Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Sat Oct 20 18:02:09 2018

Utopia Talk / Politics / "A man can’t kill you with his penis"
FUCK YOU FAG
Member
Thu May 31 07:28:02
Another view on rape

http://www...r-punishment-for-to-be-reduced


Germaine Greer calls for punishment for rape to be reduced

Feminist academic tells Hay festival that ‘most rape is just lazy, careless and insensitive’


Wed 30 May 2018


Germaine Greer has called for the lowering of punishment for rape and said society should not see it as a “spectacularly violent crime” but instead view it more as “lazy, careless and insensitive”.

She suggested that a fitting sentence for the offence might be 200 hours’ community service and perhaps an “r” tattoo on the rapist’s hand, arm or cheek.

Speaking at the Hay literary festival, the feminist academic argued that rape is rampant in society and the legal system cannot cope with it because it always comes down to the issue of consent, with the victims becoming little more than “bits of evidence”.

She said the system was not working and radical change was needed. “I want to turn the discourse about rape upside down. We are not getting anywhere approaching it down the tunnel of history,” she said.




“Most rapes don’t involve any injury whatsoever,” Greer said. “We are told that it is a sexually violent crime, an expert like Quentin Tarantino will tell us that when you use the word rape you’re talking about violence, a throwing them down... it is one of the most violent crimes in the world. Bullshit Tarantino.

“Most rape is just lazy, just careless, insensitive. Every time a man rolls over on his exhausted wife and insists on enjoying his conjugal rights he is raping her. It will never end up in a court of law.

“Instead of thinking of rape as a spectacularly violent crime, and some rapes are, think about it as non consensual … that is bad sex. Sex where there is no communication, no tenderness, no mention of love.”



Rape trials were foundering and not ending in convictions as lawyers argued over the issue of consent, she said. Why not believe the woman and lower the penalty?

“If we are going to say trust us, believe us, if we do say that our accusation should stand as evidence, then we do have to reduce the tariff for rape.”

Greer acknowledged her thesis would be controversial. “It is moments like these, I can hear the feminists screaming at me, ‘you’re trivialising rape!’

“Well I’ll tell you what … You might want to believe that the penis is a lethal weapon and that all women live in fear of that lethal weapon, well that’s bullshit. It’s not true. We don’t live in terror of the penis … A man can’t kill you with his penis.”

She said that, in cases of obviously violent rape, the courts should concentrate on the violence which should attract bigger sentences, rather than having long trials in which women are humiliated for long periods.

Greer is publishing her full argument on rape in a new book, coming out in Australia in September.

She said some might see her attitude to rape as flippant, but she reminded the silent Hay audience of her own experience when she was 18 and was raped. She was beaten repeatedly by a man telling her “say fuck me” a dozen times. Did she say it? “I don’t think I did, but maybe I did. How would that look on my mobile phone in court saying ‘fuck me’?” Greer did not make a complaint to police.

She questioned a statistic which said that 70% of rape victims had suffered post-traumatic stress disorder compared with 20% of conflict veterans.

“What the hell are you saying? Something that leaves no sign, no injury, no nothing is more damaging to a woman than seeing your best friend blown up by an IED is to a veteran?”

Society wanted women to believe that rape destroyed them, she said. “We haven’t been destroyed, we’ve been bloody annoyed is what we’ve been.”

Greer has long divided opinion, since she published her landmark work The Female Eunuch in 1970, and her Hay talk shows no sign of changing that.

She said the world was full of bad sex, that people were not talking and loving as they should. “Love-making is not a matter of an organ, it is a matter of communication and somehow we’ve got to rescue it. It is in deep trouble, heterosex.”

It is more of a crisis for women, she added. “Women love men, more than they [men] love women. We are more aware of our men, more than they are aware of us. We are more easily pressured into pleasing them, or trying to please them. We tend to love our sons more than our daughters, we hope it doesn’t show, but it nearly always does.”

