Judge Mowat comments: Is it impossible to have a proper discussion on rape?

[Farm Boy]

Then bend it. El Mac's more onto it with his last reply to me than I've been clear about. If people are going to get busy, I daresay we'd be better off is the expectation was more in line with making that consent more public and more accessible. People thought, and people still think condoms are an intrusion into the act. But we've made good headway there.

 

[Borachio]

Perhaps the lesson to be learned is either don't have sex with people unless you know them well and care for them and you are absolutely sure that they want to as well, or deal with the consequences of your risky behaviour.

This has got to be true, hasn't it?

No more casual sex with strangers unless you're happy with maybe being accused of being a rapist?

Yet most rape happens between people who do know each other, comparatively well, I think.

So it comes down to how much you "care for them", maybe? How do you determine that?

This whole discussion is a minefield. I've certainly not got any answers.

 

[Darkflight]

This has got to be true, hasn't it?

No more casual sex with strangers unless you're happy with maybe being accused of being a rapist?

Yet most rape happens between people who do know each other, comparatively well, I think.

"Know eachother" is not the only thing I said now was it?

So it comes down to how much you "care for them", maybe? How do you determine that?

This whole discussion is a minefield. I've certainly not got any answers.

Added because you edited. You only need to care for them in the sense that you don't want to harm them. The point is that you need all 3 conditions. If you have all 3 conditions fulfilled and you still get accused of beeing a rapist, you are the victim of a setup or you are unable apply common sense for some reason. If any sane person took those 3 conditions and made damn sure that all 3 were met before having sex with someone, the odds of getting accused of rape should basically be zero.

 

[bhavv]

Don't know if its been mentioned, but there's this nail polish that detects the presence of rohypnol in spiked drinks. I found out about it because somehow the usual lot are outraged that it promotes rape and blaming the victim blah blah blah.

That makes about as much sense as saying that pepper spray, personal attack alarms or any other such things are blaming the victim too. These people are pure dumb.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Perhaps the lesson to be learned is either don't have sex with people unless you know them well and care for them and you are absolutely sure that they want to as well, or deal with the consequences of your risky behaviour.

Oh, as a lesson, absolutely! Though I personally don't need it. (I don't know if your "you" was a "you" or a "one"). This is already a principle I've lived my life by. (And by which I've successfully avoided being accused of rape.) But we're not talking about lessons. We're talking about legal standards and mechanisms by which we could decrease the incidence of rape and increase conviction rates for it. "Don't get so inebriated that put yourself in a position where you could be raped" is a lesson. But no one seems to want lessons to be our way of addressing this problem.

 

[Borachio]

"Know eachother" is not the only thing I said now was it?

Indeed. And I notice you don't quote my last two sentences.

edit: and now you've edited something in, and I don't know what to say.

Don't know if its been mentioned, but there's this nail polish that detects the presence of rohypnol in spiked drinks. I found out about it because somehow the usual lot are outraged that it promotes rape and blaming the victim blah blah blah.

That makes about as much sense as saying that pepper spray, personal attack alarms or any other such things are blaming the victim too. These people are pure dumb.

I can't say I can follow the logic of why nail polish (of the rohypnol detecting variety) would promote rape at all.

And what kind of guy uses rohypnol? That's always staggered me.

"I want sex so badly, I'll do it with someone who'll have absolutely no memory of it afterwards"?

 

[Darkflight]

Oh, as a lesson, absolutely! Though I personally don't need it. (I don't know if your "you" was a "you" or a "one"). This is already a principle I've lived my life by. (And by which I've successfully avoided being accused of rape.) But we're not talking about lessons. We're talking about legal standards and mechanisms by which we could decrease the incidence of rape and increase conviction rates for it. "Don't get so inebriated that put yourself in a position where you could be raped" is a lesson. But no one seems to want lessons to be our way of addressing this problem.

I meant you as in "one".

The problem isn't trying to teach the general population a lesson. Most will not listen until it actually affects them or anyone close to them because humans are dumb that way, but that's to be expected.

The lesson you propose is a fine lesson. The problem here is the wording the judge uses. "the rape conviction statistics will not improve until women stop getting so drunk". This is blaming women who get raped. This statement says it is their fault that the person that raped them is going free instead of getting his/her punishment.

By all means, teach everyone the lesson that getting drunk/high/whatever is not a good idea. But don't place blame on someone who has had a terribly traumatic event happen to them that they are not to blame for. If someone doesn't lock their door when they leave the house, it is not their fault that a robber steals their stuff. If someone gets drunk/high, it is not their fault that they got raped.

Putting yourself in a position that makes you easy prey does not mean it's okay for someone to be a predator.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I consider you bitter because you pop up in every thread related to women/feminism and argue against supposed special treatment of women, denying sexism exists etc.

