“In all of this, something has been forgotten: that real-life rape, unlike sex, is always a serious business. If a man is falsely accused, it has the power to wreck his life. If a woman – or indeed a man – is the victim, it can do the same thing. We certainly hear a lot about “free speech” from those who will go to the wall for their right to make light of sexual violence. But rape is the opposite of freedom: it means that the victim wasn’t free to say “no” and be heard. I’m not arguing that people should go to prison simply for saying ignorant or unfunny things about rape. Yet free speech also means you can openly deride certain comedians or directors; you can choose not to buy a DVD or go to a show; you can walk out, turn over, or heckle. On this at least, we’ve all got the freedom to decide when it’s time to stop. Maybe it’s time more of us started using it.”
Jenny McCartney, who has been distinctly unimpressed by a recent trend in making light of rape, both of the actual and alleged forms. No-one who is genuinely interested in defending liberty should do so, in my view.
The increasing ambiguity regarding what exactly “rape” is has been induced deliberately. Because rape can now mean anything from “he beat me unconscious, had sex me with and then threw me in a ditch” to “when I sobered up I wished it hadn’t happened”, the balance of power has been shifted from men to women.
Men may be stronger, but women have at their disposal an accusation that requires virtually no proof which has the power to destroy lives. The misandrist feminist movement likes it this way – it is like a sexual nuclear option.
To “cry rape” is rather like crying “racism” – it shuts down all debate and offers those with protected victim status a guarnteed victory in any debate, with total immunity from follow-up questions.
Of course, those who utilise the “political” form of the word rape denigrate actual victims of the crime.
Sorry, but the lead to that article being Galloway/Assange takes away from the credibility of the whole piece. Sure we haven’t seen all the evidence, but so hasn’t the writer herself. Unless Galloway was actually joking about the whole “Assange rape” affair, and going by media reports (which is all we, all of us, have to go by) he is absolutely right. Those who call actions such as the reported Assange allegations ‘rape’ are doing far more damage to real rape victims than any stupid “comedian” or filmmaker.
Oh, and BTW: yes, I do agree that both Galloway and Assange are worthless your-choice-of-expletive. That’s beside the point, though – broken clocks and all that.
Everyone’s missing the point. It’s not about the legal definition anymore. Whether or not it is ‘rape’ is now entirely a cultural and political and sometimes tribal question. The physical acts, and even the state of mind of both the alleged attacker and the alleged victim, are no longer a consideration.
Illustrate by example.
Roman Polanski – not rape. His movies are so transgressive, he can’t be a rapist.
Julian Assange – not rape. The Americans want to put him in jail, so, ipso-facto, he can’t be a rapist.
Dominique Strauss-Kahn – not rape. He’s one of our ‘tribe’. We’re allowed to do that where we come from.
Bill Clinton – not rape. After all, he’s politically-reliable on a woman’s right to choose.
Kobe Bryant – must be a rapist. After all, just look at him . . . . .
Duke lacrosse players – must be rapists. Rich white boys – it’s obvious, innit?
And so forth.
Who did what, and to whom, doesn’t matter anymore. What matters are the political and tribal affiliations of the alleged attacker and the alleged victim. Those are the parameters that will be used to define whether or not a given act was, or was not, ‘rape’.
The ways in which this simply-defined crime have been taken over and then multiply-redefined by feminists and leftists have done no favors for women, whether or not they are the victims of it. But, of course, the outcomes for women were never as important as whether or not the outcomes were politically correct. We have now arrived at a situation where non-violent, consensual acts are defined as rape but forcible acts upon an unconscious victim are not. Leftists are now happy to defend their favourites using the Neanderthal defence – well, she was asking for it, wasn’t she? That’s some great progress for the rights of women you got going there.
llater,
llamas
Then again there is the trivializing rape as done by MO Rep. Akin & his supporters. The irony that both Americans and the British political classes were discussing “legitimate” rape for entirely different reasons is profound.
“Then again there is the trivializing rape as done by MO Rep. Akin & his supporters.”
