Kthebean Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Ken Clarke shows a serious misunderstanding of the issue by just talking about victims as women, anyway. Personally I hate the term 'date rape', its still rape, in some cases I bet its very much more psychologically damaging than being dragged off the street down an alleyway. Why the hell presume its not as 'serious'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted May 19, 2011 Author Share Posted May 19, 2011 Ken Clarke shows a serious misunderstanding of the issue by just talking about victims as women, anyway. Personally I hate the term 'date rape', its still rape, in some cases I bet its very much more psychologically damaging than being dragged off the street down an alleyway. Why the hell presume its not as 'serious'. Its probably distinguished because the person will willingly have gone to the others house and after that there is very little way to prove what happened. consensual sex could have occurred and then rape could be claimed. Its as serious but it is just one persons word against another. When you are dragged off the street its a whole different league! The reporter interviewing him got really excited when she realised she could create a story. I think she should be sacked for ignoring the real issue and going for a hello magazine version! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazyOwl Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 lots of spin and trying to make an issue out nothing. definatly. This story ,or should i say non story isnt worthy of air time on the tv , or print space in the papers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upinwath Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Just as a note - I've started a poll thread so we can see what you people think at a glance. Not intended to take over this thread,just add to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kthebean Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Its probably distinguished because the person will willingly have gone to the others house and after that there is very little way to prove what happened. consensual sex could have occurred and then rape could be claimed. Its as serious but it is just one persons word against another. When you are dragged off the street its a whole different league! Sentencing occurs when someone has been proved guilty, beyond reasonable doubt. If you have raped someone after they have willingly gone to your house it is just as 'serious' as if you have dragged them off the street and raped them. Theres no point giving someone a lesser sentence because 'theres a chance they might not be guilty'. If theres a chance they might not be guilty they should be let off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Just as a note - I've started a poll thread so we can see what you people think at a glance. Not intended to take over this thread,just add to it. But this foum is full of little hitlers so we already know which way such a poll would probably go, especially when they start logging on under their multiple aliasses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted May 19, 2011 Author Share Posted May 19, 2011 But this foum is full of little hitlers so we already know which way such a poll would probably go, especially when they start logging on under their multiple aliasses are "little hitlers" people that disagree with your opinion? Doesn't that make you a "little hitler":huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted May 19, 2011 Author Share Posted May 19, 2011 Sentencing occurs when someone has been proved guilty, beyond reasonable doubt. If you have raped someone after they have willingly gone to your house it is just as 'serious' as if you have dragged them off the street and raped them. Theres no point giving someone a lesser sentence because 'theres a chance they might not be guilty'. If theres a chance they might not be guilty they should be let off. Its as serious but much more difficult to prove, we can pretend that it is guilty beyond reasonable doubt but in reality it is the jurys opinion that matters. Some will find it easier to find the rapist guilty of a charge that will result in a smaller sentence. Is it even possible to prove someone guilty of date rape? I guess if you drug them its possible but otherwise how? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kthebean Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Its as serious but much more difficult to prove, we can pretend that it is guilty beyond reasonable doubt but in reality it is the jurys opinion that matters. Some will find it easier to find the rapist guilty of a charge that will result in a smaller sentence. Is it even possible to prove someone guilty of date rape? I guess if you drug them its possible but otherwise how? In some circumstances there is physical evidence of a struggle and unconsensual sex can cause quite a lot of internal damage. I dont think sentencing should reflect the fact that the crime 'might not have happened'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Its probably distinguished because the person will willingly have gone to the others house and after that there is very little way to prove what happened. consensual sex could have occurred and then rape could be claimed. Its as serious but it is just one persons word against another. When you are dragged off the street its a whole different league! The reporter interviewing him got really excited when she realised she could create a story. I think she should be sacked for ignoring the real issue and going for a hello magazine version! Not really unless the victim has been beaten badly. In both your scenarios the defendant could claim consent. That is for a court of law to determine. What is at issue here is when two people are consensual and make that clear. The law states that one is a victim and the other a rapist in exactly the same way as a non consensual which is determined by age. The circumstantial evidence surrounding the rape determines the severity, not excuse the rape. As said earlier there are probably hundreds of thousands of rapists on our streets sanctioned by parents who allow it under their own roof, from a legal perspective that is. I don't feel like one but I'm a rapist too, me 17 and my first sexual encounter girlfriend 15. Rape from a consensual perspective is a real pig to determine if you use age as the defining factor, but age HAS to play a part otherwise a 30yr old and a nine year old could be consensual, but non the less predatory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.