nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Formerjudge:rape conviction rates will not improve until 'women stop getting so drunk

AudreyHepburn

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/former-judge-says-rape-conviction-rates-will-not-improve-until-women-stop-getting-so-drunk-9691911.html

Now I know AH may not be the best place for this but I thought it was interesting piece and warranted some discussion.

Knowing how these things usually end up, can I strongly urge everyone to actually READ the article and do so BEFORE you comment!

Me personally, I can see where the judge is coming from.

She's certainly not saying that if a woman gets legless she deserves to be raped, although I know that's how it will probably be read.

I agree though that if you get so wasted you can't remember anything how can you possibly say for sure whether you consented or not? And how can you expect that a judge or jury would be able to convict the accused if all you can say is you know you wouldn't have consented?

Again I stress no woman, or man for that matter, ever asks to be raped.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

kylith

mylefttesticle wrote: »

Jesus and what is she had one drink and that drink was spiked and she couldn't remember anything?

Defence solicitor: so you had drink taking?

Victim: I drank one drink

DS: so you were not sober.

Firstly, if you think this doesn't already happen, you'd be wrong.

Secondly, it is used for everything from falling off a kerb upwards.

Plaintiff: I fell over as their floor was in bad repair
DS: Had you been drinking?
P: I had had one drink
DS: So you were not sober

Rinse and repeat for any crime up to, and including, identifying someone you saw commit murder.

Having any amount of alcohol taken immediately makes a trial going in your favour less likely, whether you are male or female, even more so if your testimony consists of 'I don't know because I had drunk so much I can't remember anything about that night'.

newport2

mylefttesticle wrote: »

because its not fixing anything, its giving another reason to potential victims not to seek justice and is giving the person who assaults a get out of jail card.

Surely she's is just highlighting an existing "get out of jail card"? She's saying this is the reason a lot of current rapists are not being convicted. If it's true, should we just not say it and allow it to continue?

mylefttesticle

El Guapo! wrote: »

Then that's a totally different situation to what the judge is referring to.

Yes it is but sadly she made those remarks without clarifying the complex situations that can arise from a night out that ends in rape.

The Purveyor of Truth

Wibbs wrote: »

OK, but at what point does alcohol remove the ability to make an informed choice? That's a hard one to call. Sure if she's blacked out unconscious it's an easy call.

Plus what if the guy is equally drunk? There can be an element of "a drunk woman loses agency and responsibility for her actions, while drunk men must maintain agency and responsibility for their actions throughout". More they're expected to maintain agency and responsibility for her actions too.

Absolutely, which would lead me to believe that the judge may not be, and may not have been, comfortable with that aspect of the law in the UK.

mylefttesticle

newport2 wrote: »

Surely she's is just highlighting an existing "get out of jail card"? She's saying this is the reason a lot of current rapists are not being convicted. If it's true, should we just not say it and allow it to continue?

See above.

hairycakes

Also people should be aware that being too drunk could result in a person who has committed should a horrible crime against you from walking free because you will be relying on witness statements which as another poster pointed out would be few and fair between due to the nature of the crime taking place in isolated situations.

There is nothing wrong with another reason for people not to get so blind drunk that they can't account for their own actions on a night out. I've done it myself to be honest, as most people here probably have.

0O0

newport2 wrote: »

Which applies to any crime you encounter. You won't be taken to be as reliable as a sober person when drunk.

Untrue

Approximately 2/3 of rapes were committed by someone known to the victim.
73% of sexual assaults were perpetrated by a non-stranger.
38% of rapists are a friend or acquaintance.

Stand corrected on that.

But the point I'm making is that it is the norm to consume alcohol even just a glass of wine. But in a case where there are NO witnesses, CCTV etc & it's the defendant's word against the victim's, the the defence team will pounce on the fact they were under the influence of even a small bit of alcohol & therefore cannot be relied upon to give an accurate account of the incident.

mylefttesticle

kylith wrote: »

Firstly, if you think this doesn't already happen, you'd be wrong.

Secondly, it is used for everything from falling off a kerb upwards.

Plaintiff: I fell over as their floor was in bad repair
DS: Had you been drinking?
P: I had had one drink
DS: So you were not sober

Rinse and repeat for any crime up to, and including, identifying someone you saw commit murder.

