Are judges stupid?

W

WPKenny

Guest
Seems to me to open the possibility that if you're able to get a bird drunk enough that she doesn't have a clue what she's doing then it doesn't count as rape because she's not able to put up a fight, hence there was no "force" involved.

Bit shitty that really. :(
 
P

Perplex

Guest
Yep. Gf had that happen to her about 5 years ago, by a friend (well, someone she thought was a friend) and she most certainly thinks it was rape, as do I, and any other rational being
 
X

xane

Guest
I think you are missing the point here.

Rape is classified as a physical assault, or a threat of physical assault, which makes it difficult for a judge to accuse someone of rape if no physical assault has been made or threatened.

The law needs to change with, probably, a separate charge, say call it "seduction", which is not classified as a physical assault along with ABH, GBH, etc.

"Getting a bird drunk" or using drugs is still rape because the act of enticing or using deception to force the drugs on someone is a physical assault.

Don't get me wrong, I fully support measures to prosecute "soft rapists", but the law needs to change because you'll be hard pressed to find a jury who will convict someone of a serious crime that suggests physical assault when they haven't actually physically assaulted anyone.

My personal view is to cut off their goolies.
 
P

Perplex

Guest
Originally posted by camazotz
I think you are missing the point here.
Rape is classified as a physical assault, or a threat of physical assault, which makes it difficult for a judge to accuse someone of rape if no physical assault has been made or threatened.
Click to expand...

Code: 
rape1 (rp)
n. 
The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse. 
The act of seizing and carrying off by force; abduction. 
Abusive or improper treatment; violation: a rape of justice. 

tr.v. raped, rap·ing, rapes 
To force (another person) to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse; commit rape on. 
To seize and carry off by force. 
To plunder or pillage.

Means forceful act, not violent. Against will

Originally posted by camazotz
The law needs to change with, probably, a separate charge, say call it "seduction", which is not classified as a physical assault along with ABH, GBH, etc.
Click to expand...

That's actually really insulting

Originally posted by camazotz
"Getting a bird drunk" or using drugs is still rape because the act of enticing or using deception to force the drugs on someone is a physical assault.
Click to expand...

This contradicts your previous point. If it tastes like chicken, smells like chicken,a nd looks like chicken, it is chicken. Rape is rape

Originally posted by camazotz
Don't get me wrong, I fully support measures to prosecute "soft rapists", but the law needs to change because you'll be hard pressed to find a jury who will convict someone of a serious crime that suggests physical assault when they haven't actually physically assaulted anyone.
Click to expand...
Again, the concept of calling these rapists 'soft rapists' is really insulting and insensitive to the poor victims

Originally posted by camazotz
My personal view is to cut off their goolies.
Click to expand...

I agree totally.

To clarify, this guy got her very drunk. She came round a while later with him on top of her and her knees behind her head. When she mumbled for him to stop, he ignored her, and she was in no physical state to fend him off. Again, it's extremely insulting and insensitive to classify this as a 'lesser' rape (2nd degree rape is what you're suggesting in effect) or 'soft rape'.

It's not like the murder/manslaughter issue. Rape is rape, no is no.
 
S

Sir Frizz

Guest
rapists usually are about as low as a human gets :/
 
E

*Exor*

Guest
How am I meant to get any sex if getting women drunk is classed as rape? :(
 
X

xane

Guest
I was referring to the view of the law on "rape", which defines it as involving physical force (or threat of), which I have always thought of as wrong.

I did not contradict myself. You can have sex without consent without any drugs, drink or force or threat of force or blackmail or coercion involved. I agree rape should simply be defined as "sex without consent".

Because rape is current classified as a physical crime along with GBH, etc. You need to change the definition, have two forms of the crime, "rape with force" and "rape", for example. I'm sorry you find my descriptions insulting, but I couldn't give a f*ck about that, I don't like rapists either and that's what counts.

I've been on jury service twice and I can tell you that a jury will not put someone away for a serious physical crime if they did not actually use physical force, you run the risk of not getting a fair conviction if you dress up a crime as more serious as it sounds.

My view is I dont care, cut off their bollocks regardless as far as I am concerned, but thats not the issue because not everyone (unfortunately) thinks like that and juries wont always be full of 12 camazotzs but will contain their fair share of woolly liberals.
 
S

Sawtooth

Guest
I think the Judge is an arse . what about date-rape where they are drugged and can't remember what happened?

Rape as I understand it is non-concensual sex not about whether force was used.

Saw
 
W

Will

Guest
That case caused a huge fuss at the time in Scotland, I remember it.

Originally from BBC News Online

Mr Boyd said the current definition of rape dated back to 1858, in a case where judges ruled that a woman had been raped if a man had sex with her "forcibly and against her will".
Click to expand...
This was the law the judge based his ruling on, even though we all know that his final result was not justice in any way. That judge really was an out-of-touch old fart, sitting back in his ivory tower.:eek:
 
S

ShockingAlberto

Guest
Originally posted by ignus
Don't know if anyone saw Richard and Judy show today (was visiting grandparents thats why I saw it)
Click to expand...

You don't need an excuse to watch Richard and Judy :p

I watch it most days, and i'm sure i'm not in the minoritory here :)
 
W

Wij

Guest
Isn't this only in Scottish law anyway ? afaik the definition in English law does not require force. The judge has to uphold the laws of the country though. You should be more worried that the law is fucking stupid.
 
W

Will

Guest
I ain't sure Wij, but I think it might be only Scottish law this applies too. I have to say in general the Scottish legal system is very good, I prefer it to the English legal system, but I am a little biased.;)

Every country has stupid laws like this, the judge was perfectly free in this case to jail him, but chose to dismiss the case. What a load of crap that was.
 
