If you’re going to start out with a lie then things will descend into getting worse, won’t they?

When discussing anything it’s important to start from reality. Only then can logic be used to untangle those skeins concerning what we might do:

The figures are stark: the latest Home Office data shows 52,210 rapes were recorded in England and Wales in 2020, but only 843 resulted in a charge by the end of the year, that’s fewer than 1 in 60 cases.

It is not true that 52,210 rapes were recorded in 2020 in England and Wales.

There were 52,210 allegations of rape made in England and Wales in 2020 which were then recorded by the police.

It is not true that every allegation of rape is, or was, a rape.

This error in the starting point leads to such as this:

and a special commission on juries to consider a range of things, including juror education.

These are urgent issues to be addressed, but the review’s answer can not be that rape is just a difficult crime to prosecute. In most rape cases, it is not a question of whether sexual intercourse occurred, but whether there was consent or not. This is what, the review claims, can lead to a focus on the victim and their “state of mind” during investigations and prosecutions.

Well, yes, given that the definition of the crime is what the possible victim’s state of mind was then the focus on defining the crime has to be on the possible victim’s state of mind was, doesn’t it?

16 thoughts on “If you’re going to start out with a lie then things will descend into getting worse, won’t they?”

  1. ‘…whether there was consent or not. This is what, the review claims, can lead to a focus on the victim and their “state of mind” during investigations and prosecutions.’

    Determining the presence or absence of ‘consent’ positively requires an examination of the ‘states of mind’ of the parties and their actions before, during and after. Unless there is evidence from independent witnesses, achieving a conviction depends on convincing a Jury that consent was absent. It isn’t a question of ‘What happened?’ but of ‘What can be proved?’.

    Apologies for (re)stating the obvious, but it seems that the Graun still doesn’t get it.

  2. “and a special commission on juries to consider a range of things, including juror education”.

    Since the Jury pool is selected randomly from the population of local voters (I assume that’s still true), how and when are these voters due to be educated? If it’s just a matter of giving them a brochure on various aspects of rape, including the labyrinthine guidelines on what constitutes consent or not then fair enough, mine would be going straight in the bin though.

    As I’ve said previously when this topic has been raised, apart from the vanishingly small number of “stranger rapes” (what Whoopi Goldberg would call “Rape rape”…presumably), the rest are a mishmash of drunken sexual encounters between people who have had consensual sex previously, women suffering from “post coital regret” and other combinations where there is zero evidence and it comes down to arguments of the “he said/she said” variety.

    In such circumstances, juries are reluctant to convict simply because the offence of rape is severe, carrying a sentence of several years imprisonment yet the distinction of what constitutes rape in such circumstances is marginal to the point of being arbitrary, so juries err on the side of caution and refuse to convict, which is probably the right call in most cases.

    That this “refusal to convict” sets the feminists up in arms isn’t a legal or judicial problem. It’s essentially a political one, since their whole argument about “rape culture” essentially fails if we aren’t jailing those accused (but not convicted) of “rape”. Until someone calls this for what it is (and I think that unlikely with the current wokerati and cancel culture), we will continue to have this argument every year when the statistics are published.

  3. Arthur – I still haven’t gotten my soul back from Santa 🙁

    JG – seems like this could easily be solved by women not getting habitually plastered and not throwing their cats around like a crazy homeless lady. This sexual liberation stuff isn’t working out like we were promised by LOGAN’S RUN.

    But the “fix” will be to basically abolish jury trials and put the accused at the dubious mercy of Common Purpose judges.

  4. The BBC are all over this as usual “Each year there are about 128,000 victims of rape and attempted rape…And just 1.6% of rapes result in someone being charged”

    and Emily Hunt, an “independent” adviser to the review and herself a rape victim says

    “The reality is, in almost all cases, if someone says they’ve been raped, they have not made it up…”

    So why bother with a trial?

    “Home Office research showing up to 3% of rape allegations could be false, which meant 97% of them were not.”

    Wasn’t there a maxim that it was better 99 guilty people walked free than that one innocent person went to prison?

  5. JG – seems like this could easily be solved by women not getting habitually plastered and not throwing their cats around like a crazy homeless lady. This sexual liberation stuff isn’t working out like we were promised by LOGAN’S RUN.

    Yes and this is no doubt part of the “Jury Problem”, the fact that folks willing to sit on juries tend to be older and more socially conservative (because what youngsters can afford to sit around for a week or two for no effective compensation) and these older and more socially conservative types still have a mindset of “Well, if you didn’t throw yourself at men like a street cat on heat then you probably wouldn’t have been raped”. Not particularly “progressive” in the view of our Feminist overladies.