Having any amount of alcohol taken immediately makes a trial going in your favour less likely, whether you are male or female, even more so if your testimony consists of 'I don't know because I had drunk so much I can't remember anything about that night'.

Exactly!!!!!!!!! I agree with her sentiments but she chose the wrong public domain to speak about it in, she has power obviously she should have used that power to lobby governments on fixing what is becoming a huge problem, in my opinion all she has done is legitimise a myth.

osarusan

mylefttesticle wrote: »

Exactly!!!!!!!!! she should have used that power to lobby governments on fixing what is becoming a huge problem

What problem?

mylefttesticle wrote: »

all she has done is legitimise a myth.

What myth?

Holsten

2014 and stranger danger myth still going strong.

All forms of rape/sexual assault/abuse are close to 90% committed by someone known to the victim.

A drunk girl will likely be raped by here friend than a stranger.

deandean

And the quote from a woman in the UK Rape Crisis Centre:

"Katie Russell said: “The point that she and other influential people within the criminal justice system should be making clearly and publicly is that the legal responsibility is with the defendant in a rape case to evidence how they sought and received consent. "

So she's advocating an assumption of guilt on the man unless he can prove otherwise!

Yea that'll get the conviction rates up, for sure.

sbsquarepants

mylefttesticle wrote: »

because its not fixing anything, its giving another reason to potential victims not to seek justice and is giving the person who assaults a get out of jail card.

It's not doing anything of the sort.
If you yourself were up on charges for something, for anything at all, and during the course of the trial it came out that the witness was in fact drunk at the time, you don't think that the jury should view their evidence as less reliable?
There seems to be some sort of an opinion among some groups that when it comes to rape trials, the accused is to be treated as a scum bag rapist and the accuser to be pampered and treated as a victim. It is of course a delicate situation but the law is quite clear - innocent until proven otherwise. There is no presumption of guilt, not ever, not in any circumstance, nor should there be. false accusations, mistaken identities and drunken regrets feature heavily in rape trials.
If you can't remember what happened, your testimony is worthless.. harsh as that sounds, that's a fact.

GreeBo

Holsten wrote: »

Judge is right.

Even situations where the person is so drunk and still says no, they might not be taken seriously if it went to court.

Yes women should be able to get drunk without fear of rape but it happens and that's a fact of today's society, the chances would be higher it would happen when drunk.

A man should be able to get drunk and have consensual sex and not be accused of rape.

Holsten wrote: »

The chances also would be that any man who rapes a women would be already well known to them.

If you get that drunk bad things can happen to you.

Yeah, bad things like being convicted of rape.

tritium

0O0 wrote: »

If the guy is equally drunk i.e that blocked he can't make an informed decision - not just drunk but hammered... Then surely he wouldn't be able to 'perform'

I agree women should be proactive in protecting themselves but not to the extent that, when they're vulnerable they can be taken advantage of & it's their own fault.

First paragraph is bs frankly, if it were true coppers would go out of business. Put simply, if two people are both too drunk to consent and hook up in a drunkenly mutual attraction to have sex then one if two possibilities most likely arise: either neither was raped or both were raped (and yes I know that rape by a woman doesn't exist as a crime in our ass of a legal system). For someone to wake up next day with no recollections and assume based on their sober regrets that they were raped is a pretty bizarre use of logic.

Now I'm not taking about a predator hanging around to find someone too drunk and take advantage, that's a different scenario. Equally violent assaults, including sexual assaults, shouldn't, and usually don't allow the perpetrator to use drink to dodge responsibility. However we need to stop using alcohol as an excuse to ditch personal responsibility.

hairycakes

mylefttesticle wrote: »

because its not fixing anything, its giving another reason to potential victims not to seek justice and is giving the person who assaults a get out of jail card.

It is giving potential victims (pretty much everyone) a reason to be more mindful on nights out and not just get blotto. More people do need to take more responsibility for their own safety. It won't save everyone but it would save some. Not just in the case of rape but in the majority of crimes.

Any victims of rape should receive justice, any person who assaults in this manner deserves jail. I agree with you that this could and probably has in the past given a get out of jail free card.