Greer was pessimistic about the Harvey Weinstein case, predicting that the only winners would be lawyers. “They will break down the witness.”
jergul
large member
Thu May 31 07:35:46
Greer is quite correct in sense that sexual assault should be demoralized. The idea that virtue has been violated should not have an inherent criminal punishment.

Sexual assault is assault. With the added twist of bodily fluids and insertion into cavities.

Which would make it aggravated assault (and much worse if potentially life-threatening stds are involved).

If immobilized for a measurable amount of time, then kidnapping legislation applies.

In sum: remove rape as a specific crime and use the regular criminal code.

You honour, I thought the fellow concented to me lowering him to the ground and holding him there in an awkward position for a few minutes. That is my defense.

Would that fly at all in an assault case?
Hot Rod
Revved Up
Thu May 31 08:41:08

200 hours of community service?


The rapist should be skinned alive.

I used to go with a girl that had been raped. I saw her years later and she still had not fully recovered from it.

Personally, I think it should be an execution offense.

jergul
large member
Thu May 31 08:43:08
Your honour, I thought the fellow consented to me lowering him to the ground and holding him there in an awkward position for a few minutes. I also felt he would not mind that I inserted biological material into him. This is my defense.

Would that fly at all in an assault case?

Rewrite because I can.
jergul
large member
Thu May 31 08:44:15
HR
You think assault should be an execution offense?
hood
Member
Thu May 31 08:44:16
"A man can’t kill you with his penis.”

Challenge accepted.
Hot Rod
Revved Up
Thu May 31 08:51:40

jergul, no. I'm talking about rape where the body is penetrated by a penis.


Perhaps you cannot be killed by being raped but it can damn sure destroy a life.

jergul
large member
Thu May 31 08:52:46
Is there any reason that a rape case with a serious std involved could not be charged with

Aggravated assault
Attempted murder
Kidnapping (forcible confinement)

I would always opt for those charges if a victim.
jergul
large member
Thu May 31 08:55:14
Penetrating someone with a semi-rigid piece of gristle is worse than say a stabbing?
jergul
large member
Thu May 31 08:56:29
Fast food can destory a life. See childhood obesity statistics.

Death sentence to the guardians who inflicted such harm on children?
Hot Rod
Revved Up
Thu May 31 09:11:28

jergul - I would always opt for those charges if a victim.


For the sake of humanity, I hope you are never raped. :)

Rape is more a psychological offense rather than a physical offense.


Even if guardians allow a child to get fat the kid can lose it later in life unless it is a gene thing.


RugianLovesTheCock
Member
Thu May 31 11:41:29
Oh I love this thread.
yankeessuck123
Member
Thu May 31 13:23:28
Well you see, Hot Rod is an authoritarian, and supports savage punishments for a wide range of crimes.
murder
Member
Thu May 31 13:30:48

"Sexual assault is assault. With the added twist of bodily fluids and insertion into cavities."

Sexual battery should be a capital offense right along with child molestation and elderly abuse. Predators should be put down the same way dangerous dogs are.

There is nothing lower than someone who picks off the weak for victimization.


hood
Member
Thu May 31 13:36:26
Why do you associate victims of sexual abuse with weakness? That's not very "raised right" of you.
Hot Rod
Revved Up
Thu May 31 13:49:44

yankee - Well you see, Hot Rod is an authoritarian, and supports savage punishments for a wide range of crimes.


How can you say that when I am speaking specifically of rape?


The other subject in this thread, the Black man, and the great-grandmother, I am promoting a lesser punishment.


jergul
large member
Thu May 31 15:29:32
murder
wow.

