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:
97 of Every 100 Rapists Receive No Punishment, RAINN Analysis Shows
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.
And it can happen between a man and another man... and a woman with a penis and a man... and so on. Talking about sex in a gendered manner (especially about rape) really closes our minds to a lot. I really think you need to look more into gender identity and sexual and romantic orientations before making judgement.
Having any drunk consented sex is not necessarily rape, but it can be if it was unwanted.
Again you are assuming that people get up after having sex and decide to sue their partners. Why do we always look at victims as if they were the manipulative aggressors? How often do rape charges even happen? How often are innocent men charged with rape? Well let's look at all the lovely college rape cases since 2010 and look at how they are portrayed in the media. It seems to make you think that all convicted rapists must be innocent (at least the ones who had a potentially good career because they come from upper class white families?lol). However, if you looked at the case you'd realize that it is one fucked up situation... like the case where a passed out girl was raped and recorded and people actually laughed and watched and tweeted and called her a slut for being raped with she was passed out... this is in the US. I don't know much about the UK. So this whole idea of rape victims has got to go away. Chances are, if unwanted sex happened, the victim will not even want to speak about it. This is factual. Now the chances that an innocent man will be convicted of rape, do exist, but are very slim (and are often due to politicized nature of the judicial system not because rape victims have unequal powers over their rapists... it will just so happen that most of these men are from lower class, the victim was white or have a criminal record or come from a marginalized area or group). So it is very unlikely that people will abuse this law to get at their sex partners... because well, most rape cases are often unrecorded because people do not report them.
Ofcourse that was rape. But what if you had had only a few drinks and had giving your consent to have sex while only slightly intoxicated. Would that still be rape?
When you used to drink did you never have consensual sex while even the slightest bit drunk?
You started to make a point about explicit consent there and then you lost me. Sorry.
What DO you mean by "explicit consent." I couldn't find your meaning in there anywhere.
And again of course that is rape. Seriously but can you show me once where i said having sex against a woman's consent was not rape?
"For instance, if someone is drunk or high on drugs, then that person cannot give consent. This means that even if someone seems eager to engage in sexual behavior, doing so can legally be considered sexual assault or rape if he or she is intoxicated."
From a U.S lawyer
"You absolutely need a criminal defense attorney. In most states a drunken woman is unable to give consent and therefore a male partner can be charged with assault. In most states the defense that the woman actively participated in the sexual activity, even encouraged it is NOT a defense. You may find this discriminatory, but it is the norm. You need to know that unlawful sexual contact is not always associated with violence. If the woman is very young, mentally challenged, or intoxicated the law assumes no consent. If afterwards she charges the male with assault, the defense is NOT a walk in the park. "
"Most state laws say that an intoxicated person cannot legally give true, informed consent to sexual intercourse, even if they say yes."
BTW, I met a woman who admitted to me that she could only orgasm when being (her word) "taken." The male would have to just do it and do it hard and ignore any protests she made.
Here's another wrench in the works: I read a book or article years ago about a study of the sexual habits of college women. One of the questions asked the subjects was, "Have you ever said no to sex you had, but meant yes?" and well over half of them admitted that they had done that at least once. In the follow up interviews, the main reason given was so that they they could make the male primarily responsible for the sex, which I take to mean that they didn't want to appear whorish to their partner and could allow them to put any "blame" on their partner.
Now, that was probably about two decades ago. Hopefully, today's girls are a little bit more aware of the implications of saying one thing and meaning another. Hopefully, men have evolved, too, and are afraid enough of a rape charge to be very aware of any signs of non-consent.
Also, there are pro forma no's and really serious no's, and hopefully most males can tell the difference. I'm sure most women have said "Stop that!" in a playful way from time to time, or said something similar while really meaning to encourage the behavior.
That is so gray.
How about a woman in the same situation as you described who likes it really rough and wants to be taken by a guy who just does it, doesn't try to ascertain (much less ask) if she is liking it. She would be getting what she wants.
Do we say she likes rough sex or that she likes to be raped? And can a woman like that in that situation BE raped?
Some states draw distinct definitions of "sexual assault" and "rape" for this reason.
The word "rape" is used very broadly. For example, one might describe severe verbal bullying as a "mind rape" and in that sense the rape may not even be particularly sexual in nature. A "sexual assault" can mean something involving no actual or attempted sex at all, for example using an object of some sort in the vagina of an unwilling victim.
Rape and sexual assault are two distinguishable things.
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.
How can this be in the US? Aren't we supposed to serve justice?
It's much worse than you think. The rape kit backlog goes back 20 years in some places. Police and prosecutors don't bother unless they believe there's enough evidence to get a conviction.
As the hospital nurse in this video observes, often the victims believe they are to blame if the encounter began with their consent, but ended without it. (This doesn't matter in the slightest of course: it's still rape.) Even if it's absolutely true that a rape occurred, in a court of law, it often comes down to her word against his, which can be enough for a defense attorney to sell 'reasonable doubt' to a jury.
That's the way the justice system works: in the eyes of the law, without proof beyond reasonable doubt, there was no rape. It's an awful situation and a terrible injustice, but if the authorities don't have sufficient proof, the rapist walks, even if they completely believe the woman's story. Sometimes, it's because they don't believe her.
Mind you, that doesn't address the additional problem of those who may acknowledge that there was sufficient proof of the rape, but blame the woman because she was "asking for it".
There's "definitions" for everything EXCEPT for - what the hell doesn "beyond a reasonable doubt" mean. ??????
It supposed to mean that if a jury can find sufficient reason to doubt that he committed the crime, they must acquit rather than convict. The prosecution has the burden of proof to show 'beyond reasonable doubt' that the accused committed the crime.
What that means in the 'real world', I really can't say, because ultimately the meaning of "reasonable" is whatever a jury decides it means. The make-up of the jury, the judge assigned to the case, the skill of the prosecuting attorney, and how good the legal representation the accused can afford all have an impact on that.
I'm proud to say that once the situation with rape kits was pointed out to the AG in my state (Ohio) he saw to it that they would all get processed, and arrests are already being made.
Why this backlog developed is worth a hearing or two. Was it lack of funds for expensive tests or simply a lack of will?
You are assuming that we have a functioning justice system in the US. It is my opinion that we have a judicial system rather than a justice system. There are far too many instances where the right thing--i.e. justice--is not done.