ever wondered why the conviction rate for rape is so low?

http://www.falserape.net/

Janitor of Lunacy

2010-06-20 01:05:19 UTC

Post by thedarkman
http://www.falserape.net/

If only it were that simple. Rape is functionally different from murder in
so many ways, principally because rape may not result in loss of life, but
murder does. Obvious, perhaps, but whereas murder is traditionally seen as
the ultimate assault upon another person, rape leaves a living person who
has to deal with that exerience. Paradoxically also, research indicates that
most rape victims achieve involuntary orgasm, which leaves them with an
ambivalent attitude to the experience. However, the law of consent, belief
and mens rea, in relation to charges of rape has been moot at least since R
v Steele (1976).

Freddy

2010-06-20 02:55:57 UTC

Post by Janitor of Lunacy

Post by thedarkman
http://www.falserape.net/

were u charge with raping that little boy Janitor, is that why u know
so much about rape?

Ray Fischer

2010-06-20 07:22:43 UTC

Post by Janitor of Lunacy
If only it were that simple. Rape is functionally different from murder in
so many ways, principally because rape may not result in loss of life, but
murder does. Obvious, perhaps, but whereas murder is traditionally seen as
the ultimate assault upon another person, rape leaves a living person who
has to deal with that exerience. Paradoxically also, research indicates that
most rape victims achieve involuntary orgasm, which leaves them with an

That is a sleazy lie. I suggest that you never repeat it since it
makes you look like a pro-rape misogynist creep.

--
Ray Fischer
***@sonic.net

Steve Walker

2010-06-20 20:48:53 UTC

Paradoxically also, research indicates that most rape victims achieve
involuntary orgasm,

It's reported at variable frequencies, but I've never seen credible research
asserting 'most'. Cite please?

Janitor of Lunacy

2010-06-20 22:57:41 UTC

Post by Steve Walker

Paradoxically also, research indicates that most rape victims achieve
involuntary orgasm,

It's reported at variable frequencies, but I've never seen credible
research asserting 'most'. Cite please?

Apols, it's over twenty years since I came across this statistic, but having
reviewed more recent research, I wouldn't now put it higher than "some" but
couldn't quantify it because those recent sources do not appear to be
neutral on the topic and I can't find any recent empirical evidence.

I can't remember the original source, but am not surprised if there has been
a reduction in reporting of orgasms, simply because it may have been been
seen that doing so might have led to doubt in prosecuting authorities. A
defence lawyer could easily say "so you DID enjoy it, then?", extremely
unfairly, because orgasm is an involuntary physiological response and not
controllable by a victim.

_ G O D _

2010-06-21 02:24:02 UTC

....A defence lawyer could easily say "so you DID enjoy it,
then?", extremely unfairly, because orgasm is an involuntary
physiological response and not controllable by a victim.

What's so unfair in asking the question about
whether woman has enjoyed an orgasm from
having sex with a man? - Because orgasm is
always accompanied by pleasant experience.

But if you think that question being extremely
unfairly, how can you justify a pain and agony,
experienced by victims of completely corrupt
and criminal judicial system and defenseless
hostages of the incarceration industry, whose
slave labor is being exploited with purpose of
illegal capitalization by beneficiaries of gulag
economy?
--
---
_____________________________________________________

I intend to last long enough to put out of business all COck-suckers
along with all institutions of the industrialized slavery and genocide.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The army that will defeat terrorism doesn't wear uniforms, or drive
Humvies, or calls in air-strikes. It doesn't have a high command, or
high security, or a high budget. The army that can defeat terrorism
does battle quietly, clearing minefields and vaccinating children. It
undermines military dictatorships and military lobbyists. It subverts
sweatshops and special interests.Where people feel powerless, it
helps them organize for change, and where people are powerful, it
reminds them of their responsibility." ~~~~ Author Unknown ~~~~
___________________________________________________
--

Cynic

2010-06-21 10:22:23 UTC

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 23:57:41 +0100, "Janitor of Lunacy"

Post by Janitor of Lunacy

Post by Steve Walker

Paradoxically also, research indicates that most rape victims achieve
involuntary orgasm,

It's reported at variable frequencies, but I've never seen credible
research asserting 'most'. Cite please?

Apols, it's over twenty years since I came across this statistic, but having
reviewed more recent research, I wouldn't now put it higher than "some" but
couldn't quantify it because those recent sources do not appear to be
neutral on the topic and I can't find any recent empirical evidence.
I can't remember the original source, but am not surprised if there has been
a reduction in reporting of orgasms, simply because it may have been been
seen that doing so might have led to doubt in prosecuting authorities. A
defence lawyer could easily say "so you DID enjoy it, then?", extremely
unfairly, because orgasm is an involuntary physiological response and not
controllable by a victim.

