Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Got to say one thing about the Tories - they look after their own.
the only way to make up for this would be to officially make rapists legal outlaws while in the act of raping or attempting to rape
That's really not going to make much difference.
coming forward who can then give evidence in order for a charge to be made.
And in regards to the thread title I thought it was a coalition gov with the Lib Dems now or don't they count?
This is a good argument for not allowing anonymity.
"We are searching for a man in connection with an allegation of rape"
Which is more compelling? Which will get other victims to come forward? Which is more likely to gently slide away from police concern? Which sounds like the woman is being taken seriously?
that you would definitely rape her. Then kill and eat her.
women don't cry rape without something inappropriate actually having happened
they really, really don't
it just isn't done
i'm just saying that as a rule, women don't do this - perhaps you get the odd exception but you should legislate for the rule and deal with the exception should it arise
False accusations are made by women, granted it's probably a small number but it does happen and seems to be getting more frequent lately.
How do you know?
more stories in the press lately that I have noticed
Then read this little blog-post I wrote about a SHAMEFUL DM article last November:
THIS IS THE ENEMY, AND THIS IS THE ATTITUDE I AM FIGHTING HERE GUYS
and I could give you a million examples of its own argumentative flaws, or positions it's taken that any intelligent adult would given a moment's independent thought laugh/cringe at.
Your ad hominem is a cute one - fortunately I fucking loathe RATM otherwise you'd have me pegged!
The Dail Mail has a massive circulation and its MANIFEST bigotry is not to be taken lightly. Why do you think it's a cliche in the first place?
you should distance yourself from the fuckwits who give your clan an ESPECIALLY bad name - The Economist is more the sort of centrist-Tory-leaning paper I can fuck with
hence it's pertinent to the topic.
My Tory remark was tit-for-tat at your RATM remark. I'm sorry I brought it up but I felt it was in the spirit of the post I was responding to. Also, note that I didn't criticise the Tory party! The DM is not the Tory party, much as it wishes it was. The current government's policies will hopefully little resemble the DM's desired policies.
It is massively targetted at middle-class women with its FeMail sections and emphasis on health, family, and (increasingly) celebrity stories.
I don't know how this alters the debate re: rape coverage, but it's something to bear in mind.
Women who can feel smugly secure that they're solvent and moral while the dregs of femininity get their just desserts - it's not just woman-hating, it's woman-parochialising.
Personally, if I sensed I was being told how to think within such restrictive parameters I'd never buy the DM again, but I guess there are some who develop a dependence to its big bold creeds.
I did clarify it wasn't 'never'
hetero rape is an offence men don't fall prey to, so it's almost impossible for us to understand the psychology of an accusing woman - usually she FEELS raped in some way, usually literal. the time-honoured discourse of men exploiting women needs to be challenged, and if this is through taking rape allegations seriously then so be it.
You said never.
"women don't cry rape without something inappropriate actually having happened
it just isn't done"
plus, I was deliberately overstating my case so as to establish what I believe to be a general rule, a rule that is occasionally traduced but a rule nonetheless - maybe not so much a rule as an attitude, the attitude that all allegations should be taken very seriously
but well done y'guys you won at internet
because you managed to contradict yourself pretty drastically in the space of a minute? Ha.
You don't need to explain arguing to me, buddy. You just have to get a bit better at it.
Critical Thinking AS, how I spurn thee
Good work. I lol'd :D
And when it does, the red-tops are all over it like a tramp on chips and then genuine victims (i.e. the overwhelming vast majority) worry about reporting teh crime because they think they'll not be believed. It is a tiny minority who for some reason (revenge, extortion, merntal illness?) cry wolf on this, but they fuck it up for everyone else.
I'm in two minds about this. It will only protect the very tiny minority who may be falsely accused, so is it really worth adding more stigma? However, can you imagine what it would bve like to be falsely accused? Notwithstanding your acquittal, you will geenrally be know as teh guy who raped x and got away with it. I really don't know.
because if the name of an accused rapist is published and a victim (or anyone else) who had previously had contact with the accused came forward with evidence to strengthen the case it may make the vital difference
I think this anonymity deal is taking things the wrong way
more emphasis should instead be put on the 'innocent until proven guilty' aspect of criminal investigations
It's the most fundamental tenet of a civilised legal system, but that's not to say that it can't be displaced in favour of an overwhelming conflicting objective. I'm not sure that the 'publicity encouraging other victims to come forward' is a good enough reason to have potentially innocent people's reputations ruined.
