There is currently uproar throughout the media regarding the fact that only 1 in 20 rape cases results in a conviction. You can barely pick up a paper without there being some editorial or other claiming it is too difficult to get a guilty verdict, or that the system is failing because so many people are being exonerated.
Well, just hang on a second.
Just because people are not being found guilty is no reason to change the law. That is like a spoilt child changing the rules to a game just because he isn’t winning. You shouldn’t manipulate the rules to engineer a preferred result. If you look only at the statistics you could just as easily conclude that this crime attracts the most false accusations, most of which hold no legal merit. I am not saying that is the case, far from it, but the raw statistics provide just as much evidence for this hypothesis as they do for the theory that, “people must be getting away with it”.
I realise that rape is one of those crimes that is extremely difficult to prove, because in many cases it invariably comes down to a matter of one persons word against the other. But lets be clear here, we live in a society that believes in innocence until proof of guilt. Unfortunately in these cases, the burden of proof must lie with the accuser, and surely it has to remain this way?
If you are chatting to a woman, and things are going well, it is extremely difficult to get irrefutable proof from that woman that her flirting definitely means ‘yes I will have sex with you’. Nothing ruins the mood quicker than a request to read from a prompt card directly into a camera phone that, “I, *Woman A*, of sound mind and body, plan to have sexual relations with Mr Angry”. They do not like that. Trust me, I have tried. These embarrassing moments are going to become all the more common if current suggestions ever become law.
“So, do you fancy coming back to my place for ‘coffee’?” I will ask suggestively.
“Sure”, she will reply with a look that tells me I’m in here.
“Excellent, well, if you wouldn’t mind signing here, here and here, and initialling here, just in case there is any actual intercourse to be had that’d be great.” I will conclude, while she searches frantically for the nearest exit.
Then there is the most spurious of all claims, that of, “I was too drunk to give consent, therefore I was raped”. Well, no. I’m afraid that doesn’t work either. Being drunk does not absolve you of your responsibility with any other law, so why should it in this case? You cannot claim you were too drunk to make a sound choice about whether or not to drive home, can you? Therefore you cannot make the same claim about your decision making ability, or lack of it, regarding who you go home with.
All this media coverage has already had one alarming affect, and that is a drastic drop in the number of one night stands being had. In my experience, at least.
——————– UPDATE—————————
From Tim Worstall’s place, it appears that the conviction rates are actually much nearer to 50%. Much fudging of figures has been going on for dramatic effect, clearly.
{ 26 comments… read them below or add one }
Often, a case of rape is very clear.
When a woman says “No” and the bloke still forcefully sticks his dick in her…that’s rape.
But in the case of a drunken rumble-tumble – well if she didn’t say no and then regrets it because she was drunk and would never have done it if sober…that’s not rape.
When she is drugged and cannot say anything – that’s also rape.
Fuzzy issues though. Therefore a lack of clarity in the law.
BTW – do you consider flirting as a fore-runner to ‘Maybe I’ll get lucky tonight?’? Isn’t flirting often just a game? Do all men think that a wmoan flirting with him is a possible lay? Whoo!
A drop from one per year?, unlucky.
I know 3 people who have been accused of rape but didnt commit it,
One of the accusers was on her 4th accusation of rape.
One was another one night stand where she invited this guy back to her house, proceeded to get naked, then stradle him (which she admitted) but said she was way too drunk for her to be consenting (as was he to be fair) and woke up regretting it and feeling ‘violated’
The nastiest one was when a mate of mine who would not hurt a fly started dating a girl, but soon broke it off. She said if he didnt get back she would call rape, and she did, providing all the evidence that she had been inside her she admitted that they had been dating but called it off and that he burst into her house told a friend of hers to get out and had his way with her. The friend backed up her story and he was saved from a long trial because some of the teeth marks where she claimed he bit her turned out to be those of her friend corroborating the story.
Personally I hate any one who beats women, rapes them or picks on anyone smaller than they are. But from my experience its hard to be surprised by the statistics, only knowing one woman that had been raped.
Wendz – It’s not a direct cause and effect relationship, but I’ve never pulled anyone I didn’t flirt with first. And I agree ‘no’ means ‘no’, but when it comes down to one persons word against another, what do you do?
Oli – What prompted this post is this case. He lived in a village very close to where I grew up, and I know people who knew him. I just feel changing the rules would create more cases like his.
“We are considering whether the law on complainant anonymity requires amendment”
Lord Goldsmith Attorney General
Doesn’t this miss the point entirely?
Surely the anonymity of both parties is to be desired uring the investigation to encourage the reporting of genuine cases,on the one hand and prevent the identification of the falsely accused on the other?
As for flirting, according to some evolutionary psychologists, flirting is a courtship device evolved to attract and retain sexual partners – a basic human instinct.
Bravo! Well said, especially the bit about drunken consent. Under this particular government if I were a man I’d be considering the merits of celibacy, if only coz it’s the safest option.