Todd Akin was not trivializing rape. He was trying to differentiate “rape-rape” (to use another recently popular term for forcible rape) from the “I said ‘yes’ at the time but regretted it later” definition of rape mentioned by several commenters above.
(This is not meant as a defense of his ignorance of human biology.)
Were there rape jokes before the great redefinition? It strikes me that even today there are no male-rape jokes, not even from female comedians, aside from the “don’t bend over to pick up the soap” joke about prisoners. I assume that’s because we all know what is meant by male-rape.
If you want to reduce the incidence of rape, allow women – and anyone else, for that matter – to carry concealed handguns.
To paraphrase the feminists, a loaded 9mm sub-compact really, really does mean “No”.
@ Schrodinger’s Dog –
I agree – but that’s not what we’re talking about.
Such issues as consent while in a state of diminished capacity, morning-after regret and false accusations would not be addressed by allowing women to defend themselves.
If all rape were simply a matter of violent attacks, then we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
And even a 9mm sub-compact may not mean ‘No’ – you only have to look at the case of Phil Spector, for example, to grasp that what some people do behind closed doors is confusing, irrational and capable of many interpretations, some fair, some foul.
We’re never going to ‘solve’ this issue , because the matters at hand do not fit neatly into the carefully- drawn lines of the law and there will always be a large proportion of ‘he said, she said’ cases. The best we can hope for is an approach that doesn’t destroy the rights of either participant too badly.
llater,
llamas
Humor is a defense mechanism. Not to defend rapey jokes but likely the motivation behind them is due to a reaction to how the subject has become so twisted. One has only to look at the Aiken thing and see that, his poor judgement and odd beliefs notwithstanding, it was immediately picked up and used as a bludgeoning weapon by the left rather than as a starting point for genuine discussion. *That* is the trivialization of rape, right there.
*… Yet free speech also means you can openly deride certain comedians or directors; you can choose not to buy a DVD or go to a show; you can walk out, turn over, or heckle. On this at least, we’ve all got the freedom to decide when it’s time to stop. Maybe it’s time more of us started using it….*
But haven’t people `started using’ their free speech to denounce people who make light of rape?
My problem with this line of reasoning, is precisely that jokes about rape will be the rationale for placing yet more restrictions on liberty of speech, by forbidden any humour about this and other topics as well.
Look, no-one’s making light of rape. Rape is never justified, except in self-defence, or if you really really want to have sex with someone and they won’t let you, in which case what choice do you have?
Apologies if this is a fine distinction: jokes about unpleasant subject X are not X, nor are they advocating or excusing X. Sick/taboo/gallows humour has always been with us, and thankfully it will take more than po-faced jeremiads from the likes of Jenny McCartney to change that. If it could be demonstrated that making jokes about rape increased its incidence, then she might have a point. I doubt (to put it mildly) that such an effect exists. Given that, the only need for restraint is taste and decorum.
I have absolutely no time for Assange, but I stand by what I said in an earlier thread… What he is accused of is not Rape as it was taught to me in Law School. Bickering about whether you have sex (which you have already had several times before in the same evening) with a condom or without becomes a matter of civil law not criminal at this point, not RAPE! Something to be sorted with a big argument between the parties, not recourse to the Police and Courts.
I have seen a picture of the lady in question somewhere on the net, two days later in a lineup with Assange, grinning like a Cheshire Cat, not something you usually do with a person who has just raped you and you are about to accuse of such a heinous act I suspect, unless someone who wants his ass as toast, for completely different reasons, sidles up to you later and whispers in your ear…
These are also major stressed show stimulants raising the heart speed and breath; these are absolutely even tremendously addictive, producing a total gift dependancy sickness in addition to serious write-off warning signs that you briskly pause administering
phen375. However if your only target is to decrease excess fat, phen375 will most likely work for yourself, even though a couple of operators have all the distressing unwanted side conditions without the demand of dropping bodyweight.
@ RAB, who wrote:
‘I have absolutely no time for Assange, but I stand by what I said in an earlier thread… What he is accused of is not Rape as it was taught to me in Law School.’