    So, sure we’ll end up have a go at Judge only trials and when that only marginally improves the conviction rate (because rapes still don’t become rapes just because you get rid of the jury), what do they expect us to do then.

    …and in the meantime male/female involuntary celibacy rates continue to sky rocket, because who wants to risk prison time for nookie…

  6. @ John Galt “drunken sexual encounters”

    It’s been known for centuries that alcohol affects memory and for decades how this happens. See below for a summary of just one research paper. Quite frankly, if someone is drunk, their evidence quite simply cannot be relied on. They are disinhibited and won’t remember what they said or did. I’m astonished that anyone is ever convicted of a rape if the woman is pissed out of her head (unless she’s comatose and it’s witnessed at the time).

    And you don’t have to be that drunk for memory functions to be lost. I’ve just gone through photos taken at a BBQ I hosted. Can’t remember taking most of them and I was in charge of the BBQ.

    “Large amounts of alcohol, particularly if consumed rapidly, can produce partial (i.e., fragmentary) or complete (i.e., en bloc) blackouts, which are periods of memory loss for events that transpired while a person was drinking. Blackouts are much more common among social drinkers—including college drinkers—than was previously assumed, and have been found to encompass events ranging from conversations to intercourse. Mechanisms underlying alcohol–induced memory impairments include disruption of activity in the hippocampus, a brain region that plays a central role in the formation of new auotbiographical memories.”

    Here – if you’re interested https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh27-2/186-196.htm

  7. Steve: It’s ok, the WHO are already on this, recommending banning alcohol consumption by any conceivable woman.

  8. JG: Everything culture and the media throws at me tells me that female celibacy isn’t involuntary, it’s actively sought out and embraced. After over a century of being taught that women do actually like sex and it’s allowed to like sex, it’s all been revealed as a lie. It’s something they put up with when they have to and seek to accelerate to never having to put up with it ever again.

  9. I can just imagine the enthusiasm of prison governors at the prospect of their jails being overcrowded with second year sociology students.

  10. Just a question.. If I wake up when the beer goggles have vanished and the hangover sets in, and the woman I wake up next to isn’t all that she seemed in the attractiveness department..
    Can I claim “rape” as an excuse?

    No… Thought not..

    I’m all for a thourough investigation into everything relevant to a rape accusation.
    But that may be because my opinion on what should happen to the actual predators, and those who bear false witness into such cases are considered rather extreme in “polite circles”.

  11. Some prescriptive tests that the woke puritans might like to consider (but won’t because it doesn’t fit their agenda):

    1. Did the accuser go by choice to the place where the accused has their bed?
    2. Did the accuser invite the accused to the place where the accuser has their bed?
    3. Did the accuser, by choice, leave the place at which they met the accused together with the accused?

    Ladies (or lads, it can work both ways), if you’re going somewhere that is someone else’s home or you invite someone to your home and sex happens, we’ll assume first off that consent was given. If you leave somewhere together with someone and sex happens, we’ll assume that consent was given.

    And the other way around: no going by choice, no invite, no leaving together and we’ll assume that no consent was given.

    After that all other investigations of the facts can continue as before. If injury occurrs, we’ll assume no consent. Al fresco sex, sex in cars, sex in the bogs at the pub, against a wall in an alley, we’ll assume, by default, no consent.

    Wind the clock back to pre sexual liberation attitudes and mores and most of “rape culture” goes away. In many cases, we wont even need to consider whether alcohol or drugs impaired judgment or ability to consent. Keep your kit in your underwear and to yourselves, boys and girls.

    The puritans who want to run everyone’s lives should be happy with that, shouldn’t they? Or is that not really their objective, perhaps.

  12. ANNRQ

    hang on – assumed no consent if sex occurs in cars? Seems way unreasonable.

    Or do you mean if injury occurs and the sex was in a car?

    Unclear.

  13. I wonder how a jury would interpret an answer in a date go back to persons house case of ‘I was thinking of saying no, but it was all over so quick I didn’t have time to decide’

  14. @BniC – that’s almost certainly rape, as rape merely requires the lack of consent and if the victim hadn’t even decided they cannot have consented. The only possible defence would be that the accused had incorrectly (and, judged by the jury, reasonably) misunderstood the situation so as to believe there was consent, which seems extremely unlikely.

    I’m always mystified at the references to people being drunk. If you’re drunk and someone takes your wallet they’ve just as surely stolen it as if you were fully alert, so why doesn’t the same apply to rape?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *