Forum menu
Not so in the UK elf
The legal definition in England and Wales was revised by the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which came into force in May 2004. The Act represents a major overhaul in the sexual offences framework and was the outcome of extensive consultation and debate over a two year period - for further information see 'Setting the Boundaries' at the Home Office website. Under the new legislation rape is classified as penetration by the penis of somebody's vagina, anus or mouth, without their consent. It can be committed against men or women but since it involves penile penetration it can only be committed by men.
I had consesual sex with a girl last night. We argued this AM and now she is saying I raped her. She has DNA evidence of having sex with me. Should I be castrated? Obviously there are MASSIVE assumptions here but you must see the argument?
Not so in the UK elf
Ah, ok. I do know that women have been convicted of rape in the UK, but obvously prior to the change in the law. Probbly a re-classification to some form of sexual assault, carrying a similar sentence.
Ugh. What a horrible subject. 🙁
Just a point on the DNA stuff: while it is technically true that [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SGM%2B ]DNA matches are not 100%, they are pretty damn close to it (e.g. at least 1 in 1000 million)[/URL]
The real issue with DNA is that it is essentially circumstantial - it shows you were there but, depending on the exact context, it doesn't prove you committed a crime. (As 1961Bikie's scenario illustrates).
i have to agree with duntstick. death or at the very least life without parole. These people are animals who deserve to be treated like animals and put down. Draconian hell yeah!! in the years before the death penalty was abolished in the uk (1957-1964)there was 29 hangings for murder in eight years. thats less than 4 a year so it stands to reason that the rape rate was greatly reduced at this time as well as there was a proper deterrant. Todays justice system is a joke where lags can claim damages for getting solitary confinement FFS which comes out of our pockets not too mention the cost of paying for said lags playstation games and new pool tables. "that scumball looked at me wrong there, i'm going to give him a doing" into solitary confinement he goes and oh look he gets released a few years later with his cash in his pocket so goes out on the town and some other poor woman or guy can be subjected to this frightening individuals idea of what a good time is! what the hell is going on!! So the answer to your question is no. He deserves a lot worse than chemical or physical castration. What about the woman who can't look at herself in the mirror or is scared to leave the house for the rest of her life?
ps this is one heavy thread subject for STW!
there was 29 hangings for murder in eight years. thats less than 4 a year so it stands to reason that the rape rate was greatly reduced at this time as well as there was a proper deterrant.
how are the 2 related?
Todays justice system is a joke where lags can claim damages for getting solitary confinement FFS which comes out of our pockets
I don't think so...evidence?
oh look he gets released a few years later with his cash in his pocket
yes prison is just a holiday really. There was a thread on it a while ago that you should read - with comments from people who have been inside as well as "newspaper" readers.
Unless you are trolling?
Rapists should have one hand sewn to their genetalia, can't stick it in anyone then, and theyll be easy to spot
If you have harsher punishments like this for crimes such as rape, might it not convince more rapists to kill their victims afterwards to reduce the chances of getting caught?
haggis1978: sources, other than The Daily Mail?
haggis1978 your hanging for murder statistic would only be relevant if hanging automatically followed the offense it did not, it depended on detection conviction and the sentence being passed.
Those who commit crimes such as murder or rape rarely consider the consequences of conviction they are motivated by emotion, frustration or anger they do not stop and do a costs/benefits analysis of their actions. So capital punishment/castration will not deter.
Also consider the jury will they convict where they no that that punishment will follow. We used to hang for theft where the value was over 1d London juries would not convict in even the clearest cases.
A scenario for you : a man with a mental impairment takes a girl to his aunts where he lives. She can't stay at home as she is fleeing violence she asks to and does sleep in his bed they lay on the bed together and either she seduces him and then regrets it and says rape or he puts his hands on her she does not protest things move on he starts to have sex she says no he continues.
In the event that the jury are sure that the girls account is true do you believe he should be castrated? do you think that prospect ever entered his mind to act as a deterrent? Do you think a jury would have the courage to convict knowing what they condemn him to?
As above DNA is never 100% i have seen 50/50 put before a jury.DNA odds are normally in the order of one in a million. The presence of DNA often leads to the "prosecutors fallacy" that the DNA at the scene must be the DNA of the offender and of course given the use of Low Copy DNA in forensics the problems with false positives increase.
English Law and sentencing for good reason has risen above the Barbaric and Simplistic.
[s]English[/s] Law [b]in the UK (and probably many other developed nations)[/b] and sentencing for good reason has risen above the Barbaric and Simplistic.
FTFY!
Murder rates are significantly down with our present "soft" jail system
cynic-al . Thanks and i agree with the spirit of your edit but English is the right term so:
English and Scotish Law and sentencing (and probably many other developed nations)for good reason has risen above the Barbaric and Simplistic.