It would be an extremely stupid defence lawyer who asked such a
question, because it is irrelevant to the question of guilt, and would
reinforce the idea of the rapist who is claiming that "she was really
gagging for it even if she did fight tooth and nail."

IIUC, men can get an involuntary erection and ejaculate when an object
is inserted into the anus and presses against the prostate. Do you
think that could be used as a defence against a charge of male-on-male
rape?

--
Cynic

Andy

2010-06-21 11:09:39 UTC

Post by Cynic
IIUC, men can get an involuntary erection and ejaculate when an object
is inserted into the anus and presses against the prostate. Do you
think that could be used as a defence against a charge of male-on-male
rape?

I think something similar was used in the 'Mormom kidnap/rape case' with
woman on man rape.
However that was quite a few years ago.

Andy

smurf

2010-06-20 08:05:43 UTC

Post by thedarkman
http://www.falserape.net/

Its low because:

i) the definition of rape has changed the goal posts
ii) in the vast majority of cases the only evidence is the word of the
accuser against the defendent.

Such situations are ripe for false allegations and miscarriage of justice,
but also for guilty men to go free. Our entire system of law it has being
assumed that the latter is always better to the former. The angry feminists
though, see rape as the projection of power by men over women, and believe
it to be massively unrecorded and that only in the most execptional
circumstances would a woman ever make a false claim.

Ret.

2010-06-20 08:49:32 UTC

Post by thedarkman
http://www.falserape.net/

i) the definition of rape has changed the goal posts
ii) in the vast majority of cases the only evidence is the word of the
accuser against the defendent.
Such situations are ripe for false allegations and miscarriage of
justice, but also for guilty men to go free. Our entire system of law
it has being assumed that the latter is always better to the former.
The angry feminists though, see rape as the projection of power by
men over women, and believe it to be massively unrecorded and that
only in the most execptional circumstances would a woman ever make a
false claim.

Indeed. Even the strongest supporters of 'innocent until proven guilty' seem
to want to move the goalposts when it comes to allegations of rape. They
cannot have it both ways. If they want the innocent to be protected - then
the system will inevitably make the offence of rape almost impossible to
prove beyond all doubt in the majority of cases.

--
Kev

Cynic

2010-06-20 15:19:55 UTC

Post by smurf
i) the definition of rape has changed the goal posts
ii) in the vast majority of cases the only evidence is the word of the
accuser against the defendent.

And that itself is true because rape is one of very few crimes against
the person where it is perfectly plausible for the same act to have
been carried out with consent.

When a person is accused of GBH or murder the only question is whether
the person committed the act at all. The question of whether the act
may have been consensual and legal does not come into it.

--
Cynic

smurf

2010-06-20 16:59:59 UTC

Post by smurf
i) the definition of rape has changed the goal posts
ii) in the vast majority of cases the only evidence is the word of
the accuser against the defendent.

And that itself is true because rape is one of very few crimes against
the person where it is perfectly plausible for the same act to have
been carried out with consent.
When a person is accused of GBH or murder the only question is whether
the person committed the act at all. The question of whether the act
may have been consensual and legal does not come into it.

It's a cliche, but truly the wisdom of solomon is needed in many rape
trials. I wouldnt like to be the judge, or serve on the jury in such a
situation. The idea that I might imprison an innocent man, or deny justice
to a woman who has being raped fills me with horror.

Norman Wells

2010-06-20 17:28:41 UTC

Post by smurf
i) the definition of rape has changed the goal posts
ii) in the vast majority of cases the only evidence is the word of
the accuser against the defendent.

And that itself is true because rape is one of very few crimes
against the person where it is perfectly plausible for the same act
to have been carried out with consent.
When a person is accused of GBH or murder the only question is
whether the person committed the act at all. The question of
whether the act may have been consensual and legal does not come
into it.

It's a cliche, but truly the wisdom of solomon is needed in many rape
trials. I wouldnt like to be the judge, or serve on the jury in such a
situation. The idea that I might imprison an innocent man, or deny
justice to a woman who has being raped fills me with horror.

That's why you hear all the facts and arguments on both sides. You will
only convict if you are sure beyond reasonable doubt.

As in all criminal trials, the odds therefore rightly favour the defendant.