This shouldn't stop anyone from seeking justice. It is merely highlighting the fact that more convictions cannot take place because the victim cannot give credible evidence.

AudreyHepburn

mylefttesticle wrote: »

Bull****, she is saying don't get drunk because nobody will believe you.

Same as years ago don't wear short dresses and mini skirts because if you do and you get raped its your own fault, a image a lot of people still think is true.

Her comments don't take into account a wide range of circumstances that can contribute to someone being put in a vulnerable position.

Just because this is a former judge does not mean the words that were used are gospel, they are populous meanderings.

Read the article.

She states clearly and unequivocally that just because a woman is drunk does not make it right to take advantage of her.

She is simply saying that if your evidence in courts is 'I don't remember what happened but he must have raped me because I know I wouldn't have consented' then chances of a conviction are low.

Czarcasm

Dumb thing for even a former judge to be saying, and in the very same way as she took merely one aspect of a set scenario of a case of rape, where such circumstances are in the minority of rape cases and in no way account for 40% of rape cases where a prosecution was unsuccessful (60% conviction rate according to the article).

She told the Oxford Mail conviction rate will not improve unless women stop drinking so heavily.

“I will also say, and I will be pilloried for saying so, but the rape conviction statistics will not improve until women stop getting so drunk."

The conviction rate won't drop until people stop raping people. Rape conviction statistics will not improve until people stop raping people. The onus is on a judge to examine ALL the factors in a case, not to be concerned about bumping up her conviction rate (although former judge in this case).

“And if a woman is incapacitated through drink or drugs then she is not capable of giving her consent."

Ms Russell said only an estimated 15 per cent of all rape victims go to the police, often because of feelings of shame and self-blame or for fear of not being believed or taken seriously.

"If we are ever to improve levels of reporting, and levels of criminal justice for sexual violence survivors, we must remain focussed on the behaviour and culpability of perpetrators, not victims. One hundred per cent of the responsibility for any act of sexual violence lies with its perpetrator."

Something the former judge seems to have forgotten.

Czarcasm

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Read the article.

She states clearly and unequivocally that just because a woman is drunk does not make it right to take advantage of her.

She is simply saying that if your evidence in courts is 'I don't remember what happened but he must have raped me because I know I wouldn't have consented' then chances of a conviction are low.

She didn't simply say that though. She said a lot more.

osarusan

Czarcasm wrote: »

The onus is on a judge to examine ALL the factors in a case, not to be concerned about bumping up her conviction rate (although former judge in this case).

I don't see how you could have inferred this from the article.

OldNotWIse

0O0 wrote: »

Stand corrected on that.

But the point I'm making is that it is the norm to consume alcohol even just a glass of wine. But in a case where there are NO witnesses, CCTV etc & it's the defendant's word against the victim's, the the defence team will pounce on the fact they were under the influence of even a small bit of alcohol & therefore cannot be relied upon to give an accurate account of the incident.

It still comes down to credibility. Just because someone has had one drink does not mean the jury will all gasp in horror and immediately decide that the complainant is making up porkies. They are you and I and all of us and are capable of independent thought. If someone is so inebriated that they cannot recall certain facts with certainty then that potentially harms the accused too doesn't it? You all seem to be assuming that we are talking about definite rapes that are going unpunished because someone had a drink. Please remember that maybe there is nothing to punish. Please also remember that the accused is entitled to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Is it fair to convict someone on a hazy, drunken recollection? Is that the kind of legal system we want?

Michael D Not Higgins

Czarcasm wrote: »

Dumb thing for even a former judge to be saying, and in the very same way as she took merely one aspect of a set scenario of a case of rape, where such circumstances are in the minority of rape cases and in no way account for 40% of rape cases where a prosecution was unsuccessful (60% conviction rate according to the article).

I don't know the stats but I can assume that some of the 40% is for where there are inconsistencies in the story or outright lies and the accused is acquitted or where an alibi, witness or sufficient evidence of consent was presented.

Outside of this (or similar reasons of proving innocence) we can assume some of the acquittals were due to insufficient evidence, e.g. one person's word against another, unreliable testimony, such as the case this former judge is outlining, or reasonable doubt.