After 8-9 pints, the old beer goggles creep over the eyes, which helps even ugly birds get laid. I thought getting us men pissed was a womans way of letting blokes know they wanted us?
Brave piece. Hard to write about for us blokes without looking like we’re defending rapists.
“flirting is a courtship device evolved to attract and retain sexual partners – a basic human instinct.”
I’ve been saying the same thing about cleavage in the workplace for years. Cleavage developed for one purpose: to remind males of the buttocks when we started doing it missionary. If I walked around work with half my bollocks on display I’m certain the women would be the first to complain, and yet I wouldn’t be doing it to turn them on, I’d be doing it as a fashion statement. “It’s this year’s little black dress, you philistines. Check ‘em out!”
Like every other human activity, flirting is governed by a complex set of unwritten laws of etiquette and we only become aware of the rules when someone commits a breach of this etiquette (see SIRC Website)
Whale – tails, OK – Builders Bum, Not OK
Time for a cod piece revival?
I was at a party when I was fourteen. A girl in my class was passed out drunk. I found out the following week that an estimated 9 guys had “had sex” with her. At the time noone thought of it as rape. Looking back now, I would say that it most definitely was, and I can’t imagine what she must have gone through.
I would call being unconscious too drunk to consent.
Being so drunk that you think a guy is attractive and waking up in the morning wishing you hadn’t done it is not rape however and as women we need to own up to our poor decisions. Hopefully if more women did that, it would enable more credibility for real rape victims to ensure a guilty verdict.
philip – agreed, anonymity for both.
Fiona – some of us have been practising unenforced celibacy for some time now.
Alan – But they can’t change their mind when sober and say, “Oh, actually, I meant ‘no’”
Glammer – I’ve yet to find a woman instantly aroused by the sight of a testicle. Yet. And not through the lack of trying.
Philip – What is SIRC? Any chance of a link?
Betty – That is shocking. No consent is no consent. I would only argue against consent that is withdrawn when sober.
Social Issues Research Centre
http://www.sirc.org/publik/flirt.html
I typed “purpose of flirting” into Google and got this ink as the top result
The phrase in the Times Online article that stood out, to me, was ‘Why do we encourage women to see themselves as victims?’ What’s more important for a woman, to see a man nailed for raping her or to avoid being raped in the first place?
If you ask a woman back for coffee and she says ‘sure’ and looks you in the eye, then she may well be up for it. If she says ‘great, but just coffee, all right?’ then you know where you are and accept that the boundaries had been set.
Women need to take responsibility for themselves, expecting the law to do it when it’s too late is pretty stupid.
By the way, regarding Betty’s comment, sex with someone under the age of consent is, by definition, rape.
Agree, we do need to take responsibility for ourselves. Going back to a guys house for “coffee” so drunk that you don’t know what you’re doing or can’t speak is pretty stupid. In that situation I suppose you would hope he was a gentleman and leave you to sleep it off. I don’t know is that being a bit naive?
I think if there is any doubt in a man’s mind whether a woman is consenting or not then don’t do anything…sorry
Good Piece Angry. Speaking as an ex cop i have dealt with my fair share of real and false allegations.
Some cases were easier than others to deal with. Woman walking home gets smacked on the head with a brick and raped. Even I could work those out.
Others such as the “back to my place scenario” were always trickier. Somtimes you got a feeling about a story but it was never my job to decide guilt or innocence. I always took the view that my job was purely and simply to collect the evidence as impatially and acurately as possible so that in the event of a case going to court the jury should get a balanced view of the evidence.
The problems in my view come when the lawyers get hold of a case. The judicial system in Britain and the USA is not interested in the truth it is interested in who has the best lawyers and can pay for the best brains.
I would advocate an entirely different judicial setup for these cases. Anonyminity for both sides. No press releases and a panel of judges or magistartes whose brief is to try to establish the truth in issues of consent. I have no doubt there would still be cases that would not go right but it would better than the shmables that exists now.
Victims should not be afraid and should be protected but the rights of accussed also need to be protected. The whole thing has to be balanced and fair.
What makes me angry about this particular problem is girls (or guys u never know) who use it when they know they shouldn’t… i.e they were horribly drunk and went home with the accused and then regret it. I understand that alcohol clouds your judgement of a situ, we all know this, but to use a cry of rape when the person knows that it wasn’t is deeply disturbing and is the main reason why some of the real horrific rape cases never make it to a conviction.
The way i see it is if you’re invited back to a guy’s place after a night of boozing, he blatantly wants to get laid. Sorry but thats how men’s brains work, correct me if i’m wrong?
Very well done…very difficult to argue this angle without coming off as insensitive.
And a suggestion, if I may. Rather than having the ladies sign a scary contract, just read them their rights before they enter your house: “Anything you say, do, or expose can, and hopefully WILL, be held, pressed, or rubbed against me. And, for quality purposes, your experience will be recorded.”
If she runs, well…she probably wouldn’t have been that good a lay anyway.
