get drunk, I suppose you'll need to either a) make sure you
> don't get so tanked you're no longer aware of your actions, or b) lock
> yourself in a room until the pink elephants go away.
>
Believe me, the pink elephants won't go away. They will come right inside
the room with you. Best thing is to down a few more drinks for the pink
elephants until you go away.
Graycat
>The Merkin woman on the BBC News 24 report said "I was so drunk that I
>couldnt stand up properly and I think he raped me" (after she'd gone back
>to his place)
>
>At what point does a drunken f**k become rape?
The point where it's non-consensual. That's not that hard to grasp, is
it?
If she's too drunk to consent, don't sleep with her. If you're too
drunk to know whether she's consented or not, you wouldn't be
convicted in Sweden (can't say about the UK) - because you'd lack
provable intent.
--
Elin
The world makes perfect sense, as a black comedy
Orjan Westin
That's an interesting distinction, though. Arguably, there should be
something like "unintended rape", like the distinction between manslaughter
and murder.
Orjan
--
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
Fiction, Thoughts and Software
http://www.cunobaros.com/
esmi
>> And at which point do the words "Personal Responsibility" cease to be
>> relevant.
> At no point. Which means that when faced with the choice of whether or
> not to have sex with somebody who is drunk you have the responsibility to
> decide whether they are in a state to meaningfully consent. "Personal
> Responsibility" cuts both ways.
<snip>
I can foresee two problems here:
1. How does the average person define at what point A.N.Other is no
longer in a state to meaningfully consent? Sure - there are obvious
extremes of drunk and not-drunk but it's the fuzzy bit in the middle
that bothers me. When it comes to driving we have breathalysers that can
be used to give a precise reading which can the be compared to a clearly
defined alcohol threshold. No "ifs" and no "buts"[1]. Frankly I don't
see party/dating breathalysers catching on...
2. What if *both* parties are drunk? If they're both in the same state
and she is deemed not to be able to meaningfully consent, then surely he
can't meaningfully understand the ramification of any actions he might take.
esmi
[1] Well - not many...
--
2008 Discworld Convention
22nd to 25th August 2008
Hilton Metropole Hotel, Birmingham, UK
http://www.dwcon.org/
Graycat
>Graycat wrote:
>> If she's too drunk to consent, don't sleep with her. If you're too
>> drunk to know whether she's consented or not, you wouldn't be
>> convicted in Sweden (can't say about the UK) - because you'd lack
>> provable intent.
>
>That's an interesting distinction, though. Arguably, there should be
>something like "unintended rape", like the distinction between manslaughter
>and murder.
In sweden there's mord, dråp and vållande till annans död - which I
think people would translate as murder 1, murder 2 and manslaughter -
but without knowing british or american murder laws I can't say that
they mean the same thing.
Vållande till annans död in Sweden is when you kill someone without
intent for murder, but with serious carelessness/culpability. It could
be useful to have a carelessness-offence for rape too.
Now that I think about it, that's probably what a lot of the people
who are advocating changed rape laws are after - only they don't know
it, or they don't want to phrase it like that.
A reason to tread carefully are the extreme personal consequences for
someone who gets convicted of rape - there are almost no crimes that
carry a heavier stigma. And, of course, you wouldn't want to water the
rape definition down so much that people would shrug it off and say
"yeah, but he was only convicted of _unintentional_ rape - and we all
know what bitches are like with their no means yes..." You'd still
have to keep the evidence bar pretty high so as to avoid convicting in
uncertain cases.
It's a lot easier with murder because death is a lot easier to prove
than rape.
mcv
> Gary N wrote:
>> The Merkin woman on the BBC News 24 report said "I was so drunk that I
>> couldnt stand up properly and I think he raped me" (after she'd gone back
>> to his place)
>>
>> At what point does a drunken f**k become rape?
>>
>> And at which point do the words "Personal Responsibility" cease to be
>> relevant.
>
> different kettle of fish. Yes, I certainly believe that if the woman can
> barely stand up, she can't give consent and therefore it's rape. If it's
> someone you don't know well and she's had a few, leave her alone.
If she's drunk and he's not, yes, but on the other hand, if you're liable
to get so drunk you can't stand up properly, perhaps you shouldn't be
going back "to his place" at all. Also, if you don't want to have sex
with strangers, yet have a tendency to do so while drunk, you should
simply not get drunk while going out alone.
Both parties carry responsibility here. If she made it clear she didn't
want sex, and he forced it on her anyway, then it's obviously rape, but
if both are so smashing drunk that neither had any idea what was happening
anymore, then both carry equal responsibility for what happens afterward.
To me, "I was drunk so I can't be held responsible for what I did" is
never an acceptable defense.
mcv.
--
Science is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. It's a tool.
A very powerful tool, but not the only tool. And if only that which
could be verified scientifically was considered real, then nearly all
of human experience would be not-real. -- Zachriel
Graycat
>If she's drunk and he's not, yes, but on the other hand, if you're liable
>to get so drunk you can't stand up properly, perhaps you shouldn't be
>going back "to his place" at all. Also, if you don't want to have sex
>with strangers, yet have a tendency to do so while drunk, you should
>simply not get drunk while going out alone.
>
>Both parties carry responsibility here. If she made it clear she didn't
>want sex, and he forced it on her anyway, then it's obviously rape, but
>if both are so smashing drunk that neither had any idea what was happening
>anymore, then both carry equal responsibility for what happens afterward.
>
>To me, "I was drunk so I can't be held responsible for what I did" is
>never an acceptable defense.
Criminal law doesn't work like that. A crime doesn't stop being a
crime because the victim's an idiot.
Sabremeister Brian
Er ... that's what he said.
--
www.sabremeister.me.uk
www.livejournal.com/users/sabremeister/
Use brian at sabremeister dot me dot uk to reply
"Cupid has a depressing tendency to use me for target practice"
- Me, sometime in 2002.
Graycat
>In a speech called u17tk31bo59kh3h87...@4ax.com,
>Graycat <grayca...@gmail.com> said:
>> mcv <mcv...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>
>>> If she's drunk and he's not, yes, but on the other hand, if you're
>>> liable to get so drunk you can't stand up properly, perhaps you
>>> shouldn't be going back "to his place" at all. Also, if you don't
>>> want to have sex with strangers, yet have a tendency to do so while
>>> drunk, you should simply not get drunk while going out alone.
>>>
>>> Both parties carry responsibility here. If she made it clear she
>>> didn't want sex, and he forced it on her anyway, then it's
>>> obviously
>>> rape, but if both are so smashing drunk that neither had any idea
>>> what was happening anymore, then both carry equal responsibility
>>> for
>>> what happens afterward.
>>>
>>> To me, "I was drunk so I can't be held responsible for what I did"
>>> is
>>> never an acceptable defense.
>>
>> Criminal law doesn't work like that. A crime doesn't stop being a
>> crime because the victim's an idiot.
>
>Er ... that's what he said.
It is? I was responding, or intending to respond, to the bits that
said they'd be equally responsible, that she shouldn't be getting that
drunk and that she shouldn't be going back to his place.
My point is that you can say that all you like, his responsibility
doesn't go away just because she's been an idiot.
If that's what mcv meant too, it's all good and we agree. If not, then
we disgree :o)
Peter Ellis
>
> It is? I was responding, or intending to respond, to the bits that
> said they'd be equally responsible, that she shouldn't be getting that
> drunk and that she shouldn't be going back to his place.
>
> My point is that you can say that all you like, his responsibility
> doesn't go away just because she's been an idiot.
But how are you defining "that drunk"? OK, if she can't actually walk,
it's fairly obvious. What if she can walk and talk just fine, says "Yes"
loudly and then says "No" the next morning? Still rape? Presumably not.
But what if she doesn't remember saying "Yes"? Is it rape again now?
Everyone reacts to alcohol differently. You seem to be saying there's an
obvious clear-cut definition of when someone's "too drunk" and when
they're not.
Peter
Sabremeister Brian
The way you replied made it look like you were responding solely to
the final paragraph.
The first paragraph is common sense (which alcohol has a tendency to
erode and suspend). The second paragraph basically says (AIUI) that if
both parties are irresponsibly drunk, you cannot make a valid case
that only one of them is responsible for what occurs between them. If
someone were to be charged with rape in that instance, the other party
would also have to be charged with rape, or at least with
drunk-and-incapable (or reckless stupidity). The final paragraph I
don't think anyone can disagree with.
--
www.sabremeister.me.uk
www.livejournal.com/users/sabremeister/
Use brian at sabremeister dot me dot uk to reply
"Love is like the measles; we all have to go through it."
- Jerome K Jerome
Graycat
>On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Graycat wrote:
>>
>> It is? I was responding, or intending to respond, to the bits that
>> said they'd be equally responsible, that she shouldn't be getting that
>> drunk and that she shouldn't be going back to his place.
>>
>> My point is that you can say that all you like, his responsibility
>> doesn't go away just because she's been an idiot.
>
>But how are you defining "that drunk"? OK, if she can't actually walk,
>it's fairly obvious. What if she can walk and talk just fine, says "Yes"
>loudly and then says "No" the next morning? Still rape? Presumably not.
>But what if she doesn't remember saying "Yes"? Is it rape again now?
Events after the fact are irrelevant.
>Everyone reacts to alcohol differently. You seem to be saying there's an
>obvious clear-cut definition of when someone's "too drunk" and when
>they're not.
What? No I'm not - I'm not defining drunk at all, or even caring about
the level of drunkenness. I'm saying that the rapist's culpability is
irrelative of the victim's. He is responsible for his actions
regardless of her drukenness.
Reader in Invisible Writings
> The Merkin woman on the BBC News 24 report said "I was so drunk that I
> couldnt stand up properly and I think he raped me" (after she'd gone back
> to his place)
>
> At what point does a drunken f**k become rape?