OH, I DON'T KNOW. I'm stuck, can we put this on in the Too Hard box please?
get it? GET IT? I ASKED FOR IT.....
I'm here all week etc
I've changed my mind.
You don't see THAT very often on DiS, do you?
I would like to make it clear I am now agreeing with Anschul, jacques, acoleuthic, etc...
b) women hardly ever lie about this
The law shouldn't be changed because of lying.
I'd have to say I think the average small village will likely not take against a man falsely accused of rape unless the accuser was also in the same small village and it split the place. In *that* situation I find it impossible to believe all the residents wouldn't know with or without the anonymity.
I'd like to see some hard evidence of guys who've been acquitted of rape and their lives have been ruined to a greater degree because the papers could name them.
someone who has lived virtually his whole life in errr......London.
it would seem your assumptions are wrong
re: a), if you weren't even charged with rape then it would be laughable for people to consider you a rapist, unless they know better for a fact. Nonetheless, all allegations should be taken seriously, and you'd need to be able to convincingly clear your name. If you did this and had a strong core of friends around you, any damage to your reputation would be as the result of human irrationality and one should be able to rise above it.
re: b), yeah it is a sweeping statement but I really can't think of any cases I know of where a woman has cried rape completely out of the blue and not ended up looking like a total idiot (lol that Neil and Christine Hamilton one) - please disabuse me if you know of any men who have been ruined by completely false allegations!
but to the majority of the general public, he will.
b) even if they hardly ever lie about this, they sometimes do. simple really. i see no problem with these proposals.
(b) If women NEVER lied about it, given only 9% are assumed to, would that mean this change in the law wouldn't be needed? It seems a bit of a red-herring to the argument given the assumption of point (a)
It depends on the process. If anonymity up to the point of someone being charged would prevent other victims coming forward, then it's not a good thing.
I don't know how the process works, but I think I'm right in saying that a lot of the evidence can be gathered after the point at which someone is charged though - when they wouldn't be anonymous.
(More under special circs). There wouldn't be much time to gather other witnesses, etc. But after the charge, the CPS prepare the case properly before trial which is when a lot of investigations are done.
stripped in 1988 ie Under Thatcher
Craig Charles and John Leslie never worked again.
i don't think this issue is anything near as simple as people are making it out to be from either camp.
there seems to be lots of conflicting evidence cited by both parties both against and in favour of the proposed change. most rapists are known to their victims vs. most rapists are serial offenders. whilst both may be true there needs to be some sort of process to work out whether or not this is A Good Thing, and where and when that would be applicable rather than both sides approaching things from this absolute and intractable positions.
the reason rape is so difficult to convict isn't JUST because the police don't take it seriously, that there is institutional and societal stigma around it and so on, but also because in a lot of cases it comes down to one person's word against another - which isn't to call anybody a liar - but the fact remains that this doesn't provide proof "beyond reasonable doubt", and the campaigns of some groups that seem to essentially (though sometimes subtextually) campaign for a shift in the balance of evidence required to convict a rapist makes me feel just as uncomfortable as the fact that the police don't take issues like this seriously for example.
i would hate to see a situation where people are convicted for certain crimes without the same sort of legal process and proof afforded to other crimes - and I suppose that goes for anonymity in rape cases too.
the fact is though that lots of rape cases aren't going to convict for a multitude of reasons, and there is little doubt that people who have been accused of rape but haven't been convicted will carry that stigma for the rest of their life without necessarily deserving to. in my experience, murder acquittals seem to be much better reported than rape acquittals by the media, and so people retain that stigma in a way they perhaps don't for other crimes (and i stress this is speculation based on what i've observed and I don't have any hard facts for it).
the point is that anonymity for rapists isn't necessarily a bad thing. the problem lies in the Tories refusal to have a proper consultative process about it which weighs up the alleged problems with it, considers the rights of people who do remain innocent until proven guilty and also under a fair legal system must be considered innocent if they are acquitted whether or not this is because of lies, bad police procedure or whatever, and tries to see through the seemingly conflicted evidence.
changing institutional and societal attitudes to rape is really what is required, and i can see that giving defendants anonymity has an effect on this, but it's really far far far (maybe insolubly) more complex than saying the Tories are wrong and cunts for this, because people accused of crimes have the moral right to be considered innocent if they are acquitted and this is perhaps harder in rape cases to assert.
but then it starts getting down to catch-22s about weighing up the balance between a defendant's rights and the alleged victims rights, and about changing societal attitudes and more robust police investigations and all sorts of things.
in conclusion: more consultation before the changes plz.
