regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (05/28/85)
>Oh come on now. The fellow made a valid point. If I'm particularly >into S&M, and it's *clear* to both myself and my lover that I *want* >him to tie me up and do dastardly things to me with a fork, he has not >raped me by doing so. If, on the other hand, he does *exactly the same >things* to me against my will, I'm gonna want his ass *busted*. His >actions are the same in both cases, but one is rape and one is not. >That's why rape is such a tough problem legally. The actions of the >accused are, in most cases, not enough to prove rape. The wishes of >the victim at the time is often all that can distinguish between rape >and...well, you know. And that's why judges have tried saying that >because she was wearing clothes that "clearly" demonstrated her desire >to have sex, she must have wanted it and therefore it wasn't rape. >They need some way of determining whether or not it was against her >will. Clothes are a particularly lousy factor to consider, but they do >need *something*. It is likely that if a weapon was used then it was >against her will. But if I remember correctly, weapons are not >involved in most rapes. So the fellow (sorry, I forget who) was >correct in pointing out that it's a tough charge to prove. Maybe every right-thinking man should get a signed statement of consent before "the act". :-) And if some guy tried to force her at gunpoint to sign, she could always sign in a backhand scrawl, which she could use as proof later that she signed under duress. Actually, there aren't a whole lot of rape accusations that hinge on anything so hard to prove as "state of mind". That is often offered as a defense, but the cases that go to court are usually pretty clear. Attorneys don't like to take cases in that are utterly ambiguous -- and hearings prior to the trial sort the wheat from the chaff. Therefore, it is important to consider that charges of "asking for it" are levelled after the crime of rape has (allegedly) been committed. And it is also important to consider that the man may have been as provocatively dressed as the woman (or may have said as many provocative things as the woman in the course of their time spent together {thinking more of date-rape here}), but who was attacked? "No" is "no", at any stage of the game. And if a woman claims she said "no", that's a pretty good indication, even after the fact, that she meant "no". (before you flame me for that one, I admit there are abuses to the charge of rape. I ask you if that's what we are really talking about.)
beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) (05/31/85)
From: regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard), Message-ID: <446@ttidcc.UUCP>: >(before you flame me for that one, I admit there are abuses to the charge >of rape. I ask you if that's what we are really talking about.) No. >Actually, there aren't a whole lot of rape accusations that hinge on anything >so hard to prove as "state of mind". That is often offered as a defense, >but the cases that go to court are usually pretty clear. Attorneys don't --------------- >like to take cases in that are utterly ambiguous -- and hearings prior to ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >the trial sort the wheat from the chaff. --------------------------------------- *That's* what we're talking about. How many rapes are reported, how many rapist are *known* yet are never even brought to trial, let alone convicted, because of how difficult it is to *prove* that it was against her will? I don't know for sure, but I'd be willing to bet it's a *lot*. -- --JB Life is just a bowl.
edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (06/01/85)
> From: regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard), Message-ID: <446@ttidcc.UUCP>: > >Actually, there aren't a whole lot of rape accusations that hinge on anything > >so hard to prove as "state of mind". That is often offered as a defense, > >but the cases that go to court are usually pretty clear. Attorneys don't > --------------- > >like to take cases in that are utterly ambiguous -- and hearings prior to > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >the trial sort the wheat from the chaff. > --------------------------------------- > > *That's* what we're talking about. How many rapes are reported, how many > rapist are *known* yet are never even brought to trial, let alone convicted, > because of how difficult it is to *prove* that it was against her will? I > don't know for sure, but I'd be willing to bet it's a *lot*. > --JB Life is just a bowl. And why is it so difficult? Because there are some myths about sex in our society that tend to make it difficult. A short while back there was a comparison of robbery with rape. The comment was made that rape is much harder to prove than robbery. I think this belief is a perfect illustration of this myth-based attitude. I give people money all the time. Often it is in exchange for goods or services; sometimes it is a loan or a gift. Yet if I'm robbed, no one is likely to challenge my claim that I did *not* consent to give away my money. Even if there is no weapon involved! Yet a charge of robbery (especially unarmed robbery) is based simply on ``a state of mind''! Thus I must assume that there is an attitude--shared even by some otherwise clear-headed individuals on this net--that a woman is far more likely to bring a false charge of rape than a false charge of robbery. Only I doubt these clear-headed folks would put it in those terms. And what are these ``myths'' I talk about? I'll take a stab at defining one: this is the myth that a level of aggression approaching force is somehow a ``natural'' part of male sexual expression. *This* is certainly a major reason why society has such a problem deciding is a sexual act is concensual or forced; by this definition (which I vehemently disagree with) it may well become hard to determine whether a woman ``consented'' to an act where she is expected to be passive and overcome by male aggression even when it is ``normal''. I've had to deal with sales people who certainly are what I'd call aggressive concerning getting my money, but I doubt I'd have nearly as much of a problem proving robbery if one of them decided just to *grab* the money and leave, as a woman would have proving a charge of date rape, for example. There is no myth regarding the acts of sales people like there is regarding the acts of the ``male animal''... -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall
geoff@burl.UUCP (geoff) (06/07/85)
In article <2515@randvax.UUCP> edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) writes: > >A short while back there was a comparison of robbery with rape. The >comment was made that rape is much harder to prove than robbery. I >think this belief is a perfect illustration of this myth-based attitude. > > >I've had to deal with sales people who certainly are what I'd call >aggressive concerning getting my money, but I doubt I'd have nearly as >much of a problem proving robbery if one of them decided just to >*grab* the money and leave, as a woman would have proving a charge of >date rape, for example. There is no myth regarding the acts of >sales people like there is regarding the acts of the ``male animal''... > > -Ed Hall > decvax!randvax!edhall (yeah, bunches of stuff was deleted, but I trust I kept enough to avoid taking Ed's comments out of context) One major (maybe THE major) problem with proving rape is that there are very often NO WITNESSES. If I go to the police and say that you robbed me and had no bruises to show and no witnesses that you robbed me, they would say 'sorry 'bout that, bub'. If a woman was just threatened but not beaten (i.e., no bruises) and raped, she would also have a very hard time proving rape. In spite of this I do NOT believe in taking her word for it. If you don't have some good evidence, you don't have a case. If you were pissed at me for some reason, I wouldn't want you to be able to go to the police and say I robbed you, and have that be sufficient evidence to send me away for a few years. I am sorry if it seems I am siding with the rapist rather than the victim; I certainly don't feel that way. The potential for abuse of one person's word against another is just too great. 'Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely' geoff sherwood
cja@lzwi.UUCP (C.E.JACKSON) (06/07/85)
In article <446@ttidcc.UUCP>, regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) writes: > And if a woman claims she said "no", that's a pretty > good indication, even after the fact, that she meant "no". > > (before you flame me for that one, I admit there are abuses to the charge > of rape. I ask you if that's what we are really talking about.) According to NPR, the incidence of false reporting of rape is the same as that for other crimes--robbery, kidnapping, whatever. That statistic, I believe, was .2%, although I wouldn't swear to it. At any rate, the important thing is that false reporting of rapes is NO MORE of a problem than it is with other crimes & therefore the rape victim's state of mind should not be of more concern to the jury than the robbery victim's state of mind. C. E. Jackson ...ihnp4!lznv!cja (for reasons too silly to explain,the address above [lzwi] is incorrect--don't use it)
