Rape Cases: - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

AngelicVampire · 12-09-2005, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Scotsman

Why rapists love our courts
MICHAEL HOWIE AND ANGIE BROWN

Key Points
• Less chance of conviction for rape and sexual assault than most of Europe
• Radical measures are needed to address crisis of confidence in system
• Up to 4000 rapes believed to go unreported in Scotland each year

Key quote: "Women who have reported a rape often find the legal process a horrendous experience. I know women who have told their friends and relatives, 'Don't even think about telling the police." Fiona Raitt, professor of law at Dundee University

EVERY day in Scotland an average of two women report being raped, yet there is less chance of their attackers being convicted than in almost any other country in western Europe.

At every point in the system - police, prosecutor, judge and jury - rape cases collapse more frequently than any other crime involving adult victims.

The situation is getting worse. Reported rapes have soared 300 per cent between 1977 and 2001. But the number of guilty verdicts has only gone up by one.

Legal experts, campaigners and victims say radical measures are needed to address a crisis of confidence in the system. With two reviews on rape and the law set to conclude next month, they are demanding root-and-branch reform.

The coalition is a broad one: it includes lawyers, rape counsellors, campaigners and victims. They point to cases where women have been humiliated in court, where rape charges have been reduced to sexual assault for ease of conviction and where men have walked free despite what looks like cast-iron evidence.

Their concerns were highlighted by a case in Wales where a judge told a jury to bring a not guilty verdict against a security guard accused of raping a student who admitted she was too drunk to recall whether she had consented to sex.

The solutions they propose are radical: independent lawyers to represent women during trials, legal advice and support while cases are proceeding, "one- stop shops" to deal with the victims of rape, and specialist courts.

Under Scotland's current justice system, the obstacles to justice for rape victims are all too apparent.

Some 743 rapes were reported by police in 2002-3 - but only 31 were proved in court, a rate of only 4.2 per cent; in the late 1970s, it was 20 per cent. Either 96 per cent of women are lying about their alleged ordeals or the system is failing badly.

With up to 4,000 rapes each year in Scotland believed to go unreported, it is not surprising that victims are put off coming forward by a system that comprehensively fails to secure justice.

Sandy Brindley, of Rape Crisis Scotland, said that at almost every step there was a lack of care for the victim. "A woman who is raped has to go to the police to get a forensic examination, and that is virtually never with a female doctor," she said.

"If they need emotional support, they have to seek support services themselves. If they need medical treatment, they have to access that themselves. There is no co-ordinated support for women when they report a sexual assault to the police. That is deterring many women from coming forward in the first place, and also perhaps explains why some victims drop cases after they have been reported."

Legal experts also claim prosecutors treat some rape cases as sexual assault, a lesser crime, because they believe it is the "best bet" for landing a conviction. That, they say, is especially true where victim and offender know each other. Fiona Raitt, professor of law at Dundee University and a former practising solicitor, said: "If prosecutors can get a plea to a lesser charge, it is likely they will feel that's a good move. They may feel it is worth saving women from the trauma of a trial at the expense of a rape conviction, even though that will mean a lesser sentence for the perpetrator."

The Crown Office admits there are exceptional challenges trying to secure rape convictions - but reject the notion they are actively contributing to the low conviction rate.

However, Prof Raitt said many women are discouraged from pursuing cases because of the length of time it can take to get the attacker before a jury. Victims are often left isolated, with no-one giving them advice, support or even basic information on how the case is progressing.

"Women who have reported a rape often find the legal process a horrendous experience. I know women who have told their friends and relatives, 'Don't even think about telling the police'.

"They know they have got months and months of waiting for the trial, which is never a happy experience for them. They will often come out of it feeling no-one believes them, that they were the ones on trial, that they did something wrong. There isn't a proper system of keeping women informed."

She said a Victim Information and Advice Scheme, which is run by the Crown Office, gave some support, but said that was limited. Such a move has also been partially introduced in Ireland in an attempt to drive up a conviction rate that is even lower than Scotland's, at around 1 per cent. It is also a cornerstone of court proceedings in several other countries, including Germany, Belgium and Denmark, which have far higher conviction rates.

Prof Raitt explained: "This is an avenue that I think is worth pursuing with a lot more vigour in Scotland.

"An independent legal representative for the complainer could act as a protector, intervening where the defence wish to pursue a particular line of questioning, such as bringing up the woman's sexual history, which may be inadmissible."

The Sexual Offences Act 2002 obliges defence lawyers to seek permission from the judge before raising a complainer's sexual history, something campaigners say is frequently irrelevant and is simply designed to exploit public prejudices - reflected in an Amnesty survey that found a third of people believe a woman is partly responsible for being raped if she is flirtatious, drunk or dresses in a sexy manner.

The effectiveness of the 2002 Act is under review amid concern it is failing to provide enough protection to victims.

Prof Raitt said: "There is still a great deal of reluctance on the part of the Crown and even judges to intervene to prevent inappropriate questioning. They are worried that if they get it wrong, they will be hauled up in an appeal. Legislation has been an improvement but it still needs to be sorted out."

Rape Crisis Scotland and Zero Tolerance are also urging theExecutive to set up "one-stop shops" for rape victims, following England's lead where 12 Sexual Assault Referral Centres have been created.

The centres provide practical and emotional support for women after they have been attacked, enabling vital forensic evidence to be secured by a female doctor. The evidence can be stored, giving women the opportunity to consider whether to go to the police without pressure. Talks are taking place about setting up a pilot scheme in Glasgow.

The Scottish Law Commission was asked by the First Minister, Jack McConnell, last year to carry out a root-and- branch review of the law on rape, and is expected to report next month. The focus is thought to be the issue of consent, following recent rulings which Prof Raitt says created "widespread confusion".

Professor Liz Kelly, who has written a research paper for the Home Office on rape-case attrition rates - the rates at which cases fall out of the system - said the attitudes of police, prosecutors and judges needed to change.

"The criminal justice system is not just about the law, it's about people who operate the law and their attitudes. There is a responsibility on the administrators of justice to ensure those attitudes are not prejudiced against women who say they have been sexually attacked. That's not what is happening at the moment."

Linda Armstrong's daughter Lindsay committed suicide 13 days after her attacker was found guilty of rape in 2002. In court, the accused's lawyer held up the underwear she wore on the night of the attack to the jury. Mrs Armstrong, 43, of New Cumnock, Ayrshire, said it was "ridiculous" that only 4 per cent of men charged with rape were being found guilty. "It is a disgusting statistic as it says that 96 per cent of woman who claim they were raped are lying," she said.

