Rape : Semantics, Definitions and Culture

[ProjectEuropa]

I've been waiting for the tag team to target me. LOL. I'm undecided if you and ProjectEuropa are just like minded and enjoy ganging up on others or if you're the same guy posting under 2 different names.

I still stand on my original thought that saying if a literal word doesn't exist in another culture then the concept and practice of it doesn't exist there either is at best silly.

Wooh! I've just got back from a trip to the US and it seems I am a part of a controversy. All I can say is that I am not Donatien and I am not aware of any ganging up on anyone.

Without wanting to put oil on the fire, I stand by my assertion that crimes are culturally defined and how a criminal act is defined and labelled can make profound differences in the perception of the same act from one culture to another. Almost to the point of the same act being almost unrecognizeable between cultures. Rape is a provocative crime to use as an example but rape was part of the discussion and like any other crime rape still has to be defined for us to recognise it.

There is a culture that straddles NW China and Mongolia where what we in the west would call abduction and rape is how a male finds a female partner. From what I understand the act is not ritualistic but very real and the culture does not perceive the act as abduction and rape.

Enough said.

[slavelucy]

As you can all see, i've split this discussion off from the thread in which it started. i think it's a fascinating discussion with some interesting intellectual points being made, but one that i believe is best served in it's own thread.

Please feel free to contribute further to the discussion (peacefully!).

sl

[ProjectEuropa]

Please feel free to contribute further to the discussion (peacefully!).

sl

Let me be a little controversial. (so I don't have to keep repeating myself I am talking about the British experience but I'm sure there are points applicable to other parts of the world.) To say 'rape is rape' is missing the point and the reason why the conviction rate is so low. Rape is one of the few crimes where a man can lose up to seven and maybe more years of his life by being convicted of a charge with no supporting material evidence or any independent witnesses. That being said, only fools would say rape has never been committed where there is no material evidence or independent witnesses but juries are often unwilling to convict without evidence though sometimes they do.

The assumed wisdom in the Criminal Justice System is that rape is not a sexual act but is about power. I don't buy this blanket explanation, it smacks too much of gender politics and seems devoid of any worthwhile analysis to me. I have never had any dealings with victims of rape but I have had dealings and discussions with many rapists while working in the Probabtion Service. There always seemed to me to be a very broad range of motivations for the crime as there were a broad range of perpetrators with their own broad range of perceptions.

I'm simplfying here which is always dangerous in such a controversial area but no one is going to read a thesis. On one side of the spectrum there is the psychopatic rapist who will happily discuss his crime as though he had just took his victim for a nice romantic walk in the park. Then there are rapists who are not unlike most murderers, commit the crime against one specific person and will probably never commit the crime again (that is not to diminish the seriousness of their crime). Their victim is a specific woman where circumstance and events spiraled to a point where the crime was committed. I think many latin countries would recognise this as a crime of passion, temporary madness, crime of passion is often recognised in murder cases and as such this would be taken into account during conviction. In Britain it is not recognised though the judge has some movement in sentencing. The accused is either guilty or not guilty of rape and therefore it is not in the accused's interest to add to the understanding of why the act of rape took place, the accused's only interest is to say rape never took place! So for the lawyer of the accused, if there is no material evidence or independent witnesses, has only the character and reputation of the woman to work with as a defence, which generally means cast doubt on her character and reputation. Most rapists in this category once convicted admit to their crime but like most of us who have done wrong, rationalise away their guilt. Then there is the rapist at the opposite end of the spectrum to the psychopathic rapists. They honestly seem bewildered as to how they have been convicted of rape. Some say their behaviour has been misconstrued and some say they are victims of vindictive accusations. We know vindictive accusations take place as in recent years there has been two women convicted of perjury for making false accusations which has caused men to be imprisoned. These cases were well publicised because there was supporting and damning material evidence against the women. Both were imprisoned but much to the anger of most men who felt the women should have got the same prison terms as the men got who they falsely accused, the women got light sentences (a year imprisonment I think).

No means no! This came up in a trial in Britain a few years ago. A young woman invited a young man she had been on a date with to sleep in her bed. They were both naked and took part in heavy petting and then full intercourse. Later she went around saying she was raped. The case eventually ended up in court. The young woman said she was happy to do everything but said 'no' to penetration. The young man said the young woman said 'no' every step along the way to full penetration and when he accepted 'no as no' she made it obvious she didn't mean 'no'. The young woman said that this was the case, she had said 'no' every step of the way and she said 'no' to full penetration but she was too scared to be too forceful in saying 'no' to full penetration. The young man said her behaviour showed no change from her saying 'no' to heavy petting and then encouraging him when he accepted 'no as no' to her saying no to pentration.
The case was fought around 'consent'. The young man was found innocent. The judge said consent has to be accompanied by moral honesty and integrity in order for it not to be a vacuous defence (I'm paraphrasing). The case led to a lot of discussion as to what is rape and what is a bad sexual experience. Women seemed to be divided on this case, some saying the young woman didn't experience rape but experienced a bad sexual experience and some saying 'no means no' and therefore she was raped.

I hope you are not hoping for an answer or a conclusion because I don't have one. I am just pointing out problems because of a particular crime, rape, being so loosely defined rather than it being several crimes more tightly defined such as murder is.

Is rape rape or is rape really several crimes?

[Donatien]

No means no! ... The young woman said she was happy to do everything but said 'no' to penetration. The young man said the young woman said 'no' every step along the way to full penetration and when he accepted 'no as no' she made it obvious she didn't mean 'no'. The young woman said that this was the case, she had said 'no' every step of the way and she said 'no' to full penetration but she was too scared to be too forceful in saying 'no' to full penetration. The young man said her behaviour showed no change from her saying 'no' to heavy petting and then encouraging him when he accepted 'no as no' to her saying no to pentration.
The case was fought around 'consent'. The young man was found innocent. The judge said consent has to be accompanied by moral honesty and integrity in order for it not to be a vacuous defence (I'm paraphrasing). The case led to a lot of discussion as to what is rape and what is a bad sexual experience. Women seemed to be divided on this case, some saying the young woman didn't experience rape but experienced a bad sexual experience and some saying 'no means no' and therefore she was raped.
Is rape rape or is rape really several crimes?

I still feel some what bewildered and sick at heart, that what I thought was an effort to lighten the tone of a discussion, could be so misconstrued from what I thought I was communicating; but in that I was naïve. I should have known better, and it is partly anger at my own stupidity, that has prevented me from putting all this behind me yet.

After all one of my favourite quotes is
“The only measure of the meaning of a communication is the reponse.”
In other words what ever one thought one had transmitted, the only measure of what has in fact been communicated is the response.

Now it so happens that this is central, to understanding what happened in the case that Project europa has just described.
It was however his reference to the low conviction rate in the UK that prompted me to make this post.

A report has just been published in th UK which concludes that, only 5.6% of reported rape cases end in the rapist being convicted in court. This represents a record low, and staggering when one reflects in 1977 the rate of conviction was 32%.

This report compiled by researchers at the London Metro politan University child and women abuse unit, concludes that part of the reason is that both the police and prosecuters overestimate the scale of false allegations made by victims; and that this “ culture of scepticism”, in turn leads to poor communication and loss of trust between those who complain and the police.
The report says that the most recent data from the British Crime Survey suggests that as many as one in twenty of adult women have suffered at least one incident of rape since they were 16 and there may be as many as 47,000 such attacks every year. Women are most likely to be raped by men they know and 50% involve repeated assaults by the same man: It is most likely to take place at home, with only 13% happening in a public place.
The Home Office research shows that of 11,766 allegations of rape made in 2002, only 655 resulted in convictions, and that includes those that were overturned on appeal. In only 259 cases did the rapist plead guilty at trial. The 2002 conviction rate - which is lower for rape than any other violent crime - fell from 6% in 2001. "This year on year increase in,attrition represents a justice gap that the government has pledged to address," says the study. The researchers tracked 3,500 rape cases through the courts and interviewed 228 rape victims.

While they conclude there was some evidence of poor investigation and lack of understanding of the law, the main problem was the culture of scepticism among both the police and prosecutors.

They say that rape is unique because in no other crimes were victims subject to such scrutiny in court or was the defendant so likely to claim the victim had consented to the attack. Between half and two-thirds of all cases are dropped before they come to court.

The researchers suggest that more women police officers and crown prosecutors could help create a "culture of belief, support and respect" as well as a growing network of sexual assault referral centres and rape crisis centres. The development of "courtroom advocacy that does justice to the complainant's,account" would also help.

The Home Office researchers also say that there needs to be an increased recognition of the significance of alcohol in rape and sexual assault, in*cluding further work on the extent to which men target unknown women who are drinking and the strategies they use to make contact.


A Gap Or a Chasm?Attrition in Reported Rape Cases, Honu Office research study 293
www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ rds/pdfs05/hors293.pdf

[ProjectEuropa]

A report has just been published in th UK which concludes that, only 5.6% of reported rape cases end in the rapist being convicted in court. This represents a record low, and staggering when one reflects in 1977 the rate of conviction was 32%.

