Ireland's 'rape culture'

Millicent

prinz wrote: »

It doesn't just apply to rape it applies to crimes of all type. It seems to be only when rape is involved it suddenly becomes a major issue. I'm sure all victims of crime will be questioning/blaming themselves but ways to protect yourself need to be reinforced at every available opportunity IMO and that is extremely helpful to others.

There's a difference between minimising risks to and protecting oneself and a post-mortem of the victim's actions after the fact. It just serves to rub salt in the wounds. It's partly to do with having some common sense and courtesy and also to reduce the trauma on the victim. And how does one prepare oneself not to be raped anyway? If you can give me any ways that will minimise the most common types of rapes without curtailing civil liberties, I'll be surprised.

issem

Millicent wrote: »

That doesn't change the fact that a person's sexual history is not pertinent to a rape case. Prior convictions are not allowed to be used against someone accused in court for fear of prejudicing a jury; why then is it fair to bring sexual history questioning into court when examining the victim?

The more sexual partners a person has had does signify how likely they'll be to take up more (consensual) sex partners. So it is very relevant to the defense of the accused if they're claiming to have had sex consensually with the accuser.

Millicent

issem wrote: »

The more sexual partners a person has had does signify how likely they'll be to take up more (consensual) sex partners. So it is very relevant to the defense of the accused if they're claiming to have had sex consensually with the accuser.

No it doesn't. What it signifies is that they consented to sex with those other people. Proves nothing.

Millicent

Issem, I'll give you an analogy on this.

Guy A is accused of stealing money from Guy B. Guy A says Guy B loaned him the money. Do you think it is relevant to the case to question Guy B on whether he has loaned money to anyone in the past, how much he has loaned to people, and how many people he has loaned money to in the past? Do you honestly believe that is a valid line of questioning?

what was that satire?
"help, i was just mugged"
"oh, so i hear you like donating to charity"
"what does that have to do with it"
"well you're a bit of a philanthropist arent you. maybe you decided to give him the money and now you're just having a bit of regret"
etc


snap, milli

Millicent

bluewolf wrote: »

what was that satire?
"help, i was just mugged"
"oh, so i hear you like donating to charity"
"what does that have to do with it"
"well you're a bit of a philanthropist arent you. maybe you decided to give him the money and now you're just having a bit of regret"
etc


snap, milli

Great minds. :pac:

MungBean

issem wrote: »

The more sexual partners a person has had does signify how likely they'll be to take up more (consensual) sex partners. So it is very relevant to the defense of the accused if they're claiming to have had sex consensually with the accuser.

A history of lying about being raped would be relevant, the number of previous consensual sexual partners isnt.

prinz

Millicent wrote: »

There's a difference between minimising risks to and protecting oneself and a post-mortem of the victim's actions after the fact. It just serves to rub salt in the wounds.

Depending on the case there might be no difference. You don't take a plane crash and say ah well, human error we'll just try harder next time. You go through it step by step. Who did what, when, why, what can we learn. It's only when you do a 'post mortem' of people's actions after the fact that you can learn from them, there's nothing to be gained whatsoever from dismissing the events.

Millicent wrote: »

It's partly to do with having some common sense and courtesy and also to reduce the trauma on the victim. And how does one prepare oneself not to be raped anyway? If you can give me any ways that will minimise the most common types of rapes without curtailing civil liberties, I'll be surprised.

Misuse of alcohol is the major one. There was a study done on a selection Irish rape victims, 80% had been drinking, 45% were severly intoxicated. Do you think it's a waste of time to highlight that? Or to advise people not to drink to such an extent?

Again I'd repeat the comparison to child abuse. About 50% of children sexually abused in 2010 were abused by family members. Does that mean we learn nothing from other occurences of sexual abuse?

Ninap

Slightly off topic, but interesting article about the benefits of re-classifying rape as sexual assault:

http://fattkittens.wordpress.com/2012/03/21/stop-calling-it-rape-and-well-convict-more-men/

Millicent

prinz wrote: »

Depending on the case there might be no difference. You don't take a plane crash and say ah well, human error we'll just try harder next time. You go through it step by step. Who did what, when, why, what can we learn. It's only when you do a 'post mortem' of people's actions after the fact that you can learn from them, there's nothing to be gained whatsoever from dismissing the events.



Misuse of alcohol is the major one. There was a study done on a selection Irish rape victims, 80% had been drinking, 45% were severly intoxicated. Do you think it's a waste of time to highlight that? Or to advise people not to drink to such an extent?

Again I'd repeat the comparison to child abuse. About 50% of children sexually abused in 2010 were abused by family members. Does that mean we learn nothing from other occurences of sexual abuse?