How these break down in what proportions is unknown to us, but I'm sure the judge has been heartbroken by seeing girls on the stand clearly shaken by their experience but all they can say is 'I can't remember'. There is an assumption of innocence in our justice system and in a 'he says, she says' situation you have to look at the most credible evidence.

Czarcasm

osarusan wrote: »

I don't see how you could have inferred this from the article.

Well obviously she's retired now, but I interpreted it from her comment here -

“I will also say, and I will be pilloried for saying so, but the rape conviction statistics will not improve until women stop getting so drunk.

GreeBo

Czarcasm wrote: »

The conviction rate won't drop until people stop raping people. Rape conviction statistics will not improve until people stop raping people. The onus is on a judge to examine ALL the factors in a case, not to be concerned about bumping up her conviction rate (although former judge in this case).

I think you missed her point.
Drunk victims reduces their chances of a conviction, you cant argue with that.
Its great to throw out lines like "until people stop raping people" but that doesnt achieve anything.

People wont stop being shot until people stop shooting people, fantastic tautology but completely useless in reality.

[Deleted User]

Czarcasm wrote: »

The conviction rate won't drop until people stop raping people. Rape conviction statistics will not improve until people stop raping people. The onus is on a judge to examine ALL the factors in a case, not to be concerned about bumping up her conviction rate (although former judge in this case).

If there were no rapes how would the conviction rate improve unless you're going to convict innocent people?

GreeBo

Czarcasm wrote: »

Well obviously she's retired now, but I interpreted it from her comment here -

Her point being that a person who is drunk at the time greatly lessens the chances of a conviction. Its not like killing someone when they are either dead or not and "all" you have to do is prove is whodunit.

With rape accusations the problem to prove is rape, not who dunnit.
Is it rape?
Was their consent?

Add alcohol to that and you have problems. No one can say for sure if it was consensual or not which means you dont get a conviction, rightly or wrongly.

Michael D Not Higgins

Czarcasm wrote: »

Well obviously she's retired now, but I interpreted it from her comment here -

In the case of acquittals of actual rapists, what's the easiest way to tackle this? Tell them to stop raping or don't give them reasonable doubt?

geret

mylefttesticle wrote: »

Jesus and what is she had one drink and that drink was spiked and she couldn't remember anything?

Defence solicitor: so you had drink taking?

Victim: I drank one drink

DS: so you were not sober.

If she was spiked, then present the evidence to the court i.e. bloodtests or is the court supposed to accept her expert medical opinion aswell?

GreeBo

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

In the case of acquittals of actual rapists, what's the easiest way to tackle this? Tell them to stop raping or don't give them reasonable doubt?

Define and then prove "actual" rapist.
Thats the problem the courst/jury has.

A drunk "victim" erodes their case that it was rape, it doesn't change the fact that it was or was not rape, but when you have two people and one says yes and the other says no, proof is a problem.

suicide_circus

I can do whatever I want, I can drink myself into oblivion without consequences or dangers. Try to limit my fun? victim blaming facist!

The Purveyor of Truth

The more I think about this, the more it seems like an idiotic thing to say.

The crux of what she says is: if women stop getting so drunk, then there would be more rape convictions, as women would have more clarity about what occurred and therefore more credence could be given to their evidence in that regard.

However, there is also the implication there that women wouldn't be raped at all had they been sober and so surely if that is the case, rather than there being more rape convictions (were women to stop getting so drunk, as she suggests they should) there would in fact be less, and so, isn't she contradicting her own contention here?

The truth is that it is very hard to prove one person's word over another, especially when they are drunk and so inevitably there will be doubt as to whether or not someone is misremembering the events of the night in question, and that of course goes for both sexes.

I think what she should have done was aimed her comments at both men and women and said both should be more careful about the company which they keep or the situations that they put themselves in when drunk, as it is almost impossible for the courts to decide who is telling the truth when either or both parties are drunk and one claims they didn't consent and the other says that they did.

I see where she was coming from, I suppose, but singling out women and saying that rape statistics won't improve unless they stop getting so drunk, just seems like a rather thoughtless, and pretty pointless, thing to say.