>
> And at which point do the words "Personal Responsibility" cease to be
> relevant.
>
> gary
> --
> "If Americans had longer attention spans, who knows the follies they could
> have wrought."
> Jack Womak
My news server seems to be censoring me! Third time via Google Groups.
This stems in part from a Judge ruling that if a woman can't remember
then possibly she gave consent.
The key is being in a fit state to give meaningful consent.
If you arrived home drunk and a friend or neighbour let you in and in
the morning you found your TV or Car or other valuable gone their
defense of 'you said I could have it' would not stand up in any
court. To me it follows with this offense as without consent it is
assault of the worst kind - this used to get the same punishment as
murder!
Peter Ellis
>
> It's fairly well known, I think, that a male so drunk that he's
> not responsible is also so drunk that he's not capable - too much
> booze wilts the tonker. So if it happened at all, he was sober
> enough to take responsibility.
Rubbish. Some men get brewers' droop, others don't.
Peter
Peter Ellis
OK, take the following situation. You are a juror. A man is in court
accused of rape.
He admits sex, and says that she said "yes".
She admits she was drunk and can't remember everything that happened, but
is adamant she didn't say "yes"
Do you convict? If so, why? If not, why not?
Peter
Daniel Orner
Not being able to consent doesn't mean you're not able to change your
actions. It simply means you're more susceptible to suggestion than
would otherwise be the case, and that you'd regret it later.
I think there has to be pretty much a zero-tolerance policy for this -
if not legally, then at least morally. If you see that someone is in
that fuzzy state between drunk and not-drunk, don't try anything.
Eric Jarvis
anony...@example.com says...
> On 29 Nov 2007 10:26:40 GMT,
> mcv <mcv...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> >Both parties carry responsibility here. If she made it clear she didn't
> >want sex, and he forced it on her anyway, then it's obviously rape, but
> >if both are so smashing drunk that neither had any idea what was happening
> >anymore, then both carry equal responsibility for what happens afterward.
> >
> >To me, "I was drunk so I can't be held responsible for what I did" is
> >never an acceptable defense.
>
> not responsible is also so drunk that he's not capable - too much
> booze wilts the tonker. So if it happened at all, he was sober
> enough to take responsibility.
>
I'm afraid that simply isn't the case. Well known though it is. Alcohol
affects different people in different ways. Some people can drink huge
amounts and still behave responsibly even when they can barely stand up
unaided, others are a menace if they so much as walk past an open bottle.
Some people are prone to brewer's droop after a pint of beer, some remain
unaffected in that way whilst almost completely incapable of rational
thought.
Eric Jarvis
> on 28/11/2007 16:48 Eric Jarvis said the following:
> > In article <Xns99F69B078AAECga...@212.23.3.119>,
> > ga...@scaryriders.com says...
> <snip>
>
> >> And at which point do the words "Personal Responsibility" cease to be
> >> relevant.
>
> > At no point. Which means that when faced with the choice of whether or
> > not to have sex with somebody who is drunk you have the responsibility to
> > decide whether they are in a state to meaningfully consent. "Personal
> > Responsibility" cuts both ways.
>
> <snip>
>
> I can foresee two problems here:
>
> 1. How does the average person define at what point A.N.Other is no
> longer in a state to meaningfully consent? Sure - there are obvious
> extremes of drunk and not-drunk but it's the fuzzy bit in the middle
> that bothers me. When it comes to driving we have breathalysers that can
> be used to give a precise reading which can the be compared to a clearly
> defined alcohol threshold. No "ifs" and no "buts"[1]. Frankly I don't
> see party/dating breathalysers catching on...
>
Only a problem if you expect every decision to be clear cut. It's like
any other decision requiring an idea of the mental state of somebody
else, liable to be inaccurate, almost certain to be difficult to prove
with any precision. It doesn't matter in terms of the law since that can
work solely on the basis of perception.
> 2. What if *both* parties are drunk? If they're both in the same state
> and she is deemed not to be able to meaningfully consent, then surely he
> can't meaningfully understand the ramification of any actions he might take.
>
If both are drunk it makes no difference. Being drunk is no excuse for
any form of wrongdoing. It's not like you can get away with saying in
court "I realise I was wrong to drive home from the party after drinking
12 pints of beer and half a bottle of whisky, but it's not my fault, I
was too drunk to make a responsible decision".
I'm really just saying that anyone who is going to drink or to be around
people who are drinking then there are some basics to learn. Firstly how
to be drunk without causing trouble, and how to deal with somebody who is
drunk without causing trouble.
> [1] Well - not many...
>
Not many, but all after the offence rather than before. You generally
decide whether or not to drive without the aid of a breathalyser.
Eric Jarvis
pj...@cam.ac.uk says...
If that's all there is then you will pretty much be told by the judge
that you shouldn't convict. It's simply one person's word against
another's, which can only be decided by comparing the stories against
something else. The chances are that there's other evidence though.
Forensic evidence, evidence of witnesses that saw either or both before
or afterwards, character witnesses. So in the end you'll either convict
or not according to which story, if either, is backed up by other
evidence.
FiX
wrote:
Frankly, we're in speculation realmhere... it of course depends on
each individual story. However I agree with Elin that the fac that the
victim was drunk never absolves the raper of any responsibility...
FiX
--
"[afp believes its] sensibilities are so refined that we
appreciate things that leave Joe and Josephine Q.
Public drooling with duh."
-April Goodwin-Smith
Peter Ellis
> pj...@cam.ac.uk says...
>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Graycat wrote:
>>>
>>> What? No I'm not - I'm not defining drunk at all, or even caring about
>>> the level of drunkenness. I'm saying that the rapist's culpability is
>>> irrelative of the victim's. He is responsible for his actions
>>> regardless of her drukenness.
>>
>> OK, take the following situation. You are a juror. A man is in court
>> accused of rape.
>>
>> He admits sex, and says that she said "yes".
>>
>> She admits she was drunk and can't remember everything that happened, but
>> is adamant she didn't say "yes"
>>
>> Do you convict? If so, why? If not, why not?
>>
>
> If that's all there is then you will pretty much be told by the judge
> that you shouldn't convict. It's simply one person's word against
> another's, which can only be decided by comparing the stories against
> something else. The chances are that there's other evidence though.
> Forensic evidence, evidence of witnesses that saw either or both before
> or afterwards, character witnesses.
... all of which are pretty much irrelevant if he admits having sex with
her.
I was posing the question to Greycat, and the context is her assertion
that the man shouldn't have sex with her if she's too drunk to give
consent. How is the man supposed to judge how drunk is "too drunk"? If
it ends up in court, how is the jury supposed to make that decision?
Peter
mcv
While I agree that *his* responsibility doesn't go away because she's
an idiot, *her* responsibility doesn't go away because she's an idiot
either. See, while going back to his appartment doesn't give him any
right to expect sex, if she's all flirty with him in the bar, goes
with him to his appartment, *and* doesn't object or give any kind of
struggle when he starts getting all amorous, it does get kinda hard
to claim you're raped.
When the time comes, it is just as much het responsibility to say no
as it is his to get het consent.
By the way, why is it always the women that has to consent or say no?
What if in this scenario the man remembers as little as she does and
also claims to have been raped? Are they suddenly both rapists
because neither was capable of making responsible decisions?
Peter Ellis
>
> However I agree with Elin that the fac that the
> victim was drunk never absolves the raper of any responsibility...
And I of course agree too. However, getting drunk may lead to the true
facts of the case being impossible to determine. And in that case you
cannot convict. Potential victims (of any sex and/or orientation!)
should be aware of that.
Peter
mcv
> Peter Ellis <pj...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Graycat wrote:
>>>
>>> It is? I was responding, or intending to respond, to the bits that
>>> said they'd be equally responsible, that she shouldn't be getting that
>>> drunk and that she shouldn't be going back to his place.
>>>
>>> My point is that you can say that all you like, his responsibility
>>> doesn't go away just because she's been an idiot.
>>
>>But how are you defining "that drunk"? OK, if she can't actually walk,
>>it's fairly obvious. What if she can walk and talk just fine, says "Yes"
>>loudly and then says "No" the next morning? Still rape? Presumably not.
>>But what if she doesn't remember saying "Yes"? Is it rape again now?
>
> Events after the fact are irrelevant.
But often easier to check, remember and prove.
What if she did say "yes", but both were so drunk that neither can
remember it, and the next day she says no? And what if she said "no",
but neither can remember it the next day? No-one can tell the
difference, and yet one is rape, and the other isn't.
It gets kinda hard to prosecute a case like that.
And then you get the problem of what happens when neither can remember
what happens but one of them lies and claims he/she does remember.
At some point you have to decide whether to run the risk of imprisoning
an innocent man, or letting a rapist go free.
>>Everyone reacts to alcohol differently. You seem to be saying there's an
>>obvious clear-cut definition of when someone's "too drunk" and when
>>they're not.
>
> What? No I'm not - I'm not defining drunk at all, or even caring about
> the level of drunkenness. I'm saying that the rapist's culpability is
> irrelative of the victim's. He is responsible for his actions
> regardless of her drukenness.
But doesn't the same think go the other way? What if she was the one
who, in het drunken state, initiated the love making? What if he said
no, but neither can remember it the next day? What if she's technically
the rapist, but no-one can tell?
mcv
>
> Not being able to consent doesn't mean you're not able to change your
> actions. It simply means you're more susceptible to suggestion than
> would otherwise be the case, and that you'd regret it later.
> I think there has to be pretty much a zero-tolerance policy for this -
> if not legally, then at least morally. If you see that someone is in
> that fuzzy state between drunk and not-drunk, don't try anything.
But what if you're both in that fuzzy state, and you (mistakenly?)
interpret the other's behaviour as already trying something?