Of course we learn from the past. That's sensible and useful. It is useful to teach children to tell an adult when they are being abused and to tell as many adults as it takes until action is taken. An important part of that is telling the child it is not their fault. If somebody thinks they are in some way culpable for a crime, they are less likely to report it.

What's not useful is advocating a fear of the opposite sex (since who can predict who may be a rapist?).

Do you not think it is just as useful to educate people not to rape than to educate people not to drink so much that they are targets for rapists? Why doesn't this work in tandem with examining the behaviour and motivations of the criminal?

Again, what I am stating is, placing the focus entirely on the victim does not attack the root of the crime and does nothing to eradicate the crime. If not a drunk person, a rapist will often find someone else to rape, even if a drunk person is not available.

I'd love to read that study, if you have it. Do you remember who conducted it?

Millicent

Ninap wrote: »

Slightly off topic, but interesting article about the benefits of re-classifying rape as sexual assault:

http://fattkittens.wordpress.com/2012/03/21/stop-calling-it-rape-and-well-convict-more-men/

Interesting reading. Thanks.

prinz

Millicent wrote: »

Do you not think it is just as useful to educate people not to rape than to educate people not to drink so much that they are targets for rapists? Why doesn't this work in tandem with examining the behaviour and motivations of the criminal? Again, what I am stating is, placing the focus entirely on the victim does not attack the root of the crime and does nothing to eradicate the crime. If not a drunk person, a rapist will often find someone else to rape, even if a drunk person is not available.

*Head explodes* :pac: I never said it was either/or. Of course people should be educated that rape is never alright.... and no I never advocated placing the focus entirely on the victim. All I said was that in some instances there are lessons to be learned from the actions of the victims, across the board of crimes from rape to fraud.

Millicent wrote: »

I'd love to read that study, if you have it. Do you remember who conducted it?

http://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/13023/ Rape Crisis Network seems to be.

LeeHoffmann

Ninap wrote: »

Slightly off topic, but interesting article about the benefits of re-classifying rape as sexual assault:

http://fattkittens.wordpress.com/2012/03/21/stop-calling-it-rape-and-well-convict-more-men/

Thanks for the link. I haven´t made up my mind on this entirely but my instincts scream against such a change of terminology.
1.

If rape were reclassed as assault and the stain of shame and dishonour were removed

I don´t think the shame associated with rape has anything to do with the terminology used.

2.

It’s becoming increasingly obvious that it is useless in resolving the drunken fumbles of students, or dating couples.

Maybe I misunderstood this part...did she really just refer to date-rape situations as ´fumbles´?!

3.

I have lost count of how often I’ve heard — or read — in the past week that rape “is something no woman ever gets over”, that it is “entirely life-defining”, the “worst thing that can ever happen”. To me that is the language of honour killings, of women as chattels, of Victorian views of “fallen women”

I agree that those kind of judgements are ignorant but they do in some way speak to the extent of the horror and suffering rape inflicts on victims.

It seems to me that whoever wrote that article really doesn´t understand the topic she´s writing about.

issem

Millicent wrote: »

Issem, I'll give you an analogy on this.

Guy A is accused of stealing money from Guy B. Guy A says Guy B loaned him the money. Do you think it is relevant to the case to question Guy B on whether he has loaned money to anyone in the past, how much he has loaned to people, and how many people he has loaned money to in the past? Do you honestly believe that is a valid line of questioning?

In the past when women had casual sex much sex less, it would have been much more relevant to question the accuser in a rape trial's sexual history. Now that having casual sex is a lot more so 'the norm', it's relevancy has diminished significantly. However, it is still quite relevant in the opinion of many, including the law-makers of this country. And as long as there is even a shred of relevancy, it should be allowed be used in defense of the accused.

Millicent

prinz wrote: »

*Head explodes* :pac: I never said it was either/or. Of course people should be educated that rape is never alright.... and no I never advocated placing the focus entirely on the victim. All I said was that in some instances there are lessons to be learned from the actions of the victims, across the board of crimes from rape to fraud.



http://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/13023/ Rape Crisis Network seems to be.

But this is the first time you've mentioned the "or" part of the "either/or". Have a read of any of these threads; have a good long read and count how often the reason the rapist raped the victim is brought up. Then count how often the victim's behaviour immediately prior to, during or after the crime is brought up. Add to that the amount of times something about "crying rape" comes up and you'll see why I am so stubborn on this.

Cheers for the link.

Millicent

issem wrote: »

In the past when women had casual sex much sex less, it would have been much more relevant to question the accuser in a rape trial's sexual history. Now that having casual sex is a lot more so 'the norm', it's relevancy has diminished significantly. However, it is still quite relevant in the opinion of many, including the law-makers of this country. And as long as there is even a shred of relevancy, it should be allowed be used in defense of the accused.