"There need to be specialist rape courts, as the degrading stuff has become a game for lawyers in the court.

"If the victim wasn't hurt then the jury just thinks the man should be let off, when it is the mental pain which they can't see which remains with the victim.

"My daughter, who was 16 at the time, cried every night after the attack, couldn't sleep and lost a lot of weight.

"I can still clearly remember when she came back crying and shaking and saying he had dragged her into a dark part of the nearby park. The system must be changed. As it stands it is a joke."

Lee Bell, 18, served two years of a four- year sentence for the attack in 2001.

http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=2374572005

A recent article from the Scotsman decrying the conviction rate of rapes, there are linked articles and all need username/password.

I am just wondering what people think about this, personally I think its blown out of all proportion, not because rape is a minor crime its very serious but simply because prosecuting in what becomes in most cases a he said she said case is very difficult. Unless evidence can be provided that proves the other party guilty beyond a reasonable doubt then you have to say innocent (or not proven) surely?

Linked articles refer to the process as a circus because of things like the jury and the "attacker" being allowed to present "false evidence" and question witnesses... however surly in most legal systems we have the right to trial by jury of our peers, should rape be different (one woman wanted a special panel of experts)? Secondly the attacker presenting "wrong facts", surely again in most cases this is personal memories and interpretation of events and the attacker has the right to defend themselves under that whole innocent until proven guilty thing? A recent case shows this, a judge ordered the jury to return not guilty for a univeristy worker accused of raping a drunk student, under examination she admited to being too drunk to remember if she had consented... the judge ruled that drunked consent was still consent which to my mind is the correct verdict in this case, had she been unconscious then it would undeniably be rape however when you yourself cannot say if its true how could a jury beyond a reasonable doubt convict?

I am all for rapists being sentenced heavily however it seems as if people want to make rape different from any other crime and give it special circumstances etc... any thoughts?

maleficent · 12-09-2005, 06:34 AM

Somewhere in the ladies lounge, I recounted my dealings with the police after I was raped. This was in the United States in the 21st century. The police weren't helpful at all, and basically they decided that I pretty much asked for it... their decision was a little lengthier than that.. but they made a lot of judgements about the troublemaking Yankee chick who came down to cause trouble with the good ole boys.

In the ladies lounge the question was raised as to whether a drunk person can actually give consent... (For the record, in my incident, i was stone cold sober) I honestly beleive that a person who is drunk, cannot give consent. I don't beleive that in every case a person who's drunk is raped... and I also don't think what I call buyer's remorse is rape (ya know that's when you sober up and say - what the hell was I thinking)... there's a very fine line there.. and I'm not sure how to define that line... just that you'd know...

An attacker has a right to defend themselves to a degree... but a woman's past sexual history, her attire, her demeanor should not be allowed to be questioned... This is about the rapists actions.. and what they did... I don't think that he was led astray by an scantily clad drunken woman is a good excuse...

JustJess · 12-09-2005, 07:26 AM

Precisely.
AV, I think you might be thinking a little naively. When they say the attackers present false evidence, that seems linked to perjury, not he said/she said. It's a problem when they put the victim on trial - yes, it must be established that her story is credible and that there is some kind of evidence to support it, but there is always a bit of physical evidence - if it were being gathered correctly, that is. There is trauma to the woman's body if she is taken forcibly. It'd be pretty difficult to fake that.

Is a person likely to make poor choices when drunk? Of course, that's half the reason people drink. But when they're too drunk to stand or talk coherently, yes, they're an idiot, but they are not able to consent to anything. (I don't know the particulars of the case quoted, but am suggesting circumstances instead.)

The very idea of a man being influenced so heavily by what a woman wears that he ignores the fact that she doesn't want to have sex with him... is ridiculously stupid and insulting. He couldn't help himself because she was wearing something sexy? Ridiculous. Who cares if she's had sex with 50 men, she didn't want to have sex with this one. That is the only point.

So based on the things quoted in this article, it sounds like yes, they need reform. What the hell kind of court lets a defense attorney show the victim's underwear? Obviously, not every woman is telling the truth, and/or some may be misguided. But 96%??? I doubt that's even possible. In the case quoted about the 16-year-old (towards the bottom) - how is 4 years sufficient time, especially when he didn't serve that time?

stevie667 · 12-09-2005, 08:14 AM

The legal system in the UK sucks.

I think if we sent a few more to the gallows, a better message would be sent.

Studying law at the moment, i do think there will be cases in the future about drunken consent, and at some point there will be a complete change in the system, and drunken consent will not be consent at all.

Unfortunatly, this is case precident, so there have to be more cases for this thing to get sorted out...

martinguerre · 12-09-2005, 09:35 AM

it's not just scotland. a young woman in oregon was just convicted of filing a false police report because a judge didn't think she "acted like" she had gotten raped since she didn't want to shower after the assault. the alledged perps all had different stories, but they got believed, and she was legally convicted of being a liar.

there's a lot that can be done to make the courts tougher on rapists, without losing the protection of the falsly accused. sheild laws are hugely important. a victim's history or clothing, or whatever...should not be up for cross examination, unless the judge can be convinced that it really does matter to the defence.

people in the system need education if they're going to be working these cases. the judge in oregon, for example. he knows one fact...many survivors of sexual assault/rape will overshower to try to feel clean afterwards. but in a classic case of knowing just enough to be dangerous, he doesn't have a clue that that has no function as a acid test of if someone is truthful or not...and that for some, even getting undressed to shower is too much.

there's no excuse for ill-educated judiciary in these matters. i think judges/prosecutors ought to have special certification and training before being allowed to hear/try such cases.

f6twister · 12-09-2005, 10:05 AM

I can't speak for other states but at least where I live, having sex with someone who is intoxicated is a Class C Felony. The statute reads:

Quote:

940.225(2)(cm) SECOND DEGREE SEXUAL ASSAULT. Whoever does any of the following is guilty of a Class C felony: Has sexual contact or sexual intercourse with a person who is under the influence of an intoxicant to a degree which renders that person incapable of appraising the person’s conduct, and the defendant knows of such condition.

Now, I know someone will bring up that it is sometimes tough to tell when someone is "incapable of appraising the person's conduct" or basically know when they are too drunk to consent and I will agree. I wonder how many people out there realize that this statute exists. I would think it would make some people think before heading home with someone who is drunk.