That is pretty harsh for something that mostly occurs by way of wilful misunderstanding.
jergul
large member
Thu May 31 15:31:31
HR
You do realize that you have probably raped someone if we use today's basis for consent and apply it retroactively back to the 60s?
hood
Member
Thu May 31 15:35:38
Hot rod is an admitted rapist. He literally told a story of how a woman begged him to stop and he wouldn't.
obaminated
Member
Thu May 31 16:51:02
In his defense, he was horny.
Cthulhu
Tentacle Rapist
Thu May 31 18:24:33
'A man cant kill with his penis'

Has IBTY weighed in on whether violent anal can lead to fatal injuries?
obaminated
Member
Thu May 31 18:53:16
Should someone prepare to have their dick sucked?
obaminated
Member
Thu May 31 18:53:45
Or is someone going to have an ass like a sewing machine?
hood
Member
Thu May 31 19:51:21
Wasn't that first one snuke, not ibty?
Memory Lane
Member
Thu May 31 19:53:21
It was snuke.

I drink and remember things.
obaminated
Member
Thu May 31 19:57:03
Yeah, i was hedging.
Im better then you
2012 UP Football Champ
Thu May 31 23:33:40
"Has IBTY weighed in on whether violent anal can lead to fatal injuries?"

assuming "violent anal"= bloody diarrea

yeah if she has ebloa or something.
obaminated
Member
Fri Jun 01 01:30:43
maybe if she if her blood doesnt clot, that sorta thing can kill ya
murder
Member
Fri Jun 01 14:27:04
"That is pretty harsh for something that mostly occurs by way of wilful misunderstanding."

No misunderstanding. Just small men feeling powerful by victimizing the weak.

Funny thing is that men seem to have a very clear understanding of consent ... when it comes to other men. No misundertandings there whatsoever.
obaminated
Member
Fri Jun 01 16:24:36
Youre such a white knight. Its hilarious
jergul
large member
Fri Jun 01 16:37:43
Murder
The first step would be to get conviction rates up in the 80% range or whatever is appropriate for very serious crimes in your jurisdiction.

No point with a draconian code that only targets a small minority of criminals.
Rugian
Member
Fri Jun 01 16:42:44
jergul,

"Innocent until proven guilty." And women are common liars. Good luck with that.
jergul
large member
Fri Jun 01 17:34:35
Ruggy
"Your honour, I thought the fellow consented to me lowering him to the ground and holding him there in an awkward position for a few minutes. I also felt he would not mind that I inserted biological material into him. This is my defense."

Good luck with that indeed.

jergul
large member
Fri Jun 01 17:38:06
Ultimately, its just a question of applying normal judicial principles.

What would otherwise be assault is permissable under certain circumstances

self-defense
consentual sexual relationships

With the onus on the person engaging in what is assault unless he can prove self-defence or consent.
jergul
large member
Fri Jun 01 17:40:50
I trust you noted my choice of gender :).
Rugian
Member
Fri Jun 01 18:35:24
jergul,

It's comments like these that make me doubt that you're even human.

An act of physical violence is usually in and of itself proof that someone did something illegal. An act of sexual intercourse is not. The two are not comparable for a great many reasons.

If a man's version of events regarding a sexual encounter is at least as credible as the woman's and no other forms of evidence are present, then pursuant to the application of normal judicial principles he should be found not guilty. It's as simple as that.

I did note your choice of gender, it was when I was reading your post and wondering why you were going out of your way to turn the incident into a homosexual encounter. Apparently there's a bit of Swede in you after all (no pun intended).
jergul
large member
Fri Jun 01 19:04:18
Ruggy
Again, the quote:

"Your honour, I thought the fellow consented to me lowering him to the ground and holding him there in an awkward position for a few minutes. I also felt he would not mind that I inserted biological material into him. This is my defense."

Good luck with that indeed.

Being able to prove consent would be the only defense for what otherwise is a physical assault.

This is incidentally Greers point. Women are done a great disservice with current rape legislation.

Its better to just treat it as assault and forcible confinement.