Well, then we must have gone to different law schools. One of the accusations made against him is that he commenced to have relations with one of the ladies in question while she was asleep – when, by definition, she cannot be capable of giving or denying consent. And prior consent cannot be unilaterally extended. Whatever they did or did not do hours before has no bearing.
Furthermore, consent can be conditional – you can do this, but you can’t do that. Consent is not a blanket consent to do whatever you wish, and that conditioning certainly would extend to things like whether a condom was to be used.
The lack of consent is a basic element of the crime. If that allegation is made against him, then it fits the definition, in Sweden and in most other places.
If I were a prosecutor (and I am not, and never was, but I was a copper) and this case landed on my desk, I would put it before a jury so fast, your head would spin. There’s no other way – if the allegation is credible. the complainant is willing to testify, and there is no other evidence, the only thing you can do is have a jury decide. And that goes double for any case where the alleged attacker has the slightest element of celebrity.
I also have no time for Assange in this arena. From what I have read, he appears to be the worst type of opportunistic cad, who exploits his trivial stature in leftist, anti-American politics to bed leftist, anti-American women.
Hmm – maybe this is its own reward – as he is now finding. The biter, bit. Another has observed that hell hath no fury like a feminist scorned.
llater,
llamas, who went to IOCSOL.
The differences between various law schools aside, this only goes to show that everything should be legislated, even at the unquestionable risk of all kinds of unquestionably immoral actions going unpunished. Men and women should be left free to engage in casual sex with people they barely know, but they also should be willing to pay the price. Once you get the government into your bedroom, it will stay there – for better, or. Most likely, worse.
*not* everything should be legislated
@ Alisa:
Eh? What did I miss here?
It’s not an issue of ‘ . . . casual sex with people they barely know, . . . ‘ or ‘. . . immoral actions going unpunished . . .” it’s a question of assault.
The fact that these allegations were only brought forward after woman A discovered that Assange had also bedded woman B – hell hath no fury like a social-democratic feminist scorned – doesn’t change the basics of the case(s).
Did Assange treat these women like dirt? Sure looks that way – but that’s not a crime.
Are these allegations motivated by a desire for revenge against Assange, by both women? Sure looks that way – but that’s not a crime.
Do the specifics of what he is alleged to have done meet the specification for CSC, at some degree? Yes, they do – and that’s a crime.
I agree that men and women should be left free to do whatever they wish, with whoever they wish, so long as they do so consensually. One of the few legitimate functions of government is protect individuals from unwanted assaults by other individuals, and that applies everywhere, including in the bedroom.
llater,
llamas
Jaded writes:
“Men may be stronger, but women have at their disposal an accusation that requires virtually no proof which has the power to destroy lives. The misandrist feminist movement likes it this way – it is like a sexual nuclear option. To “cry rape” is rather like crying “racism” – it shuts down all debate and offers those with protected victim status a guarnteed victory in any debate, with total immunity from follow-up questions.”
I used to work as a court reporter when training as a journalist in the UK, and I can tell you that accusations of rape are, and should be, scrutinised carefully to see if there is corroboration. That is one reason why so many accusations fail to reach a conviction. The idea that a woman can shout “rape” without reason and not suffer as a result is absurd.
It is also wrong to say accusations of rape and of racism are some sort of “nuclear option”. Let’s be clear about the original quote I linked to: McCartney has been revolted at how politicians on both the left and right have sought to make excuses, or play down, the nature of alleged acts, as in the case of Assange, and others. And “comedians” who poke fun at raped women are no better than those who mock murder victims, victims of burglary or muggings.
I though a person calling themselves “libertarian” might be a bit more sensitive to the principle of non-initiation of force, and of the importance of consent, which as Llamas said, is at the core of this issue.
There is another point. A lot of libertarians – even sincere ones and not paleocons in drag – are so determined to mock anything that smacks of political correctness, that they make excuses for genuine cases of assault and non-consenting behaviour. That is a mistake. Scratch that – it is outrageous.
