Good new rape laws proposed

[Snoopyseed]

I absolutly adore that blinking smilie Lol!
Snoopy

[diana_holbourn]

Yes. Here's a quote arguing for the law allowing the defence of honest belief in a person's consent to be scrapped:

Presentation of 10 Minute Rule Bill: Rape (Consent) House of Commons 16 th July 2002

Speaker: Julia Drown MP Labour MP for South Swindon

... The 1999 Act also intended to limit sexual history being brought into cases. However, as women's organisations and I warned at the time, because the defence of an honest, even if unreasonable, belief in consent was left in law, many rapists have been able to walk free. Where the defence is that the accused believed that the victim consented, if the jury accept that he might, however irrationally and crazily, have believed that there was consent, they have to acquit. That defence of honest but unreasonable belief in consent also leaves a loophole for sexual history to be brought into court, since the safeguards to protect complainants in the 1999 Act do not apply to the defence of honest belief in consent. It is well known at the criminal Bar that if claims about a woman's previous sexual history are brought up in court, the woman is likely to be humiliated and undermined and the calibre of her evidence is damaged. Canadian research shows that the jury's belief in the guilt of the accused diminishes in proportion to such claims, even if they are made up. We are expecting research to be published here on the sexual history protections that have been provided by sections 41 to 43 of the 1999 Act, but there is strong anecdotal evidence to suggest that protections have been undermined because the defence of belief in consent is run more often now to make use of the loophole.

The Government are aware that action is needed. Their sex offences review recommended a change in the law on consent in July 2000. It is abundantly clear
that that is needed. The current definition of consent lets victims down. It is simply unacceptable in the 21st century that defence counsels can say that a woman or man shouting, "No, no, no", should be disregarded and that, in fact, that person means "Yes." No means no. For that reason, we need to write
into law that in cases where the victim is saying no, if the defendant is to use the defence of belief in consent, they have to be able to tell the jury what reasonable steps they took to ensure that there was free agreement to sex. ...

[Saffron]

Originally posted by Saffron@15th October 2004 - 11:21 AM

I am currently working on finding grounds for appeal. His accuser is now telling his ex-colleagues that he was convicted of rape, that he had been accused of it before, and that it was her testimony that "put him away". These are all lies. She is also claiming that his sentence is 5 times what it actually is. Why is the truth not good enough for her? Why is Indecent Assault not serious enough, especially as by her own admission, she was not raped? Please tell me, in your experience dealing with survivors, is this normal behaviour for a victim?

Quoted post

Hi Snoopy

I have read your post in response to mine. However, please please help me here, and clarify what your experience is on the above. Is it normal behaviour for a survicor? I wouldn't ask, but I have no-one else to query who has as much experience with survivors as you do.

Ashley, you are a particularly learned individual, and by your own admission, you have done a lot of research into this kind of thing. Is this usual survivor behaviour?

Incidentally, I have to say that I agree with Snoopy wholeheartedly when she says that a woman should be able to wear whatever she likes and go wherever she likes. However, I have to say that as a woman I would NEVER knowingly place myself in a dangerous situation. I admit that walking down a street is almost impossible to avoid. But inviting a man I barely know to my hotel room is EASY to avoid, and is something I will never do. I have already said earlier in this thread that men need to be more aware of the dreadful accusations that can be levelled at them by a woman. But similarly, women need to be aware of what can happen to them if they invite a strange man back to their hotel room! Even if they think they know that person, a bedroom is still your inner sanctum, and as a general rule, an invitation to the bedroom is an exceptionally intimate invitation.

If a man invited me into his bedroom or hotel room, at the end of a boozy, intimate evening, I would suspect that he was interested in me sexually. But in the eyes of today's courts, if I invite him to my hotel room, I have 100% non sexual motives. How does that work?