David Chapman
> If that's all there is then you will pretty much be told by the judge
> that you shouldn't convict. It's simply one person's word against
> another's, which can only be decided by comparing the stories against
> something else. The chances are that there's other evidence though.
> Forensic evidence,
If a woman is too drunk to resist, there will be no forensic evidence that
is not consistent with ordinary sex.
> evidence of witnesses that saw either or both before
> or afterwards,
Such as?
> character witnesses.
So you shouldn't convict when it's the victim's word against the
defendant's, but it's OK to convict when it's the word of the defendant's
mates against that of the victim's family?
mcv
> On 28 Nov, 15:13, Gary N <g...@scaryriders.com> wrote:
>> The Merkin woman on the BBC News 24 report said "I was so drunk that I
>> couldnt stand up properly and I think he raped me" (after she'd gone back
>> to his place)
>>
>> At what point does a drunken f**k become rape?
>>
>> And at which point do the words "Personal Responsibility" cease to be
>> relevant.
>
>
> This stems in part from a Judge ruling that if a woman can't remember
> then possibly she gave consent.
>
> The key is being in a fit state to give meaningful consent.
>
> If you arrived home drunk and a friend or neighbour let you in and in
> the morning you found your TV or Car or other valuable gone their
> defense of 'you said I could have it' would not stand up in any
> court. To me it follows with this offense as without consent it is
> assault of the worst kind - this used to get the same punishment as
> murder!
Although I don't want to minimise the seriousness of rape, the
comparison with murder doesn't quite work in all situations. People
have consentual sex all the time, but they don't consentually kill
each other all the time. While is it unlikely that a girl pulled
from her bicycle on a dark straat consented with sex, consent isn't
anywhere near as unlikely if she met him in a bar and voluntarily
went home with him.
In the end, I'm a big fan of Voltaire's "it is better to risk saving
a guilty man than to condemn an innocent one."
Daniel Orner
Courts generally look at what a "reasonable person" would assume. If a
reasonable person could think that the girl was too drunk to give
consent, then the accused should be found guilty. It's up to the jury to
decide that based on evidence and testimony.
Daniel Orner
> When the time comes, it is just as much het responsibility to say no
> as it is his to get het consent.
>
> mcv.
Actually, no. It's never her responsibility to say no. It's the person
initiating the sex act who has the responsibility to make sure the other
person is giving consent.
Daniel Orner
> Daniel Orner <webm...@ffcompendium.com> wrote:
>> Not being able to consent doesn't mean you're not able to change your
>> actions. It simply means you're more susceptible to suggestion than
>> would otherwise be the case, and that you'd regret it later.
>> I think there has to be pretty much a zero-tolerance policy for this -
>> if not legally, then at least morally. If you see that someone is in
>> that fuzzy state between drunk and not-drunk, don't try anything.
>
> But what if you're both in that fuzzy state, and you (mistakenly?)
> interpret the other's behaviour as already trying something?
>
>
> mcv.
You said it yourself. Drunkenness is no excuse for this behavior. If
you're not awake enough to interpret correctly, you should stay away
from trying.
Alec Cawley
In my opinion, drunkenness is not, except perhaps for the first two or
three times you do it, an excuse for any kind of what you might call
"volitional" acts. If you find that drunkenness makes you violent or
over amorous (to the extent od possible rape, as we are discussing in
this thread) you have a duty not to get drunk in circumstances where
this tendency may be released,
There is a tendency, particularly in Britain, to regard drunkenness both
as in some way good, and as an excuse for behaviour that would be
unacceptable when sober. In my opinion neither is true. Drunkenness
results when you go past the good effects of moderate levels of alcohol,
which one might call tipsiness (though I am told that other languages
have words with more positive connotations for the state). The idela is
to reach that state of relaxation, sociability and reduced but not
removed inhibitions, then slow ones drinking to stay there as long as
the party lasts. But to many people see that as a mere whistle-stop on
the walk to getting deeply drunk - in which state they do very foolish
things.
Of course, I am fortunate in that, apart from falling over, when I get
drunk I only, as I am informed, talk bollocks (usually followed by "no
change then")
Graycat
>In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.07...@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>,
>pj...@cam.ac.uk says...
>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Graycat wrote:
>> >
>> > What? No I'm not - I'm not defining drunk at all, or even caring about
>> > the level of drunkenness. I'm saying that the rapist's culpability is
>> > irrelative of the victim's. He is responsible for his actions
>> > regardless of her drukenness.
>>
>> OK, take the following situation. You are a juror. A man is in court
>> accused of rape.
First of all, I wouldn't be a juror - we don't have them :o)
I'd be a judge.
>> He admits sex, and says that she said "yes".
>>
>> She admits she was drunk and can't remember everything that happened, but
>> is adamant she didn't say "yes"
>>
>> Do you convict? If so, why? If not, why not?
>>
>If that's all there is then you will pretty much be told by the judge
>that you shouldn't convict. It's simply one person's word against
>another's, which can only be decided by comparing the stories against
>something else. The chances are that there's other evidence though.
>Forensic evidence, evidence of witnesses that saw either or both before
>or afterwards, character witnesses. So in the end you'll either convict
>or not according to which story, if either, is backed up by other
>evidence.
In actual rape cases there is usually little or no forensic evidence,
no witnesses and a history of consensual sex between the defendant and
the accuser. Thats what makes them hard. In Sweden we don't use
character witnesses (though as far as I can tell there isn't an actual
law against them, it's just not seen as relevant).
To answer Peter's question; most crimes are made up of two components
- an action and an intent. The action part is usually the easy and
uncontroversal part - in your example the guy admitts to the sex, so
that's not in question.
The issue then is wether he had intent. For him to have had intent he
has to either understand that she is not consenting, or at the very
least have had enough clues that she wasn't that he can be said to
have acted without regard for her opinion. (if this sounds a little
fuzzy it's because I don't have the right English words, I'm sorry)
Generally speaking drunkeness is not a defence for an accused person -
if you have intoxicated yourself, you are tried as if you had been
sober. There are problems with this, but it's the general rule.
Her drunkeness is relevant in two ways - firstly it will make proof
harder to come buy because she doesn't remember very well. Secondly in
judging what he could have known about her opinion.
If she _was_ in fact too drunk to consent, he should be convicted.
If she wasn't too drunk and didn't consent, and he realised this, he
should be convicted.
If she wasn't too drunk and she didn't consent but he didn't know
this, and didn't have strong reason to suspect it, he should not be
convicted.
If she wasn't too drunk and did consent he should not be convicted.
What is "too drunk" is a question that has to be determined in each
case and will be a question of proof. If all the evidence that is
available is what you (Peter) outlined above, it will be a question of
whether her story can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt - and it
probably can't, so I would probably not convict. If in doubt, you have
too free.
Graycat
>Graycat <grayca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> What? No I'm not - I'm not defining drunk at all, or even caring about
>> the level of drunkenness. I'm saying that the rapist's culpability is
>> irrelative of the victim's. He is responsible for his actions
>> regardless of her drukenness.
>
>But doesn't the same think go the other way? What if she was the one
>who, in het drunken state, initiated the love making? What if he said
>no, but neither can remember it the next day? What if she's technically
>the rapist, but no-one can tell?
We're talking about different things here. One, what I'm talking
about, is the legal technical facts - what the law says. The other,
what I think you're talking about, is questions of evidence.
The law is what it is irrespective of what you can prove. If a person,
male or female, has sex with another person, male or female, without
that person's consent, that is rape. There is no question about this.
Wether in any one specific case you can prove what has actually
happened and convict a person is a wholly separate issue.
Graycat
>Graycat <grayca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> My point is that you can say that all you like, his responsibility
>> doesn't go away just because she's been an idiot.
>
>While I agree that *his* responsibility doesn't go away because she's
>an idiot, *her* responsibility doesn't go away because she's an idiot
>either.
She doesn't (if she's the victim) _have_ a legal responsibility. A non
legal responsibility in general terms, sure, but not a legal one.
>When the time comes, it is just as much het responsibility to say no
>as it is his to get het consent.
No, it's not. There is never a responsibility to say no, not legal,
and imo, not moral. She needs to make sure he's consenting, he needs
to make sure she is.
>By the way, why is it always the women that has to consent or say no?
>What if in this scenario the man remembers as little as she does and
>also claims to have been raped? Are they suddenly both rapists
>because neither was capable of making responsible decisions?
Their memeory changes nothing - whether it was rape depends on what
_happened_at_the_time_, not what they think happened or remember
happened afterwards.
Carol Hague
> mcv wrote:
> > Daniel Orner <webm...@ffcompendium.com> wrote:
> >> Not being able to consent doesn't mean you're not able to change your
> >> actions. It simply means you're more susceptible to suggestion than
> >> would otherwise be the case, and that you'd regret it later.
> >> I think there has to be pretty much a zero-tolerance policy for this -
> >> if not legally, then at least morally. If you see that someone is in
> >> that fuzzy state between drunk and not-drunk, don't try anything.
> >
> > But what if you're both in that fuzzy state, and you (mistakenly?)
> > interpret the other's behaviour as already trying something?
>
> You said it yourself. Drunkenness is no excuse for this behavior. If
> you're not awake enough to interpret correctly, you should stay away
> from trying.
The trouble is that if you're not in a state to interpret correctly
you're likely not aware that your mental functions are impaired, or by
how much.
--
Carol
"If you are allergic to a thing, it is best not to put
that thing in your mouth. Particularly if the thing is
cats." - Lemony Snicket _The Wide Window_
Arthur Hagen
>
> There is a tendency, particularly in Britain, to regard drunkenness
> both as in some way good, and as an excuse for behaviour that would be
> unacceptable when sober.
Like coming on to someone, you mean?
There are many happy couples who would never have been so if alcohol handn't
loosened the inhibitions enough for people to take the first few steps.