Its rape week in that there interweb…
On the flip side Angry I know 3 women (two in my extended family) who have been raped. It is ugly horrible demeaning and soul destroying. Though I strongly believe in the English “Innocent until proven” vs the Napoleonic method, it is a method that has weeknesses.
Men prefer to think other men innocent and women are eve driven destroyers. Though the innocent need protecting, and false accusation is a worry, women need a way of bringing accusation that doesn’t destroy their self esteme and reputation.
I don’t know, Marycub. If you go back to a guys house after a night out boozing, are you automatically agreeing to sex? A man’s brain might work like that, but a woman’s may not.
I used to feel pressured by this theory, and have had sex on a few occasions because I felt it was too late in proceedings to say no, even though I had changed my mind/lost interest. Not likely to happen anymore, I don’t care what a guy expects, if I don’t want to fuck him, I won’t.
Everyone has the right to decide not to have sex, be they male or female, drunk or sober. The problem in these cases is the person deciding to have sex, then withdrawing consent after the act and crying rape.
I’m really glad you gave this up coz I’ve been ranting at the radio about it for a while now. And the bit that absolutely drives me nuts is the suggestion that a drunk woman cannot be held responsible for her actions. It’s yet another erosion of personal responsibility and also a classic case of double standards: basically it says a woman is entitled to completley loose her control of herself and expect others to take care of her, meanwhile a man has to remain fully conscious of the desires and intentions of others at all times.
On the anonymity issue, it’s so blindingly obvious what needs doing that I’m staggered nothing is being done about it. Obviously, it’s utterly correct that a woman makiig an allegation should retain her anonymity. But until conviction so should the accused man. Only after a conviction should his name be released. It’s just a case of two wrongs not making a right if both names are released before a conviction. And releasing a woman’s name if there is not a conviction, given the difficulty of obtaining a conviction although surely some of those 95% (or whatever the figure is)unsuccessful allegations must be a wrong verdict, will just deter women from reporting rape crimes.
Here endeth the rant.
Yep. I have never had sex with a bloke without the flirting. But I have also flirted and not expected sex.
I think billyboy said it best.
Additionally, I think the biggest problem is once a conviction is made, it is rarely upheld, and if it is, the sentences are absurd.
I’ve been reading a lot one the media too, and I keep coming across stories where a rapist is let out of jail and rapes again. Of course he’s going to rape again! It’s a mental disorder! Convicted, and I stress, convicted, should not be released into the public so easily. Jail, then a mental facility indefinitely.
I agree that Billyboy has highlighted the complexities of this well. Our system does not support dealing with this particular crime, and sexual assualt generally, well. Finding another approach which seeks to establish the truth as far as possible (and it is often really tricky ) has to be the way forward.
There are grey areas for sure. Most people would recognise that an ‘attack’ which results in rape is clearly wrong and criminal. Where there is more of a social context, potential to misread signals, drug and alcohol to cloud judgement and ability to protect yourself etc. it gets more difficult.
I think the debate needs to be so much wider than the law and the system. It about how men and women (and indeed same sex combinations) interact and see eachother and see sex. If sex is about love in some cases but at other times about fun etc. then shouldn’t the question we ask ourselves be “Do I want to have sex with someone that is going to regret it tomorrow because they were too pissed?” or whatever the issue might be. We talk a lot about the ‘nanny state’ yet can easily get sucked into those expectations. I think it about each of us taking responsiblity for ourselves and showing respect for eachother.
But hey maybe that makes me an idealist
Phoenix
x
Everyone has the right betty but everyone also has the right to think better of an ominous offer. If i’m offered “coffee” at his place, i know what it means and if i’m not up for that i don’t take it. Really what we all need to address is the whole situ in which women go out and get so incredibly drunk they don’t know what they are doing. I have done this i admit, but i always make sure i have a network of friends who always look out for each other. I’ve been too drunk to think straight (most weeks at uni – what can i say it’s the culture) but have never gotten into a situ i didn’t want to be in and always made it to my bed or at least the “right” bed.
I have on occasion been offered “coffee” and said yes, gone inside then decided not to sleep with them. For a number of reasons, maybe they had poor hygiene, maybe they were bad kissers, maybe they said something I didn’t like. If you say no, it should be taken as such.
After all, the guy may be expecting sex, but the girl may be expecting him to call her in the morning. How often does that expectation fail us?
I think that is a separate issue to being too drunk to know what you are doing.
One day, a long time ago, I was in a situation where a woman came on to me in a huge way. We went back to her place. She was very drunk. She wanted to have sex. I said “No” Even though, it would have been easy to do it.
What would be the point of using a person like this ?
The following morning, we talked. She was wholeheartedly grateful and pleased we didn’t “do it”
There followed a 2 year long passionate relationship, during which, “I learnt a lot about living and a little about love”
JVIP
We all know that if someone says they call they won’t – it’s one of those unwritten rules that is rarely broken
Fair enough though if i took the “coffee” offer to discover sinistry inside his flat i’d make my excuses.