sed408@ihlpg.UUCP (s. dugan) (06/07/85)
> In article <2515@randvax.UUCP> edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) writes: > > > >A short while back there was a comparison of robbery with rape. The > >comment was made that rape is much harder to prove than robbery. I > >think this belief is a perfect illustration of this myth-based attitude. > > > > > >I've had to deal with sales people who certainly are what I'd call > >aggressive concerning getting my money, but I doubt I'd have nearly as > >much of a problem proving robbery if one of them decided just to > >*grab* the money and leave, as a woman would have proving a charge of > >date rape, for example. There is no myth regarding the acts of > >sales people like there is regarding the acts of the ``male animal''... > > > > -Ed Hall > > decvax!randvax!edhall > > (yeah, bunches of stuff was deleted, but I trust I kept enough to > avoid taking Ed's comments out of context) > > One major (maybe THE major) problem with proving rape is that there are > very often NO WITNESSES. If I go to the police and say that you robbed > me and had no bruises to show and no witnesses that you robbed me, they > would say 'sorry 'bout that, bub'. If a woman was just threatened but > not beaten (i.e., no bruises) and raped, she would also have a very hard time > proving rape. In spite of this I do NOT believe in taking her word for > it. If you don't have some good evidence, you don't have a case. If > you were pissed at me for some reason, I wouldn't want you to be able to > go to the police and say I robbed you, and have that be sufficient > evidence to send me away for a few years. I am sorry if it seems I am > siding with the rapist rather than the victim; I certainly don't feel > that way. The potential for abuse of one person's word against another > is just too great. > > 'Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely' > > geoff sherwood I think you've made a really good point here. Several people have made similar comments. I think most of us agree on the following points: 1) Rape is repulsive 2) Rape shouldn't happen to anyone 3) Although I SHOULD be able to walk anywhere anytime, it's just plain stupid to be certain places at certain times. 4) It's DAMN hard to prove rape What's to be done? I don't think we're going to change the fact that there are crazy, sick people out there. Maybe we can't change the way people are now, but what about the next generation? I am assuming that most of us on the net are either currently parents or will be within the next few years. Why not concentrate on teaching the next generation respect and caraing for others? I think the biggest gift I can give society is a conscientious, caring person (my daughter). I hope to instil in her a love of humanity. What more can I do? Sarah E. Dugan (a friend of Dr. Bob and Bill W.) "One Day At A Time" -- Sarah E. Dugan (a friend of Dr. Bob and Bill W.) "One Day At A Time"
todd@SCINEWS.UUCP (Todd Jones) (06/12/85)
> In article <446@ttidcc.UUCP>, regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) writes: > > And if a woman claims she said "no", that's a pretty > > good indication, even after the fact, that she meant "no". > > > > (before you flame me for that one, I admit there are abuses to the charge > > of rape. I ask you if that's what we are really talking about.) > > According to NPR, the incidence of false reporting of rape is > the same as that for other crimes--robbery, kidnapping, > whatever. That statistic, I believe, was .2%, although I > wouldn't swear to it. At any rate, the important thing is that > false reporting of rapes is NO MORE of a problem than it is > with other crimes & therefore the rape victim's state of mind > should not be of more concern to the jury than the robbery > victim's state of mind. Not to be a nuisance or anything, but how does anyone know what the incidence of false reporting of any crime, especially rape, is? To judge it on the basis of convictions vs. accusations would surely boost the .2% into the double figure zone (all crimes, including rape). There is a clearer motive for an individual to falsely accuse another individual of rape than there is in the case of robbery or kidnapping. This is one of the reasons that rape is so controversial. I favor swift and sure punishment for all rapists, but I realize that rape accusations can be, and have been, used against individuals to have them unjustly incarcerated. I believe that the American judicial system is perhaps too sceptical toward rape accusers' testimony and I believe the instances of fabricated rape charges are greatly outnumbered by the instances of justifiable rape charges, but I'm not convinced that the ratio is 2 to 1000. The preceding opinions are, in all likelihood, those of Todd Jones. However, these opinions will, in all certainty, bear scant resemblance to the opinions of SCI Systems, Inc., Mr. Jones' employer. ||||| || || [ O-O ] Todd Jones \ ^ / {decvax,akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd | _ | |___| FLAME ME IF YOU DARE!