Leaving the perpetrator to prove he was either acting in self-defense, or that he had consent.
Rugian
Member
Fri Jun 01 19:22:19
jergul,

Wrong. An act of sexual intercourse is not in and of itself proof that someone did something illegal, unlike with an act of violence. That's why your quote evokes the doubts regarding your humanity; no man accused of sexual assault would ever defend themselves in such a manner. "Your honor, we had an enjoyable evening which ended with an encounter that was entirely consensual" is a credible enough argument in many circumstances, and the duty of an unbiased jury would be to find him not guilty.
Rugian
Member
Fri Jun 01 19:25:39
But I will say, thank you for your hyper-puritanical ideas regarding sexual assault cases that involve ditching the preponderance of guilt theory, as well as the concept of equality under the law. It's arguments like these that ensure that leftists will continue losing elections for years to come.
Rugian
Member
Fri Jun 01 19:28:57
Although perhaps it's unfair of me to criticize your medieval attitudes regarding the basic idea of presumption of innocence, when apparently it's just a part of your cultural identity:

"Middle Ages in Europe
After the fall of the Roman Empire, Europe fell back on feudal law. This included some Germanic customs, including presumed guilt. The accused could prove his innocence by having, for example, twelve people swear that he could not have done what he was accused of. This tended to favor the nobility over the lower classes.""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

Your absolute backwardness is not something you transformed yourself into independently, it's just a part of your societal customs.
jergul
large member
Fri Jun 01 19:33:42
Ruggy
It involves the integrity of self. A person's body belongs to themselves exclusively.

Your problem has to do with entitlement and pseudo-ownership. You feel that under some social circumstances, what would otherwise be assault should be assumed to be permissable unless conclusively proven that it was not.

You are the one stuck in the midevil era bro. But what else to expect from the descendents of serfs?
hood
Member
Fri Jun 01 19:47:08
"Ruggy
"Your honour, I thought the fellow consented to me lowering him to the ground and holding him there in an awkward position for a few minutes. I also felt he would not mind that I inserted biological material into him. This is my defense.""

More like "no, I did not assault that person." They can then attempt to prove my guilt.
jergul
large member
Fri Jun 01 21:44:33
Hood
Lets just assume physical evidence shows that indeed the person was lowered to the ground, held in an awkward position for a few minutes and that biological material was indeed inserted.

You would have to live in a strange world for that to be ok without consent.
obaminated
Member
Fri Jun 01 21:52:13
Ya know jergul, sometimes sex can put people into awkward positions, even with consent...
jergul
large member
Fri Jun 01 21:57:16
Greer's point remains that the crime needs to be normalized.

Lets remove the biological material and just say that someone was lowered to the ground and held there for a few minutes without excessive force being used.

In Norway, you would resolve that with a fine (unless the charged person contested it) 3k dollars or so and a criminal record.

How much more serious does it get with penetration?

15k compensation, 3 months in jail, registered in a sexual offender database + some mandatory counciling sounds about right.

So worse than drinking and driving, but not by much for as long as we remove the morality and decrease the social stigma.

Rape is for the most part a crime of willful negligence.
hood
Member
Fri Jun 01 21:58:08
"You would have to live in a strange world for that to be ok without consent."

See, the problem is that I am presumed to be innocent of committing a crime until proven otherwise. Did I assault the person, even though physical evidence shows that the person was horizontal? "No, I did not."

You cannot legally assume me to be guilty, therefore to call it assault one must prove there was not consent.
hood
Member
Fri Jun 01 21:59:35
"In Norway, you would resolve that with a fine (unless the charged person contested it) 3k dollars or so and a criminal record."

Norway is a mighty shithole indeed if one has to contest a charge (i.e. assumed guilty).
jergul
large member
Fri Jun 01 22:23:49
Hood
What else would you call lowering someone to the ground, and holding them in an awkward position for a few minutes while penetrating them?

It seems a pretty clear case of assault to me unless you are able to establish consent.

murder
Member
Fri Jun 01 22:28:23

"Youre such a white knight. Its hilarious."

Thanks. But I'm also a genocidal screwball.

jergul
large member
Fri Jun 01 22:29:38
Hood
The physical evidence would of course have to be established. So if that is your problem, then fair enough. If it cannot be established beyond reasonable doubt, then of course a person should be found not guilty.

The Norwegian system is a variant of plea-bargaining. Fines or reduced sentencing if a person does not contest the charge.
jergul
large member
Fri Jun 01 22:32:51
Greer is quite correct.