No. It never had any relevancy. Ever. Just because you think so doesn't make it so. There is no relevance between number of sexual partners and whether a rape occurred. None at all. I can't state that strongly enough.

Millicent

prinz wrote: »

http://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/13023/ Rape Crisis Network seems to be.

Just to turn your point on this around on this, in that report it says that "In 58% of cases the victim reported that the offender had been drinking."

Are you going to be consistent and tell men to stop drinking too, since there seems to be more rapes from people who have been drinking?

jaja321

issem wrote: »

In the past when women had casual sex much sex less, it would have been much more relevant to question the accuser in a rape trial's sexual history. Now that having casual sex is a lot more so 'the norm', it's relevancy has diminished significantly. However, it is still quite relevant in the opinion of many, including the law-makers of this country. And as long as there is even a shred of relevancy, it should be allowed be used in defense of the accused.

What relevance does it have?

prinz

Millicent wrote: »

But this is the first time you've mentioned the "or" part of the "either/or".

That's because I was responding to a poster who specifically questioned the concept of looking at the actions of the victims.. and it went from there. It was never about focusing on the victim instead of the perpetrator.

issem

jaja321 wrote: »

What relevance does it have?

The past sexual history of a person is relevant to how likely they are to have sex again, just as the past criminal history of a person is relevant to how likely they are to commit a crime again.

If the person being accused of rape is claiming to have had consensual (rather than non-consensual) sex with the person accusing them, it is entirely relevant to examine how likely the accused is to engage in sexual relations in order to determine whether the accused's defense is true or not.

LeeHoffmann

The past sexual history of a person is relevant to how likely they are to have sex again

but not to how likely they are to have sex with a given person. The problem is obviously that jurors can be very quick to judge somebody negatively because of how many sexual partners she´s had and that judgement of the suspected victim heavily influences their judgement of the accused. I think the sexual history is used more because it´s a useful tool of character assassination rather than because it´s evidence

jaja321

issem wrote: »

The past sexual history of a person is relevant to how likely they are to have sex again, just as the past criminal history of a person is relevant to how likely they are to commit a crime again.

If the person being accused of rape is claiming to have had consensual (rather than non-consensual) sex with the person accusing them, it is entirely relevant to examine how likely the accused is to engage in sexual relations in order to determine whether the accused's defense is true or not.

Are you seriously suggesting that someone who has had a lot of sexual partners is less credible than someone who has had few or none? Someone's past sexual history has no bearing on whether someone can be believed or not. I'm sorry, but this argument does not stand up.

issem

jaja321 wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that someone who has had a lot of sexual partners is less credible than someone who has had few or none? Someone's past sexual history has no bearing on whether someone can be believed or not. I'm sorry, but this argument does not stand up.

It's not about a person's 'label' of how creditable they are, it's about how creditable what they say is.

When someone has done something multiple times, they're more likely to do that thing again than someone who has rarely done it or not done it at all; therefore someone who has had sex multiple times is more likely to have sex again than someone who has rarely had sex or never had sex at all; therefore if the accused's defense is that they had sex with the accuser but it was consensual, the accuser's sexual history is entirely relevant whether this is true or not.

Grayson

Millicent wrote: »

That doesn't change the fact that a person's sexual history is not pertinent to a rape case. Prior convictions are not allowed to be used against someone accused in court for fear of prejudicing a jury; why then is it fair to bring sexual history questioning into court when examining the victim?

It might not be fair, but if the judge decides it relevant, then it should be allowed.
The reason past convictions aren't allowed is because it can prejudice a jury. And if the accused doesn't get a fair trial, there can be jail time etc...

The person accusing them generally won't face trial afterwards. They won't get sent to prison.

I can't imagine a persons sexual history ever being relevant. But I don't know everything and it's always possible it might be. It's up to a fair judge to decide. Remember, they can take action against barristers who overstep.

Anyways, you seem to be under the impression that this happens a lot. I can't remember a case outside of the movies where this has happened recently. Do you have any stats to back up that this happens? Because if not, you're perpetuating a myth that prevents women from reporting a crime.

Millicent

Grayson wrote: »

It might not be fair, but if the judge decides it relevant, then it should be allowed.
The reason past convictions aren't allowed is because it can prejudice a jury. And if the accused doesn't get a fair trial, there can be jail time etc...

The person accusing them generally won't face trial afterwards. They won't get sent to prison.

I can't imagine a persons sexual history ever being relevant. But I don't know everything and it's always possible it might be. It's up to a fair judge to decide. Remember, they can take action against barristers who overstep.

