babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
What I do have a problem with, is that in rape cases, specifically with women, a woman has to prove that she did not want sex. It's not enough for a woman to swear that she did not want sex, she cannot be in any situation that (based on sexist and ridiculous standards) would equate to her consenting.
No one seems to be denying that this happens. Am I to think that it sits just fine, or that people would just rather ignore that this problem exists?
Shenanigans
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The whole thing of proof is laid on the victim, not on the perpetrator.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry for not being clear on this. This is quite a hurtful subject for me. What I meant is that the woman not only has to prove she was raped, she has to prove that the rapists claim that she wanted it isn't true. In the meantime, all the rapest has to do is state he had reason to think she wanted it because of the way she was dressed, or she was drinking, or she was walking alone, or she was at a busstop, or she spoke to him, or whatever. He can even get away with saying she said no but he thought she was lying, or she fought him meant she liked it rough. I think he should be put in a position to have to have a legitimate reason for thinking this way to present to the court. Though I don't condone rape or forced sexual activity in any form, I can see where inviting a man in for coffee could be misconstrued. I can see where necking for a couple of hours could be mistaken for consent. I can see stripping in front of a guy being seen as an invitation. I can't see talking to a friend of a friend at a party where everyone is drinking as being the same thing.
I don't see how inviting someone in or even necking could be misconstrued. Even stripping for someone, although in this case, the person should know they're putting themselves in a situation where sex may be expected. I can't see any viable excuse in any situation. It's not like sex just happens and oops it over, never really noticed. There is a definite moment when physical actions are taking place and the woman (or man) has the opportunity and right to say NO. Close book. End of story. If you think they may be joking or they like it rough, back off and they'll tell you to start up again. Otherwise, no means no.
This goes back to personal responsibility for your actions. There is no excuse for taking away someone's right to decide what they want done to themselves. Not being drunk, not thinking they really wanted it, not nothing. I, for one, will say that it makes me sick to think that someone could be pardoned on such an excuse after raping my wife or my sister or my mother or my future daughter or anyone. I don't care what kind of provocation they gave. No means no and I'm a fan of vigilante justice.
Someone earlier in this thread said "asking for it" is the same as "consent". Women do not "ask for it" by dressing the way they do or doing the things they do. Mutual agreement is very different from that. As a woman who was victimized and had no opportunity to bring the issue to court because it wasn't accepted to do that back then, I keep watching the injustices in disbelief. It really isn't that much different than it was 40 years ago. The female is still blamed.
[ August 21, 2002: Message edited by: Trisha ]
Some would have you believe that rape can some how be an honest mistake. While I do accept the idea that the odd mentally unstable woman could invite sex from a man and then try to extort money or revenge for something afterward, I think 9 times out of 10 they slip up and reveal what really happened.
There is no excuse for rape or molesting children.
No means no and there is no argument to change that.
I'm with Dale in the vigilante justice league. One way or another, I would get the fucker good. I am sure that afterward the punishment for my actions would be a tough looking reprimand for the media and a easy time for the few months I would actually spend in jail. Then a nice quiet release and probation followed by an easy time of getting the whole thing sealed.
Just imagine the public outcry and all the tears shead if someone off Bernardo. tsk tsk.
It may be enough that the woman swears she does not want sex. There are thousands of cases where this has been enough. On the other hand, there may be times when the woman's word is not enough to send someone to jail, even for those "pathetic"
two to three year periods complained above.
A common situation is this: sex occurs between a man and a woman who have been dating. Her family, specifically her father, hears about it, and confronts her. HE will chose her husband, he says.
And SHE must remain a virgin, or at least, virginal. And so, it is decided that she was raped, and never consented.
At a trial, it is necessary that this scenario, for example, be probed. Just because she says, now, that she did not want sex, is not proof that this is true.
I myself have cross-examined a woman, age 18, in a trial. She testified that she went to meet my client in a motel, and stayed there ONE WEEK. He worked every day, and came there in the evening, where sex regularly occurred. She said that she never wished to have sex.
Should I have been allowed to show her a letter she wrote to my client speculating about where they might "honeymoon"? Or ask her about the fact that her father had received $18,000.00 from a groom in Sri Lanka HE had chosen?
Or should we just take her word that she did not want sex, even once, during the whole week?
-------------
Unless one has a theory which allows lies, exaggerations, and convenient deceptions to be exposed, many injustices will result.
It is common for middle class people to underestimate the extent of these lies, etc. Because they themselves would never lie in court, they think no one would.
And thousands where it hasn't. And thousands more that haven't even made it to court because she was judged again based on a sexist system by whether or not charges would be laid, or carried further into prosecution.
Another common situation is this: a woman goes to a party, she may have had a few drinks, she lets a guy take her home, he somehow interprets that to mean that she wants to sleep with him. Despite her saying NO, he has sex with her. If the police decide to charge, and the crown goes ahead to prosecute, the system says that because she allowed this guy to escort her home, that she had alcohol in her system, even though she said she did not consent and has undergone emotional and physical trauma, someway, somehow, she still consented...