"TandemJeremy - Member
Murder rates are significantly down with our present "soft" jail system "
Really? I thought murder rates were pretty much a constant per head of population, not a criticism just asking if you have a real source that trumps my received wisdom.
Crankboy.
Crime is significantly down, murder is the lowest for 20 yrs although I expect a rise in both now.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jul/16/crime-figures-recession-impact
crankboy, "English" may be the right term [i]for you[/i] but the legal systems are E, W & NI and Scotland.
thats less than 4 [hangings] a year so it stands to reason that the rape rate was greatly reduced at this time as well as there was a proper deterrant
Did not deter Brady or Hindley did it Haggis - about as bad as they come.
Problem with deterrants is that criminals think they wont be caught so it does not really work + might as well hang fopr a sheep as a lamb - they will rape them murder sadly under your system
cynical-al there are big differences between Scotish and English law. Though one or two less as of yesterday.
cos it's like the death penalty innit - our criminal justice system is not perfect; innocent people are found 'guilty' and punished.
it's one thing to put an innocent person in jail for a couple of years - releasing them with compensation when their innocence is established.
it's another thing to chop people into bits, you can't stick bits back onto a wrongly convicted innocent person...
and it's wrong.
"We use two bricks and bang them together"
[i]"Gosh, that must be painful!"[/i]
"Not if you keep your thumbs out of the way"
That's my point crankboy - and it's "E, W & NI" Law not "English Law", no?
cynic-al - yes I apologise.
Cynic al: my point is that there was a proper deterrant in the 60's to make people think twice about serious crimes i thought i made this clear with my senttence which started "so it stands to reason...."
As for sources it took me 2 minutes to google search when the death penalty was abolished and the number of hangings the year before that so no i didnt get that from the daily mail you cheeky sh1t. However the information i did get from a newspaper was about lags geting compo for being banged up in solitary which was on the front page of a scottish newspaper last week. Try doing a bit of research into it yourself before questioning my methods.
Plus if you actually knew someone who's life had been destroyed by a deviant (like i do!!)then maybe you wouldn't be quite as quick at being "cynic-al" towards my view on it. Now do one!
And yes maybe it didn't deter Hindley but again try comparing actual crime rates of that era with this era.
Tempting as it sounds it really is the thin end of the wedge. There's an important principle here. At prsent there is no legal punishment that intentionally physically harms an offender. Once that principle is breached however well intentionned, it's an incremental journey back to chopping peoples hands off for stealing a loaf of bread, after they'll only steal one more loaf etc. etc.
No conviction is 100% safe anyway.
Haggis - you need to look a little closer. The death penalty is no deterrent. Murder rates have been dropping for years with no death penalty.
...thats less than 4 a year so it stands to reason that the rape rate was greatly reduced at this time as well as there was a proper deterrant.
Err no it doesn't. The number of hangings for murder has little relation to the number of rapes. Given that in the UK at the time there was a far more relaxed attitude towards domestic violence as well as the fact that a husband could not be convicted of raping his wife (I think that last one is true) I'd guess that the actual rape rate was higher rather than lower than it is today.
If, as you suggest, the death penalty is a deterrant why is does the US have one of the highest murder rate of the industrialised world?
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Homicide ]Yes, yes, yes I know it's a link to Wiki.[/url]
Thanks TJ murder rates per 100 000 do appear to be down to 1.28 from a steady 1.7ish. So it ain't the death penalty that deters.
haggis is right both the Scottish sun and daily record got upset about it being wrong to lock people in solitary for 3.5 years. They obviously felt it was better that the evil villains get the treatment they "deserve" rather than anyone try rehabilitation even if that means the villains came out on the streets with severe mental/personality problems to offend again.
I should say if any one harmed anyone i was close to then i would lose all sense of proportion and justice which is exactly why i would then be the least qualified to speak on the subject.
there was a proper deterrant in the 60's to make people think twice about serious crimes
And yes maybe it didn't deter Hindley
So you you accept your won argument is wrong but you are sticking weith it excellent
Plus if you actually knew someone who's life had been destroyed by a deviant (like i do!!)then maybe you wouldn't be quite as quick at being "cynic-al" towards my view on it. Now do one!
Ah yes the view of the victim to be preferred to anyone with any detachment 🙄
"do one"? Just because I'm a thorn in your side? 🙄
And, if you can read past the first lines of
Lawyer Tony Kelly acted for Ralston, Somerville, Blanco and two other prisoners, David Henderson and William Cairns.He said the prison service had agreed to settle out of court with his clients [b]because the men had been "shipped off" to segregation without being given any chance to challenge the decision.[/b]
Mr Kelly added: "After the commencement of these actions, the Scottish Prison Service altered considerably their practices and procedures for the use of segregation.