Anyways, you seem to be under the impression that this happens a lot. I can't remember a case outside of the movies where this has happened recently. Do you have any stats to back up that this happens? Because if not, you're perpetuating a myth that prevents women from reporting a crime.

Do you realise the irony of what you just said? It's not okay to prejudice a jury against the accused but perfectly okay to prejudice one against the accused? ETA: That it's not okay to use it to determine their guilt but fine to use it to determine their innocence? Take away everything else you have said around it and that is in a nutshell your point. Judges are not infallible. Even if they allow that questioning in a case doesn't invalidate any of the arguments against it.

LeeHoffmann

if the judge decides it relevant, then it should be allowed.

It´s a rare thing to meet a person who has such blind faith in authority

Millicent

Oh, by the way, judges allow that questioning in around 70 per cent of cases. I'm not the one discouraging victims from reporting it.

Link.

ETA: I really am blown away by your response, Grayson. Don't come in accusing people of perpetuating damaging myths without doing any basic research into the matter.

Blue_Seas

I only read the first few pages, so I hope it was cleared up later in the thread, but rape culture isn't just 'a culture where rape goes on'. It's a culture where rape is accepted because "she asked for it" or "he's a guy, she can't rape him" or "they're married" or "he's generally a good guy" or "she sleeps around" or "girls can't rape, just enjoy it". And I think we do have that culture in Ireland, that's our rape culture, and while it probably was not addressed properly in the article, from the (albeit few) posts I read people didn't seem to understand what a rape culture was.

Grayson

Millicent wrote: »

Oh, by the way, judges allow that questioning in around 70 per cent of cases. I'm not the one discouraging victims from reporting it.

Link.

ETA: I really am blown away by your response, Grayson. Don't come in accusing people of perpetuating damaging myths without doing any basic research into the matter.

I'M SHOCKED!!! Where exactly did I accuse you? I asked for statistics and said that if you didn't have any, then you would be perpetuating myth.

Anyways... Section 3

Section 3 provides as follows:

“


(1)


If at a trial any person is for the time being charged with a rape offence to which he pleads not guilty, then, except with the leave of the judge, no evidence shall be adduced and no question shall be asked in cross-examination at the trial, by or on behalf of any accused person at the trial, about any sexual experience of a complainant with a person other than that accused.


(2)



(a)


The judge shall not give leave in pursuance of subsection (1) for any evidence or question except on an application made to him, in the absence of the jury, by or on behalf of an accused person.


(b)


The judge shall give leave if, and only if, he is satisfied that it would be unfair to the accused person to refuse to allow the evidence to be adduced or the question to be asked, that is to say, if he is satisfied that, on the assumption that if the evidence or question was not allowed the jury might reasonably be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused person is guilty, the effect of allowing the evidence or question might reasonably be that they would not be so satisfied.


(3)


If, notwithstanding that the judge has given leave in accordance with this section for any evidence to be adduced or question to be asked in cross-examination, it appears to the judge that any question asked or proposed to be asked (whether in the course of so adducing evidence or of cross-examination) in reliance on the leave which he has given is not or may not be such as may properly be asked in

Read section 2 B. It's allowed when it would prejudice a defense if it wasn't allowed.

So I take it that you are all in favor of prejudicing the defense of an innocent man?

And here's the difference. I see the accused as an innocent man. Because until someone is convicted, they are innocent. You see everyone in the dock as guilty. Well, that's an assumption on my part. Since you don't want to allow evidence which may be relevant.

Editing to add. BTW, the article you linked to said the study was performed by choosing 40 cases over 6 years. There's nothing to say how those cases were chosen and nothing to show what would have been inappropriate. And nothing that suggests there was a miscarriage of justice.

Remember, I said it should be allowed when appropriate. The law states that. And your article doesn't disprove that. For all we know, it was relevant and those men were innocent.

Millicent

Grayson wrote: »

Read section 2 B. It's allowed when it would prejudice a defense if it wasn't allowed.

So I take it that you are all in favor of prejudicing the defense of an innocent man?

And here's the difference. I see the accused as an innocent man. Because until someone is convicted, they are innocent. You see everyone in the dock as guilty. Well, that's an assumption on my part. Since you don't want to allow evidence which may be relevant.

Oh dear God, I feel like I'm talking in circles. You still haven't answered my earlier question. Why is it wrong to prejudice a jury against a defendant but not against a victim?

I see no one in the dock as guilty or innocent--my point is more to do with prejudicing the jury against the victim, a fact you don't appear to find too troublesome at all. If the barrister for the accused cannot argue a case without dragging the accuser's most private personal details and sexual history through the mud, their defence obviously isn't a great one.