I remember reading a similar report some years ago when I was in the Probation Service but I am having trouble finding it. One of its conclusions was that one of the reasons rape convictions are so low is that rape is a blanket charge. That if murder had a similar blanket charge then we would see convictions of murder drop significantly. However the charge of murder or killing is divided into several categories which are clearly defined. Of course there are legal arguments over definitions but if you kill someone the Crown Prosecution Service does not have to bring a charge of murder, it has several optional charges it could choose from and so if the CPS feels there is not enough evidence to bring the most severe charge it can use a lesser charge. The judge then has a degree of choice as to the sentence imposed so if the Judge decides the crime is towards the most serious end of the charge s/he can impose the heaviest sentence for the conviction. It is this that prompts me to ask the question, is rape rape or is rape a group of crimes? I don't have the wisdom of Solomon, I'm just posing the question.

Donatien, the original misunderstanding was because value judgements were made in what was basically an intellectual discussion. We can all impose our own values. GWB's talked about freedom and democracy on his visit to Europe and though I was in the US I heard the cries from Europe 'Whose freedom and whose democracy?' Definitions might seem long winded and beside the point when something appears to be so obvious but such lack of clarity has started wars before now. I wouldn't worry about anything. I think most people appreciate honest opinions and good intentions. It's impossible to have a meaningful discussion and not have some disagreement.

[ProjectEuropa]

While they conclude there was some evidence of poor investigation and lack of understanding of the law, the main problem was the culture of scepticism among both the police and prosecutors.

The problem for the police and prosecutors is that despite the word 'Justice' featuring so prominantly in the term 'Criminal and Justice System' the criminal justice system is not about justice but about the law. The law has to deal with facts and not opinions. An accused is found guilty on the facts of the evidence and not on the belief as to whether a crime has been committed or not. Rape, I believe I am right in saying, is one of the few crimes where a crime can take place without there being any evidence ie. she denies consent, he says she consented. The material evidence other than significant violence is neutral. The courts don't have the wisdom of Solomon. This has led to questions as to whether the court system is the right way to deal with rape. The question then arises of course, is how do you deal with rape? Certainly the court system is letting women down but there have also been gross miscarriages of justice for men too, though not as significant in numbers as the injustice to women. However, every individual wronged, is a personal trauma experienced.

The question still remains, is the blanket charge of rape one of the reasons why there are so few convictions? I know this question is emotive but as I pointed out before, we do not have a blanket charge for killing by calling all killings murder and to do so would reduce convictions of murder.

I just ask, I am not advocating.

[BDSM_Tourguide]

The question still remains, is the blanket charge of rape one of the reasons why there are so few convictions? I know this question is emotive but as I pointed out before, we do not have a blanket charge for killing by calling all killings murder and to do so would reduce convictions of murder.

Rape is not, in fact, a blanket charge. There are many, many variations of sex crimes. Everything from aggravated sexual assault to indecency with a minor. Take your pick. "Rape" is just a term used to describe one or more forms of sexual battery on an unwilling partner.

And to answer your question: No. The "blanket charge" has no bearing on why there are so few rape convictions. Two-thirds of all rapes and sexual assaults go unreported. Out of the third that do get reported, about two-thirds of the victims are afraid to face their accusers in court, and wind up never making a court appearance. So when you take all of that into consideration, only about one in every nine rape cases is ever prosecuted at all. Out of the ones that do make it to trial, several lack the necessary physical evidence to overcome reasonable doubt. DNA/semen evidence is usually only viable for a short amount of time in a living body. So when a victim reports the crime a month after it has occured, and all the bruises have healed, the DNA is gone, and all that's left are the emotional wounds, then the case at that point is essentially unprosecutable.

You want to know why there are so few convictions for sexual assault in America? Because society perceives it as "wrong" to be raped. We have all ben taught from an ealry age not to let strangers touch our bodies inappropriately. We have also been taught that we must be emotionally "strong." So when it does happen, we're afraid to report it because we fear to look weak, or we fear that we have somehow "failed" ourselves or our parents, children, partners, etc. What's worse, is that something to the tune of 75% of all sexual assaults that occur are perpetrated by people we know. So now not only have we failed and made ourselves weak, but our trust has also been violated. Partner all that with the sheer emotional fear of actually having to one day sit in a witness box in front of a judge and jury and describe in detail how the man sitting at the table across from you violated you, and to relive the incident again and again as the DA coaches you and the trial takes place, and you have your answer in an ugly little package.