Know what I mean? *wink*
after I've had some lunch
is the desire to be as even-handed as possible without saying exactly WHAT these societal changes are
perhaps introducing different degrees of rape is the answer. all rape is absolute failure to behave like a civilised member of society - if a man exploits a semi-willing drunken woman or forces a partner, it should be a criminal offence, and if a man goes out and preys on complete strangers, it should be another criminal offence. both should be sternly punished by the law, but making concessions to nuance EVEN AS we crack down HARD upon 'soft' sexual offences (things which men often regard as cheeky conquests) would change society for the better IMO - especially if the word 'rape' is appended to EVERY case
what i was trying to get at when i briefly mentioned catch-22s was that most of the obvious and necessary societal changes about attitudes towards victims of rape from the police, increasing conviction rates through changing attitudes to get more victims to come forwards and so on, are often very difficult to reconcile with the rights of the accused or the defendant given that rape often happens behind closed doors.
basically - i don't really know exactly what these societal changes ARE, at all, but that is exactly why at this point it is important to be even handed, have proper consultation with people who have a better idea of what they are talking about than me.
this sort of attitude to rape and the legal system seems to be a fairly new field and i don't think either 'side' of it if you will, has a useful or comfortable grasp of the nuances - the considerations for both innocentuntilprovenguilty defendant or alleged victim. it seems that many of the measures advocated to support victims are at the detriment to the defendant's rights and vice-versa. i can't personally see a way out of that.
which is exactly why i'm advocating proper consultation in a public forum before changing the law, or rubbishing the proposed change to the law.
We had to use a little artistic license when making '13. i think though that's such a great movie, just such a great movie, we can forgive an inch here or there, right?
even though I don't agree with this decision, by the way.
but I wouldnt want to go near her
is because only 50% of rape cases that are prosecuted lead to a conviction, so the suggestion is that the accused need protection because there's a good chance they didn't do it.
the problem is, and it's a massive one, is that the law is being changed in a way that doesn't help this at all. defendents get anonymity up to the point where they get charged and prosecuted. all this does is potentially reduce the amount of evidence that can be assembled but still releases their name to the press before the trial. thereby achieving nothing.
I think there are many reasons why only 50% of cases result in conviction, and not all of them because the accused was genuinely innocent. Rape's a complex crime and the police try very hard to treat it sensitively (they have a specific case management system for sexual offences, and a specialist department in the prosecution service who work closely with police). Still, however, many cases go unprosecuted or are plea bargained away. I dont know what the answer is by the way, I'm just sayin' :)
one a victim, the other the recipient of a wrongful accusation
I see the rationale from both sides. On the one hand, the connatations of the crime are pretty heinous and stick to a charactern more so than others I say.
On the other hand, all that is possible should be done to encourage more victims to come forward and improve conviction rates.
The short of it is - I don't have a fucking clue what the answer is.
so I am understandably partisan - although not a great deal more than I would have been anyway
sorry if I have seemed overly so, I don't honestly want to see all rape-accused auto-sterilised
And I helped her through the aftermath and if I ever met him I would rip him apart with my bare hands.
But having been through that, and especially with nothing being able to be done about it and to witness close up someone wilfully lie about it, I can see the perspective on the other side too.