AngelicVampire · 12-09-2005, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JustJess

Precisely.
AV, I think you might be thinking a little naively. When they say the attackers present false evidence, that seems linked to perjury, not he said/she said. It's a problem when they put the victim on trial - yes, it must be established that her story is credible and that there is some kind of evidence to support it, but there is always a bit of physical evidence - if it were being gathered correctly, that is. There is trauma to the woman's body if she is taken forcibly. It'd be pretty difficult to fake that.

Indeed I am taking it naively, delibrately so, however a lot of cases (as Mal said, buyers remorse, the whole way too drunk on both sides etc) it is literally he said she said, when you have forced entry (doesn't always imply rape, but majority probably is) then you have something more to go on however who said that the woman remembered the night correctly and the man is lying (yeah he probably is to cover up his guilt if guilty however its not really his job to prove himself innocent but the prosecuters to prove him guilty)? Perjury probably does occur a lot however without sufficient evidence to convict someone (DNA etc do not prove sex was non-consensual merely that it occured) then you have to aquit.

Quote:

Is a person likely to make poor choices when drunk? Of course, that's half the reason people drink. But when they're too drunk to stand or talk coherently, yes, they're an idiot, but they are not able to consent to anything. (I don't know the particulars of the case quoted, but am suggesting circumstances instead.)

Indeed, however if someone "consents" to something while drunk they are still responsible for their actions. While not truly related imagine applying the "drunken consent != consent" rule to say drunk driving, a drunk is excused of the offense because they were drunk? No they are assumed to have sense and probably convicted of DUI and whatever else... Its your choice to drink yourself to that level (not including stuff like rohepynol here), if you don't want the loss of control don't drink. I think that if we open up "drunk excuses lack of awareness" then we start to open floodgates.

Quote:

The very idea of a man being influenced so heavily by what a woman wears that he ignores the fact that she doesn't want to have sex with him... is ridiculously stupid and insulting. He couldn't help himself because she was wearing something sexy? Ridiculous. Who cares if she's had sex with 50 men, she didn't want to have sex with this one. That is the only point.

Yes it is silly, however I can see the scenario, good looking woman, scanty dress, you go over and try your luck, she lets you buy her a few drinks, you have some yourself... things look to be going well and you are setting up a great night then she says no, lets just go our separate ways. In some cases this is probably a lot like teasing a dog, they guy was buying rounds etc and being nice for 1 purpose (in his mind), she went along with the idea then turned around and said no... I can see where it comes from even if this does not excuse it.

Quote:

So based on the things quoted in this article, it sounds like yes, they need reform. What the hell kind of court lets a defense attorney show the victim's underwear? Obviously, not every woman is telling the truth, and/or some may be misguided. But 96%??? I doubt that's even possible. In the case quoted about the 16-year-old (towards the bottom) - how is 4 years sufficient time, especially when he didn't serve that time?

Its not enough time, dunno the particulars of that case, perhaps it was very iffy conviction and so he was sentenced (and thus has rape on his record) however making it stick hard would have been impossible, dunno? The British court system seems to let you out for most crimes after 1/2 -> 2/3rds of your sentence provided good behaviour inside (reduces costs)... which doesn't seem like justice to me but then I would have a death sentence in Britain.

As for the underwear I could see it being relevant, if she suggested forced entry, attack etc however a fine pair of lace underwear or something is in perfect condition then something may be going on, again the particulars aren't included however it may be relevant and as the article says the courts don't want to get it wrong so allowing an appeal because that drags the woman through the whole situation again.

Ustwo · 12-09-2005, 12:33 PM

The problem with rape is proving it was a rape.

Proving sexual contact is not enough to prove it was rape, which will always be the problem.

It becomes a case of the guilty go free rather than an innocent is convicted.

martinguerre · 12-09-2005, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AngelicVampire

Indeed, however if someone "consents" to something while drunk they are still responsible for their actions. While not truly related imagine applying the "drunken consent != consent" rule to say drunk driving, a drunk is excused of the offense because they were drunk? No they are assumed to have sense and probably convicted of DUI and whatever else... Its your choice to drink yourself to that level (not including stuff like rohepynol here), if you don't want the loss of control don't drink. I think that if we open up "drunk excuses lack of awareness" then we start to open floodgates.

If a traveling salesman comes up to you when you're hammered and sells you a new car...do you honestly think a court is going to uphold that contract? The DUI example is just plain non-sense in this situation. A person who goes to a party does not expect to have to make legally binding choices (like driving a car). Nor do they expect that people will make choices for them, such as raping them.

Quote:

Yes it is silly, however I can see the scenario, good looking woman, scanty dress, you go over and try your luck, she lets you buy her a few drinks, you have some yourself... things look to be going well and you are setting up a great night then she says no, lets just go our separate ways. In some cases this is probably a lot like teasing a dog, they guy was buying rounds etc and being nice for 1 purpose (in his mind), she went along with the idea then turned around and said no... I can see where it comes from even if this does not excuse it.

You are excusing it. And that's despicable. Unless you're dating a whore, NOBODY has any right to expect sex in return for drinks, money, gifts, or any other form of compensation. Forcing sex with a "tease" isn't a contract dispute, it's rape.

Quote:

As for the underwear I could see it being relevant, if she suggested forced entry, attack etc however a fine pair of lace underwear or something is in perfect condition then something may be going on, again the particulars aren't included however it may be relevant and as the article says the courts don't want to get it wrong so allowing an appeal because that drags the woman through the whole situation again.

A story often told. A policeman/prosecutor, whatever told a woman he didn't believe that a woman could be raped if she fought back. He gave her a nightstick, and held a coffee cup out. Told her to place the stick in the cup. She tried to do so, and he moved the cup away. He says "See? If you'd really fought back, you wouldn't have gotten raped."

She slams the nightstick down on his hand, making him drop the cup. He cusses and whines in pain, and she takes the nightstick, and inserts it in to the dropped cup. She answers back: "See. It is that easy."

Rape isn't just the act of sex that's unwanted. It's the physical, chemical, or psychological coercion that takes place to remove a person's choice to consent to sex. The sex itself does not have to be violent to qualify as rape. Expecting fine lace underwear to "indicate" a rape or consensual sex is baloney.

kutulu · 12-09-2005, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre

Rape isn't just the act of sex that's unwanted. It's the physical, chemical, or psychological coercion that takes place to remove a person's choice to consent to sex. The sex itself does not have to be violent to qualify as rape. Expecting fine lace underwear to "indicate" a rape or consensual sex is baloney.