At Alisa/Rab! a simple IQ test
conscious is to consensual as unconscious is to ……..:)
Llamas: ‘and that applies everywhere, including in the bedroom’. My point is that it shouldn’t. IOW, you and Jonathan are happy with the way the law is, but I am not. My position is that people should be very careful about who they let into their bedroom in the first place – in order to keep the government out of it.
“The idea that a woman can shout “rape” without reason and not suffer as a result is absurd.”
And history (U.S. anyway) has repeatedly shown that this statement is simply false.
“A lot of libertarians – even sincere ones and not paleocons in drag…”
Even “sincere” ones…? “Paleo” cons…?
Please clarify the distinction, with consice examples, further. Use capitals where needed. “Everybody knows…” or Wikipedia, are NOT acceptable referances.
@ Johnathan Pearce:
‘The idea that a woman can shout “rape” without reason and not suffer as a result is absurd. ‘
This statement is (pardon my directness) Nonsense – On Stilts. Because it Happens All the Time.
Studies of the incidence of false accusations show that the rate may be as high as 40%, and possibly higher. Note that these are not ‘he said, she said’ cases, but cases that were investigated and found to have no reality. For example, one of the best-documented studies (Kanin) only defined an accusation as ‘false’ if the original complainant affirmed that no rape actually occurred.
In the US and the UK, it is extraordinarily-rare for the police to proceed in any way against a complainant – even if the accsation is highly-suspect, even if the complainant withdraws the accusation, even if there is cast-iron evidence that exonerates the alleged attacker. There is almost-always enough leeway to be found that the complainant is simply sent on her way. Note that this is a socio-political decision, not a CJS decision. It is a brave prosecutor indeed who will bring charges against an accuser, no matter how egregious her behaviour.
In that sense, it often is the ‘nuclear option’, in the sense of being used as a weapon or a means of revenge. But, of course, in many cases, it is used solely to avoid the consequences of a poor life choice. While it is perhaps easy to despise a woman who does this, we might perhaps also ask ourselves what forces would compel her to do something like this. While some such cases involve a carelessness as to consequences that borders on the socipathic, there isdalso a subset of cases where women do this to avoid consequences that are far, far worse. Instead of blithely condemning these women, we might want to consider how we could change their circumstances.
Coming back to the instant case – my contempt for Assange’s behaviour is only slightly-greater than my contempt for the behaviour of both his accusers. As has been noted, there exists a photograph of Assange in a group that includes his first accuser, taken after their tryst, in which all parties appear to be happy, happy, happy. But before his first accuser found out that he had bedded the second accuser, just three days after their own encounter.
It’s awfully hard to escape the conclusion that both accusers were as happy as Larry about their interactions with Assange – until each found out about the other. And only then did they decide to compare what had happned with the law, with a view to seeing if they couldn’t coitus up his life for him (thank you, Penny).
That’s the part of this arena that’s so hard to apply law to – because virtually everything that goes on in ‘the hurly-burly of the chaise-longue’ is only a crime if one of the parties decides it is, and that decision can be re-considered later. The acts themselves, however, cannot be un-done.
llater,
llamas
I apologize for my poor typing and grammar. I’m working on a laptop with keys the size of Chiclets, and I’m stuck in Del Rio, TX, so my brain is fried from the heat.
What a strange world it is, tho’ – while checking in to my hotel, I cocked my ear to the tune wafting out of the hotel bar. This tune, I know, I thought – and I was right. Toots and the Maytals, singing ‘Dreams to Remember.’
I haven’t heard that tune played in public for the best part of 40 years.
And then I hear it in Del Rio, TX? In 2012? In the lobby of the Ramada? What a strange world it is.
llater,
llamas
Llamas, I think my comment made it clear that it was rare for allegations of rape to lead to convictions, or even get to court. Of course, I was not denying that false accusations are made, but that does not in any way excuse the casual, mocking treatment of rape allegations that I have seen on this comment thread. There are false allegations of other kinds; so what? That does not mean that say, assault is a matter for mockery.