Perhaps /especially/ the British appear to have a hard time breaking the
ice, or risking rejection, or guessing whether leaning over for a kiss would
be welcomed or not.
Moderate alcohol use has done a lot of good.
Not-so-moderate alcohol use, in uncontrollable situations, has done a lot of
bad.
> Of course, I am fortunate in that, apart from falling over, when I get
> drunk I only, as I am informed, talk bollocks (usually followed by "no
> change then")
I tend to solve world problems. And I don't fall over, as I've learned the
trick of holding on to the rug with both hands.
Re alcohol: My local liquor depot has been unable to obtain Innis & Gunn
for me lately, and I've had to make do with Belhaven. And I /really/ wanted
beer simmered sausages for my birthday dinner next week... *sigh*
Regards,
--
*Art
FiX
wrote:
>Daniel Orner <webm...@ffcompendium.com> wrote:
>
>> mcv wrote:
>> > Daniel Orner <webm...@ffcompendium.com> wrote:
>> >> Not being able to consent doesn't mean you're not able to change your
>> >> actions. It simply means you're more susceptible to suggestion than
>> >> would otherwise be the case, and that you'd regret it later.
>> >> I think there has to be pretty much a zero-tolerance policy for this -
>> >> if not legally, then at least morally. If you see that someone is in
>> >> that fuzzy state between drunk and not-drunk, don't try anything.
>> >
>> > But what if you're both in that fuzzy state, and you (mistakenly?)
>> > interpret the other's behaviour as already trying something?
>> You said it yourself. Drunkenness is no excuse for this behavior. If
>> you're not awake enough to interpret correctly, you should stay away
>> from trying.
>The trouble is that if you're not in a state to interpret correctly
>you're likely not aware that your mental functions are impaired, or by
>how much.
Not to mention the fact that quite a few people don't realise they're
drunk eventhough they have trouble walking... "I'm just a little bit
tipsy"... it's always theother who's a drunkard, you know?
The fact still stands that drunkeness is not an excuse for any
behaviour. And while I've been drunk a few times myself I can safely
state that I've never done any reprehensive act due to my being
drunk[1]
FiX
[1] which is _not_ the same as "I've never done any reprehensive act
while drunk", in case you wondered O:-)
Daniel Orner
> Daniel Orner <webm...@ffcompendium.com> wrote:
>
>> mcv wrote:
>>> Daniel Orner <webm...@ffcompendium.com> wrote:
>>>> Not being able to consent doesn't mean you're not able to change your
>>>> actions. It simply means you're more susceptible to suggestion than
>>>> would otherwise be the case, and that you'd regret it later.
>>>> I think there has to be pretty much a zero-tolerance policy for this -
>>>> if not legally, then at least morally. If you see that someone is in
>>>> that fuzzy state between drunk and not-drunk, don't try anything.
>>> But what if you're both in that fuzzy state, and you (mistakenly?)
>>> interpret the other's behaviour as already trying something?
>
>> You said it yourself. Drunkenness is no excuse for this behavior. If
>> you're not awake enough to interpret correctly, you should stay away
>> from trying.
>
> The trouble is that if you're not in a state to interpret correctly
> you're likely not aware that your mental functions are impaired, or by
> how much.
>
That's indeed the problem with drunkenness, and if you know that that's
how you get when you drink, you have a duty to society to not get
plastered. If you refuse to exercise that duty, society's laws will take
care of it in the unfortunate case that it results in a crime.
Carol Hague
People are very bad at knowing things about themselves sometimes though
- they may seem like obnoxious drunken gits to you or me, but *they*
probably think they're "just a bit tipsy and having a laugh" and may
retain that perception even after they wake up in a shop window with a
traffic cone on their head. I'm not saying you're wrong in theory,
mind, just that there are definite snags in practice. Human involvement
tends to cause this in most systems...
>If you refuse to exercise that duty, society's laws will take
> care of it in the unfortunate case that it results in a crime.
I think this is a tad idealistic. No society is perfect, nor are their
laws or, indeed the people who enforce them (as the recent taser thread
points out) so there will always be mistakes, in both directions.
Gary N
news:474efa47$0$229$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl:
Which is roughly what was worrying me.
Bringing in a law designed, according to the reports on the Beeb, to
"Increase the prosecution rate" of accused rapists sounds suspiciously
like "guilty until proven innocent".
gary
--
"If Americans had longer attention spans, who knows the follies they
could have wrought."
Jack Womak
Graycat
>Bringing in a law designed, according to the reports on the Beeb, to
>"Increase the prosecution rate" of accused rapists sounds suspiciously
>like "guilty until proven innocent".
Prosecution is not conviction, it's a trial.
Orjan Westin
> Gary N <ga...@scaryriders.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Bringing in a law designed, according to the reports on the Beeb, to
>> "Increase the prosecution rate" of accused rapists sounds
>> suspiciously like "guilty until proven innocent".
>
> Prosecution is not conviction, it's a trial.
Unfortunately, prosecution is often mixed up with persecution. Especially
in the tabloid-led UK, where prosecution is often read as conviction, in
high-profile cases, and any "not guilty" verdict gets translated into
"guilty but let off by a technicality or conspiracy". :-(
Orjan
--
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
Fiction, Thoughts and Software
http://www.cunobaros.com/
Arthur Hagen
> Gary N <ga...@scaryriders.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Bringing in a law designed, according to the reports on the Beeb, to
>> "Increase the prosecution rate" of accused rapists sounds
>> suspiciously like "guilty until proven innocent".
>
> Prosecution is not conviction, it's a trial.
That depends on where you are. In the US, being prosecuted for, or even
arrested for a sex offense means you are barred from quite a few types of
employment for the rest of your life. Even if aquitted.
In /some/ states, you can sue the state to get an arrest record stricken,
but that costs /your/ time and money, and the net result is similar to a
community service sentencing (which you spend on paperworks and in court)
plus a very high fine (which you pay the lawyers and the court).
Regards,
--
*Art
mcv
> mcv wrote:
>> When the time comes, it is just as much het responsibility to say no
>> as it is his to get het consent.
>
> initiating the sex act who has the responsibility to make sure the other
> person is giving consent.
My point is that when there has been flirting, they go home together,
etc, it may become a bit hard to determine exactly where the line between
harmless firting and initiating sex lies. If the situation is already
quit romantic, things get on a roll, they end up having sex, and later
she realises she's never actually said she wanted sex, is it rape, or
does het going along with it count as consent?
Do my wife and I have to give each other explicit permission to
continue before we have can sex? I'd say there is some point where
consent is implicit, unless explicitly denied. Exactly where that
point is can probably be a matter of lots of debate, but I think
it is there somewhere.
mcv
> mcv <mcv...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>Graycat <grayca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> What? No I'm not - I'm not defining drunk at all, or even caring about
>>> the level of drunkenness. I'm saying that the rapist's culpability is
>>> irrelative of the victim's. He is responsible for his actions
>>> regardless of her drukenness.
>>
>>But doesn't the same think go the other way? What if she was the one
>>who, in het drunken state, initiated the love making? What if he said
>>no, but neither can remember it the next day? What if she's technically
>>the rapist, but no-one can tell?
>
> We're talking about different things here. One, what I'm talking
> about, is the legal technical facts - what the law says. The other,
> what I think you're talking about, is questions of evidence.
>
> The law is what it is irrespective of what you can prove.
But the law is also kind of irrelevant when nothing can be proven.
I'm all for the harsh punishment of sex offenders, but I'd prefer to
restrict that to real, obvious and provable crimes, and not treat
every stupid drunken fuck as a possible crime, no matter how much
I'd like to see some of those stupid drunken fuckers behind bars.
Sabremeister Brian
Orjan Westin <nos...@cunobaros.com> said:
> Graycat wrote:
>> Gary N <ga...@scaryriders.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Bringing in a law designed, according to the reports on the Beeb,
>>> to
>>> "Increase the prosecution rate" of accused rapists sounds
>>> suspiciously like "guilty until proven innocent".
>>
>> Prosecution is not conviction, it's a trial.
>
> Unfortunately, prosecution is often mixed up with persecution.
> Especially in the tabloid-led UK, where prosecution is often read as
> conviction, in high-profile cases, and any "not guilty" verdict gets
> translated into "guilty but let off by a technicality or
> conspiracy".
> :-(
And quite apart from an media circus, people accused of sex crimes are
often immediately fired from whatever job they have (or suspended on
no or half-pay), cannot claim any benefits to help them out
financially, are unable to get another job at anything like the same
pay level (even after being cleared at trial (if applicable)), and any
family life they have disintegrates. Being accused of rape is pretty
much as life destroying as being raped.
--
www.sabremeister.me.uk
www.livejournal.com/users/sabremeister/
Use brian at sabremeister dot me dot uk to reply
"When the rich wage war it's the poor who die."
- Jean-Paul Satre
mcv
> Eric Jarvis <a...@ericjarvis.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.07...@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>,
>>pj...@cam.ac.uk says...
>
>>>
>>> She admits she was drunk and can't remember everything that happened, but
>>> is adamant she didn't say "yes"
>>>
>>> Do you convict? If so, why? If not, why not?
>
> To answer Peter's question; most crimes are made up of two components
> - an action and an intent. The action part is usually the easy and
> uncontroversal part - in your example the guy admitts to the sex, so
> that's not in question.
>
> The issue then is wether he had intent. For him to have had intent he
> has to either understand that she is not consenting, or at the very
> least have had enough clues that she wasn't that he can be said to
> have acted without regard for her opinion. (if this sounds a little
> fuzzy it's because I don't have the right English words, I'm sorry)
>
> Generally speaking drunkeness is not a defence for an accused person -
> if you have intoxicated yourself, you are tried as if you had been
> sober. There are problems with this, but it's the general rule.