[Saffron]

Originally posted by diana_holbourn@17th October 2004 - 03:25 PM
Yes. Here's a quote arguing for the law allowing the defence of honest belief in a person's consent to be scrapped:


The Government are aware that action is needed. Their sex offences review recommended a change in the law on consent in July 2000. It is abundantly clear
that that is needed. The current definition of consent lets victims down. It is simply unacceptable in the 21st century that defence counsels can say that a woman or man shouting, "No, no, no", should be disregarded and that, in fact, that person means "Yes." No means no. For that reason, we need to write
into law that in cases where the victim is saying no, if the defendant is to use the defence of belief in consent, they have to be able to tell the jury what reasonable steps they took to ensure that there was free agreement to sex. ...

Quoted post

What about the cases where the alleged victim/survivor was NOT shouting "No No No", and was actually actively encouraging the sexual contact? What if they later decided (for whatever reason) that they had changed their minds? I believe it's called "Post-Coital Regret," - something I have suffered from a few times!

What if at the time of the sexual contact, they thought (but did not actually SAY) "I don't really want to do this, but I will go through with it anyway." If they had vocalised this, most of the men I know (including my husband) would have stopped in their tracks. If they do not declare their objection, is that still rape? How would the alleged rapist know that they were NOT "up for it" if they didn't SAY so? I KNOW it sounds unlikely, but it DOES happen! But of course, they can still go to the police station and report a rape. And the SAME laws apply to them as to those who have been grabbed, beaten, and brutally raped walking home from the station.

Let me draw you a brief thumbnail sketch of a false accusation:

I am on a work jolly - with several colleagues of mainly female sex. There is one bloke there, and he's quite tasty. I spend all evening flirting with him, sending him saucy text messages. By the end of the evening we are all quite drunk. I have been shouting for more tequilas. I invite him to my room. We sit on the bed talking about sex. I invite him to stay the night. He is up for it, and we have sexual contact. Once it's all over, he leaves after a little while to avoid the company "gossip" of him being found in my room the next day.

The next morning, I think "oh, that was a stupid thing to do." My friend in the room next door knows that the man stayed until the early hours of the morning. I am desperate to save face ( i have a boyfriend, and we are in a long term relationship.) I tell her that I didn't really want that man to stay. She inquires why I let him stay. In order to avoid a loss of face, and so that my boyfriend will not find out, I tell her that he raped me.

She is insistent that I go to the police. I have no option other than admitting I have lied, and so I go. I know my friend will detest me if I admit that I haven't been raped, so I keep up the pretence. I have met my police liason officer, and my victim support worker, and they all believe me unquestioningly. I have been examined - as there are no bruises or scratches, it is much like a ike a smear test - and I now know that if I admit the truth, I will be prosecuted for wasting police time. I have no option but to go forward with the case.

I could certainly claim I had been "confused" and that I hadn't actually been raped, but indecently assaulted. But how difficult would it be for me to admit I had wasted all those man hours? All the detectives who had interviewed me and my alleged attacker, the sympathetic victim support officer, and most of all, my friend and my boyfriend....there is no way out but to go through with the whole thing, and see my "attacker" in court.....

Surely this leads to individuals seeking a written consent form prior to instigating sexual contact?

I do firmly believe that the best way to avoid "date rape" is to NOT PUT YOURSELF IN THAT SITUATION. It is a shame that women should have to think of things like "should I go up for a coffee?" but similarly men need to be aware that accepting similar invitiations from women could lead to a false rape accusation being levelled at them. We should all take responsibilty for our own actions.

(and Snoopy, I am not talking about women who are raped while walking home of an evening. That is something totally separate.)

Saffron

[Snoopyseed]

Originally posted by Saffron@17th October 2004 - 08:08 PM
Hi Snoopy

I have read your post in response to mine. However, please please help me here, and clarify what your experience is on the above. Is it normal behaviour for a survicor? I wouldn't ask, but I have no-one else to query who has as much experience with survivors as you do.