It may be that the “nuclear option” of a claim of rape is a way of dealing with a poor “life choice”. But then again, many women who had few choices in the first place, as in centuries past, had to tolerate unwanted sexual activity and had no opportunity to use any buttons, nuclear or otherwise, so to speak.
Things, of course, have changed somewhat since. But to repeat my point, if people are wary in this PC age of claims about rape, don’t make the equal and opposite error of dismissing them out of hand.
And as I said, my experience of these things stems from three years working as a court reporter and covering the actions of police. It is not as if I was born yesterday.
“That does not mean that say, assault is a matter for mockery.”
Sorry, but I disagree. The root of almost all humor is someone else’s misfortune. (“A recession is when your neighbor loses his job; a depression is when you lose yours.”) In this depressingly politically-correct age it’s no longer acceptable to make fun of anything (well, with the possible exception of conservatives). Ethnic and racial humor is totally out of bounds (no more Polish jokes); jokes about physical infirmities are verboten (remember all those truly insensitive Helen Keller jokes?); and unless your target is someone safe (such as Anglicans) there’s no making fun of religion, either. (Laughing at Muslims can get you a fatwa.) No wonder the current crop of comics is reduced to mere vulgarity; no topic of any real relevance is permissible.
I find that not merely wrong, but sad. Our whole society had gotten entirely too thin-skinned, and it’s not healthy. If (as is often the case) it’s a choice between laughing and crying, I choose laughter. Anything should be a legitimate target for humor, and the more sensitive the target the more it cries out for a leavening dose of mockery. (Viz, Islam.) You may find some particular bon mot unfunny or insensitive, but that’s your problem. Ignore it, boo it, patronize some different comedian or entertainment forum, but don’t climb up on your high horse and assert that the topic itself is somehow off limits. Once you start down that path there is no legitimate basis for drawing a line. That way lies censorship. We need more humor, not less.
Smited. I suppose that’s not too surprising in a thread about rape. Still, . . .
I too am not a bit tamed, I too am untranslatable,
I sound my barbaric yawp over the roofs of the world.
Rape is generally the second most serious crime on any countries statute books, and should be taken very seriously.
It is also a very emotive word. So to cry “Rape” the mental picture 99.9% of the population get is of a balaclava clad, knife wielding fiend dragging their victim into the bushes and inflicting misogynistic violence on them, not an act of uncontrollable sexual passion. When you label a myriad of other sexual misdomeanors and stick them all under the heading of “Rape” then you are doing the Law a great dis-service and dilute the meaning of the original and terrible crime.
llamas has gone some way to addressing this with….
It’s awfully hard to escape the conclusion that both accusers were as happy as Larry about their interactions with Assange – until each found out about the other. And only then did they decide to compare what had happened with the law, with a view to seeing if they couldn’t coitus up his life for him (thank you, Penny).
Yes indeed, Rape is a Crime against the Person, and if the person doesn’t feel “Raped” enough not to report it to the Police instantly, but for x amount of days later, indeed is happy to be in the presence of their assailant until they find a more malicious reason to do so, the defence and the Jury may very well ask the question, why? No woman I have ever known, who if she felt she had been raped, would wait a millisecond before calling the police.
And as to Alisa’s point on not letting the Law into your bedroom, well quite. Some Feminazi’s who hate men per se would love to see a five page check-list of do’s and don’ts brought into the sexual arena…
Anal? Nope
Oral? only if I can spit not swallow.
two times not three (I’m getting tired)
Wiping your cock on the curtains? You sleazy shit! cancel the whole thing and call the Swat Team.
See what I mean? Sex is an improvisational sport not a legal nicety. There is persuasion and cojoling, too-ing and frowing, but if it comes down to saying NO and then force has been used, cry rape long and loud, but immediately, not x days and a few intimate suppers/photo opps later.
“It’s awfully hard to escape the conclusion that both accusers were as happy as Larry about their interactions with Assange – until each found out about the other. And only then did they decide to compare what had happened with the law, with a view to seeing if they couldn’t coitus up his life for him (thank you, Penny).”
