Rape : Semantics, Definitions and Culture

[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.