Millicent

Grayson wrote: »

Editing to add. BTW, the article you linked to said the study was performed by choosing 40 cases over 6 years. There's nothing to say how those cases were chosen and nothing to show what would have been inappropriate. And nothing that suggests there was a miscarriage of justice.

Remember, I said it should be allowed when appropriate. The law states that. And your article doesn't disprove that. For all we know, it was relevant and those men were innocent.

Do you really have that much faith in the system that you think it's right all the time? There are many places in the world where sexual history questioning is not allowed for the exact reasons I have pointed out.

Daftendirekt

issem wrote: »

It's not about a person's 'label' of how creditable they are, it's about how creditable what they say is.

When someone has done something multiple times, they're more likely to do that thing again than someone who has rarely done it or not done it at all; therefore someone who has had sex multiple times is more likely to have sex again than someone who has rarely had sex or never had sex at all; therefore if the accused's defense is that they had sex with the accuser but it was consensual, the accuser's sexual history is entirely relevant whether this is true or not.

A woman's sexual history says nothing about her likelihood of having sex with any particular person. Nor does it say anything about whether or not her future sexual behaviour will mirror her past. If I was assaulted on my way home from work, should the fact that I practice a martial art be held against me?

Millicent

Grayson, do you realise what questions are asked? They include

• How many people have you slept with?
• When did you lose your virginity?
• Have you had sex since the alleged rape?
• How many times?
• What were you wearing the night of the alleged crime?
• Do you feel you might have acted in a way which could have led the defendant on?

Do you honestly think it is fair, right or balanced to ask an accuser this and not the accused?

Daftendirekt

Grayson wrote: »

I'M SHOCKED!!! Where exactly did I accuse you? I asked for statistics and said that if you didn't have any, then you would be perpetuating myth.

Anyways... Section 3



Read section 2 B. It's allowed when it would prejudice a defense if it wasn't allowed.

So I take it that you are all in favor of prejudicing the defense of an innocent man?

And here's the difference. I see the accused as an innocent man. Because until someone is convicted, they are innocent. You see everyone in the dock as guilty. Well, that's an assumption on my part. Since you don't want to allow evidence which may be relevant.

Editing to add. BTW, the article you linked to said the study was performed by choosing 40 cases over 6 years. There's nothing to say how those cases were chosen and nothing to show what would have been inappropriate. And nothing that suggests there was a miscarriage of justice.

Remember, I said it should be allowed when appropriate. The law states that. And your article doesn't disprove that. For all we know, it was relevant and those men were innocent.

Not allowing irrelevant information that would serve only to risk prejudicing the jury as evidence =/= automatically assuming the defendant is guilty

Grayson

Millicent wrote: »

Oh dear God, I feel like I'm talking in circles. You still haven't answered my earlier question. Why is it wrong to prejudice a jury against a plaintiff but not against a victim?

I see no one in the dock as guilty or innocent--my point is more to do with prejudicing the jury against the victim, a fact you don't appear to find too troublesome at all. If the barrister for the accused cannot argue a case without dragging the accuser's most private personal details and sexual history through the mud, their defence obviously isn't a great one.

People in the dock are innocent. That's the point. And if they're found guilty, then for a crime like rape, they will be locked up. Their lives will be over.
The whole point of our criminal justice system is to give a defendant every chance to prove their innocence. To do otherwise is unfair. They are also allowed the chance to face their accuser. To remove that would be unfair. And to remove any evidence that would prove their innocent is unfair.

If you remove the ability of any defendant to enter relevant evidence, then you are crippling their defense.

And that's what the law says. If prior sexual history is entered, it can only be history with the defendant (Section 1) and not as some people said, their entire sexual history. So promiscuity doesn't matter. And it can only be allowed if leaving it out would leave out evidence that would help the defense.

And remember, the prosecution have a chance to refute the relevance. And then the jury gets to hear both arguments. So it's not just one person who's deciding.

And like I said in a previous post, I don't know if it's relevant because I don't know every situation. But you have decided it's never, ever relevant without knowing if it actually is.

Grayson

Millicent wrote: »

Grayson, do you realise what questions are asked? They include

• How many people have you slept with?
• When did you lose your virginity?
• Have you had sex since the alleged rape?
• How many times?
• What were you wearing the night of the alleged crime?
• Do you feel you might have acted in a way which could have led the defendant on?

Do you honestly think it is fair, right or balanced to ask an accuser this and not the accused?

Where did it say that? I read this.

The reasons offered for questioning their sexual history, often unjustifiable according to Ms Bacik, included suggestions a victim’s behaviour was promiscuous or sexually suggestive.