Indeed, RAB. Many crimes are carried out by people who know their alleged victims, and in rape this is particularly the case. The image of the masked attacker jumping on women walking in the dead of night is a nightmare that is, thank goodness, relatively rare.
Context is king, of course. But to revert to my original point, I think that some people out there are trying just a bit too hard to minimise the potential seriousness of such acts, or to say “oh, so many women shout rape these days, and they are all mad feminists anyway so we should ignore them” etc. I think this is wrong.
‘I think that some people out
there are trying just a bit too hard to minimise the potential seriousness of such acts’
What acts? What people? Are they made of straw by any chance?
Most people are outraged by *real* rape. Most people are not outraged by semi-consentual sexual activities, although they most probably find the very distasteful. Most people see a clear difference between a violent forcible invasion of another person’s body (something that. BTW, tends to leave visible marks on both the victim and the attacker), and sexual acts that do not consistently conform to the conditions mutually agreed upon prior to the sexual encounter (either explicitly or implicitly). Most people find the deliberate confusion between the former and the latter offensive and *worthy of ridicule* – and quite rightly so.
Alias, you surprise me. Allegations of rape should be taken seriously and when I see inverted commas used as in this case, it suggests the claims are being dismissed too fast.
That is why we have courts and police.
Jonathan, allegations of rape should indeed be taken very seriously. However, when it turns out that a complainant is merely (yes, *merely*) referring to a deviation from an a-priori condition to an otherwise consensual sexual engagement, her complaint should be thrown out the window (she may, however, legitimately seek recourse in a civil court – if they even still have such an anachronistic institution in Sweden, and if she can show a damage incurred). And no, “the law says so” doesn’t cut it – the law should be changed, the sooner the better.
Oh, and what Laird said (thank thee, oh all-powerful Smitebot!)
@ Alisa, who wrote:
‘However, when it turns out that a complainant is merely (yes, *merely*) referring to a deviation from an a-priori condition to an otherwise consensual sexual engagement, her complaint should be thrown out the window . . .’
I do NOT agree. I strongly DISagree.
The crime is all about consent, and if you allow the principle that consent to anything is consent to everything, you make the crime unprosecutable. It’s a dog-whistle for the unacceptable defence that ‘she was asking for it . . . .’
“She said I could go to second base, so she has nothing to complain about if I went for the home run – three times. While she was asleep. ”
Is that what you want? Really?
All consent (not just in this area, but in every facet of life) is conditional upon something. This is no different. Breaking any condition of consent renders all of the consent void.
Note that I’m not nearly this euphemistic in real life, just trying to avoid the smiterator.
Q. How do you know when you’re in Texas? A. The hotel room has a pistol safe in the wall, helpfully labelled ‘pistol safe’. You hardly ever see this amenity in the hotels in Chicago.
llater,
llamas
Yes, llamas, this is what I want. Some things ought to remain unprosecutable. And I am well aware how strongly you disagree – it is not the first time either.
I won’t go quite as far as Alisa here; Llamas is correct that the lack (or withdrawal) of consent may indeed be properly a criminal matter. But I do object to using “rape”, with all its emotional connotations, as an all-inclusive term for such actions.
We used to have essentially two types of rape: forcible rape (violent sexual contact) and statutory rape (consensual sexual contact with someone who is defined, by statute, as lacking the necessary capacity for consent: i.e., underage). Now we have a whole range of activities between those extremes which are all catagorized as “rape”. Once upon a time they had different names (generally, “sexual assault” in various degrees), which made perfect sense. The fact that they are all now commonly referred to as “rape” tells volumes about our society. Anti-male feminists have succeeded in defining down the term. That re-definition must be resisted, and neither Johnathan nor Llamas does us any favors by accepting, and thereby perpetuating, this change. Words matter.
And I still believe that everything, even rape, is a proper subject for humor, its seriousness notwithstanding. Indeed, the more serious a subject the more it demands the application of humor.
