Rape is obviously an issue we've half-beaten to death on here, but this time around I would like to discuss the huge disparity in the accounts of how the rape victim and the accused rapist are treated by the police and judicial systems.
Some men's rights advocates say that (some?) women are able to press false charges, put on an act, and ruin a man's life for a trivial or petty reason. Some feminists, on the other hand, maintain that (most?) victims are "revictimized" by the police/judicial systems.
There must be some truth to both sides of the story. This question is an honest attempt at finding out how much stock can be placed in each claim.
With that noted, my question is: "How are those who report rape and those who are accused of rape treated by the police and the court system?"
Feel free to note how regional or any other differences play a role (if you find any evidence supporting such a claim). I'm particularly looking for useful sources if you can find any.
2007-07-20 21:13:36 · 10 answers · asked by Robinson0120 4 in Social Science ➔ Gender Studies
The very idea of balance seems ridiculous in the situation. The concept should be both rights of the accused and women's rights and not "either or." The matter of women's records was treated in the courts an issue of balance. They debated how to balance those interests by taking something away from the accused. We said the accused has a right to full answer and defence. We said the accused never had a right to bigotry. They certainly never had a right to cloud a case with biased notions and stereotypes. The accused had a right to see what evidence the state has gathered against him and the women have a right to not be sacrificed for the sake of either side of the case. Women have the right to be treated as full human beings all the way through the trial with right to security and privacy and equality.
It is not news to feminists that more than women suffer systemic discrimination. Obviously the poor and people of colour suffer a hierarchy as deeply destructive and deeply imbedded in our social policies. We knew that of the men who commit rape, those who are poor or Aboriginal are more likely to be investigated, arrested, tried, convicted, and jailed. We knew that of the women in the court room, while all would suffer discrimination, even the judge, that most ill treated would be the woman of colour or Aboriginal women who dared to be a complainant.
2007-07-21 04:53:07 · answer #1 · answered by Deirdre O 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋
Raped women were far less fortunate in ancient societies. Ever heard of the code of Hamurabbi? Well, his code said that a raped married woman was said to have commited adultery. She and the rapist would be bound and thrown into a river. It was up to the husband whether or not to rescue her.
Deuteronomy is a book in the Bible with Hebrew law in it. It says that if an unmarried virgin is raped the man must pay her father 50 shekels and marry her.
In England a "common law" was developed in the 12th and 13th centuries. Rape became a crime. It was viewed as forced sexual penetration of a woman. Sadly, marital rape was not accepted by the law. A woman could only prosecute the rapist if she had bruises and other evidence to prove she had fought back. (Remember, they didn't know about semen back then.) The English rape laws were geared more towards protecting men from false accusations than helping victimized women.
In court, English women went through an ordeal of being questioned about their sex lives. Although it was very difficult to prosecute a rapist, the crime was a capitol crime - in other words, punishable by DEATH.
To solve the humiliation of telling her whole sex life to the court, a Rape Shield Law was made. It limits the questions attorneys can ask the victim. Some people say questioning the victim insinuates that she consented to sex, but others say that the Shield would make it easier to convict an innocent person.
Today rapists face life sentence in prison or death. This law was set up in 1977 by the Supreme Court.
Although Canada used to be similar to English rape laws, they went through a reform in the 70s and 80s. Now Canadians of either sex can be prosecuted for sexual assault. Prosecuters are allowed to question the victim's past sex life to attack her credibility. Furthermore, many evidential rules have been eliminated that make prosecution more difficult.
In Scotland it is only rape if a man forces his penis into a woman's vagina. The minimum sentencing is 3 years. It is also considered rape if a woman is passive. This rule is called "Active consent," meaning she must actually say yes. Women who "rape" a man go under sexual assault. Intercourse with anyone under 16 is also considered rape.
2007-07-21 03:00:32 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Ok..to Cassius up above... Where in the hell do you get off quoting that up to 95% of rape charges are false in some areas? THE 95% you misquoted was for UNREPORTED rapes. That's right up to 95% of victims NEVER TELL. Secondly, I love how you mention that there are "so many" false rapes that are reported. When in all actuality it is an uncommon event. It comes to mind because of high profile cases like the Duke case but the honest truth is that it is not common. Yes, it does happen and the people who false report should be charged criminally as it makes the real victims look questionable.
This is what our county prosecutor told me why most false reports are not prosecuted:
In most cases there is no prosecution because they find lack of enough evidence to support either cause, the time and cost to prosecute & in many cases the person who falsely accuses has a Mental or Mood disorder, therefor making juries sympathetic to their condition. He also mentioned that it is rare that they see a false rape report (This is in our state capitol and trust me there is no shortage of criminal activity).
Unintentional Revictimization:
Victims on average spend 2-5 hours in the hospital and10-18 hours if it was a drug facilitated rape for the examination process. During a forensic exam photo's of the inside of your mouth, vagina and anus are taken. Your pubic hair and hair on your head is combed for evidence. Nail scrapings, bite molds, mouth swabs & photo's of bruises....list goes on.
On top of that they recount the events of the rape in DETAIL to the Doctor, to the Police, To the SANE Nurse (sexual assault nurse examiner), to me (SART sexual assault team member), to significant others and hopefully to a therapist. Plus again if they decide to prosecute.
Now, hope everyone believes you. Fun eh?