I don't have a solution though.
but if you've known the other side then I bow to your greater experience - I just find it hard to believe there's smoke without fire
'No smoke without fire' is a phrase that should probably be filed alongside 'I'm not racist, but...', not that I'm specifically having a pop at acoleuthic over this. Just an observation.
to illustrate my own mindset - playing with register and all that - very Catullan
I admitted that I find it HARD to believe there's smoke without fire because of my PREDISPOSITIONS - I was in fact conceding my own bias and inviting you to correct me
no need for such incredulity
merely pointing out my more bellsniffy tendencies as a mea culpa, and clarifying my position - a perfectly understandable position which states 'if a woman accuses a man of rape, she's probably got a legitimate grievance against him that is highly likely to be sexual exploitation of some kind, and probably rape'
I was also inviting LLB to tell me more about the crying of wolf
...I'd say it's absolutely fine referring to them, and that they wouldn't have a problem with this. It's not like DiS doesn't refer to ex-partners in far more malicious ways on a daily basis.
I am not under any circumstances in favour of making this a political 'tories versus lefties' issue, because I'm confident the Tory/Lib Dem government is universally disgusted by rape and wishes to combat it as best it can.
I know I've been a trifle rash in some of my phrasing, and that at times nuance has been lost amid noise. This is mostly because I've been trying to promote an attitude, rather than an argument, which doesn't really work across an internet forum.
I know a few rape victims, aye, and victims of sexual assault. You probably do too. It happens to (plenty) more girls than you think, but quite often they just won't say.
There's a very easy way to ask someone to tell you more - is to ask them to tell you more.
I typed out the events, but then decided it isn't really fair of me to put such personal details of a friend up on this site. If you ever fancy a pint, I'd maybe share.
The point is that people lie and they lie about the most awful things. It may seem incongrous to us because we'd never do such a thing, but people are capable of things you'd never believe.
It's fine - I believe that your friend was victim to malice, and that he suffered greatly having acted in good faith.
This whole debate depresses me - I know full well I'm promoting a position that people will argue tirelessly with.
Even by saying 'don't even give a woman the pretext of crying rape' I miss the nuance of your friend's situation, and why indeed this sort of thing happens. THAT SAID I would still promote my attitude, because it would ensure men take EXTRA care before sleeping with someone, and society would be healthier overall.
It's so fucking complicated
and until we've reached a point where this is no longer the case, I will not stop calling for a tougher burden of proof on the defendant - I think it's too easy for men, especially in situations where sex has happened but consent is a grey area
because currently we have women living in the knowledge that their rapist is loose - knowing who the rapist is - and that is a travesty
there's no PREsumption, but allegations have GOT to be taken seriously. cross-examine, get witnesses, the lot - but don't put all the burden on the accuser.
that it's really only worth the hassle if you have a genuine grievance
but my main point is that rape isn't like stealing a wallet - it's an emotional crime, unlike any other. a wallet is a physical object - it's traceable, retrievable, replaceable. rape is none of those things. (well, traceable sometimes, but definitely not the other two.)
hence I'd say the system should be weighted upon finding out what exactly did happen, or at least deducing what the participants' motives were, and whether both make compelling cases, rather than just the woman
that the motive is always to get laid. Isn't it? And a man admitting that he was only there for sex doesn't make him a rapist.
it's a specific sort of getting laid that removes mutuality and says 'the man gets what he wants, the man prevails' - and if he can't do it with charm he'll do it with force
a man only wanting sex doesn't necessarily make him a rapist, as long as the woman wanted sex as well!
What exactly are you intending to deduce from establishling 'motives'?
If we assume intercourse has occured, then self-evidently the motive for the man was sex. Are your questions going to be about whether he intended to be around for breakfast? Whatever the answer, it's irrelevant to whether or not a rape occured.
and the man's motive can vary even within 'sex' - sex because it was there? sex because he's long fancied her? sex for love? sex as trophy?
when establishing degree of rape, as opposed to whether rape took place
None of them are illegal.
You're attaching morals - you're own - to this and I'm afraid that's where your problems lie.
I've been playing devil's advocate here, admittedly, but my overriding point is that we could take take the slimiest little fucker in the world - who doesn't care emotionally for a girl in the slightest - and if he has consensual sex with with someone, it's not rape. Even if you don't like it.
that would only help with the MINUTIAE of the case, and making it the main focus.
Let me restate:
"hence I'd say the system should be weighted upon finding out what exactly did happen, and whether both make compelling cases, rather than just the woman"
Can we concentrate on that bit now please?
which is why full lucidity is paramount IMO - including the naming of the suspect.
