Did you know....that 3 out of 100 rapes actually get prosecuted?

The following link explains:

http://www.rainn.org/news-room/97-of-every-100-rapists-receive-no-p... [admin edit:

  • May not contain “blind links”. If you want to link to an article about what you’d like to discuss, copy the article to the discussion or write your own summary or thoughts on the matter in your post. 

97 of Every 100 Rapists Receive No Punishment, RAINN Analysis Shows

Only three out of every 100 rapists will ever spend even a single day in prison, according to a new analysis by RAINN of Justice Department data. The other 97 will walk free, facing no consequences for the violent felony they have committed. Because rapists tend to be serial criminals, this leaves communities across the nation at risk of predators.

While the percentage of rapes reported to police has risen in recent years, a majority — 54% — still are not reported, according to the Justice Department. But increasing reporting alone won't solve the problem: only about one out of four reported rapes leads to an arrest, and only about one out of four arrests leads to a felony conviction and incarceration.

RAINN's new analysis is based on the most recent available Justice Department data, using an average of the five most recent years when available. Based on older data, RAINN had previously estimated that about 6% of rapists ultimately go to prison for their crime.

"This staggering statistic sends a clear message to offenders that they can commit this horrible crime and get away with it. The single most important thing we can do to prevent rape is to put more rapists in prison," notes Scott Berkowitz, RAINN's president and founder. "That's why we have made it a priority to pass the SAFER Act and eliminate the backlog of untested DNA evidence from open rape cases." [/admin edit]



How can this be in the US?
Aren't we supposed to serve justice?

We have a long way to go.

Ladies keep your pepper spray close, and take no shit.

Views: 547

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I did come to a similar conclusion after talking with belle. As i posted a bit earlier to Belle.

"I still think it is an unjust law, but i guess i can accept it is unjust because it is trying to counteract an even greater injustice. Namely the number of woman who are raped but  where the rapist can not really be charged for anything due to the difficulty of prosecuting these sort of crimes."

As you must admit that this ambiguous law can be ,and probably has been, used to falsely accuse men in some cases . But the fact remains that even with this law there are tons more woman who are raped and their rapist gets away with it.

...even with this law there are tons more woman who are raped and their rapist gets away with it.

It's a valued legal principle that it's far better to let a crime go unpunished than to convict an innocent person.

If that was the case then we would convict no one as we know statistically that there are plenty of innocent people in jail.

I must have missed it and my blackberry screen is to small and frustrating to go back through the entire thread.....what law is this you're referring to??? I want to comment but not sure what I missed, LOL!!

No, Rocky, we ideally only convict people who meet the applicable standards of proof as determined by a jury.

@Unseen: RE i suspect a lot of women still want the traditional role of having a kiss stolen followed by some perfunctory pro forma protests that they don't really mean. If the male took these protests seriously, it might even spoil the situation for these women.

This is so true. Unfortunately (most) if not all the women who like that sort of "steal my heart and my body" approach may have sexual abuse in their past, making them more suseptible to "freeze" or give the wrong message to their partner, and may also be the least likely to communicate effectively.

Education and awareness for WOMEN is needed, I think...there's nothing wrong with wanting a Don Juan, but women need to learn that meekness and compliance and burying their own needs or feelings to please a man is also very self destructive. Survivors especially need to learn that real intimacy is possible without feeling "taken"

That's what I suppose anyway. I have never been in a healthy sexual relationship even with my ex-husband. So I am only re-interating stuff I've recently learned. Who knows if it's "the truth" or not.

I think it is a bit unfair to accuse me of misogyny though. I just don't like being legally classified as a rapist just because i have slept with a girlfriend when both of us were drunk/high even though it was entirely consensual and we were not even all that drunk/high.

I can understand why this law exists, but it does mean any guy who has  had sex with a woman after she had anything to drink( no matter how little) is legally a rapist. Even if it was entirely consensual .

I'm not accusing you personally. I simply said that this is a misogynistic perspective. I really don't like to label people based on their ideas and perspectives and opinions because these things change.

We simply cannot dismiss an argument because we don't "like being classified" that way. The reality is that your girlfriend may have been raped by you. She may have woken up one morning next to you and realized that she was raped. She may not have talked about it. And not liking it does not make it any less real or make you any less responsible. You may have also had been raped by a person while drunk... excuse my explicitness but an erection does not necessarily mean that a person wants to engage in sex. I understand that people are not children, but it is extremely difficult to give consent and make decisions while drunk... I mean can you testify in court, sign a legal contract, drive...? Why do we look at rape like it's less important than these things? People drink and drive all the time, but just because people do it, that doesn't mean that what they're doing isn't wrong. Same goes to people having drunk sex.

Not every guy who had sex with a woman who had something to drink is a rapist, but every man who had unwanted sex with a woman who had something to drink and was therefore unable to consciously refuse could be. So the reality is, if it was not unwanted, your sex partner will not report it so you don't even have to worry about the classification. However, it could have been unwanted and your sex partner could be too afraid to speak about it, so it is best to make sure that your partner consents and that you both do not get drunk before sex. I, on the other hand, should not have to wake up naked next to a man that I had a few drinks with... whether he's a stranger or my boyfriend. I should not have to have flashbacks of that night and how uncomfortable and unsafe and hurt I felt. 

In terms of the law, it could use a lot of changes. I'm not an expert, but a few feminist and lgbtq' groups have been pushing for certain demands and changes that I think you should check out. 

Leila-Where have i ever once said having sex with a woman that was not consensual was not rape?

I am simply arguing against over vague US laws in some states .That law can even be argued to be misogynistic as men who have been drinking, even considerably,  are able to consent to sex while a woman cannot give the same consent after even one or two drinks.

Here In the UK the law says that woman have just as much right to consent to having sex while drunk as a man. Obviously if they are incapacitated or passed out due to intoxication it is a different story, but that is not what i have been arguing against  at all.

@Laila: Sometimes rape victims simply do not know it's rape. That's one thing people don't talk about. Up until this past year I thought I had a "relationship" with a man...and I was head over heels in LOVE-would-have-done-anything-for-him sort of love....

I was barely 15 when we started having sex. He was 20. To this day I can still tell you I have "feelings" for him and if I saw him tomorrow it would take my breath away. I am 31. So for half my life I didn't realize that I was in love with my rapist. Legally that is considered rape. The law in my state (last time I checked) says the age of consent is 17.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say about the legal age and consensual sex. Could you please clarify? sorry.

I'm just adding on to one of your previous comments and pointing out (to the peanut gallery) that sex with someone below the age of consent is legally classified as rape even if the under age minor consents 100%. I didn't know this before....until recently, so other people may not either.

RSS

Support T|A

Think Atheist is 100% member supported

All proceeds go to keeping Think Atheist online.

Donate with Dogecoin

Members

Forum

Things you hate.

Started by Devlin Cuite in Small Talk. Last reply by kris feenstra 1 hour ago. 156 Replies

Blog Posts

Dead man's Switch

Posted by Philip Jarrett on April 18, 2014 at 11:29pm 0 Comments

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Into life hacks? Check out LabMinions.com

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service