Definitions of rape

***Patronising advice alert!!!***
This is quite a sensitive subject - please bear that in mind when commenting.
***OK, I'm done***

In the past couple of days, there have been pronouncements by 2 men - both of whom I despise - about rape.

US Congressman Todd Akin stated that pregnancy in rape cases is "really rare" and that in "legitimate" rape cases, women's bodies somehow miraculously avoided pregnancy.

Tell that to the women in DR Congo or Bosnia or Rwanda, where rape has been used as a physical and psychological weapon.

Respect Party MP George Galloway has claimed that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange (wanted for sexual assault charges in Sweden) was guilty of "bad sexual etiquette", not rape.

Regardless of the political capital being made on all sides from these two incidents, for me, it does raise a question that has me baffled:

Are all kinds of rape equally bad, or is there a scale that allows a judgement to be made on how serious and how damaging an assault is?

I'm asking this because I wholeheartedly agree that rape, as I understand it is a particularly appalling crime that deserves society's condemnation and punishment. I also completely understand that spousal rape and rape committed by those familiar with a victim can be equally terrifying and harmful as "stranger rape" (dark alley with a hammer).
Furthermore, I get that "no means no", that a woman can withold or withdraw consent to sex at any time and that if it then proceeds, it constitutes rape. Similarly, I can see that if a woman is unable to give coherent consent that the same can apply.
In short, I'm no defender of male aggression or disparager of womens' rights. I find sexism of any kind as dreary and intolerable as racism.

And yet, I just can't seem to get my head around the idea that if two adults go to bed together and have willing consensual sex that it can be the same crime for a man to then initiate sex with the woman later on while she is asleep as it is in other, more intimidating forms of rape.
And is a woman then guilty of sexual assault if she wakes first and takes matters into her own hands? Or mouth?
Somehow, I don't see many prosecutions succeeding on that one.

Again, I stress that I feel angry and indignant that so few rape cases result in convictions; that women can be intimidated by their aggressors in court and that it can still be difficult to be believed by the authorities as a woman alleging rape; I'm not an apologist for men who abuse women.

But I am genuinely confused about where I stand on this. I want to be supportive of women who have been violated and suffered as a result of being attacked. But I end up feeling astonished that in some circumstances, a man can be jailed for rape and be a lifelong sex offender for something that just seems completely out of proportion.

Can anyone explain to me how I am failing to understand something simple?

Genuine reply -

There is a girl that I used to date when I was younger, who on several occasions has accused someone of "raping" her. Fortunately, I did not get to that point in the relationship with her.

She has been going out or sometimes even been married to people, then when a breakup happens, she THEN accuses the individual of rape. Or accusing someone of rape DAYS after the event, with no obvious issues with the event at the time, (going out for dinner with the individual the next day, seeing them later on in the week again etc etc).

My opinion is, that SOME women have used the term "rape" to convey an idea that they have not been consensual in the decision, but only when asked by friends as to why they slept with that person i.e. regret for their part rather than they were forced.

I know this is not the majority of cases that are reported to police, but as a result I am naturally suspicious of "rape" allegations, especially from ex-partners, that wasn't reported at the time.

As for your examples of "sleepy time rape", I feel this is more a presumption by the other individual that the other person would like to be wakened by this (I know I wouldn't have any complaints) but I suppose its technically rape. However, that presumption is based on the actions that were consensual hours previous, with or without alcohol, so it would be unreasonable to view that in the same way as violent rape.

My 2p.

Ross

Well the Swedish certainly think rape can be classified into different levels - that's why they have 'minor', 'ordinary' and 'gross' rape.

I would hate to comment other than to say that my brother is a judge who presides over such trials.
He and other judges who do similar work have all undergone specific and ongoing training in this aspect of the law.

I think part of my concern is that it relegates a very serious issue to the realms of legal semantics.

To lighten the mood a tad......

What about if your partner where to fall asleep DURING *ahem* the business. Ofcourse that hasn't happened to me, move along, nothing to see here

As for why there are so few convictions for rape - it's the nature of the crime that most cases will come down to one person's word against another as to whether the sex was by consent, and the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" will always favour the accused winning that argument.

There are real problems with statistics and emotions and both being abused by particular agendas.