Quoted post

Hello Saffron, in regards to the above, and a question as to wether this is normal for a survivor (the behaviour) well, normal is really just a cycle on a washing machine, and each individual reacts differently to trauma, the above would suggest someone who has been through such a trauma, that no matter what the outcome of the justice system, still feels that it is not enough.It takes time to heal from such a horrific experience, and some survivors do find it appealing to keep finding ways to hurt the person who so badly hurth them, part of the healing process involves learning to let go and move on.She will come to this stage eventually, but for now she is simply doing whatshe feels she has to do in order to feel better, however i would strongly suggest that she go to a counsellor with this problem and learn better ways to deal with the hurt, as at the end of the day she will only end up going round in circles.
I knew one survivor who photocopied her attackers face and posted it all around town with the word rapist underneath.
While i wouldnt reccomend anyone doing this , i can see how such a awful crime could lead a survivor to commit such acts.Its called post rape hysteria, and like a severe form of shock needs lots of therapy and lots of time in order to begin to feel whole again, once the healing is underway these acts simply stop.
Hope this helps.
Snoopy

[Ashley]

Hello Saffron,

I don't think I can be of much help in defining your husband's accuser with reference to her post trial behaviour. I rather suspect Snoopy is right and there is no common template, much will depend on the psychological make up of the individual. Just look around the people you know, I think you might recognise any number of coping strategies they have for dealing with stress.

What I do find strange is the way in which she draws attention to the incident, after all, there has been a substantial passage of time between the incident and the conviction, 18 years I believe you said. You would think that having established a way of life...partners, friends, children, jobs etc, she would want to continue with her 'identity' with as little disruption as possible, especially if her current situation is stable.
Mine is probably a far too simplistic notion to what must be viewed as a very individualistic response to a traumatic event. I am sure there are reactions that are common to us all, then there are those unique to a particular person.

I know from my own experience that I can identify with the thoughts and behaviour of people who have been through what I have, but I am sure I have some quite unique coping strategies. The short answer Saffron, is I simply do not know. Snoopy is in an unfortunately prviliged position to comment as she has the unenviable task of meeting victims (survivors ,is I think the PC terminology).

As for the thumbnail scenario you describe,..... all so common. In fact what research has been done into proven false allegations suggests that 33% of them are motivated by 'alibi' to account for regretted behaviour.

By the way I never meant to suggest in a previous post that women should not be
able to live their lives normally, to be able to wear what they prefer or drink what they like. The newspaper article stated a fact, drink is the rapists best friend, and if women universally knew that, there might be a greater awareness, that until we reach this state of utopia, there are men out there who may seek to exploit them.

[diana_holbourn]

Originally posted by Saffron@17th October 2004 - 09:27 PM
What about the cases where the alleged victim/survivor was NOT shouting "No No No", and was actually actively encouraging the sexual contact? What if they later decided (for whatever reason) that they had changed their minds?

If a woman was actively encouraging sex and then changed her mind afterwards, I would hope a good barrister would be able to get to the bottom of it without the man having to have the defence of honest belief in the alleged victim's consent. The fact that she'd been encouraging him would still discredit her evidence, unless he'd then become violent.

I agree with you that both men and women ought to behave more responsibly. I think the idea of a written consent form is a bit hyperbolic. But I don't see any harm in the onus being put on men to get verbal affirmation that
sex is wanted before engaging in it. Unfortunately, it may take a whole cultural shift to make men more restrained. But highlighting that they could be
making themselves more vulnerable to false accusations might help. I think part of sex education in schools ought to be the emotional impact that casual
sex can have, as well as the harmful physical effects, in order to try to make people behave more responsibly. If the articles I'm about to link to were on the syllabus it would help!:

Neglected Heart: The Emotional Dangers of Premature Sexual Involvement:
http://www.jlhs.nhusd.k12.ca.us/Classes/Li...lls/sex.html#nh

Failure Rates of Contraceptives:
http://www.youngwomenshealth.org/summarychart.html

Sexually Transmitted Diseases:
http://hcs.harvard.edu/~pcc/std.htm

Testimonies [of women who regret having had abortions]:
http://www.afterabortion.org/maintest.html

Post Abortion: Regrets of Women Who Had an Abortion:
http://www.gargaro.com/regrets.html

Fetal Psychology:
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/tul/psychtoday9809.html

Abortion Methods: Menstrual Extraction, Suction, Dialation & Curettage, Dialation & Evacuation, Saline Abortion (AbortionTV.com):
http://www.abortiontv.com/themanyways.htm

Resisting Pressure to Have Sex (People wouldn't have that problem nearly so much if promiscuity was much less common):
http://www.rape101.com/resisting_pre...o_have_sex.htm

The Seven Habits of Highly Defective Dating:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/...ing/pa0022.html

[Snoopyseed]

Originally posted by Ashley@18th October 2004 - 11:53 AM
Hello Saffron,



What I do find strange is the way in which she draws attention to the incident, after all, there has been a substantial passage of time between the incident and the conviction, 18 years I believe you said. You would think that having established a way of life...partners, friends, children, jobs etc, she would want to continue with her 'identity' with as little disruption as possible, especially if her current situation is stable.

