Posted on 12/07/2006 1:28:43 AM PST by Mrs Ivan
Juries are reluctant to convict men of rape in cases where the alleged victim has been drinking, research published today suggests.
They appear to believe that it is reasonable for a man to assume that a woman’s silence amounts to consent, even if it is due to her intoxication. Even if a woman’s drink has been spiked, they are reluctant to find a defendant guilty of rape.
The findings suggest that juries, as much as the Crown Prosecution Service or police, are responsible for the low rate of rape convictions. Fewer than 6 per cent of rape allegations result in successful convictions.
Efforts by the Government to boost the conviction rate in rape cases appears to have had no effect on the way that jurors view alleged rapists.
Legislation passed in 2003 changed the law in England and Wales so that a defendant had to prove that he “reasonably” believed that a woman had agreed to sex. Previously, he had to “honestly” believe that she had consented. The move was heralded as a significant tightening of the law. Government law officers are now considering proposals to strengthen the law by rewording the definition of capacity to consent.
But research funded by the Economic and Social Research Council found that jurors often take the view that silence represents sexual consent.
Actors and barristers took the main roles in 75-minute “trials” that were conducted before juries which then had their 90-minute deliberations recorded and analysed.
The research, conducted with simulated juries because of the prohibition on jury research, also indicated that juries hold a drunken victim partially responsible for what happens.
This is either because she accepted drinks from the defendant, failed to stand her ground against pressure to drink more or did not take adequate care to ensure that her drinks were not spiked.
Even when a woman had unknowingly consumed a spiked drink, juries were reluctant to convict defendants of rape, unless they were convinced that the drink had been spiked with the specific intention of sexual assault, as opposed to “loosening up” a reluctant partner.
Another finding was that jurors were less inclined to see “taking advantage” of a drunken woman as rape in situations where the woman’s normal behaviour was to drink heavily in the company of men.
By contrast, where the drug Rohypnol had been used, jurors were more inclined to hold the defendant responsible for rape, even if the effect of the drug was the same as if a woman were very drunk.
Dr Vanessa Munro, of King’s College, London, who conducted the research with Dr Emily Finch, of the University of East Anglia, said: “These findings reflect the hold that gender stereotypes still have. They suggest that ‘rape myths’ can have a profound influence upon jurors.”
This month Jonathan Hagan was cleared of raping an undergraduate after a freshers’ party at the University of Nottingham, where he was student union president. The girl said that she was so drunk that she could remember nothing more than Hagan removing her underwear before she passed out.
The Forensic Science Service has detected the presence of alcohol in 81 per cent of samples taken from victims of sexual assault, with 60 per cent of those at levels of twice the drink-drive threshold.
The majority of convicted rapists have also drunk alcohol in the six hours preceding the alleged assault, research has shown.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
Or if the defendant is a Dimocrat President.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
In the US, I suspect anything short of notarized and videotaped consent will land a conviction of a man. And, if she's proved to have lied, she's got nothing to fear unless she took thousands in victim assistance funds. Then she gets 90 days and a fine while the males could've been in for life.
Uh...say that again?
Read the head Liner Mrs. Ivan
and the first few words...
To sum it up....no "blank" Sherlock.
A woman must take responsibility for her actions before they lead her to "shame" in the morning.
Men too.
I happen to agree with you.
That is the way I fear it is becoming over here - the thrust of the article, if you'll forgive the phrasing, appears to be that many of the cases that fail should be rape, but it is the fault of juries that alleged rapist is not convicted.
As you rightly say, women have to be held equally responsible for themselves.
Your spot on ...justice being progessive..
Yet as Americans..We have scales of Justice and as Christians we balance those scales with the oppisite side of the coin....Mercy.
Confusing, isn't it?
If I read it rightly, this article would have us believe that more cases should result in conviction - there is some talk over here around of removing the automatic right to trial by jury - it may be that this will turn out to be one of the "arguements" in support of that.
How could anyone think this is an acceptable argument for not holding a rapist responsible for his actions?
Welllll,,,,
Keep your hand over your drink and as we do here carry bottled water in our paks...
You can be mugged in a Wal Mart parking lot but one must take responsibilty for their safety and if need be carry a magnum .457.
Boy would that be a hoot when a perverted/psycho tried to carry out his twisted souless persuit and the gal would be innocent as under the prevailing law ...defense.
Men are still the majority in the legislatures. Men pass the laws, not women.
Yeah...right! Which is why garbage like the VAWA and the "women's right to privacy" argument set forth by Roe V. Wade are still on the books.
Let us get this straight - the feminazi/feminist/anti-men strain of thought is probably the second most dangerous trend (after radical Islam) in America.
It is high time some women take **some** responsibility for their own actions.
This is one of the toughest issues in my opinion to make adequate laws for that protect both men and women. There are so many instances like the Duke case that are clear travesties of justice, where a man's life is ruined because of a vindictive woman. Then there is the horror for women to have to relive this experience or worse, children that are too scared or ashamed to testify.
While the burden of proof might need to be increased to prevent this sort of thing from unfairly punishing innocent men, the ultimate punishment for convicted rapists should be much more severe.
If the tart doesn't clearly state" No", what's a bloak to do?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.