Rape : Semantics, Definitions and Culture

[ProjectEuropa]

Please feel free to contribute further to the discussion (peacefully!).

sl

Let me be a little controversial. (so I don't have to keep repeating myself I am talking about the British experience but I'm sure there are points applicable to other parts of the world.) To say 'rape is rape' is missing the point and the reason why the conviction rate is so low. Rape is one of the few crimes where a man can lose up to seven and maybe more years of his life by being convicted of a charge with no supporting material evidence or any independent witnesses. That being said, only fools would say rape has never been committed where there is no material evidence or independent witnesses but juries are often unwilling to convict without evidence though sometimes they do.

The assumed wisdom in the Criminal Justice System is that rape is not a sexual act but is about power. I don't buy this blanket explanation, it smacks too much of gender politics and seems devoid of any worthwhile analysis to me. I have never had any dealings with victims of rape but I have had dealings and discussions with many rapists while working in the Probabtion Service. There always seemed to me to be a very broad range of motivations for the crime as there were a broad range of perpetrators with their own broad range of perceptions.

I'm simplfying here which is always dangerous in such a controversial area but no one is going to read a thesis. On one side of the spectrum there is the psychopatic rapist who will happily discuss his crime as though he had just took his victim for a nice romantic walk in the park. Then there are rapists who are not unlike most murderers, commit the crime against one specific person and will probably never commit the crime again (that is not to diminish the seriousness of their crime). Their victim is a specific woman where circumstance and events spiraled to a point where the crime was committed. I think many latin countries would recognise this as a crime of passion, temporary madness, crime of passion is often recognised in murder cases and as such this would be taken into account during conviction. In Britain it is not recognised though the judge has some movement in sentencing. The accused is either guilty or not guilty of rape and therefore it is not in the accused's interest to add to the understanding of why the act of rape took place, the accused's only interest is to say rape never took place! So for the lawyer of the accused, if there is no material evidence or independent witnesses, has only the character and reputation of the woman to work with as a defence, which generally means cast doubt on her character and reputation. Most rapists in this category once convicted admit to their crime but like most of us who have done wrong, rationalise away their guilt. Then there is the rapist at the opposite end of the spectrum to the psychopathic rapists. They honestly seem bewildered as to how they have been convicted of rape. Some say their behaviour has been misconstrued and some say they are victims of vindictive accusations. We know vindictive accusations take place as in recent years there has been two women convicted of perjury for making false accusations which has caused men to be imprisoned. These cases were well publicised because there was supporting and damning material evidence against the women. Both were imprisoned but much to the anger of most men who felt the women should have got the same prison terms as the men got who they falsely accused, the women got light sentences (a year imprisonment I think).

No means no! This came up in a trial in Britain a few years ago. A young woman invited a young man she had been on a date with to sleep in her bed. They were both naked and took part in heavy petting and then full intercourse. Later she went around saying she was raped. The case eventually ended up in court. The young woman said she was happy to do everything but said 'no' to penetration. The young man said the young woman said 'no' every step along the way to full penetration and when he accepted 'no as no' she made it obvious she didn't mean 'no'. The young woman said that this was the case, she had said 'no' every step of the way and she said 'no' to full penetration but she was too scared to be too forceful in saying 'no' to full penetration. The young man said her behaviour showed no change from her saying 'no' to heavy petting and then encouraging him when he accepted 'no as no' to her saying no to pentration.
The case was fought around 'consent'. The young man was found innocent. The judge said consent has to be accompanied by moral honesty and integrity in order for it not to be a vacuous defence (I'm paraphrasing). The case led to a lot of discussion as to what is rape and what is a bad sexual experience. Women seemed to be divided on this case, some saying the young woman didn't experience rape but experienced a bad sexual experience and some saying 'no means no' and therefore she was raped.

I hope you are not hoping for an answer or a conclusion because I don't have one. I am just pointing out problems because of a particular crime, rape, being so loosely defined rather than it being several crimes more tightly defined such as murder is.

Is rape rape or is rape really several crimes?