In theory, you're right about burden of proof, but in rape cases I think things change in practice because of the 'my word vs their word' issue.
unless women can come forward and accuse without fear of being ridiculed, ostracised or otherwise ignored
Besides, I'm not addressing 'girls' in that patronising manner you suggest; I'm addressing the people posting in this thread, who are largely men. Although it is true that more men are rapists than would care to admit it. I know I'm being terribly irrational to think that getting a lady blind drunk and having your way with her is a little out of line...
I regard it as an incredibly important piece of social discussion, and my mind is open enough to allow others to challenge or even change me. I've come in with a set of opinions on my sleeve and allowed others to contradict them.
You, on the other hand, will win at all costs, because arguing on the internet is your daily bread. (Seemingly) unruffled, (seemingly) even-handed, always (seemingly) with fact to back up argument.
You're yet to win me round, because you keep recoursing to needless ad hominem, but by all means keep trying.
I don't think you're coming across as especially open-minded here, and it seems odd for you to seemingly disapprove of a 'win at all costs' approach to debating when you've been just as keen to pick apart other people's arguments as they have been with yours ...
LET'S ALL GET ALONG
but that my arguments have been emotional and strident enough as to permit negation. My words aren't watertight, god! And I'm only picking up on the CRASSEST of flaws, my dear DK. :D
YES I AGREE I AM NOT ACTUALLY HATING ON ANY OF YOU, YOU ALL MAKE GOOD POINTS IT HAS BEEN FUN BOUNCING IDEAS OFF YALL
People should just stop raping each other, please
...I don't expect to win any debates, I merely expect to present an understandable and cogent viewpoint. Not that that's really happened this time!
People won't stop raping each other, which is where the motherfucken law comes in like ten tons of whupass
But I can't think of a way of expressing how absurd I find that last sentence without being rude, so I'll just say, I find your last sentence absurd
this has really made my blood boil. Sounds like the comment of some stereotypical radical man hating feminist from the 1970's.
no smoke without fire to me sounds like every man is guilty of any crime they are ever accused of. no need for a trial or anything.. they're obviously guilty
but seriously, read my posts above.
I'll just add that, yes, rape is quite clearly srs bsnss that is often caught up in a ball of all kinds of emotional turmoil and there are no easy answers to any of this.
And I'd like to ask anyone reading this to think carefully before casually using phrases along the lines of [something]rape (in the 'destruction' sense) quite so casually in the future. I cringe every time I see it and (I could be wrong, but) in my eyes it tends to trivialises something that really doesn't benefit in any way from that kind of flippancy.
i have to take exception at your piety! the word 'rape' has multiple meanings. it comes from a latin word to 'seize', and so the rape of land or whatever is just as accurate, useful and valid a use of it as using it to denote a sexual offense. it's not flippant - it's just words having multiple meanings and one of the reasons English is so rich and useful.
anyway it's hardly relevant.
Umm.. shouldn’t they have come forwards in the first place? Tough though it may be, the danger of the same attacker striking again should make it the victim’s moral responsibility to report the crime
If the guy in question is essentially 'untouchable' your case may clearly have much less chance of being brought but another allegation may (I'm not lawyer mind) mean it has more weight.
Equally if you didn't know your attacker and never could give a good description their photo and name might be the first chance you get to come forward about it.
That confused me
but then it's also a person's moral responsibility to not rape people
simpler times i guess
RAPE IS WRONG.
for more youtube fun watch this without the sound
i wonder how you get to be rated 100% by the nra
that in the hugely farcical spectrum of rape investigation/trials, the conservatives have singled out this as the most pressing entity to be addressed and reformed. And it's an absolute joke that this is singled out as the only crime given such allowances - there must be a reason they haven't extended it to other crimes, and assumedly that reason is that it impinges the investigation. Thus, they think people making accusations of rape are more likely to be lying.
I've no problem with the idea of anonymity for folk accused of crime, but what does strike me as bizarre is that the change has only been brought in under these very specific circumstances. The effect is either to deliberately imply that women are disproportionately lying or that it was a crap policy made on the hoof without any real thought as to the ramifications.
My bet would be the latter - the new Government is showing more signs of incompetence rather than outright evil.
and thinks women are to blame for stuff and 'ask for it'.....but if i follow the logic then she is a liar and therefore what she says is false?