Quoted post

It doesnt matter how much time has passed, with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, it is classic that it doesnt kick in until years later.Lots of survivors also suppress a lot of the trauma, to the point of not remembering specific bits, its only as the years roll on that flashbacks ect start and it all comes out.The thing about rape is that it doesnt ever go away, just gets easier to handle.Many survivors dont allow it out until later, if ever. It dosnt matter either about what changes in their life, or how far they run, (and ive done a lot of running) if it comes out later in life there is nothing stopping it, (as ive discovered) so the above scenario is perfectly 'normal' (hate using labels) for a survivor of rape. Luckily though with the right support and help (and for me a great hubby

) things get easier, and more copeable.
Snoopy

This post is just for any survivor wondering if the above scenario was 'normal' behaviour years later, despite 'moving on' with life.

[diana_holbourn]

I think I'd just better say that it was Raincloud whose husband was accused of committing the crime 18 years ago, not Saffron.

[Snoopyseed]

Originally posted by diana_holbourn@21st October 2004 - 11:20 PM
I think I'd just better say that it was Raincloud whose husband was accused of committing the crime 18 years ago, not Saffron.

Quoted post

Diana forgive me but i have no idea what your above post was reffering to? or have i missed a post somewhere?
Snoopy

[diana_holbourn]

Saffron asked if it would be normal for a victim to behave as her husband's accuser had, and as far as I can remember, both you and Ashley were saying that it could be, and yes, it could happen 18 years after the accusation, or something like that. But Saffron's husband's accusation was only a recent one, I think. It was Raincloud that said the incident with her husband was supposed to have happened a long time ago. I thought I'd better point it out in case she was upset because she thought people weren't listening.

[maria]

Originally posted by Snoopyseed@13th October 2004 - 02:11 PM
I just fail to see how anyone can be convicted without no evidence at all, in fact with cases where there is no eveidence they rarly get out of the police station and into court.The CPS just wouldnt take a risk of sending it to court unless thye know thye can secure a conviction, and to secure a conviction based on no evidence whatsoever, is just not right. With no evidence it should be easy to prove your husbands innocence by having alibis, ect? and therefor liable for an appeal?

Quoted post

hi again snoopy its taken a while 4 me to come back on the board and iv just read your posting
my son was in court by word of mouth he was accused and this girl waited 7 yrs 2 report him whats even worse we had the mother refuse for her daughter to have a medical of which my son insisted eventualy she was made to have one the mother wasn't happy of the out come ( proving this girl had never ever been touched forensic report) so the mother had another one done yes laughable she tried to ask the doctor to say she had been touched same came back in report never even had so much of a pencil inserted inside her but it still went to court i truely think you should go to a trial of someone that is innocent and watch how frightend they are and will take a plea bargain because there terrified of going to prison my son's so called barrister as we have since found out told shane to take a plea bargain because he had another case to do and his wife was pregnant in other words he couldn't be botherd but terrified my son in to taken this plea because he couldnt be botherd with the case well i'm afraid because we didn't realize this my son now has a conviction of which he had never ever been in trouble before and had just been excepted into the police force and once you have pleaded quilty to something you didn't do theres no going back appeals nothing another life ruined like iv said in previous threads you try and get a jury 2 beleive a young man against a 14 yr old girl no way are they going to beleive him this girl has had 4 differnt men in court but we wern't allowed to voice that she was to be a poor little protected girl with loads of support and sympathy and like his barrister said if she crys shanes has lost and will go to prison social services really helped her beleive me they told her excatley what to do altho she already knew she'd been there befor who would you beleive if you were on the jury? if you were in that situtaion ( a no win ) what would you do? iv a pretty good idea as for the statement that you wrote as above they wouldn't get to court well im sorry even with no evidence they do go to court and people who are totaly innocent don't stand a chance thats for sure

[Ashley]

Welcome back Maria.

