Rape and sexual offences laws

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by Shakey, Feb 2, 2007.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Been a bit in the news recently about changes to the laws regarding rape and sexual offences.

    It all seems to centre about the idea that 'it is rape if a man doesn't clarify with a woman outright whether she wants sex'.

    Bloody hell! That's romantic isn't it. "Excuse me love, can you sign this chit to say you want me to put my knob in you? Cheers!"

    On a more serious note, what concerns me is this idea that a drunk woman can't consent to sex.

    Oh, so a drunk man can, can they? Why one rule for women and one for men?

    What are they going to do, start supplying breathlysers in nightclubs next to the johnny machines?

    Also, if a drunk woman can't consent to sex, does that mean they can't consent to driving a car too? "Sorry ossifer, I didn't mean to run over that lickle old lady but I'm a bit tipsy. Hic! (giggle)."

    No, this nonsense has got to stop. Rape is a terrible thing but these proposed changes are just going to make things worse.
     
  2. The answer is obvious. Make all women wear a chastity belt. But give them the key.

    (This is a joke btw... just in case some sicko here thinks I'm serious... )
     
  3. Sounds all too familiar to me! This same argument has been put forward by conservative Christians for ages (many of whom are lawyers) with regard to gay sex: claiming that it is non-consensual as most gays are inebriated to some degree when they have sex. It is therefore not really suprising to see it being rolled out here. The aim is of course to portray women as infantile, defenceless and in need of partiarchy, when in reality they are typically more mature than males of a similar age (who are often infantile well into old age :wink: ) able to defend themselves up to a point and in no need whatsoever of a traditional, patriarchical society where women stay at home and look after the children, obey their husband and are submissive.

    It should NOT be seen as PC however - it is not - it is very much an attempt to redefine women as weak, child-like victims who cannot look after themselves and need a return to a more traditional family structure. Some feminists are misguidedly promoting this agenda, but in reality it is very much part of the wider fundamentalist Christian agenda, originating in the US and its agenda being emulated increasingly within the UK. If you are sceptical, I suggest you look at current (and previous) religious campaigns that originated in the States then observe how they becan to manifest themselves here, aided by cross-linkages between UK-US fundamentalist groups. It's a fascinating topic to research. Their only campaign that has not sucessfully crossed the Pond is their anti-Pornography campaign.
     
  4. Sorry, I can't buy in to the conspiracy theory. I think it's just another example of Political Correctness Gone Mad.

    They say the conviction rate for rape has gone down. Only 5% of complaints result in a gulity conviction.

    What they seem to forget is that the complaint rate has gone up. I believe most of these complaints are ill-founded.

    Also, the definition of rape has changed. Oral sex now comes under this definition.

    All this proposed change is doing is criminalising stupid behaviour and trivialising serious sexual assaults.
     
  5. sgtpepperband

    sgtpepperband War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    A woman cannot rape a man; she can sexual assault him though:

    Source: Sexual Offences Act 2003
     
  6. Also, the definition of rape has changed. Oral sex now comes under this definition.
    Shakey, so if a woman gives you a blow job you can be charged with rape?

    OMG I`m going down.
     
  7. As Shakey says, so much for romantic seduction then.

    The thought of this being in place 30 years ago brings me out in a cold sweat!
     
  8. The prosecution have to face many hurdles to obtain a prosecution.

    1. Most rapes get reported 24 hours to 10 years after the offence. Normally after the victim has showered/bathed thrown away clothing/bedding leaving little if any forensic evidence. The classic rape victim running down the road naked or in torn clothes with obvious wounds happens rarely. Early complaint is a factor which weighs heavily with a jury.

    2. The prosecution has to prove "penetration" if that cannot be proved you fail at the first hurdle.

    3. Witnesses are few and far between

    4. Consent is a state of mind that has to be decided by the jury. Few juries like to convict unless they are 150% certain.

    5. Unfortunately many victims, woman have made false allegation to try and avoid questions from husband/boyfriend/partner as to where they have been etc. Recently, a man served 3 odd years after conviction of rape by a female stalker who stole a used condom from his dustbin then planted the semen it contained to give Police evidence. Again juries are loathed to convict without strong forensic evidence.

    6. Many years ago after the initial report an officer, usually a female would interview the victim alone and press her hard working on the theory that if you can not convince a sympathetic person today what chance is there to convince a jury 6 months down the line. This practice not being PC was banned and all reports were to be treated as truthful and honest which means the victims evidence is rarely tested until it reaches Court.

    As an ex CID Officer involved in many such investigations, I even managed to get a convictions of the rape of a prostitute who did not like the look of a punter and said "No". But then I had early complaint, minor injuries, the punter going a a hole in the wall for cash which he still had in his possession and she stood up in court to old fashion slagging off by the defence. The conviction rate is low, but that is the case with most offences that go for jury trial cos Juries do not like to convict. It is a vicious circle woman with a good complaint do not because they believe they will not get justice. PC attitudes allow frivolous cases to reach court which get thrown out by juries so more woman believe they won't get justice. Add to that aggressive questioning by defence lawyers in our ADVERSARIAL legal system and its a pot mess.

    Nutty
     

Share This Page