Well how about just responding to the individual points I make, rather than constructing an imaginary model of my morals and beliefs, deducing what you think I believe, and then arguing against the clay golem you just constructed? I made a point about why voluntary intoxication and INvoluntary intoxication are different things, and why I believe the former carries much, much more burden of responsibility to the latter. If you can't respond to that point then please do me the decency of not responding to me at all, because I really see no point in defending myself against your own flawed deductions of my personality. If you're going to drop hints that you think I might be a sex offender then you're not worth engaging with.

 

[Borachio]

The lesson you propose is a fine lesson. The problem here is the wording the judge uses. "the rape conviction statistics will not improve until women stop getting so drunk". This is blaming women who get raped. This statement says it is their fault that the person that raped them is going free instead of getting his/her punishment.

By all means, teach everyone the lesson that getting drunk/high/whatever is not a good idea. But don't place blame on someone who has had a terribly traumatic event happen to them that they are not to blame for. If someone doesn't lock their door when they leave the house, it is not their fault that a robber steals their stuff. If someone gets drunk/high, it is not their fault that they got raped.

That's a gross misrepresentation of what the Judge has said.

‘I will also say, and I will be pilloried for saying so, but the rape conviction statistics will not improve until women stop getting so drunk.

‘I’m not saying it’s right to rape a drunken woman, I’m not saying for a moment that it’s allowable to take advantage of a drunken woman.

‘But a jury in a position where they’ve got a woman who says, “I was absolutely off my head, I can’t really remember what I was doing, I can’t remember what I said, I can’t remember if I consented or not but I know I wouldn’t have done”, I mean when a jury is faced with something like that, how are they supposed to react?’

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Yes they are. Because right now the only mechanism you have for punishing people for raping too drunk girls is "don't get too drunk, girls". That's what the OP is about.

No the OP is about their inability to give meaningful testimony due to impaired memory.

 

[Senethro]

You could also interpret it as requiring reform of the law as the current one leads to juries being instructed to find the evidence insufficient for any conviction.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Recorded consent seems ridiculous to me. Would those who are capable of rape have any trouble bypassing this? A recorded consent wouldn't be taken advantage of by those inclined to do so? Get a consent at the start of the night and you're safe? Or should the whole act be recorded just in case?

The whole concept is a non-starter because if a woman gives consent right up to the act of penetration itself, but then changes her mind and withdraws consent, if the man continues that is still a rape, and rightly so (I'll just state that quite plainly and even make it about female rape before I get accused of being pro-rape again). This would make any pre-recorded consent worthless anyway. Unless you're going to say that, having given recorded consent, she is legally obliged to go through with the act. This would seem a bit of a backwards step to me.

 

[Gori the Grey]

1) Most will not listen until it actually affects them or anyone close to them because humans are dumb that way, but that's to be expected.

2) If someone doesn't lock their door when they leave the house, it is not their fault that a robber steals their stuff.

3) Putting yourself in a position that makes you easy prey does not mean it's okay for someone to be a predator.

3) Agreed, absolutely.

2) If I did this, I would regard the theft as partly my own fault.

1) I’ve been working on an adaptation of the judge’s line of reasoning that I think might have some success. Remember, her special point was that being drunk compromises you as a witness to your own rape. (some other posters beat me to this key point) So, early on in this thread, I proposed that that provides a way of circumnavigating the “blame the victim” mentality. In place of saying “don’t get so drunk that someone could rape you” we say instead “don’t get so drunk that, if you got raped, you wouldn’t be a credible witness to the event.” So, people would ignore that advice too. But how about this? Invoke that “anyone close to them.” Tell young people, "Don’t get so drunk that if one of the friends you’re going out with were to be raped, your testimony would be dismissed." People will sometimes do more for another person than they’ll do for themselves.

 

[Borachio]

Look. The only way round this is to record every moment of one's entire life. I'm fine with that. I may even start publishing it.

 

[bhsup]

Look. The only way round this is to record every moment of one's entire life. I'm fine with that. I may even start publishing it.

Good thing... Your government may have been thinking along those lines all along.

 

[Borachio]

I'm thinking I'll record my own life, thank you. And I shall retain all the rights to it.

It might come in handy in the event of an obviously unwarranted accusation of rape, though. A clear case of mistaken identity if ever I saw one.

As if anyone's ever going to accuse me of rape! Come on! Just look at me!

(Still, I expect all rapists say the same.)

 

[El_Machinae]

But, as the judge points out, that witness' testimony is compromised by the inebriation.

For that specific definition of rape, yes

 

[Manfred Belheim]

For that specific definition of rape, yes

No, their testimony on anything is surely compromised by their inebriation.

 

[Gori the Grey]

And I would add not just testimony, but ability to take in details that might help secure a conviction.

 

[Darkflight]

That's a gross misrepresentation of what the Judge has said.

As she said herself, it's word against word. If the word of one party is "I was so drunk that I can't remember a thing" the idea that that party was able to give consent is a joke. The question is only if you believe that parties testimony.

The truth is that rape conviction rates will never be high because rape isn't easily defined.