That's fine and dandy but in a court of law psychological coercion should not be used as evidence unless there are witnesses other than the accusor. If the person is coerced and the sex isn't violent or show any signs of forced entry or physical attack then all the victim has to stand on is her own testimony. If that is enough to prove rape then anyone at any time can be found guilty of rape because all it takes is someone to say "I was coerced" That's no way to protect against false accusations.

martinguerre · 12-09-2005, 02:40 PM

there's something odd about rape that suddenly makes everyone an advocate of the rights of the accused.

kutulu · 12-09-2005, 03:08 PM

That's such a non-answer. However, for what it's worth, I'm always an advocate for the rights of the accused and so should everyone because as the law states you are INNOCENT before proven guilty. Don't ever forget that it is the job of the prosecution to prove that the defendant is guilty not the other way around.

If the standard is "Although there is no physical evidence that cannot have occurred via consensual sex and no third parties were there to confirm that it was rape the victim, who by the way doesn't want to be revealed, says it happened" then how can we tell a true victim from someone making a false claim?

martinguerre · 12-09-2005, 03:22 PM

first. that comment wasn't just aimed at you...there are commenters that suddenly start waxing eloquent about presuming persons to innocent, when they sound more like hanging judges the other 364 days of the year.

second. that does leave us with a fairly large problem. we have a category of crime that is not be enforced because we have too many problems proving cases. is your response to let that situation be...that the victims don't really need justice? if so...we're basically legalizing aquaintence rape. imagine your life if you had to assume that there was a strong chance that at some point in your life, a friend, family member, or business associate would coerce you in to having sex against your will, and that you would likely not see that crime prosecuted, and that if you did report it...you would likely be disbelieved.

Physical coercion is just as unlikely to leave physical evidence...you don't need to leave bruises to intimidate someone. You can hold a gun to someone's head, and not leave a single mark. Same could be true of a mugging. You don't need to leave physical evidence or witnesses to hold a gun to someone's head, and demand money. Do you expect the justice system to convict the robber if there are no witnesses? Is that a real robbery?

kutulu · 12-09-2005, 03:36 PM

Yes it sucks but that's the way it has to be if we are going to have a legal system that demands rock solid proof before deciding guilt. If we don't demand that of the system then there is no reason to have trials. We'll just lock people up whenever someone 'says' that someone did something to them.

I've been the victim of crime many times. I've had three cars broken into with plenty of shit stolen and I've been robbed at gunpoint so I know what it's like to be a victim and not be able to do shit about it. You have to accept it and not let it control your life.

Ustwo · 12-09-2005, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre

there's something odd about rape that suddenly makes everyone an advocate of the rights of the accused.

Trying to imply something there Martin?

martinguerre · 12-09-2005, 04:43 PM

ustwo..yeah, i am. that some people have some really fucked up ideas about standards of proof when it comes to sexual assault and rape. why? what did you think i was saying?

kutulu...i'm not as satisfied with the "move on" model. i just don't think we can have a civilized world if we don't take crime seriously. i'm cautious as well about the power of the state to indict and destroy...but i'm just as worried about entire categories of crime being under-prosecuted.

Ustwo · 12-09-2005, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre

first. that comment wasn't just aimed at you...there are commenters that suddenly start waxing eloquent about presuming persons to innocent, when they sound more like hanging judges the other 364 days of the year.

Who?

5678910

kutulu · 12-09-2005, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre

kutulu...i'm not as satisfied with the "move on" model. i just don't think we can have a civilized world if we don't take crime seriously. i'm cautious as well about the power of the state to indict and destroy...but i'm just as worried about entire categories of crime being under-prosecuted.

well what is it that would make you happy when there is no physical evidence and the only ones present are the accused and the victim? i'm not trying to be an ass about it, just pointing out that it's not the system's fault.

martinguerre · 12-10-2005, 02:10 PM

i guess more in general...

one of the big problems right now is admissability of evidence. i mentioned training for judges/prosecutors before...i think that would be a big step forward.

stronger sheild laws would keep previous history, what the person was wearing, and other irrelevant and prejudicial information from being admitted.

i'd also consider if previous accusations could be admitted in certain circumstances.

CandleInTheDark · 12-10-2005, 05:45 PM

Relevant information should be decided on a case by case basis, not by sweeping regulations.

martinguerre · 12-10-2005, 08:28 PM

i think the challenge there is to produce widespread guidance and training so that those individual decisions can be made wisely.

in that case in oregon i mentioned...the judge took a little information, and then overbroadly applied it. A lack of true education on sexual assault, and how survivors handle the fallout creates a potential (and in this case actual) mishandling of a case, with serious repercussions. i'm all for judicial discretion, so long as it's under review by higher courts. but the baseline needs to be an informed judiciary to make choices, and knowledgable officers of the court to argue wisely as well.

Most folks have some pretty serious misconceptions about rape unless they have training or experience to show them otherwise. Because of the social silence around these issues, it's unlikey that a person will just pickup truthful and complete information about sexual assualt.

Gilda · 12-10-2005, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AngelicVampire

Indeed, however if someone "consents" to something while drunk they are still responsible for their actions. While not truly related imagine applying the "drunken consent != consent" rule to say drunk driving, a drunk is excused of the offense because they were drunk? No they are assumed to have sense and probably convicted of DUI and whatever else... Its your choice to drink yourself to that level (not including stuff like rohepynol here), if you don't want the loss of control don't drink. I think that if we open up "drunk excuses lack of awareness" then we start to open floodgates.

The issue here is diminished capacity. Drunk driving is an aggravating factor in driving crimes because it diminishes the driver's capacity to safely operate a motor vehicle. A drunk rape victim has diminished capacity to consent to sex. Making this an aggravating factor in both instances is completely consistent.

Quote:

Yes it is silly, however I can see the scenario, good looking woman, scanty dress, you go over and try your luck, she lets you buy her a few drinks, you have some yourself... things look to be going well and you are setting up a great night then she says no, lets just go our separate ways. In some cases this is probably a lot like teasing a dog, they guy was buying rounds etc and being nice for 1 purpose (in his mind), she went along with the idea then turned around and said no... I can see where it comes from even if this does not excuse it.

The woman's behavior, no matter how much she flirts or teases, no matter what her behavior is seen to imply is irrelevant once she says "no". The guy's intent for buying drinks and being nice is also absolutely irrelevant to the issue of whether or not she's consented, but may be evidence of intent on his part.

The woman can say yes, yes, yes, as often and as many times as she wants without giving up the right to say no whenever she likes. Now, dressing provocatively, teasing, implying or saying that sex will be upcoming, these things might be rude, and they might be ill advised, but they do not in the least mitigate the guy's responsibility. If she doesn't consent, and he has sex anyway, it's rape. Those are the only two relevant issues.

