The value of a convicted rapist.

Backspinswerve

Due to the nature of rape as a crime it is very difficult to be sure if a rape actually occurred or not. Therefor there will always either be rapists who get away with the crime or people who are falsely convicted of rape.

There is a balance to find when deciding how much "reasonable doubt" is needed not to convict the accused. If you increase the level of evidence required more rapists go free and fewer people are falsely convicted, and vice versa.

So the question is, how many convicted rapists is worth one person falsely being imprisoned for rape?

10, 50, 100??? I find it very difficult to answer.

Pat Mustard

Backspinswerve wrote: »

There is a balance to find when deciding how much "reasonable doubt" is needed not to convict the accused. If you increase the level of evidence required more rapists go free and fewer people are falsely convicted, and vice versa.

So the question is, how many convicted rapists is worth one person falsely being imprisoned for rape?

10, 50, 100??? I find it very difficult to answer.

Rape is different to other offences because even if the victim/complainant has not consented, the legislation states that no rape has been committed if the accused can show that he had honest belief that there was consent.

2.—(1) A man commits rape if—
(a) he has unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman who at the time of the intercourse does not consent to it, and
(b) at that time he knows that she does not consent to the intercourse or he is reckless as to whether she does or does not consent to it,

Forensic evidence will often show that sexual intercourse has taken place.

Therefore, the defence may turn upon issues of consent or 'honest belief' as outlined above.

It can be difficult to get a conviction for rape. The State has to show that there was no consent to sex. The defence may bring evidence that there was an honest belief. The State has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, meaning that if the defence raises a reasonable doubt, the accused will be acquitted.

Therefore one could say that accused parties are protected.

With regard to the second aspect regarding the release of the guilty in order to protect the innocent, a legal principle known as Blackstone's formulation states the following:

the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer.

My understanding is that this may derive from a biblical reference (Genesis):

Yahweh said, "If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sake." 27 Abraham answered, "See now, I have taken it on myself to speak to the Lord, who am but dust and ashes. 28 What if there will lack five of the fifty righteous? Will you destroy all the city for lack of five?" He said, "I will not destroy it, if I find forty-five there."
29 He spoke to him yet again, and said, "What if there are forty found there?"
He said, "I will not do it for the forty's sake."
30 He said, "Oh don't let the Lord be angry, and I will speak. What if there are thirty found there?"
He said, "I will not do it, if I find thirty there."
31 He said, "See now, I have taken it on myself to speak to the Lord. What if there are twenty found there?"
He said, "I will not destroy it for the twenty's sake."
32 He said, "Oh don't let the Lord be angry, and I will speak just once more. What if ten are found there?"
He said, "I will not destroy it for the ten's sake."
33 Yahweh went his way, as soon as he had finished communing with Abraham, and Abraham returned to his place.

braddun

not too hard to prove,dna,if they collected dna from everyone arrested they would solve more rapes

endacl

braddun wrote: »

not too hard to prove,dna,if they collected dna from everyone arrested they would solve more rapes

Has the gene for consent been identified?

Oh. Also, no they wouldn't.

Peregrinus

I don't see that there's an easy way around this problem. Precisely because rapes frequently happen in an intimate context, or in the context of an existing intimate relationship, it can be very hard to show the state of mind of both parties (and as The Mustard points out, the state of mind of both parties is relevant) to the degree of certainty required in a criminal prosecution.

Short of developing a mind-reading machine, the only way to make conviction easier would be to lower the standard of proof - balance of probabilities, say, rather than beyond reasonable doubt. But that would lead to the bizarre and obviously unjust situation that a person could be convicted and imprisoned for rape on evidence of a quality that wouldn't sustain a conviction for parking on a double yellow line.

To be honest, so far as preventing rape from happening goes, the criminal law can only do a certain amount. As a society, we can mark the seriousness with which we view rape by imposing heavy sentences on those convicted. But there isn't a great deal we can do to improve the conviction rate without fatally compromising important principles of justice. It's fashionable to sneer at universities with their "consent codes" and their mandatory classes in sexual and relationship ethics, etc, but to be honest those things are probably at least as important as the criminal law in terms of changing peoples' attitudes, which is the only way you will get them to change their behaviours.