>
> Her drunkeness is relevant in two ways - firstly it will make proof
> harder to come buy because she doesn't remember very well. Secondly in
> judging what he could have known about her opinion.
>
> If she _was_ in fact too drunk to consent, he should be convicted.
IMO only if he was not too drunk. Because what if they were both too
drunk to consent, and had sex anyway? Drunken people do stupid things.
Are they both rapists in that situation?
Or is the one who doesn't regret it afterwards the offender?
> If she wasn't too drunk and she didn't consent but he didn't know
> this, and didn't have strong reason to suspect it, he should not be
> convicted.
But what if she was too drunk to consent and he didn't know it?
Perhaps because he was too drunk himself, perhaps because he simply
had no idea exactly how drunk she was?
> What is "too drunk" is a question that has to be determined in each
> case and will be a question of proof.
And I think it's extremely hard to prove after the fact exactlly how
drunk you were.
> If all the evidence that is
> available is what you (Peter) outlined above, it will be a question of
> whether her story can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt - and it
> probably can't, so I would probably not convict. If in doubt, you have
> too free.
And in many of these drunken fuck/possible rape situations, there is
an enormous amount of room for doubt, and very little that can really
be proven.
Graycat
>Graycat <grayca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If she _was_ in fact too drunk to consent, he should be convicted.
>
>IMO only if he was not too drunk. Because what if they were both too
>drunk to consent, and had sex anyway? Drunken people do stupid things.
>Are they both rapists in that situation?
>
>Or is the one who doesn't regret it afterwards the offender?
Deja vu... I allready said that the relevant issue is what _happened_.
Questions of proof are hard - but that's what youre talking about, not
the law itself.
The law states what the consequences will be if certains things happen
- wether they have happened is a question of proof.
I say "if he raped her, he should go to jail" you respond with "what
if it wasn't rape?". To that all I can say is that well, in that case
he shouldn't. That's pretty obvious isn't it?
Having sex while drunk, or with a drunk person, does not make you a
rapist. Having sex with someone who isn't consenting does.
And I'm done with this discussion.
Daniel Orner
> Daniel Orner <webm...@ffcompendium.com> wrote:
>
>> Carol Hague wrote:
>>> Daniel Orner <webm...@ffcompendium.com> wrote:
>
>>>> You said it yourself. Drunkenness is no excuse for this behavior. If
>>>> you're not awake enough to interpret correctly, you should stay away
>>>> from trying.
>>> The trouble is that if you're not in a state to interpret correctly
>>> you're likely not aware that your mental functions are impaired, or by
>>> how much.
>>>
>> That's indeed the problem with drunkenness, and if you know that that's
>> how you get when you drink, you have a duty to society to not get
>> plastered.
>
> People are very bad at knowing things about themselves sometimes though
> - they may seem like obnoxious drunken gits to you or me, but *they*
> probably think they're "just a bit tipsy and having a laugh" and may
> retain that perception even after they wake up in a shop window with a
> traffic cone on their head. I'm not saying you're wrong in theory,
> mind, just that there are definite snags in practice. Human involvement
> tends to cause this in most systems...
Yep. How about the fact that (at least around here) literally no one
goes less than 10 km/h above the speed limit - and yet, if you're in a
crash, if you're going anything at all above the speed limit, regardless
of whose right of way it was, you're liable. That's the problem with
laws: they deal with how the world *should* work rather than how it
does, and often that's the only way *to* deal with it.
>
>> If you refuse to exercise that duty, society's laws will take
>> care of it in the unfortunate case that it results in a crime.
>
> I think this is a tad idealistic. No society is perfect, nor are their
> laws or, indeed the people who enforce them (as the recent taser thread
> points out) so there will always be mistakes, in both directions.
>
Of course - but the point is that the laws are in place to deal with
those situations.
Daniel Orner
> Daniel Orner <webm...@ffcompendium.com> wrote:
>> mcv wrote:
>>> When the time comes, it is just as much het responsibility to say no
>>> as it is his to get het consent.
>> Actually, no. It's never her responsibility to say no. It's the person
>> initiating the sex act who has the responsibility to make sure the other
>> person is giving consent.
>
> My point is that when there has been flirting, they go home together,
> etc, it may become a bit hard to determine exactly where the line between
> harmless firting and initiating sex lies. If the situation is already
> quit romantic, things get on a roll, they end up having sex, and later
> she realises she's never actually said she wanted sex, is it rape, or
> does het going along with it count as consent?
>
> Do my wife and I have to give each other explicit permission to
> continue before we have can sex? I'd say there is some point where
> consent is implicit, unless explicitly denied. Exactly where that
> point is can probably be a matter of lots of debate, but I think
> it is there somewhere.
>
>
> mcv.
We're not talking about a man and his wife. We're talking about a man
and a stranger. Obviously things are different if you're talking about
someone who's already in a relationship with the person in question.
Her "going along with it" only counts as consent if she was conscious
enough for it to count as consent. Obviously people rarely straight-out
ask the other "Would you like to have sex with me?". Again, we come back
to the reasonable person and how he's expected to react to the situation.
Daniel Orner
> In a speech called 5ra7c6F...@mid.individual.net,
> Orjan Westin <nos...@cunobaros.com> said:
>> Graycat wrote:
>>> Gary N <ga...@scaryriders.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Bringing in a law designed, according to the reports on the Beeb,
>>>> to
>>>> "Increase the prosecution rate" of accused rapists sounds
>>>> suspiciously like "guilty until proven innocent".
>>> Prosecution is not conviction, it's a trial.
>> Unfortunately, prosecution is often mixed up with persecution.
>> Especially in the tabloid-led UK, where prosecution is often read as
>> conviction, in high-profile cases, and any "not guilty" verdict gets
>> translated into "guilty but let off by a technicality or
>> conspiracy".
>> :-(
>
> And quite apart from an media circus, people accused of sex crimes are
> often immediately fired from whatever job they have (or suspended on
> no or half-pay), cannot claim any benefits to help them out
> financially, are unable to get another job at anything like the same
> pay level (even after being cleared at trial (if applicable)), and any
> family life they have disintegrates. Being accused of rape is pretty
> much as life destroying as being raped.
>
I agree that morally, the "victim" has to think back on the situation
and be reasonable, herself, in whether or not to go to the police. If
she really was only a bit tipsy, there's no way she should take
advantage of that. But legally, I think she'd still be within her rights
to do so.
Gary N
news:p75uk39h6tg7np2hr...@4ax.com:
> Their memeory changes nothing - whether it was rape depends on what
> _happened_at_the_time_, not what they think happened or remember
> happened afterwards.
Unfortunately one arrives back at the problem of memory. Since (unless
being of the exhibitionist persuasion) the actual act is likely to have
taken place in an at least secluded, if not completely private, location
the memory of the participants has to be relied on.
Which is always a bit dodgy.
I'm currently in legal dispute with one of our wonderful Government
agencies. Events in question, as recollected by members of this
organisation, differ significantly from what I _know_ happened.
Of course events as recollected by me differ extensively from what *they*
_know_ happened.
And we were all sober at the time (well I was - they claimed to have been).
Jeff Howell
> mcv wrote:
>> Daniel Orner <webm...@ffcompendium.com> wrote:
>>> Not being able to consent doesn't mean you're not able to
>>> change your actions. It simply means you're more susceptible to
>>> suggestion than would otherwise be the case, and that you'd regret it
>>> later.
>>> I think there has to be pretty much a zero-tolerance policy
>>> for this - if not legally, then at least morally. If you see that
>>> someone is in that fuzzy state between drunk and not-drunk, don't try
>>> anything.
>>
>> But what if you're both in that fuzzy state, and you (mistakenly?)
>> interpret the other's behaviour as already trying something?
>
> you're not awake enough to interpret correctly, you should stay away
> from trying.
Wait, wait. In the case mentioned in the original post, the 'rapee'
apparently can't remember exactly what happened. If both parties were
drunk, and if there was no application of excess force on the part of
one or the other, how exactly can that be rape? And if it is, isn't it
more of a mutual rape?
--
Jeff
Jeff Howell
> "Sabremeister Brian" <bpwak...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In a speech called u17tk31bo59kh3h87...@4ax.com,
>> Graycat <grayca...@gmail.com> said:
>>> mcv <mcv...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If she's drunk and he's not, yes, but on the other hand, if you're
>>>> liable to get so drunk you can't stand up properly, perhaps you
>>>> shouldn't be going back "to his place" at all. Also, if you don't
>>>> want to have sex with strangers, yet have a tendency to do so while
>>>> drunk, you should simply not get drunk while going out alone.
>>>>
>>>> Both parties carry responsibility here. If she made it clear she
>>>> didn't want sex, and he forced it on her anyway, then it's
>>>> obviously
>>>> rape, but if both are so smashing drunk that neither had any idea
>>>> what was happening anymore, then both carry equal responsibility
>>>> for
>>>> what happens afterward.
>>>>
>>>> To me, "I was drunk so I can't be held responsible for what I did"
>>>> is
>>>> never an acceptable defense.
>>> Criminal law doesn't work like that. A crime doesn't stop being a
>>> crime because the victim's an idiot.
>> Er ... that's what he said.
>
> It is? I was responding, or intending to respond, to the bits that
> said they'd be equally responsible, that she shouldn't be getting that
> drunk and that she shouldn't be going back to his place.
>
> My point is that you can say that all you like, his responsibility
> doesn't go away just because she's been an idiot.
>
> we disgree :o)
>
I think you're right. They were both utterly smashed out of their
minds, had no idea what they were doing, and clearly she raped him.
What?
--
Jeff
Daniel Orner
Well, certainly there'd have to be some kind of proof that it actually
happened. If the victim can't remember, then there would definitely be a
problem proving it in court.
As for a "mutual" rape... the fact is that a woman can't really rape a
man against his will. It's not physically possible. The worst that can
happen is seduction, which may be filed under "emotional abuse" possibly.
