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
Unfortunately, it also means that many many people do not go to jail for rapes they did commit.
Now, I am sure there is an awful lot that can be done to improve the current system (not least the judicial attitude to rape, which is often lackadaisical or dismissive), how the victim is treated by lawyers etc., so I am not sure we need to go fully down the path of sending all accused to jail (not least because once that happens, there are some big dangers), but I think the system does have to be changed enough that perhaps the presumption of innocence is not given the absolute extreme emphasis it has at present.
I know that is horrific to hear, and I know that if we relax it for this crime, why not others etc.
But, there is a real problem around the crime of rape and it needs to be solved, and the solution (depending of course on where you want to end up) may involve something unpalatable.
Jeezus, is that so effing hard to understand?
Rebecca finds no evidence that some posters may wish to undercut the procedural rights of the accused; myself, I think I did see some such evidence.
If I am wrong, and everyone remains a civil libertarian, I am most thankful.
[ August 23, 2002: Message edited by: jeff house ]
... because one day you may be accused of a crime you did not commit, and because of the relaxed standard of proof, you will be convicted and you will have no-one to blame but yourself for advocating a relaxed burden of proof.
I don't think anyone wants to undercut the procedural rights of anyone charged with a crime. What is wanted I think, is an end to the revolving door, doing all the time instead of a portion of the sentence, and no more country club jails. Some posters seem to think that just because you like diddling children doesn mean that you can't be an upstanding member of society. I say fuck that noise. Canada doesnt have a death penalty and I am ok with that. But we can and do lock up people in jails and I think rape and pedophilia are a reason, if someone is found guilty of them for spending the rest of their life in prison.
As I see it is someone is wrongly convicted, the government has the ability to compensate them for the trouble. Change their name if they like and give them enough money to make a new life elsewhere if they choose. Of course if you let a rapist go and he kills his next victim after he's been "rehabilitated" then just how do you go about bringing someone's kid, wife, sister, girlfriend, mother back from the dead? That's right there is absolutly no fucking chance of that happening ever no matter what.
The system gives rapists preferential treatment over victims. I know this, because the guy who assaulted and suffocated me never saw the inside of a jail cell. Even without personal experience with the callous indifference of authorities in such cases, the evidence of how little the system and society gives a shit about women and girls is everywhere I look. Every girl, every woman is surrounded by that crap all her life. You don't see it because you don't experience it. We try to explain it, offer some realistic picture of what it's like to be devalued as a human being, and people like you call it rhetoric.
Oh, what's the fucking point.
[ August 23, 2002: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]
Can you please tell me which Canadian jail is a "country club jail"? Thank you.
So perhaps we should restate the question and begin again: "What changes to the system can be made that both detrivialize women's experience of rape and respect the full rights of the accused to a fair trial? Are these things ever in conflict? In whose favour should we resolve the conflict?"
Really interesting Doc that you spewed that out, as it is rubbish. Of course, the reverse is often advocated - that it is better to let ten guilty people go than jail one innocent person (which I assume is why you turned it on its head).
However, 2 points occur to me.
1. If it meant jailing ten innocents for one guilty, then I too would check out of the society, but that is so extreme a figure that I would actually rephrase it like this. If one innocent person went to prison for every 50 guilty ones, that might be a price I could bear. Why? Because at the moment...
2. Ten guilty people at least seem to be being let go to avoid jailing the one innocent. (The statistics most recently discussed in the UK said that with rape, the percentage of rapists being sent down (for pitifully short sentences) is is minimal, perhaps as low as 1 in 20 or 50 (a lot is supposition, but such is the nature of this one - I can understand that might offend your scientific mind, but alas nowt I can do on that front!)
Sure, there are HUGE dangers in changing the burden of proof, but something does need to be done (and there is a lot that can be done before we get to changing the burden, but I am not discounting the possibility), because at the moment, men are literally getting away with it, nearly all the time, nearly all over the place.
Most people could bear the 1 in 50 except for the one.
So, given the full choice (rather than the edited version you provided as a blatant troll), I'll take the least worst. Because it is least worst by a big enough margin.
Don't forget having your clear conscience (or however you may wish to describe it) also has a price - as long as you're happy to pay yours, I am only too happy to pay mine.
[img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
Pakistani Rape Victim Satisfied with Verdict
I guess that's why I think punishments should be dealt out by an uninvolved third party rather than directly by the victims.
I believe science is working hard to identify hardwire issues. While I am generally okay with this, I am worried on the Orwellian potential. To be told that your hardwiring will kick in when you hit puberty and that necessarily you will need to be segregated from society seem rash. On the other hand do we let timebombs that we can identify walk around.
[ September 01, 2002: Message edited by: Pogo ]
Could you explain what you mean by this statement. If it some sort of veiled suggestion that I have ever raped a woman you have now completely made the point for not changing the burden. You need proof to convict people of serious violent crimes. Being a man is not proof I or any other specific man has committed a rape or sexual abuse.
I still think that in theory we all want every perpertrator of violence against others to face severe criminal sanctions. That has always been and will always be a dilema for people who also are wary of the state being able to send an individual to jail without full disclosure of the case against them.
Oh and for the record I believe that sentencing for rape and spousal abuse is too lenient no matter what the gender of the abuser
These threads are timely and still have a lot of good life left within them. I also like that they preserve wisdom (and in some cases not) from babblers of yore. If anything underscores that these discussions are useful and timely, take a look at the Duke lacrosse thread I just closed for length.
Is Babble Male-Dominated?
Gender equality in sexual assault cases
Rape Relief Defeated
Body Image, self consciousness, and unsolicited "flattery"
Oh where oh where has the feminism forum gone?
Feminazis
How has porn negatively affected you?
Speaking of feminism...
Guns and rape
Guns and rape
Guns and rape
Guns and rape
Guns and rape
Guns and rape
Some of my favourite progressive turns of phrases - right up there with innocent victims ...
Getting back to the rape and guns thing
[ 15 June 2007: Message edited by: writer ]