Other arguments made by defence teams included issues raised about a victim’s subsequent sexual relations, whether they had made previous allegations of a sexual nature or if they had had sexual relations with the accused prior to the incident.

That's the reasons the defense judges gave the judges. It doesn't say whether questioning was allowed.

And I can't see anywhere it asks what they were wearing, if they led the defendant on or when they lost their virginity. Where are you getting that from?


To be fair to that article, it's not very clear. It says stuff like

Convictions were only achieved in less than a third of cases. In 70% of the trials, the judge allowed the defence to question a victim’s sexual history under what is known as a Section 3 application.

But it doesn't say how many of the convictions/acquittals had those questions. And like I said, it's 40 cases over 6 years. In the article I found where I quoted the law it had numbers for cases. Those numbers had about 40 cases a year (that was in the 80's) (http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/consultation%20papers/cpRape.htm)

So about a 6th of cases were chosen and there's nothing to say how they were chosen. The article I linked to a couple of pages ago shows how statistics can be misleading and prevent women from reporting rape. Because they are given pessimistic figures with no comparison to other crimes.

confusticated

meganj wrote: »

Absolutely agree with this. When we talk about a 'rape culture' in society it is easy to get caught up in this idea that it's men vs women. I understand that statistically women are more likely to be raped, but men are raped too.

I think for men the reaction of society, police and whoever else is that there is one of 'why didn't you fight back' I think there is a certain amount of expectation that a man should be able to fight their attacker off or something. Couple that with the common physical reaction that a majority of male victims experience they feel shame as if a physical reaction is tantamount to consent.

I think what bugs me the most about the reaction in this thread and elsewhere to rape is not just the idea that women should dress appropriately, not walk through dark allies and not be falling down drunk in public, is valid in the sense that women should be able to protect themselves. But the problem comes when a woman is raped either because they did these things or they didn't. When women are raped for example while walking home alone drunk there is a reaction that says 'Oh why did she do that?' Why shouldn't see do that? A woman or anyone should not have to think twice about whether what they're wearing is 'going to get them raped' that's nonsense.

But the thing in that statement that no one seems to be talking about is the awful opinion people who think that sort of thing think of men. I don't know any men that would have sex with a girl who couldn't consent, I also know that many of my male friends might go for a girl who's dressed a bit 'provocatively' in a nightclub, but they certainly wouldn't think 'Oh god I simply have to have her whether she consents or not!' I call BS on that. This is not a feminist issue, because in the same way that people scold victims for doing or not doing something, and as a result encourage women to not dress 'slutty' in order to protect themselves, your also saying that the entire male race possesses so little self-control that the simply act of a girl in a short skirt drives them into some sort of raping frenzy.

There has been a move in recent years, especially with the increase of dape rape, to move the focus from women and girls alone being responsible for their education and protection to teaching young men and boys what rape is. This is a very good example of that shift.

I think rape culture is prevalent in this society, I think it's prevalent in most societies. I think in some way, or maybe I'd like to believe it's this way, that victim blaming or putting the responsibility for not getting raped on the potential victim as opposed to the potential offender makes people feel safe. People want to believe that there is a reason people get raped so they themselves feel safer because they can say 'Oh I would never do that' or 'My daughter would never do that' it makes you feel safe. Who wouldn't want that? But the cost of it is to high for victims who feel nothing but blame coming from all sides in society.

The bits I bolded contradict each other IMO, sorry, but you cannot know that nobody you know would ever rape someone. I don't want to scaremonger or anything but you can't know that - with the low report rates of rape, it's likely that you pass by rapists every day and have no idea.

Grayson wrote: »

People in the dock are innocent. That's the point. And if they're found guilty, then for a crime like rape, they will be locked up. Their lives will be over.
The whole point of our criminal justice system is to give a defendant every chance to prove their innocence. To do otherwise is unfair. They are also allowed the chance to face their accuser. To remove that would be unfair. And to remove any evidence that would prove their innocent is unfair.

If you remove the ability of any defendant to enter relevant evidence, then you are crippling their defense.

And that's what the law says. If prior sexual history is entered, it can only be history with the defendant (Section 1) and not as some people said, their entire sexual history. So promiscuity doesn't matter. And it can only be allowed if leaving it out would leave out evidence that would help the defense.

And remember, the prosecution have a chance to refute the relevance. And then the jury gets to hear both arguments. So it's not just one person who's deciding.

And like I said in a previous post, I don't know if it's relevant because I don't know every situation. But you have decided it's never, ever relevant without knowing if it actually is.

The prosecution have a chance to refute the relevance, yes, but are they allowed to bring it up if the defendant has previous convictions for sexual assault for example? Correct me if I'm wrong, I could be, but I don't think so.