Sabremeister Brian
Daniel Orner <webm...@ffcompendium.com> said:
> As for a "mutual" rape... the fact is that a woman can't really rape
> a
> man against his will. It's not physically possible.
Bollocks!
--
www.sabremeister.me.uk
www.livejournal.com/users/sabremeister/
Use brian at sabremeister dot me dot uk to reply
"What's wrong with dropping out? To me, that is the whole point - to
remove oneself from an environment that is spiritually and
intellectually unfulfilling."
- William S Burroughs
Alec Cawley
> Alec Cawley <al...@spamspam.co.ulk> wrote:
>>
>> There is a tendency, particularly in Britain, to regard drunkenness
>> both as in some way good, and as an excuse for behaviour that would be
>> unacceptable when sober.
>
> Like coming on to someone, you mean?
> There are many happy couples who would never have been so if alcohol
> handn't loosened the inhibitions enough for people to take the first few
> steps. Perhaps /especially/ the British appear to have a hard time
> breaking the ice, or risking rejection, or guessing whether leaning over
> for a kiss would be welcomed or not.
> Moderate alcohol use has done a lot of good.
> Not-so-moderate alcohol use, in uncontrollable situations, has done a
> lot of bad.
Hence my distinction, which you snipped, between tipsiness and drunkenness.
I am fully aware of, and enjoy, the disinhibitory function of moderate
alcohol consumption. I explicitly distinguished it from drunkenness,
when inhibitions are totally removed rather than loosened.
Alec Cawley
Perfection is never achievable. Bit I would like it if the social
consensus swung away from letting people off lightly because they were
drunk, and towards censoring *serious* drunkenness for its own sake, not
only when something goes wrong.
You see far less evidence of drunkenness in Mediterranean countries. Not
mainly, I think, because people in those countries don't get drunk: per
capita alocol comsumption figures suggest that they do. But, so far as I
have seen, when they get drunk they are embarrassed and try to get home
quietly as fast as a unsteady pavement allows rather than treating it as
an excuse to sing raucously and throw park benches in the river, Lads in
Britain boast about how pissed they were Saturday night and the size of
their hangovers next morning; my son in his late teens stopped going out
on Saturdays becasue *every* night ended with him, at risk to himself,
trying to stop his friends starting fights, or having fights started on
them, This is cultural, not just booze; and I would like to change it.
Richard Bos
> Gary N <ga...@scaryriders.com> wrote:
>
> >The Merkin woman on the BBC News 24 report said "I was so drunk that I
> >couldnt stand up properly and I think he raped me" (after she'd gone back
> >to his place)
> >
> >At what point does a drunken f**k become rape?
>
> The point where it's non-consensual. That's not that hard to grasp, is
> it?
Erm, yes it is. But not quite as hard to grasp as prosecutors' refusal
to understand that consent is not black-and-white.
Richard
Arthur Hagen
> As for a "mutual" rape... the fact is that a woman can't really rape a
> man against his will. It's not physically possible. The worst that can
> happen is seduction, which may be filed under "emotional abuse"
> possibly.
You're uttering complete nonsense, for multiple reasons.
- If a woman rams a broom handle up your posterior against your will, it's
not rape?
- The /physical/ reaction is not under the victim's control, and an erection
can be stimulated against the victim's will. A vibrator will work the same
on a man's penis as on a woman's clit.
The misconception that the physical reaction is dictated by the state of
mind has been used the other way to justify rape of women by saying it
couldn't be rape because she lubricated and/or had an orgasm[1]. This is
completely false.
Rape by a woman of a man by stimulating the man to erection and/or orgasm
against his will is something that occurs, and women have even been
convicted of it.
- Disregarding a wish for someone to stop is considered rape most places.
Women who disregard a man saying "no" or "stop" have committed just as much
rape as when a man disregards a woman saying "no" or "stop". But in the
first case, there's the added stigma of being raped by someone perceived by
society as weaker, and an even smaller chance of being believed than women
have.
- Then there's women who take advantage of a sleeping erection. This is
just as much rape as if a man penetrates a woman while she's asleep. What
happens /after/ the victim wakes up is irrelevant to the act of taking
sexual advantage of someone. Unless the person has explicitly allowed this
behaviour in advance, it's rape.
If there was a truly anonymous poll on how many male afpers have either been
stimulated by a woman against their will, had a woman disregard their "no"
or "stop", or had a woman take advantage of an erection while they sleep, I
think you'd find several men here who have experienced it.
[1]: "Forced orgasm" is an especially heinous form of rape, whether it's of
a man or a woman, because victims will feel that even their bodies have
betrayed them.
--
*Art
Arthur Hagen
>
> I'm all for the harsh punishment of sex offenders, but I'd prefer to
> restrict that to real, obvious and provable crimes, and not treat
> every stupid drunken fuck as a possible crime, no matter how much
> I'd like to see some of those stupid drunken fuckers behind bars.
I'm not so sure that a very harsh punishment is helpful.
If the penalty for sex offenders is the same as for murderers, it will
incite the sex offender to commit murder, because they have nothing to lose,
sentence wise, but by killing the victim, they remove a witness.
Also, if the sentencing is too harsh, fewer cases will go to court. Most
sexual offences are done by family members or lovers of the victim. If dad
is going to be locked away for life or executed for what he did, I think far
fewer daughters will risk anyone knowing what happened.
When a sentence is so long that it no longer reduces the amount of crime
compared to a shorter sentence, it is too long. Then the punishment becomes
vengeance.
And when it is so harsh that it causes even worse crimes to be committed, it
is counter-productive and sheer idiocy.
The punishment must fit the crime, not the feelings of outrage by the
public.
Regards,
--
*Art
Kegs
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:43:39 -0500,
> Daniel Orner <webm...@ffcompendium.com> wrote:
>
>> the fact is that a woman can't really rape a
>>man against his will. It's not physically possible.
>
> Only for very narrow definitions of 'rape'. Abner Louima, for
> example, was definitely raped by the cops who shoved a broom
> handle up his bum.
Which isn't technically rape, but a different offence, Buggery.
Not to be confused with burglary[1].
[1] As my law lecturer at college did when she was at uni, leading her
to spend a couple of hours a the Old Bailey wondering who the hell you
can burgle anyone in a public toilet, before light downed.
--
James jamesk[at]homeric[dot]co[dot]uk
I can read your mind, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Esmeraldus
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:43:39 -0500,
> Daniel Orner <webm...@ffcompendium.com> wrote:
>
>> man against his will. It's not physically possible.
>
> example, was definitely raped by the cops who shoved a broom
> handle up his bum.
The US. Uniform Code of Military Justice (the laws governing members of the
armed forces) define rape as "penetration, however slight." That definitely
includes sticking anything into a man's rectum. Or a woman's. It doesn't
make a gender distinction. I forget at the moment whether it covers forced
oral sex, but I'm pretty sure it does.
When you are defining rape, you can't leave it with a definition of *sex*
that only includes male-female genital intercourse. There are other kinds of
sex, and other kinds of rape. Is it possible for one woman to rape another?
Yes, unless nothing women do together is "real" sex.
That said, men can get erections while unconscious or sleeping, apart from
the fact that it's possible to be physically aroused while, oh, bound and
gagged. Just for the sake of a hypothetical, you could go out, kidnap a guy,
chain him up, feed him some Viagra, etc.
Esmeraldus
> A.Reader <anony...@example.com> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:43:39 -0500,
>> Daniel Orner <webm...@ffcompendium.com> wrote:
>>
>>> the fact is that a woman can't really rape a
>>> man against his will. It's not physically possible.
>>
>> Only for very narrow definitions of 'rape'. Abner Louima, for
>> example, was definitely raped by the cops who shoved a broom
>> handle up his bum.
>
> Which isn't technically rape, but a different offence, Buggery.
Then what I was talking about might not technicall be rape. It's a long time
since I had the UCMJ memorized, but that's how it was explained to us. There
may also be differences in different countries. But I think we were talking
about mechanics.
Lesley Weston
anony...@example.com wrote on 29/11/2007 5:24 AM:
> On 29 Nov 2007 10:26:40 GMT,
> mcv <mcv...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
>> Both parties carry responsibility here. If she made it clear she didn't
>> want sex, and he forced it on her anyway, then it's obviously rape, but
>> if both are so smashing drunk that neither had any idea what was happening
>> anymore, then both carry equal responsibility for what happens afterward.
>>
>> To me, "I was drunk so I can't be held responsible for what I did" is
>> never an acceptable defense.
>
> It's fairly well known, I think, that a male so drunk that he's
> not responsible is also so drunk that he's not capable - too much
> booze wilts the tonker. So if it happened at all, he was sober
> enough to take responsibility.
Is groping included in the proposed new law, or does it have to be
penetration? What about lesbian (or not) rape with an implement?
--
Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits
that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca,
changing spelling and spacing as required.
Lesley Weston
Ellis at pj...@cam.ac.uk wrote on 29/11/2007 8:20 AM:
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Eric Jarvis wrote:
>> pj...@cam.ac.uk says...
>>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Graycat wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What? No I'm not - I'm not defining drunk at all, or even caring about
>>>> the level of drunkenness. I'm saying that the rapist's culpability is
>>>> irrelative of the victim's. He is responsible for his actions
>>>> regardless of her drukenness.
>>>
>>> OK, take the following situation. You are a juror. A man is in court
>>> accused of rape.
>>>
>>> He admits sex, and says that she said "yes".
>>>
>>> She admits she was drunk and can't remember everything that happened, but
>>> is adamant she didn't say "yes"
>>>
>>> Do you convict? If so, why? If not, why not?
>>>
>>
>> If that's all there is then you will pretty much be told by the judge
>> that you shouldn't convict. It's simply one person's word against
>> another's, which can only be decided by comparing the stories against
>> something else. The chances are that there's other evidence though.