You ask why rape is so hard to prosecute. I ask: Why have we made it so hard for the victims to come forward in the first place?

[ProjectEuropa]

Rape is not, in fact, a blanket charge. There are many, many variations of sex crimes. Everything from aggravated sexual assault to indecency with a minor. Take your pick. "Rape" is just a term used to describe one or more forms of sexual battery on an unwilling partner.

'Rape' is a charge in the British Justice System and I made clear I was discussing the British justice system in the beginning. I am well aware there are other sex crimes. Child abuse for instance does not require to go to court for intervention by the authorities, the authorities only require belief in abuse to intervene and place a child protection order. To convict a child abuser then that is another matter, as once again hard evidence is required.

And to answer your question: No. The "blanket charge" has no bearing on why there are so few rape convictions. Two-thirds of all rapes and sexual assaults go unreported.

It might be believed two-thirds of all rapes and assaults go unreported but it is not a fact. What I have read in several government reports, is a significant amount is believed to go unreported with the percent changing significantly from one report to another and depending on which organisation has compiled the report. It was lawyers who first aired the worry that 'rape' as a blanket charge was the reason for many failed convictions, not I, I thought I made that clear, if I didn't I'm sorry.

Out of the third that do get reported, about two-thirds of the victims are afraid to face their accusers in court, and wind up never making a court appearance.

Which is my point! And has led to certain lawyers questioning as to whether the criminal court system is the best place to deal with a significant amount of rape charges that lack the solid evidence required in a court of law.

DNA/semen evidence is usually only viable for a short amount of time in a living body. So when a victim reports the crime a month after it has occured, and all the bruises have healed, the DNA is gone, and all that's left are the emotional wounds, then the case at that point is essentially unprosecutable.

DNA is irrelevent when there is no significant evidence of an assault as a case usually relies on consent. I have sat through several trials where the central question was consent and there being no other evidence. All the judge can do in his/her summoning up, is point to the poverty of hard evidence and ask the jury who they believe to be telling the truth, the accused or the accuser. I have never sat on a jury but it is obviously a dilemma for those that do. Call a woman a liar and deny her justice or take away a man's freedom for seven or more years. I doubt statistics are going through their minds but the thankless task before them of being asked to have the wisdom of Solomon.

You ask why rape is so hard to prosecute. I ask: Why have we made it so hard for the victims to come forward in the first place?

Which I thought was one of the points of what I wrote. The law is a blunt instrument and not a magic bullet. The problem the Justice system poses is that an accused has as much right to defend themselves as the accuser has of demanding justice. The British justice system has been here before with Irish terrorism. If he looks like an Irish Republican and speaks like an Irish Republican, then he is an Irish Republican terrorist. How wrong that was and how so many innocent people where convicted on false accusations and the belief that if you look like you are capable of the crime then you commited the crime.

Making stock value judgements doesn't move the argument forward, unless you are advocating a change in the justice system so the accused has no right of defence. The problem is how to keep the accused's right to defence while overcoming the deficiencies in the legal system that allows so many guilty people to walk free. The problem the legal system has, is that it might statistically know many guilty people walk free but it can't differentiate between those that ARE guilty and those (probably few) that aren't. I ask you. If you was accused of rape, would you deny yourself the right of defence in order to make the statistics more acceptable or would you prefer a more rational approach to the problem that keeps you right of defence intact?

I've just added to this. That last paragraph might sound angry and provocative. It's not meant to be and I hope you don't take it as such. I suppose this can be interpreted as something of an exercise in semantics and belittles the subject it claims to be about. I don't think so, it's about squaring the circle. If Joe public doesn't have these arguments then the politicians will have them for us and base their judgments on how many votes they can get. As to whether someone has a right of defence or not, take away defence for one crime and it's not that difficult to take away defence in another but that I guess is for a different place and time.

[ProjectEuropa]

Rape is not, in fact, a blanket charge. There are many, many variations of sex crimes. you have your answer in an ugly little package.

Actually I was being vague here. When I said rape is a blanket charge I should have clarified what I meant. I meant the rape of a woman whether by a violent attack, which is usually accompanied by irrefutable evidence, to date rape, which courts have difficulty with because of lack of evidence, is covered by one charge. It is this that has had lawyers questioning whether there needs to be tighter definitions so as to secure more convictions.

you have your answer in an ugly little package.
[/COLOR][/FONT]

Insults do not make your gut reaction right and my arguments wrong. This was not about rape being right or wrong or at least I was not aware of this thread being about rape being right or wrong. On a site that serves up rape and snuff fantasies, surely there has to be some room for intellectual discussion on the subjects?