Gilda

Cimarron29414 · 12-12-2005, 12:33 PM

My wife was a volunteer victim's advocate for a national rape crisis organization. She would regularly go to the hospital and assist the victim during the State's rape exam. This exam includes swabbing the interior of the vagina,uterus; taking pubic hair samples; confiscating the clothes worn during the assault; taking blood samples; taking lengthy written statements; fingernail scrapings. My wife never discussed the race, age, or any other identifying information of victims and accused with me. However, I learned that rape seems to be the most complicated person-on-person crimes we have on the books. If one thinks about it, strong arm robbery, battery, even murder are relatively straight forward when compared to the complexity of rape because the consensual act and the non-consensual act leave most of the same evidence, especially with acquaintance rape. So, that leaves the difficult task of determining consent at the time of the act, which is key and is a real challenge for prosecutors.

My wife told stories of girls that were caught by their parents and screamed rape, of prostitutes that said they were abducted, of men who demand sex for drugs, of girls that would get slipped date rape drugs and couldn't remember the rape (even though there was evidence),..... it goes on and on. I never heard one single story that I considered a cut and dry case of rape (at the prosecutorial level), and that was after two years of her doing the work! That doesn't mean that there are no cut and dry rape cases, it simply means that she never experienced one.

The fact is, most of the cases are so difficult to prove in a court of law and the victim is ALWAYS on trial. The rape exam is so humiliating that many girls will recant at the very thought of taking the exam. Sometimes, the police will even use the fear of the rape exam as a screening device for the fortitude of the victim during trial. For example, a girl came in with her mother. After a lengthy interview, the nurses prepared the girl for the rape exam. The mother was asked to leave the room. As soon as she did, the girl admitted that the sex was consensual and her mother made her come to the hospital. Who knows if it was consensual? The girl was so scared of the exam, she wanted out!

I don't have a solution, I just wanted to lament that it is so complicated for victims to get their justice and the falsely accused to get their images cleared.

dksuddeth · 12-13-2005, 09:30 AM

i would imagine that if more rapists mysteriously woke up to find themselves castrated and bleeding in their beds, there would be a lot less rape in the world.

\hates sexual assault crimes most of all

Bill O'Rights · 12-13-2005, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilda

If she doesn't consent, and he has sex anyway, it's rape.

And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is the sum total. No more. No less. There it is. Period.

Ustwo · 12-13-2005, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is the sum total. No more. No less. There it is. Period.

The main problem is not 'what is rape' but 'how do you prove rape'.

flstf · 12-13-2005, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by f6twister

I can't speak for other states but at least where I live, having sex with someone who is intoxicated is a Class C Felony. The statute reads:

Quote:

940.225(2)(cm) SECOND DEGREE SEXUAL ASSAULT. Whoever does any of the following is guilty of a Class C felony: Has sexual contact or sexual intercourse with a person who is under the influence of an intoxicant to a degree which renders that person incapable of appraising the person’s conduct, and the defendant knows of such condition.

Now, I know someone will bring up that it is sometimes tough to tell when someone is "incapable of appraising the person's conduct" or basically know when they are too drunk to consent and I will agree. I wonder how many people out there realize that this statute exists. I would think it would make some people think before heading home with someone who is drunk.

I wonder if this applies to both parties if they have sex when they are both too drunk to consent? If she consented and they were both drunk is it still considered rape?

martinguerre · 12-13-2005, 01:30 PM

if one party is sober enough to know that the other person is drunk enough not to consent...

they would be the guilty party.

or, if a person got drunk along with another person, and had expressed prior intent to serve that person enough alcohol to erase their consent...

kutulu · 12-13-2005, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre

if one party is sober enough to know that the other person is drunk enough not to consent...

they would be the guilty party.

Talk about splitting hairs. That goes way too far. The next day, how can one honestly say 'well you were drunker than me so you should have known better, even though i can't remember what happened'

There has to be some sense of personal responsibility in action. The whole 'a drunk person can't give consent' rule is BS. Unless they were drugged, which would make it a totally different case, they CHOSE to drink that much. To compare drunken sex (a quite common thing throughout history) with sexual violence is beyond asinine.

Quote:

or, if a person got drunk along with another person, and had expressed prior intent to serve that person enough alcohol to erase their consent...

Showing prior intent is a completely different scenario.

JustJess · 12-13-2005, 01:54 PM

I don't know about that. If I get stupid drunk, that's a bad choice. Doesn't mean someone should just take advantage of my passed out/incoherent body.

Ustwo · 12-13-2005, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

Talk about splitting hairs. That goes way too far. The next day, how can one honestly say 'well you were drunker than me so you should have known better, even though i can't remember what happened'

There has to be some sense of personal responsibility in action. The whole 'a drunk person can't give consent' rule is BS. Unless they were drugged, which would make it a totally different case, they CHOSE to drink that much. To compare drunken sex (a quite common thing throughout history) with sexual violence is beyond asinine.

Back in my frat days, we had some required rape sensitivity course or some such. One thing they stated was that if a girl had ANYTHING to drink, and you had sex, it could be called rape. This is of course stupid.

On the other hand, I saw enough girls so drunk off their ass they didn't know where they were, who they were with, or what they were doing. I remember we once found a girl asleep in the pile of coats after a big party and no one knew who she was. A few hours later her friends finally came looking for her.

Having sex with any of them I would have called rape. Sure it was their choice to drink themselves into oblivion, but it doesn't take a lot of morals and personal ethics to figure out that doing anything with them would be taking unwarranted advantage of them. I see sex with them as being no better than having sex with someone who fell down the stairs and was knocked unconscious.

martinguerre · 12-13-2005, 02:18 PM

kutulu...read my statment as plain sense, and not as legalease, and half the issue goes right there.

if you're tipsy, and stumbling around, and you can see that your new friend can barely open her eyes...

And you went ahead and had sex with her?

Guess what that means.

if one person is sober enough to realize that the other party is drunk enough not to be able to consent...

But i guess given your comments, you won't mind if you ever get drunk and someone decides to penetrate you for their sexual enjoyment.

Hope that works out well for you.

kutulu · 12-13-2005, 03:15 PM

The point is that if being drunk diminishes your capacity to make an informed consent then its completely unreasonable to hold one person at fault because they had a little less of a diminished capcity then the other.

Regardless, responsible people don't put themselves in that kind of position.

flstf · 12-13-2005, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Back in my frat days, we had some required rape sensitivity course or some such. One thing they stated was that if a girl had ANYTHING to drink, and you had sex, it could be called rape. This is of course stupid.