So the deal was done (no judgement was issued) because the prisoners were given no opportunity to challenge the decision, not because of being put in solitary. It helps to read these things in full, mate.
I am guessing that you don't think prisoners should have civil rights though, and I'm well aware I'm preaching to the un-convert-able.
racing_ralph - MemberStitches
So you want to make a "joke" ? You think this is a "funny" subject ?
Sadly, some very well known 'comedians' seem to think that rape IS a totally acceptable subject for humour:
[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/sep/10/rape-jokes-in-comedy ]The rise of the rape joke. [/url]
I used to like Reggie Hunter and Sarah Millican too....
WTF is wrong with rape jokes?
if you get all medieval with punishments then conviction rates will drop.
This is exactly wrong. Instead we would end up with a more brutalised society.
In 'medieval' times, where people were hanged for the slightest crimes, the highest incidents of theft, took place at the hangings.
cynic-al - Member
WTF is wrong with rape jokes?
If you have to ask.........
Try reading the article.
Now al we should start a new thread on that but , IMHO, certain things are never funny. Raping women, child sexual abuse, genocide or jokes associated with them. There really is no humour in being raped will the victim ever laugh it off? I have been to some funerals and had a smile, joke etc but I have yet to see the laughs at a rape trial.
The counter-argument, expressed most forcibly by Jo Brand, is that today's comedians pose as plain-speakers and PC refuseniks in order to smuggle in the kind of misogynist comedy last seen in the 1970s. The likes of Carr, says Brand, "appeal to all the people out there who think, 'Where have all those delicious anti-women jokes gone? We miss them.'" Brand identifies "almost a desperation to make [comedy] more unpalatable than it was before".
Sorry, I don't agree.
How do you stand on freedom of speech then?
Sorry, I don't agree.How do you stand on freedom of speech then?
I'm all for freedom of speech, 100% with Voltaire on that one.
Similarly, I don't think any type of joke should be banned.
I just happen to agree with Jo Brand on this one.
Much modern comedy is just old style prejudice, hatred and mysogyny dressed up in the shiny cloak of 'irony' and post modernism.
I think everyone has the freedom to speak but not necessairly the freedom to be offensive
Where do you stand on child pron jokes and websites dedicated to people "meeting up" to research this? Freedom of speech? Inciting racial hatred curtails freedom of speech. I am sur eyou can think of an example you support. We all agree with censorship in extreme cases we only need to discuss where to draw the line. Obviously people will disagree on the exact location.
Edit - double post, apologies..
"I have yet to see the laughs at a rape trial." actually rape trials are really really stressful to do and that normally results in at least a few attempts to relieve the stress by way of an inapropriate joke. I do think that humour can be a very usefull way of exploring difficult areas challenging asumpions or just breaking tension.
What's wrong with Reggie Hunter's joke then?
We all agree with censorship in extreme cases
Nope - simply because of the impossibility in drawing the line. However I do believe Brand is right on this - a lot of it is misogyny masquerading as ironical
What's wrong with Reggie Hunter's joke then?
From what I've read, it justifies and legitimises rape as vital to the evolution of society.
simply because of the impossibility in drawing the line
Will quote that back to you when you susggest someone cannot incite racial hatred then TJ - that is still censorship
I think everyone has the freedom to speak but not necessairly the freedom to be offensive
No one has the right not to be offended.
As for...
Much modern comedy is just old style prejudice, hatred and mysogyny dressed up in the shiny cloak of 'irony' and post modernism.
...perhaps some, is but not all, IMO, I enjoy the 9/10 joke (prbably for the shock value), am I therefore a mysogynist?
The Hunter joke points out that rape played a role in the evolution of society that neither justifies nor legitimises it. Any Historian would tell you the same. it should not make you feel rape is justified or legitimate it might make you ashamed of empire builders and abhor those who seek to impose their will on others.
I think everyone has the freedom to speak but not necessairly the freedom to be offensiveNo one has the right not to be offended.
As for...
Much modern comedy is just old style prejudice, hatred and mysogyny dressed up in the shiny cloak of 'irony' and post modernism.
...perhaps some, is but not all, IMO, I enjoy the 9/10 joke (prbably for the shock value), am I therefore a mysogynist?
I completely agree, no one has the right not to be offended.
No one on here has said that they find rape jokes offensive.
I just find them unfunny and sad.
They also make me question the motivation behind those that make them and the mindset of those that laugh at them.
As for your second comment - I don't know, are you a mysoginyst?
I didn't find it funny because I don't see the correlation between raping someone and enjoyment. As stated above, I've always believed it's a crime of power, hatred and control, rather than sexual gratification or fulfillment.
Crankboy - thanks for the clarification. Will try and find a full version of the routine and have a closer look.
Edited, apologies Al, got a bit confused as to your response.