A balance needs to be struck between assumed innocence until proven guilty for the defendant, for whom you're talking about all the fairness above, and consideration for the accuser (or possibly the victim, just being careful of my terminology!) having to sit across from their attacker and list their sexual history. You say the accused's life would be over - I would argue that if they are proved guilty and sent to prison, they have at least created that suffering for themselves. The rape victim has a hell of a lot more to deal with in their life after the rape, and did nothing to bring it on themselves.

Grayson

confusticated wrote: »

The prosecution have a chance to refute the relevance, yes, but are they allowed to bring it up if the defendant has previous convictions for sexual assault for example? Correct me if I'm wrong, I could be, but I don't think so.

A balance needs to be struck between assumed innocence until proven guilty for the defendant, for whom you're talking about all the fairness above, and consideration for the accuser (or possibly the victim, just being careful of my terminology!) having to sit across from their attacker and list their sexual history. You say the accused's life would be over - I would argue that if they are proved guilty and sent to prison, they have at least created that suffering for themselves. The rape victim has a hell of a lot more to deal with in their life after the rape, and did nothing to bring it on themselves.

So, if there was evidence that was relevant to a case that might prove a persons innocence, you'd ban it if it in anyway involved the sexual history of the accuser? Thereby sending an innocent person to jail. But of course, they'd be officially guilty and deserve it at that stage.

Remember, the law only says that it should be admitted if it's relevant. And that's all I'm saying too.

confusticated

I didn't say that. But allowing one judge to decide on whether it's relevant or not, and expecting personal questions like that which may end up being irrelevant to be answered in front of the accused, that seems very very tough on a possible rape victim.

Consideration for both parties is needed in these situations if truly assuming innocent until proven guilty - that can't imply that the accuser is lying until proved otherwise, that's not fair either.

Grayson

Actually, I just found the study which references the number of times an application was made under section three.

One of the concerns raised in it was

Defence may be giving notice of intention to make a section 3 application even where there is little or no real prospect of them doing so. This should be explained to complainants to allay the fears they are likely to feel on receipt of such notice.

In otherwords, they apply for a section 3, just for the sake of applying.

Also, of the 40 times the applications were made,

16 were based on previous relationships with the accused.
15 applications were based on promiscuity
13 were based on making previous accusations of a sexual nature

The next highest was 3 and there there were a load of 2's. Obviously since that adds up to well over 40, I can assume that some applications were made for multiple reasons.

Unfortunately the results I looked at didn't say how many times it was allowed for each case. Just overall. And I would be interested in seeing examples on why they were allowed or not allowed.


I'm not drawing any conclusions right now. I just thought ppl might want to see the figures. I found them on a ppt file online called Ivana-Bacik if anyone's bothered to look.

The main finding was that the accuser should have legal representation too, not just the prosecutor. And I think that's pretty fair.

Dudess

Of course places like Pakistan where women are required to be chaste and cover up from head to toe, yet there is still a shocking rape culture... completely flies in the face of notions that a promiscuous woman or a woman in skimpy clothes "ask" to be raped, yet the attitudes continue unabatedly.

Grayson

confusticated wrote: »

I didn't say that. But allowing one judge to decide on whether it's relevant or not, and expecting personal questions like that which may end up being irrelevant to be answered in front of the accused, that seems very very tough on a possible rape victim.

Consideration for both parties is needed in these situations if truly assuming innocent until proven guilty - that can't imply that the accuser is lying until proved otherwise, that's not fair either.

Who decides? A jury? The idea is to head it off before then.

EDIT so I'm not spamming.

Dudette, do ppl who don't read the daily mail really think that. I think you'd be hard pressed to find many and I'd like to think they're old and dying off.

confusticated

Grayson wrote: »

Who decides? A jury? The idea is to head it off before then.

EDIT so I'm not spamming.

Dudette, do ppl who don't read the daily mail really think that. I think you'd be hard pressed to find many and I'd like to think they're old and dying off.

Never said it would be easy! Honest answer is I don't know, maybe 2 judges, but then you could have a stalemate and you're paying 2 judges so yeah...not an easy one.

Also, just in reference to the post above, I quite agree that the 13 applications based on previous accusations could have an effect. But I also think that this would be very similar to previous convictions of a sexual nature being brought up by the prosecution, which is not allowed.

ETA: Applying "for the sake of applying" - frightening and intimidating the possible rape victim just for the sake of it?! Hardly seems fair.

Sojojin

issem wrote: »

The past sexual history of a person is relevant to how likely they are to have sex again, just as the past criminal history of a person is relevant to how likely they are to commit a crime again.