On the other hand, I saw enough girls so drunk off their ass they didn't know where they were, who they were with, or what they were doing. I remember we once found a girl asleep in the pile of coats after a big party and no one knew who she was. A few hours later her friends finally came looking for her.

Having sex with any of them I would have called rape. Sure it was their choice to drink themselves into oblivion, but it doesn't take a lot of morals and personal ethics to figure out that doing anything with them would be taking unwarranted advantage of them. I see sex with them as being no better than having sex with someone who fell down the stairs and was knocked unconscious.

Taking advantage of someone who is passed out or totally out of it is of course very wrong. As I recall from my earlier wilder days though there were several times when drinking that I engaged in sex with someone who was probably just as drunk as I was. I can remember waking up the next day and thinking "damn, I wish I had not have done that, I don't even like that person very much". This did not have anything to do with rape but was just two people doing something very foolish because they were drinking.

Under the law that f6twister quoted, I wonder if either one of us had a valid claim for rape since we were both drunk and probably would not have consented otherwise? In other words is the man exonerated if he was just as drunk as the woman who was consenting to sex if she claims later to have been too drunk to have given that consent? I don't think it is rape when both parties engage in a drunken fling and regret it later.

Ustwo · 12-14-2005, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

Under the law that f6twister quoted, I wonder if either one of us had a valid claim for rape since we were both drunk and probably would not have consented otherwise? In other words is the man exonerated if he was just as drunk as the woman who was consenting to sex if she claims later to have been too drunk to have given that consent? I don't think it is rape when both parties engage in a drunken fling and regret it later.

We were told that basically if the woman had impaired judgment it could be called rape. Obviously this is a wee bit vague, and mostly unenforceable. I can honestly say that in school that I never had sex with a woman who's judgment was more impaired than mine. On the other hand, they can't say the same to me as I was 'taken advantage of' a couple of times while I was drunk, oh god what horrible memories

(Just a word of advice to you young folk, if you are asked to a set up dance, and the girl shows up late, and the dark beer you were drinking starts tasting more like water before she gets there, your judgment may be impaired resulting in a make out session and more you would not have approved of had you been sober.)

Since proof of rape is so difficult in most cases, things can get a bit nutty. You have well meaning people saying that rapes are under reported, which I have no doubt is true, but often the changes they want shift the burden of proof to the accused which isn't right either. Trying to prove you didn't rape someone is even more difficult then proving you did. So you get these vague laws about alcohol impairment which sound ok on paper to some, but sometimes remove all aspects of common sense from the equation. That being said, finding a girl who is stupid drunk is not an excuse to 'go for it' in my mind.

Nimetic · 12-14-2005, 11:00 PM

If a drunk woman gives consent and it doesn't count because she was intoxicated and had diminished responsibility - then it follows that that a drunk man who has sex with her while suffering from similar mental impairment is similarly not responsible

This seems particularly clear if the hypothetical drunk man has not used force and believed that he had received valid consent.

I'm 100% supportive of the the view that taking advantage of an drunk woman is immoral. I'm just saying that one of the arguments being used here cuts both ways.

This can be recitified I think if we differentiate between different levels of intoxication...

dksuddeth · 12-15-2005, 07:26 AM

theres a real easy and simple way to avoid the he said/she said guessing game of intoxicated rape.......ready for this?

DONT GET DRUNK!!!!!!

problem solved.

Plaid13 · 12-16-2005, 03:06 PM

the court system sucks putting a rapest in prison is retarded they should be allowed go go free.... right after they are castrated with a wooden spoon and branded across his forhead RAPEST big enough to read from 20 feet away. And of corse he should lose all his rights so if people feel like pelting him with animal dung they should be allowed to. but hey thats just how i feel.

Bob Biter · 12-26-2005, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

theres a real easy and simple way to avoid the he said/she said guessing game of intoxicated rape.......ready for this?

DONT GET DRUNK!!!!!!

problem solved.

Nice use of sarcasm. Meanwhile, back in the real world, Jack and Jill order yet another whiskey sour.

People will smoke cigarettes, do drugs, and/or drink themselves blind, when they choose to do so. These people will also have to face the consequences of their actions. In regards to sex while intoxicated, I don't think any clear line between actual consent and "false consent" / rape will ever be drawn. Our innocent-until-proven-guilty legal system puts the weight on the prosecution and the victim who's doing the accusing. Some people might argue that this isn't fair to the victim, who supposedly has gone through considerable trauma, but an assault and battery victim might be just as shaken.

Do many rapists manage to get away with their crime because of lack of evidence or victims backing out? Probably. But innocent guys that are set up by a girl usually don't end up in jail, either. However, simply being ACCUSED of rape doesn't look good for an innocent guy. Unless there is blatant evidence piled up on his side (such as witnesses), then he's likely to be looked at quite differently even after being acquitted.

Bottom line, rape is a heinous crime that isn't as easy to prosecute as murder, robbery, etc. This is really unfortunate, and something many rapists likely take advantage of. However, other than increased support for the victim before and after the trial, as was mentioned in some posts above, I really don't see how the system could be effectively changed.

Seaver · 12-28-2005, 09:00 PM

Quote:

there's something odd about rape that suddenly makes everyone an advocate of the rights of the accused.

I came a little late. However how do you NOT expect this to happen? Being a rapist is the worst stigma in our society. Even the accusation would end a man's career, social, and any hopes of a political career. Yet the accusaition can be easily made by a woman with no physical proof.

Person Z can call the police and say Person X murdered Person Y. Do you not think the police would be looking for Person Y (the DNA/physical process)? Do you not think the police would be asking Person Z how he knew what happened? or what he was doing at the time? Or where the body of Person Y was? (the interrogation process).

Yes I've had an ex who was raped. The process was awful to her, and to this day she shows small signs of being messed up by it. So I have full sympathy to anyone raped.

However a good friend was accused of rape by a REALLY good friend of mine in High School. He had never so much as argued with anyone for the prior 5 years (nice guy to everyone), yet one night at a party a wantonous girl in our class and him had sex. Although she slept with him in the same bed until morning... she drove home and her boyfriend found out about it. She cried rape.

If it wasnt for that horrible interrogation process my friend would be quite litterally getting raped ATM in jail because a girl didnt want to fess up she cheated on her boyfriend.