2007-07-23 04:17:04 · answer #3 · answered by Dani 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
This guy raped you 2 situations.Why did you proceed the relationship? it incredibly is a sprint complicated understanding that this guy didnt have comprehend on your physique? He took your physique without your permission. It didnt be counted which you have been in a relationship right now NO skill NO. there's no way you're able to make the relationship widespread after that got here approximately.actual abuse and a rape how are you able to forget that this guy taken care of you this sort?He exchange into arrested and now you want to permit him bypass unfastened? Why so he can try this to a different lady? Why did you press fees in case you have been uncertain that that's what you had to do. It shouldnt be counted that his mom exchange into crying. while this guy raped you he desperate his destiny.How ought to a male no longer understand that what he exchange into doing. i assume its style of complicated after being raped you persevered to sleep with him.Your existence heavily isn't a similar. you have been raped and bodily assaulted. Now the mummy desires to cry. i think of she needs to maintain her tears and think of roughly if this exchange into her daughter. What are your mothers and fathers asserting? i'm happy you listened on your friends and pressed fees. This male has to examine that he cant take what has no longer been provided to him. Are you extreme, forgive him? Why? i'm valuable the police dept gave touch education so which you would be able to look for scientific care.flow on and dont have any touch with this guy or his relatives.
2016-09-30 10:08:57 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I can't help but use this phrase. Prove is in the pudding. icky I know. But hospitals are somewhat experienced in these matters. The Only problem is that if you've just been raped and that is your only source of proof, it is a really uncomfortable experience. I mean almost impossible to endure especially the time waiting around. And Then having to relive the whole experience in your mind as you try to recover the events to yet another stranger who really doesn't want to hear it nor do you want to tell it. It would be easier to have a big dog bite off his weapon and forget about it.
2007-07-20 23:23:32 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
A person who hurts another and does not empathize cannot see what they did wrong. In these cases, it is the laws responsabilties to teach them what their parents & society did not teach them. It also may require separating them from the public.
John Mark Karr appeared on the "Keith Ablow" show. This is a clear statement that men like him do not understand right from wrong:
" Dr. Keith: Do you think that little girls get sexually excited?
John Mark Karr: Of course. When you see some little girl or something like . . . humping that chair . . . and they're like four years old . . . I can't describe it. I'm not them, but it's just . . . I'm not even really sure it's an orgasm they're having. I think it's just kind of like a gratifying thing. But I can tell you something about me personally.
Dr. Keith: Yes.
John Mark Karr: When I was four, as young as four, I had orgasms.
John Mark Karr: Well, I just think that sexuality is controlled and driven by, one, by the law, by legalities and by the psychiatric community . . . Children don't deserve to be, number one, disenfranchised from their own bodies. If they want to come up to me, sit in my lap, kiss me and stick their tongue in my mouth, then if that's what they want to do, I've got two choices: to say stop and traumatize them because they wanted to do it. Okay, they're allowed to take their tongue and lick an ice cream cone and they want that ice cream, and I'm sorry to say that that ice cream's probably worse for their health than my tongue is. Where does it stop? I mean where does it stop? I guess my feet, and then you've got people who are into feet.
Dr. Keith: There are people who are into feet, whose energy is focused on their feet, sexual energy.
John Mark Karr: I know that.
Dr. Keith: I know . . .
John Mark Karr: I'm like that. I've got some of that in me myself, but not for anyone but feet that are about that small."
So, we can see here that this psyco cannot define right from wrong ... and I think many men accused of rape see themselves as right as JMK in their lawsuits.
With society errasing so many important lines ... well, I can see why many men can't distinguish right from wrong. Especially since on this same show the FBI said, we can do nothing to separte Mr. Karr from socity ... and we don't have a budget to follow him either.
Beware of the boogymen (and women) for they exist, and not all are as transparent as JMK.
2007-07-21 04:41:07 · answer #6 · answered by Giggly Giraffe 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
It is a tough balance with many men having their lives destroyed by false accusations and many real rapists getting away with it. Men usually aren't falsely convicted of rape but they have their lives destroyed indirectly by their name being released and going bankrupt with lawyer fees. The process is also very hard on real rape victims as they are put through rigorous questioning thanks to false accusers.
To random the above: Trying to make it so innocent men don't have their lives destroyed by false accusations makes someone a rape apologist? That is truly a sexist and misandrist thing to say. I am sorry you hold such bitter contempt for males
2007-07-21 08:19:47 · answer #7 · answered by Chuckwalla 3 · 3⤊ 5⤋
The problem is that false rape reports are not beeing taken seriously. If there would be heavy penalities on that sort of thing there wouldnt be so many false rape charges in the first place and the authorities to whom the rapes are reported wouldnt automatically think to have yet another false charge at their hands wasting everybodies time. Remember that in some areas false rape charges can be as high as 95%.
2007-07-20 23:57:31 · answer #8 · answered by Tiberius 2 · 4⤊ 6⤋
Look at the case with the lying woman that claimed the Duke lacrosse players raped her.
Women that lie and accuse a man of rape should be counter-sued/prosecuted.
2007-07-20 21:32:01 · answer #9 · answered by LycraSpandex 2 · 6⤊ 5⤋
i don't think women will use it as a tool of revenge.. their modesty is too dear to them to press any false charges..
2007-07-21 01:23:06 · answer #10 · answered by ravish2006 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