ronthenekred Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 Surely getting raped for longer is worse than a quick rape. Just like being beaten repeatedly is worse than a single punch. So lets say for example, 2 people have consented, then during the act, the female decides she no longer wants to continue, the male gets carried away and for a brief few seconds carries on, but then realises his wrong doing and stops. I would have thought in this case, some 'credit' would be given for not carrying on. You're connecting the severity of assault with rape, they're are two entirely different crimes. Rape is assault in itself, you can't put a severity on that. You can however put severity on assault leading to the assault of rape. As for your second scenario it would be hoped that the woman was reasonable enough through their closeness not to make a legal issue out of it. It all comes down to a bit of common sense and mutual regard. I doubt your scenario is very common. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Spyda Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 You're connecting the severity of assault with rape, they're are two entirely different crimes. Rape is assault in itself, you can't put a severity on that. You can however put severity on assault leading to the assault of rape. Oh of course, fair points. But surely though the length of endurance such as in my example should be taken into consideration? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riche Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 Leave Ken alone, he's an ace MP. Agg rape, Date rape both bad both have individual circumstances. Rape on date when drunk bad but not gang or as brutal a being dragged of street and beaten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 Oh of course, fair points. But surely though the length of endurance such as in my example should be taken into consideration? I'v just added to my previous reply mc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Spyda Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 As for your second scenario it would be hoped that the woman was reasonable enough through their closeness not to make a legal issue out of it. It all comes down to a bit of common sense and mutual regard. I doubt your scenario is very common. I would definitely think most cases like this wouldn't get to court, true, but if it did, I would have thought that the courts would or should give more leniancy to the man in a case like this than a man who carried on with the rape. Just hypothetical of course, there is no doubt it's uncommon. I'm just trying to show that there are different degrees when it comes to the literal act of the rape itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 Perhaps it is in practical terms. As far as I'm aware, a strict reading of the law still says that if the women you have sex with was only 15 years 365 days and 11 hours old, you have raped her; but I don't recall anyone ever being convicted of rape in those sort of circumstances. Fair comment, which makes the "Grey area" all that more important when the case is assessed. The grey area it seems is a buffer to blanket sentencing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 I would definitely think most cases like this wouldn't get to court, true, but if it did, I would have thought that the courts would or should give more leniancy to the man in a case like this than a man who carried on with the rape. Just hypothetical of course, there is no doubt it's uncommon. I'm just trying to show that there are different degrees when it comes to the literal act of the rape itself. I'm sure any woman wouldn't get in a tizzy over a few seconds, she maybe a little ****** off by expecting instant action, but would soon realise that most men removing themselves instantly probably requires the assistance of two shire horses connected to his feet by chains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 Leave Ken alone, he's an ace MP. Agg rape, Date rape both bad both have individual circumstances. Rape on date when drunk bad but not gang or as brutal a being dragged of street and beaten. I take it you've experienced rape personally? Edit: I just read your sig. No reply necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 Rape (real rape) is always an heinous offence and (IMO) anybody convicted of Rape should receive a salutory sentence. But there are indeed differences between rapes and some rapes are indeed worse than others. You disagree? A drunken man who comes home from the pub and rapes his wife has committed na heinous offence. The offence of rape. On conviction, he should be (IMO) castrated and locked up. A man who rapes a 3 year old child has committed an heinous offence. It has happened. 99.99% of the time I don't approve of the death penalty ... there are exceptions. If an 18 year old (adult) man has a 15 year old long-standing girlfriend and he has sexual intercourse with that child, the man is guilty of rape. She (a minor) could not have consented, so it is rape. Is that as heinous an offence as the man who raped the 3- year old child? Then there was the case of the man who took an under-age child to Gretna. Rape. - The fact that you have been seeing this child and claim to be in love with her is 'in love' is irrelevant. She was 15, you were 18. An adult. Guilty. Go to jail. And there was the case of the 29 - year old woman who abducted a 14- year old male and took him to Florida. Apparently she F*****d his brains out. She was 'recovered' to the UK (The court in Florida was going to send her down for a long time.) "Oh, you poor dear woman, You poor 29 year old victim. That nasty 15 year old male must've lead you astray! Take a 'telling off'. These wicked male children must learn that they can't get away with luring midle-aged birds." UK law. Females can't rape males (Even if the female is 50 and the male is 10.) Males can rape females. Perhaps the law needs to be changed? If a predatory male can be convicted of raping an under-age female, shouldn't that work both ways? Rape as an heinous offence. Should an 18-year old male who has sexual intercourse with his 15yr 11 month girlfriend be treated as harshly as a gang-rapist? Rape is a very serious offence and (on conviction) should be punished harshly. If the punishment for rape is (say) 15 years imprisonment and given that a jury would only convict a person who they are convinced is guilty 'beyond reasonable doubt' then should a jury who are convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is innocent and that the charge is wholly fallacious be permitted to send the person who made the complaint to jail for the same time? Exempt DNA evidence, rape is often 'He says - She says'. If the 'going rate' is 10 years - and if we do believe in trial by jury - shouldn't that be an 'each way' sentence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandad.Malky Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 Rape is rape, quite simple. . 50 posts so far on this thread, have you read any of them ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.