It is not easy for someone to understand how a person can plead guilty to something they have not done, unless they are put in a position of being absolutely terrified of a potential outcome if they do otherwise. I pleaded not guilty because that is what I was but I have a great deal of sympathy for those, who out of terror, reluctantly accept Counsel's advice.

It is a fact that both Defence and Prosecuting Barristers are under pressure to speed up the legal process. Trials are very expensive, I believe about ?30K per day. It is a fact that they will try and peruade their clients to accept a plea to a lesser offence that is acceptable to the Crown and thereby avoid an expensive trial. They will also use the 'credit' scenario that will be given for a guilty plea.

If your defence is 'it never happened' and the juries only consideration is which party they believe, the trial is literally a lottery, a toss of a coin. The starting tariff for Rape in a contested trial with no aggravating features is between 7 and 9 years. If counsel tells his client that the Crown would be willing to accept a plea of Indecent Assault and the sentence will be 2-3 years, it is very easy to understand how an innocent person might enter a plea. Although in law a guilty a plea is not a bar to appeal, practically though it virtually rules the possibility out.

Snoopy quoted some figures from a Young Offenders Institution, well here are some of my own: In the establishment I was at there were 550 sex offenders, 144 were protesting their innocence. Now, not for one minute am I naive enough to believe that figure were truly innocent, quite a number were actually protesting their innocence 'in part'. For instance in a case that had involved multiple complainants, they were guilty of some, innocent of others. Actually truly innocent I would say was 2-3%, that is a very disturbing 12-18 people.

Many years ago one of our most distinguished Law Lords once said, ' Better that 10 guilty men go free rather than have a single innocent man convicted'' . More a statement on the the integrity that the legal system should maintain. Now it is a case of, 'so what if a few innocent people go to jail' in the drive to secure more convictions'

[Saffron]

Originally posted by diana_holbourn@23rd October 2004 - 12:49 PM
Saffron asked if it would be normal for a victim to behave as her husband's accuser had, and as far as I can remember, both you and Ashley were saying that it could be, and yes, it could happen 18 years after the accusation, or something like that. But Saffron's husband's accusation was only a recent one, I think. It was Raincloud that said the incident with her husband was supposed to have happened a long time ago. I thought I'd better point it out in case she was upset because she thought people weren't listening.

Quoted post

Diana is right, my husband's accusation and wrongful conviction is a recent one (within the last 18 months). It did go to trial, and he is now serving a prison sentence. And all on one person's word.

[maria]

hi ashley thanks for the welcome back
this is such a true statement that you have wrote ashley
Now it is a case of, 'so what if a few innocent people go to jail' in the drive to secure more convictions' i couldn't have put that better myself .... its a case of sods law tho isn't it like i have said on a previous thread i could go out one night have a few drinks and just accuse someone so easy isn't it ( i wouldn't even dream of doing it ) but its such an easy accusation to make and even harder to prove one's innocents but it happens always has always will that is why im so adament that they take away the money pot even if its to watch the statistics drop because im 100 per cent sure that it would i also do think people that have been raped should get a payout but that still doesn't compensate for what they have gone thru i don't think any amount of money can compensate but like snoopy says it does help (ie) loss of earnings etc ... but these so called people that falsley accuse and are doing it for other reasons just sickens me to the bone and thats why i will argue till im blue in the face about this money pot its just to easy for them the thing that accused my son has done it 4 times before and thats what we no off wealthy young lady she will be and 4 lifes ruined but at the end of the day what goes round comes round she has to live with that as she grows up .... i only hope im around if it happens to her husband child nephew etc and lets see the boot on the other foot i no that sounds awful and cruel and two wrongs don't make a right but with going through bowel cancer and my son going through the trial was and still is a living nightmare all because of greed ......