We can go over situations that are "common" til we're blue in the face. I'm sure that there are people out there who accuse others of rape even though there was consent. However that still does not excuse a legal system that is inhertly sexist when it comes to VAW in general and more specifically rape.
That's quite the assumption, are you certain this discussion has only occured between only the middle class?
Did you ask her why she stayed in the hotel room for one week having sex with your client if she didn't want to have sex with him?
Doesn't that sound about as phoney as ordering a 12 course meal and managing to get through desert before you realize you didn't like the food and refuse to pay?
I would also be in favor of huge punitive settlements for those who try to lie and use the system to harm some one innocent. (I would suggest my idea of huge is some where around the dollar value that would bury someone in debt for about 80 years. If they worked at a good paying job that is.
HA HA HA HA! And they would never cheat on their taxes, either.
In this scenario, he did not have sex with her. He assaulted her.
For those who have a hard time with the difference, I substitute other violent / traumatic crimes into a similar structure as that quoted:
"Despite the fact that the homeowner tried to close the door and lock it, the visitor insisted that he come in and help himself to a few gifts, including the homeowner's wallet."
"Despite her saying, 'No, don't hit me on the head with that,' Wendy was greeted by her friend with a hearty tap with a baseball bat."
"Despite having expressed no interest in ending his life just yet, Joe passed away after his non-voluntary assisted suicide."
---
The one-story-versus-the-other, adversarial legal structure is a huge part of the problem in dealing with rape. The process adds to a victim's trauma. It feeds an assailant's denial. It ruins the life of a person who's been wrongly accused.
[ August 21, 2002: Message edited by: writer ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shenanigans replied:
That's quite the assumption, are you certain this discussion has only occured between only the middle class?
My reply: Of course not. I didn't say it did. But
the idea that "she wouldn't lie" is common among people from middle class backgrounds, such as many of the readers here may be.
In your posts, you seem to adopt this idea. For example, you speak about the right to question her "when she said no". But of course the whole point is that we do not know what she said. We know only what she now says she said.
Of course, as you say, many women suffer rape or other sexual assault, and after telling the story, are either disbelieved, or, more commonly in my experience, the judge entertains a doubt as to what occurred. This requires acquittal in the Canadian justice system.
The alternative, to presume guilt, or to require the defendant to disprove the allegation, carries its own dangers.
My point is, *accused* rapists rarely *are* prosecuted in the court system. That's because cases rarely go that far. The statistics have been posted all over other threads on this topic.
No, in fact I have made it quite clear a few times that I believe that there are people who will lie in court if it gets that far.
My ideal is that women under the current way rape is handled, have to prove themselves against an unfair and injust set of circumstances. I've been repeating this ideal several times, but it seems to not be getting through.
You're completely right writer. I apologise for my poor wording. It is an extremely violent crime and the victims often carry the trauma with them for a long time. I'll try to be more careful.
Indeed, and that is my view too, contrary to how you tried to portray it!
I am guessing you failed to heed my advice to slow down and think before you write - reread the whole post and try and understand the point I AM making rather than the made up one you seem to be responding to. I am not saying gays are paedophiles, I am saying that their sexuality is not within their control (ie. they are born gay) - that is fine by me, before you start insinuating rubbish that isn't in my posts! In the same way, paedophiles do not choose to be paedophiles, its not a lifestyle choice, they are either born, or as I believe, made paedophiliac (through a variety of factors such as abuse when younger).
The rest of your post I have referred to the mods cos I have no idea where you get the conclusions you do, so am awaiting their verdict rather than responding directly to such rubbish.
I now see others got confused. To clarify that part of my post.
What I was trying to say is married gay men have chosen (for social conditioning reasons or their own fear of the homophobia that exists within society) not to express their sexuality, but have hidden it or dealt with it on their terms, but they may still have desires for men etc. In the same way, paedophiles have a sexual urge/desire that they do not necessarily have full control or choice over (they do not just wake up and think 'oh today, I am gonna be a paedophile!'), but they do not have to express it, they can hide it, or ideally deal with it (now homosexuality is acceptable (rightly so) but paedophilia is not (also rightly so)). What I am trying to say in this longwinded way is that I do not think at all that gay men (or women) should have to deal with it or seek help, because what they do is acceptable, but paedphiles should seek help, for a sexuality that is not acceptable but a sexuality over which they have as little control as a gay man. Does that make more sense, please someone tell me they get what I am trying to say!
AS for the rest of Slick's post, I still think it is an unnecessary personal attack, but if it was based only on a misreading (or nonreading the way he spouts) of my post, then now I have clarified, an apology would be accepted.
xx
(emphasis added).I believe you didn't mean to be homophobic, but I can see how you were misread.
I also really really love it when the "feminism" forum gets to host pissing contests between two men.