If the person being accused of rape is claiming to have had consensual (rather than non-consensual) sex with the person accusing them, it is entirely relevant to examine how likely the accused is to engage in sexual relations in order to determine whether the accused's defense is true or not.

I disagree about this. I think the sexual history of people making a rape claim is only relevant to whether they have made false accusations in the past, if they were attempting to blackmail the accused, or have reasons other than actual rape for making the accusation.

The frequency of consensual sex is irrelevant.

What is relevant is the nature of their interaction with the accused. Is the claim a lie, is it blackmail, regret, or is it revenge? Is there some inappropriate reason that the rape claim is being made?

For instance a woman is a prostitute and wanted more money than they originally agreed. She then threatens to accuse him of rape if he doesn't pay what she wants. The nature of her sexual interactions and profession then becomes very relevant, as this becomes more likely to be about blackmail than rape.

What tbe accused was up to, is relevant to. Was he/she having a romantic encounter with the woman/man, or was this some type of rape predator? Why did he/she meet, how did they meet, etc...

Grayson

confusticated wrote: »

ETA: Applying "for the sake of applying" - frightening and intimidating the possible rape victim just for the sake of it?! Hardly seems fair.

I think it's fair. I don't think it's nice, but it is fair. Prosecutors will often threaten a higher sentence to get defendants to plea bargain. They'll say "this is the offer, if you don't take it we'll push for the maximum sentence". So it's entirely possible that an innocent man will be threatened with a high sentence to try and make them plea.

pickarooney

Millicent wrote: »

I see no one in the dock as guilty or innocent--my point is more to do with prejudicing the jury against the victim

While I agree with everything else you're saying, can you appreciate the irony of the above?

RDM_83 again

Sojojin wrote: »

I disagree about this. I think the sexual history of people making a rape claim is only relevant to whether they have made false accusations in the past, if they were attempting to blackmail the accused, or have reasons other than actual rape for making the accusation.

The frequency of consensual sex is irrelevant.

I would feel that there is a relevance in relation to sexual behavior when intoxicated, there is females (and I'm sure males) who will say that they cannot remember sleeping with somebody but do not consider this encounter rape*.

Example, Female X has flashback to guy having sex with her (but no other details of events before this point) and brings forward rape case, is not relevant to the defenses case that the accuser has had consensual sexual encounters previously which she has no recollection.

*I do get the understand the issue of consent while intoxicated (as highlighted by those badly laid out posters a while ago) but in a real world situation there's a lot an awful lot of this behaviour that can't be classed as people being taken advantage off.

Millicent

pickarooney wrote: »

While I agree with everything else you're saying, can you appreciate the irony of the above?

Yeah, I do and I appreciate that it wasn't the best choice of word. I had changed to "the accuser" on other posts after I realised it. Fair point and I've tried to be more careful with my language thereafter.

MagicSean

Millicent wrote: »

Grayson, do you realise what questions are asked? They include

• How many people have you slept with?
• When did you lose your virginity?
• Have you had sex since the alleged rape?
• How many times?
• What were you wearing the night of the alleged crime?
• Do you feel you might have acted in a way which could have led the defendant on?

Do you honestly think it is fair, right or balanced to ask an accuser this and not the accused?

Where did you get that list? How many times have you seen those questions asked in court?

Grayson

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I would feel that there is a relevance in relation to sexual behavior when intoxicated, there is females (and I'm sure males) who will say that they cannot remember sleeping with somebody but do not consider this encounter rape*.

Example, Female X has flashback to guy having sex with her (but no other details of events before this point) and brings forward rape case, is not relevant to the defenses case that the accuser has had consensual sexual encounters previously which she has no recollection.

*I do get the understand the issue of consent while intoxicated (as highlighted by those badly laid out posters a while ago) but in a real world situation there's a lot an awful lot of this behaviour that can't be classed as people being taken advantage off.

Actually, I read an oireachtas discussion about this. It involved an debate about drink spiking. A girl had claimed a man had spiked her drink and raped her. He claimed she jumped him and brought him home. She swore there was no way she would ever do that. Blood tests showed a level of drink in her body which would normally only be found in corpses and cctv footage from outside the nightclub showed the girl shoving the guy against a wall whilst "jumping" him.

On the other hand there was the girl who was barely conscious in glasgow (i think it was there) A security guard in the college apartments carried her back to her apartment where he raped her. But the guard was let off in court because the girl answered honestly when she was asked if it was possible she might have said yes at some point. She said she couldn't remember a lot of it. (I'd like to add that even if she happened to say yes whilst in that condition, and i don't think she did, it was still very, very wrong for the guard to sleep with her. It might not be illegal at that point, but it it still morally corrupt)