12-09-2005, 06:34 AM	#2 (permalink)
maleficent Junkie Moderator Emeritus Location: Chicago	Somewhere in the ladies lounge, I recounted my dealings with the police after I was raped. This was in the United States in the 21st century. The police weren't helpful at all, and basically they decided that I pretty much asked for it... their decision was a little lengthier than that.. but they made a lot of judgements about the troublemaking Yankee chick who came down to cause trouble with the good ole boys. In the ladies lounge the question was raised as to whether a drunk person can actually give consent... (For the record, in my incident, i was stone cold sober) I honestly beleive that a person who is drunk, cannot give consent. I don't beleive that in every case a person who's drunk is raped... and I also don't think what I call buyer's remorse is rape (ya know that's when you sober up and say - what the hell was I thinking)... there's a very fine line there.. and I'm not sure how to define that line... just that you'd know... An attacker has a right to defend themselves to a degree... but a woman's past sexual history, her attire, her demeanor should not be allowed to be questioned... This is about the rapists actions.. and what they did... I don't think that he was led astray by an scantily clad drunken woman is a good excuse... __________________ Free your heart from hatred. Free your mind from worries. Live simply. Give more. Expect less.

12-09-2005, 07:26 AM	#3 (permalink)
JustJess Unencapsulated Location: Kittyville	Precisely. AV, I think you might be thinking a little naively. When they say the attackers present false evidence, that seems linked to perjury, not he said/she said. It's a problem when they put the victim on trial - yes, it must be established that her story is credible and that there is some kind of evidence to support it, but there is always a bit of physical evidence - if it were being gathered correctly, that is. There is trauma to the woman's body if she is taken forcibly. It'd be pretty difficult to fake that. Is a person likely to make poor choices when drunk? Of course, that's half the reason people drink. But when they're too drunk to stand or talk coherently, yes, they're an idiot, but they are not able to consent to anything. (I don't know the particulars of the case quoted, but am suggesting circumstances instead.) The very idea of a man being influenced so heavily by what a woman wears that he ignores the fact that she doesn't want to have sex with him... is ridiculously stupid and insulting. He couldn't help himself because she was wearing something sexy? Ridiculous. Who cares if she's had sex with 50 men, she didn't want to have sex with this one. That is the only point. So based on the things quoted in this article, it sounds like yes, they need reform. What the hell kind of court lets a defense attorney show the victim's underwear? Obviously, not every woman is telling the truth, and/or some may be misguided. But 96%??? I doubt that's even possible. In the case quoted about the 16-year-old (towards the bottom) - how is 4 years sufficient time, especially when he didn't serve that time? __________________ My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

12-09-2005, 08:14 AM	#4 (permalink)
stevie667 Too Awesome for Aardvarks Location: Angloland	The legal system in the UK sucks. I think if we sent a few more to the gallows, a better message would be sent. Studying law at the moment, i do think there will be cases in the future about drunken consent, and at some point there will be a complete change in the system, and drunken consent will not be consent at all. Unfortunatly, this is case precident, so there have to be more cases for this thing to get sorted out... __________________ Office hours have changed. Please call during office hours for more information.

12-09-2005, 09:35 AM	#5 (permalink)
martinguerre whosoever Location: New England	it's not just scotland. a young woman in oregon was just convicted of filing a false police report because a judge didn't think she "acted like" she had gotten raped since she didn't want to shower after the assault. the alledged perps all had different stories, but they got believed, and she was legally convicted of being a liar. there's a lot that can be done to make the courts tougher on rapists, without losing the protection of the falsly accused. sheild laws are hugely important. a victim's history or clothing, or whatever...should not be up for cross examination, unless the judge can be convinced that it really does matter to the defence. people in the system need education if they're going to be working these cases. the judge in oregon, for example. he knows one fact...many survivors of sexual assault/rape will overshower to try to feel clean afterwards. but in a classic case of knowing just enough to be dangerous, he doesn't have a clue that that has no function as a acid test of if someone is truthful or not...and that for some, even getting undressed to shower is too much. there's no excuse for ill-educated judiciary in these matters. i think judges/prosecutors ought to have special certification and training before being allowed to hear/try such cases. __________________ For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16

12-09-2005, 12:33 PM	#8 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	The problem with rape is proving it was a rape. Proving sexual contact is not enough to prove it was rape, which will always be the problem. It becomes a case of the guilty go free rather than an innocent is convicted. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

12-09-2005, 02:40 PM	#11 (permalink)
martinguerre whosoever Location: New England	there's something odd about rape that suddenly makes everyone an advocate of the rights of the accused. __________________ For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16

12-09-2005, 03:08 PM	#12 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	That's such a non-answer. However, for what it's worth, I'm always an advocate for the rights of the accused and so should everyone because as the law states you are INNOCENT before proven guilty. Don't ever forget that it is the job of the prosecution to prove that the defendant is guilty not the other way around. If the standard is "Although there is no physical evidence that cannot have occurred via consensual sex and no third parties were there to confirm that it was rape the victim, who by the way doesn't want to be revealed, says it happened" then how can we tell a true victim from someone making a false claim?

12-09-2005, 03:22 PM	#13 (permalink)
martinguerre whosoever Location: New England	first. that comment wasn't just aimed at you...there are commenters that suddenly start waxing eloquent about presuming persons to innocent, when they sound more like hanging judges the other 364 days of the year. second. that does leave us with a fairly large problem. we have a category of crime that is not be enforced because we have too many problems proving cases. is your response to let that situation be...that the victims don't really need justice? if so...we're basically legalizing aquaintence rape. imagine your life if you had to assume that there was a strong chance that at some point in your life, a friend, family member, or business associate would coerce you in to having sex against your will, and that you would likely not see that crime prosecuted, and that if you did report it...you would likely be disbelieved. Physical coercion is just as unlikely to leave physical evidence...you don't need to leave bruises to intimidate someone. You can hold a gun to someone's head, and not leave a single mark. Same could be true of a mugging. You don't need to leave physical evidence or witnesses to hold a gun to someone's head, and demand money. Do you expect the justice system to convict the robber if there are no witnesses? Is that a real robbery? __________________ For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16 Last edited by martinguerre; 12-09-2005 at 04:44 PM.. Reason: sp3lling

12-09-2005, 03:36 PM	#14 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	Yes it sucks but that's the way it has to be if we are going to have a legal system that demands rock solid proof before deciding guilt. If we don't demand that of the system then there is no reason to have trials. We'll just lock people up whenever someone 'says' that someone did something to them. I've been the victim of crime many times. I've had three cars broken into with plenty of shit stolen and I've been robbed at gunpoint so I know what it's like to be a victim and not be able to do shit about it. You have to accept it and not let it control your life.