>> Forensic evidence, evidence of witnesses that saw either or both before
>> or afterwards, character witnesses.
>
> ... all of which are pretty much irrelevant if he admits having sex with
> her.
But isn't the issue whether or not she consented to the sex that nobody is
denying?
Lesley Weston
wrote on 29/11/2007 8:29 AM:
<snip>
> But doesn't the same think go the other way? What if she was the one
> who, in het drunken state, initiated the love making? What if he said
> no, but neither can remember it the next day? What if she's technically
> the rapist, but no-one can tell?
What if she is a he, or he is a she? Does the proposed law cover homosexual
rape?
Lesley Weston
ga...@scaryriders.com wrote on 30/11/2007 2:07 AM:
<snip>
> Bringing in a law designed, according to the reports on the Beeb, to
> "Increase the prosecution rate" of accused rapists sounds suspiciously
> like "guilty until proven innocent".
I assumed they meant "increase the conviction rate", which is a little less
scary, but only a little.
Carol Hague
> Carol Hague wrote:
> > Daniel Orner <webm...@ffcompendium.com> wrote:
> >> If you refuse to exercise that duty, society's laws will take
> >> care of it in the unfortunate case that it results in a crime.
> >
> > I think this is a tad idealistic. No society is perfect, nor are their
> > laws or, indeed the people who enforce them (as the recent taser thread
> > points out) so there will always be mistakes, in both directions.
>
> Perfection is never achievable. Bit I would like it if the social
> consensus swung away from letting people off lightly because they were
> drunk, and towards censoring *serious* drunkenness for its own sake, not
> only when something goes wrong.
I'm not arguing in favour of letting people off lightly for things they
do when they're drunk. I just think that an assumption that "society's
laws will take care of it in the unfortunate case that it results in a
crime" is giving most societies rather more credit than they've shown
themselves to deserve.
--
Carol
"If you are allergic to a thing, it is best not to put
that thing in your mouth. Particularly if the thing is
cats." - Lemony Snicket _The Wide Window_
Carol Hague
<snip>
> Yep. How about the fact that (at least around here) literally no one
> goes less than 10 km/h above the speed limit - and yet, if you're in a
> crash, if you're going anything at all above the speed limit, regardless
> of whose right of way it was, you're liable. That's the problem with
> laws: they deal with how the world *should* work rather than how it
> does, and often that's the only way *to* deal with it.
Perhaps so - but you appeared to be arguing for self-regulation in your
previous posts and I was trying to point out that the people who most
need to self-regulate are probably going to be the ones least likely to.
> >> If you refuse to exercise that duty, society's laws will take
> >> care of it in the unfortunate case that it results in a crime.
> >
> > I think this is a tad idealistic. No society is perfect, nor are their
> > laws or, indeed the people who enforce them (as the recent taser thread
> > points out) so there will always be mistakes, in both directions.
> >
>
> Of course - but the point is that the laws are in place to deal with
> those situations.
It's good that there are laws to deal with it yes. Less so if those laws
are unenforced (like the speed limit you mention above) or indeed
unenforceable.
esmi
<snip>
> When you are defining rape, you can't leave it with a definition of *sex*
> that only includes male-female genital intercourse. There are other kinds of
> sex, and other kinds of rape. Is it possible for one woman to rape another?
> Yes, unless nothing women do together is "real" sex.
I'd definitely say "Yes". Rape has little to do with sex. It's about the
exercise of power of one human being over another and the denial of the
other's right to say "I don't want this". Gender has nothing to do with it.
> That said, men can get erections while unconscious or sleeping, apart from
> the fact that it's possible to be physically aroused while, oh, bound and
> gagged. Just for the sake of a hypothetical, you could go out, kidnap a guy,
> chain him up, feed him some Viagra, etc.
Yep - the concept that a man cannot be raped is a myth. Purely physical
arousal is completely separate from consent. It's just that *most*
victims are women. But not all are. Similarly not all rapists are male.
esmi
--
2008 Discworld Convention
22nd to 25th August 2008
Hilton Metropole Hotel, Birmingham, UK
http://www.dwcon.org/
Kegs
Now that just brings in horrible images involving meccano to mind ;)
I take your point though[1].
[1] Or not, as the case may be.
--
James jamesk[at]homeric[dot]co[dot]uk
He's lost that living feeling? Gideon Hallett in afp, on hearing of the
death of The Righteous Brothers' Bobby Hatfield.
Richard Bos
> A.Reader <anony...@example.com> writes:
>
> > On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:43:39 -0500,
> > Daniel Orner <webm...@ffcompendium.com> wrote:
> >
> >> the fact is that a woman can't really rape a
> >>man against his will. It's not physically possible.
> >
> > Only for very narrow definitions of 'rape'. Abner Louima, for
> > example, was definitely raped by the cops who shoved a broom
> > handle up his bum.
>
> Which isn't technically rape, but a different offence, Buggery.
No, if the above was[1] done against Mr. Louima's will, it very much
_is_ rape. Unless you're willing to claim that anal sex by a man on a
woman against her will is _also_ not rape, or you're willing to state
outright that men who have been raped are sissy whiners who should be
grateful they got laid. Don't bristle, now, I _have_ heard that opinion
voiced.
Richard
[1] As one can only presume
Richard Bos
> As for a "mutual" rape... the fact is that a woman can't really rape a
> man against his will. It's not physically possible. The worst that can
> happen is seduction, which may be filed under "emotional abuse" possibly.
There speaks a man who has never been leered at by a more than slightly
desperate female manager.
Richard
David Chapman
> A.Reader <anony...@example.com> writes:
>> Only for very narrow definitions of 'rape'. Abner Louima, for
>> example, was definitely raped by the cops who shoved a broom
>> handle up his bum.
>
> Which isn't technically rape, but a different offence, Buggery.
>
> Not to be confused with burglary[1].
Not even turd burglary?
<g,d&r>
Free Lunch
ral...@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) wrote in
<475068f2...@news.xs4all.nl>:
>Kegs <james....@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>
>> A.Reader <anony...@example.com> writes:
>>
>> > On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:43:39 -0500,
>> > Daniel Orner <webm...@ffcompendium.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> the fact is that a woman can't really rape a
>> >>man against his will. It's not physically possible.
>> >
>> > Only for very narrow definitions of 'rape'. Abner Louima, for
>> > example, was definitely raped by the cops who shoved a broom
>> > handle up his bum.
>>
>> Which isn't technically rape, but a different offence, Buggery.
I thought that was just a particular sexual act that was considered
unlawful in some jurisdictions. It would have been illegal even if
everyone had consented.
>No, if the above was[1] done against Mr. Louima's will, it very much
>_is_ rape. Unless you're willing to claim that anal sex by a man on a
>woman against her will is _also_ not rape, or you're willing to state
>outright that men who have been raped are sissy whiners who should be
>grateful they got laid. Don't bristle, now, I _have_ heard that opinion
>voiced.
>
>Richard
>
>[1] As one can only presume
IIRC rape was originally sexual intercourse without (valid) consent. The
expanded definitions that we consider today, and that some places call
(first degree) sexual assault, show a less simplistic understanding of
what is and is not acceptable and how people are treated.
Kegs
It was more a bit if errant pedantry, but yes, buggery, in Ukia at least,
is the relevant offence for any anal intercourse without consent. Might as
well be rolled into the offence of Rape, IMO, as it amounts to the same thing.
Consent is the main thing in any case, if it isn't valid then the offence
is every bit as bad as rape, no matter what the actual offence is called in
$local_legal_code.
--
James jamesk[at]homeric[dot]co[dot]uk
"Where are you? There you are! There you are! I see you." (Amis, B5)
Alec Cawley
> on 30/11/2007 18:48 Esmeraldus said the following:
> <snip>
>> When you are defining rape, you can't leave it with a definition of
>> *sex* that only includes male-female genital intercourse. There are
>> other kinds of sex, and other kinds of rape. Is it possible for one
>> woman to rape another? Yes, unless nothing women do together is "real"
>> sex.
>
> I'd definitely say "Yes". Rape has little to do with sex. It's about the
> exercise of power of one human being over another and the denial of the
> other's right to say "I don't want this". Gender has nothing to do with it.
I would not say that is entirely true. I entirely agree that rape at
knife point in a dark alley is, as you say, much more about power than
about sex. But the kind of drunken rape which was being discussed a few
days ago is, IMO, about lust with inhibitions removed by alcohol. The
fact that both lead to the same outcome - non-consensual sex - does not
mean that they have the same cause.
Alec Cawley
Bloody hell! Call Satan - Hell has just frozen over! An Arthur Hagen
post that I agree with in its entirety - incredible.
peachy ashie passion
> in article Xns99F867388C830ga...@212.23.3.119, Gary N at
> ga...@scaryriders.com wrote on 30/11/2007 2:07 AM:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>>Bringing in a law designed, according to the reports on the Beeb, to
>>"Increase the prosecution rate" of accused rapists sounds suspiciously
>>like "guilty until proven innocent".
>
>
> I assumed they meant "increase the conviction rate", which is a little less
> scary, but only a little.
>
I think they mean the prosecution rate.
"Between half and two thirds of cases reported do not advance beyond
the investigation stage (HMCPS & HMIC, 2007)."
www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/documents/Rape%20-%20The%20Facts.doc
This site http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hors293.pdf
suggests that the reporting rate for rape is only 15%.
I don't think it is unreasonable to want the prosecution rate of
rapes to increase.
Since the conviction rate for rape in the UK appears to be about 3%,
well, that certainly needs changing as well.
peachy ashie passion
My observations/research would indicate that they have very
different victim outcomes as well.
David Chapman
> An Arthur Hagen post that I agree with in its entirety - incredible.
