Options
Rape Conviction Stats Won't Improve Until Women 'Stop Getting So Drunk', Says Judge
Regis Magnae
Posts: 6,810 Forum Member
✭
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/08/26/rape-conviction-mary-jane-mowat_n_5715531.html?utm_hp_ref=uk
The following bit I found odd:
Legally I thought only males could rape as the crime of rape requires a penis to commit.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/1
A top female judge has sparked a furious row after claiming conviction rates for rape in Britain won't improve until "women stop getting so drunk."
Judge Mary Jane Mowat, 66, said she knew she would be criticised for her remarks by adding: "I'm probably going to be pilloried for saying so."
She said juries would always struggle to believe a victim who had been drunk at the time when it was "one person's word against another."
“It is an inevitable fact of it being one person’s word against another, and the burden of proof being that you have to be sure before you convict," she told local paper The Oxford Mail in an interview to mark her retirement after 18 years as a circuit judge.
The following bit I found odd:
"Rape convictions will improve when those who perpetrate it, who are disproportionately male stop raping and when society stops blaming women for somehow being complicit in this act of violence," Oxford Sexual Abuse and Rape Crisis Centre service manager Natalie Brook said.
Legally I thought only males could rape as the crime of rape requires a penis to commit.
Rape
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/1
0
Comments
I think most rape charities are lobbying for changes in the definition of rape so that penetration with objects and any kind of forced intercourse count as rape. And they kind of talk as if it's already happened.
Because being drunk means that there can be reasonable doubt about the accuracy of the victim's account.
Why? Such an act it not rape, it is an assault by penetration. The sentencing is the same, a maximum of life imprisonment.
Because it's functionally identical.
I thought you'd have been all in favour of something that levelled the gender playing field on this.
Because presumably the topic on which the Judge was speaking, was women and rape.
Because one is rape and one is not. The historic definition of rape requires a penis, that's just what it means. The fact that the two are functionally identical is acknowledged by them having almost the exact same sentencing. Theft and Fraud too are functionally identical, but they are still different offences.
She does sound like an utter loon, mind you. Quotes from further down:
"Mrs Mowat made headlines in 2011 when she gave a teacher a suspended prison sentence for possessing indecent images of children and told him: "I don’t criticise you for being a teacher who’s attracted to children."
"Many teachers are but they keep their urges under control both when it comes to children and when it comes to images of children," she added.
Words often have a different, more specific meaning in law than they do in real life. Sometimes the laws change to be more in line with how the words are generally used.
If it were to be made that a person under the influence could not give consent the courts would be full .
And if they were both drunk then who gets charged with rape/sexual assault?
Her choice of words is somewhat questionable though. Also how drunk is too drunk to give consent? Maybe the right way is to not point at those drinking, but educate more about where the lines are of consent to jurors (or in schools, to potential future jurors).
what the judge is saying is that in a case where the persons have had a good skinfull it becomes harder to prove to a reasonable level of doubt that consent was given which may mean that she's probably had to let off some people who are questionable and if those women were a few sheets less to the wind would of secured a conviction as their testimoney would of been considered more solid
Could possibly be both
gets a bit messy when both had had a few as how do you determine sober/drunk? 3 pints and 2 jagermesiters could send one person to the a&e and another one wouldn't bat an eyelid
Part of me wants to say that possibly doing the act (most likely the man) proves consent on his part. Hmm that doesn't sound right, but along the same lines that someone underage and therefore cannot give consent legally can still be guilty of rape.
You can arouse a man with a gun to his head so saying that he gave consent by default is wrong and what happens if he falls asleep with a stonk and the woman decides to use it and then he wakes up to find himself being raped but not raped as women can't rape a man but its the same thing just labelled a bit nicer?
Who are you quoting?
Anyhow she is correct. Although her phrasing is the worst mess of nonsense I've ever heard; it sounds like she is blaming women and also that the 'improved' statistics would be lower, when in fact they would be higher and more cases would result in convictions.
IMO, there would be the same amount of rape, but more women would be believed and not blamed or have doubt thrown into their case, which ends in the 'not guilty' verdict.
Having a gun to your head clearly shows one of you is being made to do it against your will. Having sex with someone asleep, same thing, no consent is obvious in the case of one party.
The question was "what if both people are drunk?" implying neither is able to give consent.
I suppose its rape both ways and both get a life sentence as if you can't prove one way then you can't prove the other