For example people talk about so many "rapes" a year based upon anecdotal evidence or the number of complaints rather than convictions. There cannot be a rape without some assessment of the mental state of the accused, it is not pure actus reus.

People talk about so few rape cases resulting in convictions, but the conviction rate for those charged is over 50%. Obviously compared to the number of allegations it is smaller, but should we be concerned about weeding out allegations that lack the evidence to show an offence took place?

There will be people who have been co-erced into sexual intercourse who have no hope of showing it was not consensual. There will be people who have been accused of rape where it was consensual. I think quite a few people will be personally aware of cases falling into the latter bracket, less so the first. This is not because there is a preponderance of false allegations, but rather the higher likelihood that people will talk more freely about it. You can therefore get the likely false impression that someone is more likely to falsely accuse someone of rape than be co-erced into sexual intercourse.

Introducing levels of rape would be used to attack its male proponents as suggesting that there is some 'acceptability' within rape whereas "rape" is "rape" is "rape". It's nonsense, but it's emotive nonsense and it would be a brave man to gamble his career on a balanced reaction to such a suggestion. NB they tend to leave such things to ladies (eg Baronness Stern).

I agree with your whole post, Mark - you didn't get to be a lawyer by accident, did you?!

But the bit I've quoted is the nub of the issue for me.

It simply is not the case that there is a very low conviction rate for rape, it in fact has one of the highest conviction rates - when assessed on the same basis as all other crimes. To explain, all other crimes have their conviction rate calculated on the basis of convictions per case prosecuted but for political reasons rape is always talked about as convictions per case reported. Cases are only prosecuted where there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the offence happened and that there is a good chance of conviction of the accused.

As for the different "levels" of rape, no-one should ever believe that a case suggested to be at the lowest level is not serious but a rape involving no violence is a less serious crime than one involving serious injury. This does'nt mean you are reducing the level of seriousness of the first, and never has, but clearly the second has to have a much more serious level as the violence aggravates an already extremely serious crime.

Unfortunately some of the hysteria whipped up politically in discussions of the crime of rape prevents people from stating this and all we are left with is the shout of "all rape is equally serious" which is an illogical statement which is directly opposed by the facts.

Consent in sexual activity has to be continuous, so an act commenced with consent but continued when consent is withdrawn is rape, and an act previously carried out with consent but initiated when the woman is unable to consent due to sleep or intoxication is rape.

Interesting, so my perception that there are low conviction rates for rape is mistaken. I wonder if that is me getting confused with the number of cases that make it to court?

The issue of continuous consent or reasonable belief that this exists must surely be desperately difficult to assess.
As I said, what if a woman were to be the conscious party? Is it likely that a man could bring a prosecution in that instance?

But the key phrase in that statement is, "where there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the offence happened" - and this is where rape differs from the majority of crimes.

How many other crimes have the potential to leave no evidence a crime was even committed?

Not saying this is right or wrong, but....

What if you are in a consensual sexual relationship and the other party initiates sex whilst drunk?

Surely if you continue, this can't be classed as rape? You've previously been with this person, with consent, but now they are drunk, by their own choice, are you supposed to refuse, incase of a rape allegation?

Ross

Putting to one side the testimony of the victim as being evidence, pretty much all of them I'd say.

There is a difference between being drunk and being unable to consent due to intoxication ( either from drink or drugs ). Some of the politicians don't appear to realise that however, as there are moves afoot to try to legislate that drunk women cannot consent to sex even if they do so enthusiastically at the time!

Dam!

In my opinion, whether a woman is drunk or sober and minding her own business and gets raped, then that's obviously wrong.

If a woman is giving the bloke the go ahead while out or even at his house, but then changes her mind and leaves, then anything afterwards could be classed as rape, as she didn't consent and changed her mind.

To have sex with a bloke though, enjoy it enough to stay and fall asleep with him, only to cry rape when she's woken up by the bloke having sex with her, is wrong, in my opinion.
She may not have consented, as she was asleep, but the bloke would assume consent due to to what happened a few hours ago?

I obviously feel for the women who have been raped, but there are a lot who say they've been raped, because they've made a mistake and it's not fair on the men, as they can do nothing to prove otherwise.

..