False Rape

[Fibutton]

Though you quoted my post, you totally ignored the point I made. If two people give conflicting evidence, but there is no other evidence for the jury to consider, then it is very unlikely that they would convict a defendant. This is nothing to do with whether the defendant is a man and the other party is a woman, it is simply because the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt will not have been met.

 

THANKYOU Eater....I made a lot of mistakes last night trying to put that point across.

[Streamline]

It is all nonsense. If anything, the absolute and complete reverse is true. Virtually every woman I know has at the very least been coerced into sex, a number of them 'acquaintance raped' - not one has ever reported it. So don't anyone dare tell me about the majority of reported cases being bogus.

 

 

So nearly every women you know has been allegedly raped?

 

Which brings me onto another point, when were you appointed judge and jury of the land?

[Streamline]

From wiki:

 

 

 

Soruce: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#False_reporting

 

It also seems that the 'false' reporting classification is a somewhat subjective judgement. Let's say to be on the over-generous side, 10% maximum of reported claims are 'judged' (rather than proven) to be false. A far cry from this mythical 50% that is being peddled by men I have no doubt, who are probably all wetting themselves that they have at some point raped a woman.

 

I seem to have inadvertently opened a can of worms whilst using it as an analogy on the racism thread.

 

Most studies such as this, you start digging around you dicover some feminst organisation involved peddling BS and advocacy research the same as the "anti racism" mob.

[Rupert_Baehr]

I'm not 100% swayed one way or the other, so feel free to point out flaws in what I am going to say.

 

When someone makes a false accusation and gets found out, they have pretty much 'attempted' to get the accused sent down for rape. The same way that someone who is found guilty of attempted murder, will not get the same punishment as someone guilty of actual murder. It is the 'attempted' part which lessens the sentence.

 

I think I see what you're saying, but is it really just that a criminal who fails should be punished less severely than one who succeeds?

 

Two of the basic ingredients of a crime are 'mens rea' - the guilty mind, or intent - and 'actus reus' - the act itself.

 

If somebody is convicted of trying to send somebody else to prison then the mens rea has been proven. The fact that the attempt was unsuccessful demonstrates the incompetence of the convicted person. The actus reus in this case would be the attempt to have somebody imprisoned wrongfully.

 

Should incompetence be rewarded by a lesser sentence?

 

There is, perhaps, precedent. If you managed to steal money from your employer and were caught, then you might expect a hefty sentence. - Particularly if you had been in a position of trust.

 

If you were a Member of Parliament and had submitted improper expense claims, then you might get away with it on the grounds that you had made a mistake and were not competent to file an expenses claim.

[MC Spyda]

I think I see what you're saying, but is it really just that a criminal who fails should be punished less severely than one who succeeds?

 

Two of the basic ingredients of a crime are 'mens rea' - the guilty mind, or intent - and 'actus reus' - the act itself.

 

If somebody is convicted of trying to send somebody else to prison then the mens rea has been proven. The fact that the attempt was unsuccessful demonstrates the incompetence of the convicted person. The actus reus in this case would be the attempt to have somebody imprisoned wrongfully.

 

Should incompetence be rewarded by a lesser sentence?

 

There is, perhaps, precedent. If you managed to steal money from your employer and were caught, then you might expect a hefty sentence. - Particularly if you had been in a position of trust.

 

If you were a Member of Parliament and had submitted improper expense claims, then you might get away with it on the grounds that you had made a mistake and were not competent to file an expenses claim.

 

You make sense. I agree with what you have put. The problem I find is that for other crimes, the sentence is less for those who have attempted and failed, so surely it should be the same across the board. I'm not saying which way it should be, but I would have thought it should simply be the same no matter what the attempted crime was. Either everyone gets punished the same whether their attempt was succesful or not, or we let eveyone get a lighter punishment for an unsuccessful attempt.

[Rupert_Baehr]

Well, the maximum sentence for rape is life imprisonment, so there is plenty of room for a lesser sentence which is still a salutory sentence.

 

The 'wickedness' of the act often affects the sentence. Those convicted of pre-meditated offences often receive longer sentences than those convicted of 'spur of the moment' crimes.

 

Plannning to have somebody wrongfully imprisoned - and then attempting to carry out that plan - would surely qualify the person who did so for a 'pre-meditated' surcharge on the sentence?

 

Rape is an heinous offence and I've no doubt that - although there are a few malicious false accusations - there are a large number of cases which never go to court because the victim is too scared/too embarrassed/too humiliated to press charges.

 

The Law has taken steps to improve that, see The Sexual Offences Act [2003] but more does need to be done to increase the prosecution rate. - Yet that 'more' should not (IMO) involve 'adding slope to the playing field'.

 

The two cases I quoted above were both instances in which an adult had unlawful intercourse with a minor person. In one case the perpetrator was male and the 'victim' was female and in the other case the perpetrator was female and the 'victim' was male. (The victims in each case were willing - albeit unable lawfully to consent.)

 

Both cases - each of which involved an adult sexually abusing a minor - were treated differently.

 

The law does not have to be fair, but if people are going to be expected to obey it, it has to be seen to apply equally to all persons.

 

Sexual assaults - although they may cause less physical damage than other assaults/batterys - often have (understandably) a very serious psychological effect on the victim.

 

If somebody (male or female) was to stick a knife into my gluteus maximus, I would be quite upset and (no doubt) I would have a very sore bum. The physical damage could be severe.

 

If a group of people were to approach me from behind, grab me, put a hood over my head, throw me to the ground remove my clothing and if one of those people was to shove something (either a penis or, perhaps a sex toy) up my rectum, then I would have a sore bum, although I probably would not have a wound which was as serious as that inflicted by the knife wielder.

 

The psychological damage inflicted by such an attack might be far greater than the physical damage inflicted by the knife wielder.

 

If I had been battered (or buggered) by a penis in a condom, that would constitute rape. If I had been buggered by a sex toy (and I've not got eyes in the back of my head, so I wouldn't know) that would constitute a 'serious sexual assault'. - Not rape.

 

IMO, both should be treated equally and both should be considered to be rape, irrespective of whether the perpetrator is male or female.

[Closet Guy.]

THANKYOU Eater....I made a lot of mistakes last night trying to put that point across.

 

It wasnt you, it was the wolfpack. They werent listing to reason.

[Closet Guy.]

So nearly every women you know has been allegedly raped?

 

 

I dont for a second believe that. It was obviously a bit of a fib to back her point up.

[boyfriday]

I dont for a second believe that. It was obviously a bit of a fib to back her point up.

 

..at it again CG?

 

I'm going to have a side bet on who you were in your previous life here

[Suffragette1]

So nearly every women you know has been allegedly raped?

 

Which brings me onto another point, when were you appointed judge and jury of the land?

 

Yes, that is what I said. Judge and jury? Are you saying that they're lying to me?