An Art Hagen post that makes sense - are you sure it wasn't ghostwritten?
Sabremeister Brian
150 out of 1000 rapes are reported. Between 50 and 75 rapes are
prosecuted. Between 4 and 6 rapes result in a conviction.
Ye gods!
--
www.sabremeister.me.uk
www.livejournal.com/users/sabremeister/
Use brian at sabremeister dot me dot uk to reply
"An Englishman, even if he is alone, forms an orderly queue of one."
- George Mikes
Richard Heathfield
<snip>
> 150 out of 1000 rapes are reported.
Am I the only one who thinks that this statistic is completely batty?
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Daibhid Ceanaideach
> Sabremeister Brian said:
>
> <snip>
>
>> 150 out of 1000 rapes are reported.
>
> Am I the only one who thinks that this statistic is completely batty?
You mean in the "how do you know the aliens landed if the government
hushed it all up" sense? Well, yes, but I checked the Home Office pdf
peachy linked to, and as far as I can make out[1], this is the number of
people who didn't report it to the police, but did tell the staticians.
Since I would guess a lot of people who don't feel they can tell
something to the police wouldn't mention it on an official questionnaire
either, the actual figure may well be lower.
[1]One of the many reasons I never became a scientist is that I have real
trouble reading statistical reports.
--
Dave
"There is no Neils the Bouncing Cat! He's gone!
Now there is only... P-Cat, the Penitent Puss!"
Richard Heathfield
> On 02 Dec 2007, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Sabremeister Brian said:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> 150 out of 1000 rapes are reported.
>>
>> Am I the only one who thinks that this statistic is completely batty?
>
> You mean in the "how do you know the aliens landed if the government
> hushed it all up" sense?
Er, yes, something like that.
> Well, yes, but I checked the Home Office pdf
> peachy linked to, and as far as I can make out[1], this is the number of
> people who didn't report it to the police, but did tell the staticians.
So they reported it, but not to the police? Well, that's "reported", but
okay, I can accept that he meant "reported to the police". Nevertheless, I
can't help wondering about the validity of such reports. What are the
statistics on the percentage of people who lie to statisticians? And how
far can we trust these statistics?
> Since I would guess a lot of people who don't feel they can tell
> something to the police wouldn't mention it on an official questionnaire
> either, the actual figure may well be lower.
Since I would guess a lot of people who don't feel they can phantasise to a
policeman are perfectly okay with phantasising to a statistician, the
actual figure may well be higher.
> [1]One of the many reasons I never became a scientist is that I have real
> trouble reading statistical reports.
Don't worry about it - statisticians have been known to struggle as well!
Lesley Weston
On the assumption that 100% of reported and unreported rapes are indeed
rapes, I would agree with you. But on the more likely assumption that some
reported rapes are in fact drunken consensual sex, I find the idea of
intentionally increasing the number of prosecutions by changing the
definition of rape quite scary. It would be less scary to introduce a new
crime called something like "Taking sexual advantage of".
Rape is a serious and particularly horrible crime, and rapists are
rightly abhorred by society. People who drink more than they meant to and
associate with other people who drink more than they meant to and whom they
find attractive really shouldn't be lumped in with people who deliberately
rape other people. Though it might be useful to have society point out to
both parties in the former case that they're bloody idiots.
Lesley Weston
r...@see.sig.invalid wrote on 02/12/2007 8:48 AM:
> Sabremeister Brian said:
>
> <snip>
>
>> 150 out of 1000 rapes are reported.
>
> Am I the only one who thinks that this statistic is completely batty?
How do they know, if it's not reported? And shouldn't that be "150 out of
1000 alleged rapes"?
Arthur Hagen
> On 02 Dec 2007, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Sabremeister Brian said:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> 150 out of 1000 rapes are reported.
>>
>> Am I the only one who thinks that this statistic is completely batty?
>
> You mean in the "how do you know the aliens landed if the government
> hushed it all up" sense? Well, yes, but I checked the Home Office pdf
> peachy linked to, and as far as I can make out[1], this is the number
> of people who didn't report it to the police, but did tell the
> staticians.
>
> Since I would guess a lot of people who don't feel they can tell
> something to the police wouldn't mention it on an official
> questionnaire either, the actual figure may well be lower.
There's many other reasons for either of the numbers to be wrong, including
(but not limited to):
- False charges
- Self-deception (like hating someone so strongly that in order to justify
once having had sex with the person, the mind transforms it into rape)
- Lying to the pollsters to skew the result towards what you /think/ should
be found, even if it isn't strictly true for you[1].
- Situations that were "technically" rape, but you don't feel violated.
(Like having had sex while underage, or while dead drunk, but didn't mind
afterwards.)
[1]: This is, apparently, surprisingly common. I believe Nielsen (of TV
ratings fame) had a study that showed that on their polls, people claimed to
have watched certain programs they didn't watch -- presumably because they
didn't want it to be taken off the air.
> [1]One of the many reasons I never became a scientist is that I have
> real trouble reading statistical reports.
The reasons why I'm not a scientist is because all the scientists I've
spoken to spent most of their time fighting bureaucracy or kissing ass, and
never could afford a decent vacation.
Regards,
--
*Art
peachy ashie passion
The link I gave provided information about false charges as well,
if you read it.
Namely that 8% of what was reported to police was dismissed by them
as not really being a crime. A review of their files showed that only
3% of those actually met their criteria of what should be dismissed.
The reporting rates to police are from the UK, but are consistent
with numerous studies I've seen conducted in the US.
One assumes reporting rates are lower in say, Saudi Arabia.
The links I provided were chosen because referenced actual studies,
so that people could look at the studies themselves to decide about
their soundness.
Or, you know, we could just dismiss them without looking because the
numbers don't sound "right".
peachy ashie passion
Also, "about half of all convictions were due to a guilty plea"
Len Oil
> I think they mean the prosecution rate.
> Since the conviction rate for rape in the UK appears to be about 3%,
> well, that certainly needs changing as well.
Could the best target be the /reporting/ rate?
Cases that are prosecuted but don't result in a conviction do so because
the balance of evidence fails to tip the balance. Adjusting the balance
to increase the conviction rate on its own would seem to probably net
more false-positive convictions than it would prevent false-negatives
slipping through the fingers of the law.
Cases that are reported but don't get prosecuted may in part be due to
reluctance to continue on the part of the victim (for whatever reason)
or because the CPS/investigating officer doesn't think it'll get
conviction. And/or both, the victim being convinced (deliberately or
not) that it won't be worth pursuing. Increasing prosecution rates
without some additional factor[1] would ultimately /decrease/ conviction
rates through flooding the courts with less provable (and even totally
spurious) instances.
It's possible that the prosecution rate is low because (for reasons
already discussed many times in this thread) a lot of potential cases
have so ambiguous a set of circumstances that it comes down to one word
against another, and thus not considered worth the risk (by the initial
accuser or CPS) of sending into court to zero result. How to better
handle one-on-one situations like this is debatable, given the lack of
omniscience on the part of those taking part in the judging.
However, if the reporting rate is the problem being targeted, then the
reasonings behind the non-reporting (embarrassment, bringing social
stigma upon oneself, perhaps even fear) can be targetted with a variety
of measures (counseling, changing the way the victim assumes that their
associates view the incident or accommodation in refuges as required),
there is not so much correlation between this non-act (failing to
report) and the final 'result' of a conviction.
Would the "happy and fully consenting at the time, but cold-feet
after-the-fact" incidents[2] rise in frequency through better care of
the (assumed) victim? Would vindictive or even idle/off-hand
accusations arise from those who are malicious enough to make them?
Probably not, meaning that there'd be no more 'winnowing out' of such
incidents (or handling them via other means) than previously. But
legitimate (and provable) cases from that pool of 85% unreported ones
are going to rise to the surface, and make things better for both the
previously disenfranchised /and/ the final, dispassionate, statistics.
Ditto with legitimate cases reported much quicker than before, rather
than long after forensic evidence is unavailable.
Maybe.
[1] Either making the standards for conviction lower (which could be a
very bad thing) or better enabling the capture of salient
evidence/testimonies, the lack of which might be an issue.
[2] The wife crying-wolf after husband finds partial evidence of a
secret dalliance, the husband explaining how certain 'indiscretions'
were unwillingly entered into, the rebellious child of religious parents
whose fear of their authority forces her(/him) to make an accusation
rather than admit to being normally (even legally) sexual active.
esmi
> esmi wrote:
>> Rape has little to do with sex. It's about the
>> exercise of power of one human being over another and the denial of the
>> other's right to say "I don't want this".
<snip>
> I would not say that is entirely true. I entirely agree that rape at
> knife point in a dark alley is, as you say, much more about power than
> about sex. But the kind of drunken rape which was being discussed a few
> days ago is, IMO, about lust with inhibitions removed by alcohol. The
> fact that both lead to the same outcome - non-consensual sex - does not
> mean that they have the same cause.
I think that there is still a 'power' factor in the latter. I agree that
the instigator of the former is much more likely to be someone with
severe personality problems who uses sex as a weapon. But the
perpetrator of the drunken rape is still wilfully and knowingly
exercising power over a temporarily weakened victim. If it was just
about lust and the need for sex, there are other options and partners.
But, if you need to wait until someone is too drunk to say "No", it
seems to me that you believe that:
a) no one is ever going to say "Yes" whilst in full possession of their
senses
or
b) the specific object of your desire is never going to say "Yes" when
sober.
So it's still down to (ab)using power when you have it. It seems to me
that the big differences are that the perpetrator of the drunken rape is
more of an opportunist and s/he is unlikely to have a need to repeat
such attacks. It's a bit like burglars - there's the career burglar who
pre-plans robberies and then there's the bloke who saw a leather
jacket next to an open car window and just couldn't resist. Different
levels of crime perhaps but, in the end, both take things from others.