And as long as you enjoy the sight, feel no need to comment on whether the rest of Slick's tirade was justified! (only joking, just curious as before the misinterpreted/misspoken post, he laid into me for saying stuff I didn't actually say - but like that other honourable trade, why let truth get in the way of a good story!? lol)
Ok. Here's what I propose. We cease running the system the way it is. We install a system of vigilante-based justice. The person administering the vigilante justice will be a fair-minded individual, having no judicial biases in any way. He/she will thoroughly research any accused rape scenarios and call down a fair judgement. Upon the judgement, the accused will be given the chance to repent and enter into a rehabilitation camp where they will be forced to face demons the never knew existed. If they refuse repentance, they will be dealt with severely and fairly by the vigilante administator in a manner which will leave them begging for mommy. Does this sound fair to everyone?
Now you cry to the moderator about personal attacks? heh heh Well it's ok Apester. It's not the first time you English need a Canadian to come and bail you out of the fights you jump into but can't win.
I accept that you are very sorry for coming off like a homophobic wanker. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
I'm trying to calmly go over the thread to discover just how a discussion of sentencing for convicted rapists got around to a discussion of women lying about rape. Because whenever there's a discussion about sexual assault, it always turns to a discussion about women lying about sexual assault. Lying on the witness stand, something all kinds of people do, has nothing to do with what a woman might have been wearing at the time, whether she had a couple of cocktails earlier in the day, or whether she fought back "sufficiently". The length of skirt does not establish credibility.
Or, it shouldn't. But it does.
Because we live in a sexist society that still believes that women who say "no" are just being coy, because good girls aren't supposed to like sex, and if they do they must pretend they don't. Such a crock of antiquated fecal matter.
So, it comes down to physical evidence, if the woman had the presence of mind to go to Emerg and we swabbed with a rape kit. If there's anything more than semen to be found. Because maybe she didn't put up a fight because he said he'd fucking kill her and she believed him.
You won't find many women-centred self-defense courses telling women to acquiesce to their attacker's demands. They say, 'assume he's going to rape and kill you, fight for your life'. You get beaten up while being raped, maybe they'll believe you in court when you tell them your injuries weren't from 'consentual rough sex'. Maybe they won't. Cops tell women to submit, that submitting may save their life. You submit, there's no evidence that it was forced, that you said no, that non-consentual sex took place, that you were brutally raped.
You, the rape victim, are sooooooooooooooo fucked by the system, what's the point in reporting the crime? Well, you don't. Most rape victims don't because they know something that almost all women know, that the only thing worse than being raped, is being re-victimized by a system that fails to protect women and fails to effectively prosecute the angry sacks of misogynistic shit who rape women.
[ August 23, 2002: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]
I'm all for going out and stringing up rapists and others of that type, but I have issues with punishing innocent people. And I don't think the current efforts by the courts to prove the man guilty/innocent are fair to women who have already suffered tremendous emotional scarring. What's the alternative?
[img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Going through a rape kit and a gruelling investigation and trial is enough of a deterrent to weed out liars.
Unfortunately even when all of those things are done, every action scrutinized, questioned, etc, body invaded again to collect evidence, families traumatized, psyches battered, etc, more often than could ever be tolerated, the guy walks with nothing or a slap on the wrist. What does that tell these women? You don't matter.
Well, I know that I matter, and the LAST place I would call in that situation would be the police station. That's a horrid commentary on our society.
It is clear that for the prosecution to obtain a greater sentence because of aggravating circumstances, the said circumstances must be proven.
Since people have the right to remain silent, an "unanswered question" cannot be an aggravating circumstance.
That which has not been proven cannot be used against an accused. Even in Australia.
-----------------
I said nothing about rape victims. Nor did i say middle class people do not lie in court. Everybody lies in court.
However, the opinion that "she would never complain if it was not true" is one which I have heard from many middle class people. This opinion reverses the presumption of innocence which is a central underpinning of trials in the English speaking world.
It often comes from insufficient exposure to a certain underworld which does exist, and which functions on lies, frauds, scams, and evasion.
After one has experience with this world, the unlikely becomes the probable.
-------------------------
On this thread, the initial topic, sentencing for rape, was broadened by Shenanigans, who thinks that the courts unnnecessarily brutalize victims of rape by way of the procedures which are used.
Unfortunately for rape victims, false claims of rape or sexual assault do occur. Some system which reliably distinguishes between the two categories must be found.
The system in use which requires the Crown to prove the case "beyond reasonable doubt" goes some ways to insure that few people go to jail for rapes they did not commit. A crucial tool in the process is the right to cross examine, to see whether the complainant is lying, or telling the truth.
In the nature of the standard, "beyond reasonable doubt", some rapists will be acquitted, because the jury will be in doubt about guilt. It is a high standard.
I believe many of those who do not like "the court system" for allegations of rape would in fact like to remove the right to cross examine,
because they generally believe any complainant.
I will not put words into Shenanigans mouth, or post, but what does this comment suggest about the right to cross examine:
No, the Crown has to prove that she did not consent to the sexual act. Because that is what is the essence of the crime. If the Crown doesn't have to prove that, any intercourse becomes rape on the say-so of the complainant.
No one is so above suspicion that they should be given such power.
Thoughtful suggestions about the legal system must be looked at, but those suggestions which undermine fundamental liberties must be opposed.