12-09-2005, 04:43 PM	#16 (permalink)
martinguerre whosoever Location: New England	ustwo..yeah, i am. that some people have some really fucked up ideas about standards of proof when it comes to sexual assault and rape. why? what did you think i was saying? kutulu...i'm not as satisfied with the "move on" model. i just don't think we can have a civilized world if we don't take crime seriously. i'm cautious as well about the power of the state to indict and destroy...but i'm just as worried about entire categories of crime being under-prosecuted. __________________ For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16

12-10-2005, 02:10 PM	#19 (permalink)
martinguerre whosoever Location: New England	i guess more in general... one of the big problems right now is admissability of evidence. i mentioned training for judges/prosecutors before...i think that would be a big step forward. stronger sheild laws would keep previous history, what the person was wearing, and other irrelevant and prejudicial information from being admitted. i'd also consider if previous accusations could be admitted in certain circumstances. __________________ For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16

12-10-2005, 05:45 PM	#20 (permalink)
CandleInTheDark Addict Location: Where the music's loudest	Relevant information should be decided on a case by case basis, not by sweeping regulations. __________________ Where there is doubt there is freedom.

12-10-2005, 08:28 PM	#21 (permalink)
martinguerre whosoever Location: New England	i think the challenge there is to produce widespread guidance and training so that those individual decisions can be made wisely. in that case in oregon i mentioned...the judge took a little information, and then overbroadly applied it. A lack of true education on sexual assault, and how survivors handle the fallout creates a potential (and in this case actual) mishandling of a case, with serious repercussions. i'm all for judicial discretion, so long as it's under review by higher courts. but the baseline needs to be an informed judiciary to make choices, and knowledgable officers of the court to argue wisely as well. Most folks have some pretty serious misconceptions about rape unless they have training or experience to show them otherwise. Because of the social silence around these issues, it's unlikey that a person will just pickup truthful and complete information about sexual assualt. __________________ For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16

12-12-2005, 12:33 PM	#23 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	My wife was a volunteer victim's advocate for a national rape crisis organization. She would regularly go to the hospital and assist the victim during the State's rape exam. This exam includes swabbing the interior of the vagina,uterus; taking pubic hair samples; confiscating the clothes worn during the assault; taking blood samples; taking lengthy written statements; fingernail scrapings. My wife never discussed the race, age, or any other identifying information of victims and accused with me. However, I learned that rape seems to be the most complicated person-on-person crimes we have on the books. If one thinks about it, strong arm robbery, battery, even murder are relatively straight forward when compared to the complexity of rape because the consensual act and the non-consensual act leave most of the same evidence, especially with acquaintance rape. So, that leaves the difficult task of determining consent at the time of the act, which is key and is a real challenge for prosecutors. My wife told stories of girls that were caught by their parents and screamed rape, of prostitutes that said they were abducted, of men who demand sex for drugs, of girls that would get slipped date rape drugs and couldn't remember the rape (even though there was evidence),..... it goes on and on. I never heard one single story that I considered a cut and dry case of rape (at the prosecutorial level), and that was after two years of her doing the work! That doesn't mean that there are no cut and dry rape cases, it simply means that she never experienced one. The fact is, most of the cases are so difficult to prove in a court of law and the victim is ALWAYS on trial. The rape exam is so humiliating that many girls will recant at the very thought of taking the exam. Sometimes, the police will even use the fear of the rape exam as a screening device for the fortitude of the victim during trial. For example, a girl came in with her mother. After a lengthy interview, the nurses prepared the girl for the rape exam. The mother was asked to leave the room. As soon as she did, the girl admitted that the sex was consensual and her mother made her come to the hospital. Who knows if it was consensual? The girl was so scared of the exam, she wanted out! I don't have a solution, I just wanted to lament that it is so complicated for victims to get their justice and the falsely accused to get their images cleared. __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

12-13-2005, 09:30 AM	#24 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	i would imagine that if more rapists mysteriously woke up to find themselves castrated and bleeding in their beds, there would be a lot less rape in the world. \hates sexual assault crimes most of all __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

12-13-2005, 01:30 PM	#28 (permalink)
martinguerre whosoever Location: New England	if one party is sober enough to know that the other person is drunk enough not to consent... they would be the guilty party. or, if a person got drunk along with another person, and had expressed prior intent to serve that person enough alcohol to erase their consent... __________________ For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16

12-13-2005, 01:54 PM	#30 (permalink)
JustJess Unencapsulated Location: Kittyville	I don't know about that. If I get stupid drunk, that's a bad choice. Doesn't mean someone should just take advantage of my passed out/incoherent body. __________________ My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

12-13-2005, 02:18 PM	#32 (permalink)
martinguerre whosoever Location: New England	kutulu...read my statment as plain sense, and not as legalease, and half the issue goes right there. if you're tipsy, and stumbling around, and you can see that your new friend can barely open her eyes... And you went ahead and had sex with her? Guess what that means. if one person is sober enough to realize that the other party is drunk enough not to be able to consent... But i guess given your comments, you won't mind if you ever get drunk and someone decides to penetrate you for their sexual enjoyment. Hope that works out well for you. __________________ For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16

12-13-2005, 03:15 PM	#33 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	The point is that if being drunk diminishes your capacity to make an informed consent then its completely unreasonable to hold one person at fault because they had a little less of a diminished capcity then the other. Regardless, responsible people don't put themselves in that kind of position.

12-14-2005, 11:00 PM	#36 (permalink)
Nimetic Junkie Location: Melbourne, Australia	If a drunk woman gives consent and it doesn't count because she was intoxicated and had diminished responsibility - then it follows that that a drunk man who has sex with her while suffering from similar mental impairment is similarly not responsible This seems particularly clear if the hypothetical drunk man has not used force and believed that he had received valid consent. I'm 100% supportive of the the view that taking advantage of an drunk woman is immoral. I'm just saying that one of the arguments being used here cuts both ways. This can be recitified I think if we differentiate between different levels of intoxication... Last edited by Nimetic; 12-14-2005 at 11:03 PM.. Reason: Grammer

12-15-2005, 07:26 AM	#37 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	theres a real easy and simple way to avoid the he said/she said guessing game of intoxicated rape.......ready for this? DONT GET DRUNK!!!!!! problem solved. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

12-16-2005, 03:06 PM	#38 (permalink)
Plaid13 I want a Plaid crayon	the court system sucks putting a rapest in prison is retarded they should be allowed go go free.... right after they are castrated with a wooden spoon and branded across his forhead RAPEST big enough to read from 20 feet away. And of corse he should lose all his rights so if people feel like pelting him with animal dung they should be allowed to. but hey thats just how i feel.