Being the judge is easy. You summarise the facts and the law, then pass the
matter over to the jury. Then you sentence or let the defendant go as
appropriate based on the jury's verdict.

smurf

2010-06-20 18:04:24 UTC

Post by Norman Wells

Post by smurf
i) the definition of rape has changed the goal posts
ii) in the vast majority of cases the only evidence is the word of
the accuser against the defendent.

And that itself is true because rape is one of very few crimes
against the person where it is perfectly plausible for the same act
to have been carried out with consent.
When a person is accused of GBH or murder the only question is
whether the person committed the act at all. The question of
whether the act may have been consensual and legal does not come
into it.

It's a cliche, but truly the wisdom of solomon is needed in many rape
trials. I wouldnt like to be the judge, or serve on the jury in such
a situation. The idea that I might imprison an innocent man, or deny
justice to a woman who has being raped fills me with horror.

That's why you hear all the facts and arguments on both sides. You
will only convict if you are sure beyond reasonable doubt.
As in all criminal trials, the odds therefore rightly favour the defendant.
Being the judge is easy. You summarise the facts and the law, then
pass the matter over to the jury. Then you sentence or let the
defendant go as appropriate based on the jury's verdict.

He said, she said.

Thats a tough one to call, as another poster said, to truly reach a decision
of guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on one word against the other is
extremely hard. It is no wonder succesful prosecutions are so low

Norman Wells

2010-06-20 20:32:30 UTC

Post by Norman Wells

Post by smurf
i) the definition of rape has changed the goal posts
ii) in the vast majority of cases the only evidence is the word of
the accuser against the defendent.

And that itself is true because rape is one of very few crimes
against the person where it is perfectly plausible for the same act
to have been carried out with consent.
When a person is accused of GBH or murder the only question is
whether the person committed the act at all. The question of
whether the act may have been consensual and legal does not come
into it.

It's a cliche, but truly the wisdom of solomon is needed in many
rape trials. I wouldnt like to be the judge, or serve on the jury
in such a situation. The idea that I might imprison an innocent
man, or deny justice to a woman who has being raped fills me with
horror.

That's why you hear all the facts and arguments on both sides. You
will only convict if you are sure beyond reasonable doubt.
As in all criminal trials, the odds therefore rightly favour the defendant.
Being the judge is easy. You summarise the facts and the law, then
pass the matter over to the jury. Then you sentence or let the
defendant go as appropriate based on the jury's verdict.

He said, she said.
Thats a tough one to call, as another poster said, to truly reach a
decision of guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on one word against
the other is extremely hard. It is no wonder succesful prosecutions
are so low

Of course. And it would never get as far as a prosecution if that was all
there was to it. That's why other evidence is vital, especially of the use
of force and any resistance.

Big Les Wade

2010-06-21 16:21:55 UTC

Post by smurf
He said, she said.
Thats a tough one to call, as another poster said, to truly reach a
decision of guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on one word against the
other is extremely hard. It is no wonder succesful prosecutions are so
low

What is a "successful prosecution"?

--
Les
Criticising the government is not illegal, but often on investigation turns out
to be linked to serious offences.

smurf

2010-06-21 21:04:56 UTC

Post by smurf
He said, she said.
Thats a tough one to call, as another poster said, to truly reach a
decision of guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on one word against
the other is extremely hard. It is no wonder succesful prosecutions
are so low

What is a "successful prosecution"?

One would assume, one in which a man who has raped a woman is found guilty
by a jury of his peers.

Big Les Wade

2010-06-22 07:36:59 UTC

Post by smurf
He said, she said.
Thats a tough one to call, as another poster said, to truly reach a
decision of guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on one word against
the other is extremely hard. It is no wonder succesful prosecutions
are so low

What is a "successful prosecution"?

One would assume, one in which a man who has raped a woman is found guilty
by a jury of his peers.

How then do you know that "successful prosecutions are so low"?

--
Les
Criticising the government is not illegal, but often on investigation turns out
to be linked to serious offences.

smurf

2010-06-22 11:30:42 UTC

Post by smurf
He said, she said.
Thats a tough one to call, as another poster said, to truly reach a
decision of guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on one word against
the other is extremely hard. It is no wonder succesful prosecutions
are so low

What is a "successful prosecution"?

One would assume, one in which a man who has raped a woman is found
guilty by a jury of his peers.

How then do you know that "successful prosecutions are so low"?

Its based on assumptions, that there isnt widescale rampant cases of women
making false allegations, just that it happens and on a regular basis.

Steve Walker

2010-06-20 20:47:13 UTC