I know it is going far (back?), Laird. The reason I don’t think it is going *too* far is that I think criminal law should stay out of matters where objective evidence is by definition* non-existent (in cases of real rape you will see a broken window, signs of struggle, bodily injuries etc. ) The problem is that once you let criminal law (i.e. the state) into matters lacking objective evidence, you necessarily subject these matters to subjective interpretation – in other words, they necessarily become politicized, and come under pressure of politically favored groups. And so, in Islamic societies the woman will be inevitably found guilty, and in Western societies it most likely will be the man, etc.
*I do realize very well that even in cases of real rape clear objective evidence may be hard to come by or even unavailable for all kinds of reasons (which, BTW, also happens in cases of murder). But in cases such as the ones we are discussing here, such *objective* evidence is unavailable due to their very nature. They don’t call it ‘he said she said’ for nothing.
I absolutely agree with the rest of your comments.
I now see that llamas’ point deserves a more detailed answer:
“She said I could go to
second base, so she has
nothing to complain about
if I went for the home run
– three times. While she
was asleep.”
Then she better fight him with all her might – even if he does overpower her, at least she may have created some physical evidence. In such a case I would be more than happy to call it a rape, and see any such evidence used against the bastard.
My point is that both men and women would do well not getting themselves into a ‘he said she said’ kind of situation in the first place, but if they still choose to do so (and I have nothing against casual sex per se), they should be prepared to bear the risk of not being able to prove the guilt of the attacker. Freedom without personal responsibility is meaningless and unsustainable.
Off the soapbox now.
All use of judicial process to commit a crime of violence must be prosecutable at the magnitude of the violence attempted. If somebody attempts through perjury or similar means to get somebody executed for a crime they did not commit, then not just perjury, they should be charged and prosecuted for attempted murder. And for actual murder if the wrongful execution is carried out.
If somebody perjures their testimony or by similar means attempts to get somebody judicially punished then the intentional perjurer should be charged and tried and, if convicted (with a level of proof appropriate to a criminal conviction), should be sentenced to the same sentence they were intending to inflict through perjury.
These counter charges should carry a very high burden of proof and not be brought for less than clear, grand jury level, appearance of intent. These counter charges must not be brought for errors or unreliable memories. They must only be brought on evidence of intent to deceive the judicial process and intent to use the process itself to commit a crime (via the wrongful sentence). Absent intent, no charges. A criminal level of proof for conviction.
My opinion of this matter is heavily influenced by having grown up in a county where three prosecutors (one of whom I think I voted for) and four deputy sheriffs over the course of years repeatedly and knowingly attempted to frame a rather unsympathetic lowlife for capital murder that they knew he did not commit. A neighboring jurisdiction even had the murderer in custody for a similar murder and he had confessed in detail to the one that my county was attempting to hang on a thief. The LE community protects its own and the 7 taxpayer funded attempted murderers escaped a criminal conviction but the tax payers were out millions in civil proceedings (not to mention the cost of defending the tax payer funded murder attempters).
I suspect that false charges of all kinds would be reduced if everyone who ever contemplated making them had to worry whether they had left any evidence of their intentions. And further, had to worry about receiving a sentence of the same magnitude as they are attempting to inflict via the judicial process.
This is as stupid as demanding that for (e.g.) cases of robbery and mugging the victims must always fight back and put themselves at great risk of severe bodily harm or death, because they should only be allowed to press charges if they surrendered their valuables to the criminal after they were killed, knocked unconscious, or otherwise incapacitated.
Because otherwise the state has no right to interfere in these private ‘he said she said’ monetary transaction disputes between individuals.
I don’t think that’s entirely fair Buzz.
Rape and Robbery are two quite different things. If your wallet is found in the possession of the local trackie wearing chav junkie, chances are it is not there with your consent.
However, if you have sex with a woman then more often than not it will be with their permission.
While I’m not talking about legal requirements here, from a purely pragmatic point of view struggling so as to provide physical evidence with which to later on differentiate rape from consensual sex is just common sense.
I got into the Law Game as a very idealistic youth of 18, taking up a Law Degree. I believed in Truth and Justice, and wished to promote both to the Nth degree. This was what our legal system was all about, surely?
