egafd.com

The chattering classes are always moaning about the low rate of conviction in rape cases. They are looking at ways to make convictions easier.

Justice would be better served if the emotive question of sex was removed from the equation and defendants merely charged under the laws on violence against the person:assault, actual bodily harm and grevious bodily harm.

This way the real rapists would be seperated from the innocent and lots of public money would be saved.

Mike Freeman

On first reading Mike that sounds like madness, on the second still quite dodgy, but....on the third it makes a degree of sense. More then that in fact, it would provide a GBH/ABH legal definition that would ease the process of conviction.

Sadly, the "emotive issue of sex" is what makes Rape, well erm....rape.

Brutal sexual attacks on complete strangers will always be more likely to result in a criminal conviction, the problem with current laws is everything that lies within.

Hi Bruce,
I cannot see how there can be rape without violence. Convictions would be easy to get on this criteria and the CPS would then not prosecute without evidence of violence against the person.
Mike

Hi Mike,

You have raised an excellent point here. Problems with the offence of rape have been around for a couple of decades mainly because of pressure brought by women's groups to treat all rapes exactly the same. Few people dispute a woman's right to say 'no', but equally most people think there is all the difference in the world between a 13 year old attacked by a stranger on her way home from school and a mature woman, who has been having sex with a partner over a period of time who alleges rape because on a particular day she doesn't fancy it. Of course if excessive violence is used this can be a very serious offence too. There have been worrying suggestion too that rape be treated entirely different from other criminal offences and only require the civil standard of proof, i.e. on the balance of probabilities. I have long thought that it may be necessary to categorize rape. I should be interested to know if cases where the attacker is a total stranger, have a lower conviction rate that other offences such as GBH and murder. I doubt that they have. The reason conviction rates are low for rape is because when parties are known to each other and, particularly when the couple have had sex before, there is so much doubt that juries are reluctant to convict.

Hi David,

I agree with what you say. Furthermore penetrative sex is not a crime per se but only if force is used, therefore what should be addressed is not whether penetrative sex took place but if violence was used to obtain it. Is there a case of assault, actual bodily harm or grevious bodily harm for the defendant to answer?

I reiterate the CPS would be wary of prosecuting anyone who had committed no actual violence.

I think juries would understand this difference whereas at the moment they are merely confused.
Mike.

Mike, what you say is only partly correct. To commit the offence of rape it is not necessary for violence to be used, although in the overwhealming majority of cases it will have been. The offence is still committed if the sex is obtained by deception although, practically, I agree such cases are very rare.

David,
That is what I am saying some defendants are found guilty of rape even though they committed no violence. The evidence thus becomes subjective and objectivity is what we need in the courtroom.
Mike.

eroticartist wrote:
> I cannot see how there can be rape without violence.

Mike, I can: rape is often achieved with the *threat* of violence. Also, consensual sex can involve various levels of violence. So the violence=rape equation doesn't work. With your pov, you'll end up saying that a woman faced with a knife (or the threat of a good kicking) should fight back and risk death, rather than submit to rape.

Hi Strictly,

The threat of violence is a common assault, a threat to kill or offer some other form of injury is demanding with menaces. These forms of coercion could also be dealt with under the laws of violence. However most real rapes are carried out by men because of the greater physical strength of the male using physical force. No law is perfect but to concentrate on violence would result in more convictions of rapists and more acquittals of the innocent. Defence counsel would no longer be able to suggest that the women was a slag who deserved it because she wore revealing clothes or had a sexual history of "promiscuous" behaviour.

Consensual sex becomes non consensual if violence is used. "Sexual violence" is not violence if it is mutual.
Mike.

These days with DNA it would be easy to prove if sex took place so that would leave the question of wether it was consensual ,they now have lie detectors that work on voice change so if both accussor and accused were interviewed by highly trained people they could probably deduce wether there was a case to answer and if so it would have its day in court.