S

stu

Guest
I did Rape as my study subject in Criminal Justice at University, so I know a fair bit about it.

There are two components to any criminal act - the mens rea, or "mental state" (closest translation) and the actus reus, or physical action.

Iz has obviously pulled that description out of a dictionary - the danger of that being that interpretation is one of the most important elements of law, so you have to go back to statute. The statutory definition of rape is, according to the Sexual Offences Act 1956:

1) It is an offence for a man to rape a woman or another man.
2) A man commits rape if -
a) he has sexual intercourse with a person (whether vaginal or anal) who at the time of intercourse does not consent to it; and
b) at the time he knows that the person does not consent to the intercourse or is reckless as to whether that person consents to it.

Section a) being the actus reus, and Section b) being the mens rea.

Like I said, interpretation is a tricky thing, but essentially this means that if a man (notice a woman cannot commit rape) knows that the victim does not consent, or is reckless as to whether consent is given, then they have committed the offence. The test for recklessness (in any area of criminal law, not just rape) is whether a reasonable person would have had reasonable grounds to suspect that the victim did not consent - an issue which is decided by the facts at hand.

Therefore, in reply to your statements:

Seems to me to open the possibility that if you're able to get a bird drunk enough that she doesn't have a clue what she's doing then it doesn't count as rape because she's not able to put up a fight, hence there was no "force" involved.
Click to expand...
Nope, counts as recklessness - there is even special provision for this in the Sexual Offences Act:
4) Administering drugs to obtain or facilitate intercourse
1) It is an offence for a person to apply or administer to, or cause to be taken by, a woman any drug, matter or thing with intent to stupefy or overpower her so as thereby to enable any man to have unlawful sexual intercourse with her.
This includes alcohol. It is not, in any circumstances, a defence to rape to claim that you did not know that the victim did not give consent, as she was unable to give (or not give) consent - it's defeated by the recklessness test.

Rape is classified as a physical assault, or a threat of physical assault... but the law needs to change because you'll be hard pressed to find a jury who will convict someone of a serious crime that suggests physical assault when they haven't actually physically assaulted anyone.
Click to expand...
No, that has nothing to do with it - it's a widely held (but mistaken) opinion that there must be some physical threat of violence - it's an issue totally missing (intentionally) from statute. Men have been convicted of rape before when the intimidation has been entirely emotional or mental, or indeed where there has been none - the only important element is whether consent has been given or not. Same to your following post.

I think the Judge is an arse . what about date-rape where they are drugged and can't remember what happened?

Rape as I understand it is non-concensual sex not about whether force was used.
Click to expand...
Exactly correct. Give this man a gold star :D

As both Itchy and Wij posted, the facts as presented in the case only apply to Scots Law - the accused would have been jailed under English Law, no question. Rape used to be similarly poorly represented in English Law, however the Sexual Offences Act 1952 (and 76, 93 and 97 amendments) did an awful lot to adjust the balance. Unfortunately no such statute has been introduced in Scotland.

Incidentally, it's a common mistake to blame the judge in cases when such miscarriages of justice occur. All the judge can do is interpret and apply the Law as it exists, and there are fairly strict rules to doing this. Criminal Law cannot be made through cases, so he can recommend it for statutoral review, but that's it - it's called Separation of Powers.
 
S

Summo

Guest
Thanks, Stu. A well-researched, informative post. With no abuse.

Good students may lunch with me in my private study.
 
O

old.ignus

Guest
My ex girlfriend was staying around her best friend's a lot when she was younger and she made good friends with her best friend's older brother. One day this twat decided to try and get her into bed, when she wouldn't have it he went all mardy and threatened to chuck her out the house and never speak to her again, so reluctantly she slept with him. To make things worse for her he was in bed with a different girl the next day.
Would this be classed as another form of rape.

Oh and here's the best bit, at the time he was 18, she was 12.
 
O

old.Kez

Guest
Well its pretty certainly paedophilia, regardless.
 
E

Embattle

Guest
The main problem with rape in general is that its only a two sided affair, she said he did and he naturally said he didn't...this is esp true with date rape.
 
S

Summo

Guest
That's irrelevant. She was 12. Minors can't consent to sex. Therefore, it was rape.
 
S

Stazbumpa

Guest
Originally posted by ignus
My ex girlfriend was staying around her best friend's a lot when she was younger and she made good friends with her best friend's older brother. One day this twat decided to try and get her into bed, when she wouldn't have it he went all mardy and threatened to chuck her out the house and never speak to her again, so reluctantly she slept with him. To make things worse for her he was in bed with a different girl the next day.
Would this be classed as another form of rape.

Oh and here's the best bit, at the time he was 18, she was 12.
Click to expand...


What's his name and where does he live?
He wants a good kicking on general principal if nothing else.
 
P

Perplex

Guest
Originally posted by SomeGuy
Thanks, Stu. A well-researched, informative post. With no abuse.

Good students may lunch with me in my private study.
Click to expand...

That might be because he did a Law degree :)
 
P

Perplex

Guest
Originally posted by ignus
Would this be classed as another form of rape.

Oh and here's the best bit, at the time he was 18, she was 12.
Click to expand...

Eitherway, it's statutory rape even if she consented. She was under the legal age
 
S

stu

Guest
Sexual Offences Act 1956:

5. Intercourse with girl under thirteen
It is a felony for a man to have unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of thirteen.

No ifs, no buts. Sleeping with a 12 year old is rape, whatever the excuse. There's no statute of limitations on it either. Unfortunately, with something that old, proof becomes an issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top Bottom