Three years of the degree, and 12 more of working in the Lord Chancellor’s Office, I resigned, completely disillusioned about the whole thing. The Law is an impersonal and unfeeling machine that exists to reward vested interests, but you don’t realise this when you start out- only gradually. It has nothing to do with Truth and Justice at all. It’s about Politics and Control.
When llamas said earlier that we must have studied at different Law schools he was exactly right, we did. For different times and places makes all the difference.
I graduated in the early 70’s. The Law on Rape then was fairly simple. There was Rape Rape (the nasty pounce from the bushes kind) and there was Statutory Rape (the underage kind). There were no other kinds. I just checked with google and find that the 2003 Sexual Offences Act now includes Anal Penetration and Oral Penetration, when they were not there before (no wonder Bill Clinton, a lawyer, kept insisting “I did not have sex with that woman!). There was no “Date Rape” either when I took my exams.
So what I am saying basically is that Law has been politicised. Feminists have taken over this particular one (Rape) with a vengance.
The likes of Harriet Harridan has often expressed the view that there are not enough convictions for “Rape” She will quote figures like 70% of all rapes go unreported. Erm… well how the hell do you know that, if they are unreported? Unwishful thinking or the back of an envelope calculation? This is the Law used as an instrument of Political and Social Oppression, not Truth and Justice as I thought I understood it as a naive 18 year old.
Rape is the only crime I know that the accuser remains anonymous and the alleged perpetrator is named before the trial. This is just not on if Truth and Justice is our goal.
Why? Well according to the Harriets of this world it encourages the victims to come forward and “Get Justice done”. It might even get other women who recognise the name of the assailant to come forward and give corroborative evidence.
Um, so why does not witholding the name of the alleged victim do the same? There may be blokes out there who have been falsely accused of rape by the same lady, been found innocent and have no chance to add to the current case, and help to prove the current defendants innocence.
Anononymity for alleged victims has to go. If they were assaulted by knife gun or baseball bat, they would be known, but assault by the pork sword… no.
We really have to get to grips with what various factions and interests are doing to our once majestic Common Law, or it becomes the Law of Rules, not the Rule Of Law.
Not to get personal here, Buzz, but it is your comparison that is stupid. In the case of robbery, there always exists the possibility of recovering the goods or the money stolen (or for compensation by insurance). In such case, there is no significant long-term damage to the victim.
In the case of rape – a “successful” rape – the damage is permanent and irreversible – just like after nurser, albeit arguably lesser in degree. You could just as well imply that a victim should not put up a fight against a murder attempt for fear of getting killed.
…’just like after *murder*’…Thumb typing.
Nice attempt to shift of the goalposts, Alisa, from whether or not a crime should be prosecutable by the state if the victim does not fight back to whether or not the crime causes what you consider to be long-term damage or if what you consider to be just compensation for the crime can be offered to the victim by a third party.
I don’t take it personally at all that you dismissed my comparison as “stupid”, since that was simply part of the misdirection tactic. I suspect that you’d have used the same ploy regardless of who it was that pointed out the silliness of your argument insisting that crime victims must physically fight back and put themselves at further risk before they could ask the state to prosecute the criminals.
‘I suspect that you’d have
used the same ploy
regardless of who it was
that pointed out the
silliness of your argument’ Of course I would have:-) Seriously, no offense taken or meant: I can be stupid with the worst of them, and I hope you can too.
I am not saying that a crime should not be prosecutable by the state if the victim does not fight back. I am saying that lack of physical evidence renders it unprosecutable whether we like it or not, and that the insistence on prosecuting such cases regardless of their unprosecutable nature leads to the kind of nonsense we are witnessing on the Assange case.
Damages are a totally separate issue and therefore are a matter for civil courts. The word ‘crime’ doesn’t even figure in these matters: one is compensated for damages, not a crime, and a crime need not even occur for damages to be legally present. This has been so for centuries. I didn’t move the goalposts: these are totally different and separate ones.