Should all murders be considered assisted suicides unless it is proven that there was no consent?

It seems an odd basis for justice.

hood
Member
Fri Jun 01 23:35:45
"It seems a pretty clear case of assault to me unless you are able to establish consent."

But part of my right of default innocence is that you cannot assume there was a lack of consent. One has to prove that a crime was committed by me. If there is a reasonable and lawful explanation for my actions, it has to be proven that circumstances were not reasonable and lawful. By forcing me to prove that consent was given, you are now depriving me of my right of innocence until proven otherwise.

As I said, complete shithole to operate otherwise.
jergul
large member
Sat Jun 02 07:28:09
Hood
Uhm, that is where you are incorrect. Right now, emerging legislation is clarifying that consent has to be provable.

Under such rules, it is not sufficient that you thought you had consent. You have to be able to demonstrate this was the case.

My point is that this is a needless complication to the legal code (though it functions the same way as my argument).

The default being that it is illegal to manhandle and penetrate other people.

Manhandling and penetrating other people can be legal under certain circumstances.

For example in self-defense or if there is consent.

But the onus of proving that certain circumstances existed rests on the person doing the manhandling and penetration.

Your right to the presumption of innocence remains intact as it still has to be proven you did indeed manhandle and penetrate another person.
jergul
large member
Sat Jun 02 07:29:28
Ruggy
Note my use of the word "manhandle".
Wrath of Orion
Member
Sat Jun 02 08:17:53
Please provide your a thumb print for this government approved, official consent app (app only 29.99 Euro per month), sign and initial these two documents of consent, and provide a blood sample. Now you're ready to have the official, government approved Euro sex.

Morons.
Hot Rod
Revved Up
Sat Jun 02 08:47:50

Pot = Kettle.

hood
Member
Sat Jun 02 10:41:56
"But the onus of proving that certain circumstances existed rests on the person doing the manhandling and penetration."

No. You may want it to be that way, you may be talking about your idealized situation, but that is not how real life works. It is patently retarded to assume guilt and require proof of innocence.
Rugian
Member
Sat Jun 02 10:51:30
Hood,

It's no use. jergul is a by-product of the medieval Germanic tradition of maintaining the presumption of guilt against the accused. To him his argument makes complete sense, it's simply a part of the culture he's been raised in.

Millions of people have sex every day without issue, so the fact that a sexual encounter occurred (using jergul's "held to the ground" analogy) is not in and of itself evidence that any sort of crime has been committed. If I suddenly deck jergul to the ground in the middle of a bar, then absent of a good reason I have likely committed a crime. The two instances are not comparable.

What jergul is proposing is nothing short of an attempt to take down the presumption of innocence doctrine by stealth, with a healthy side of inserting de facto affirmative discrimination into the legal criminal code. The fact that his kind consider this to be "progressive" and that opponents of this are "regressive" is quite insane to me.


hood
Member
Sat Jun 02 10:57:37
Oh I recognize what he's trying to do; it isn't exactly all that stealthy.
Wrath of Orion
Member
Sat Jun 02 10:59:57
"Pot = Kettle."

Rape Rod, as an admitted rapist, I don't think you have much room to talk.
Cthulhu
Tentacle Rapist
Sat Jun 02 11:54:23
Thu May 31 23:33:40
"Has IBTY weighed in on whether violent anal can lead to fatal injuries?"

assuming "violent anal"= bloody diarrea

yeah if she has ebloa or something. '

It means thrusting with enough force to tear through the flesh between the anus and vagina, which has happened. Without surgery, its fatal. Your reputation suggests you would know that.
jergul
large member
Sat Jun 02 21:30:53
Hood
I am actually talking about new Swedish legislation.

Innocence is presumed. Manhandling has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Once manhandling is proven beyond reasonable doubt, then the perpetrator has to prove self-defense or consent to avoid criminal consequences.

Ruggy
No, I am actually just asserting the integrity of self.
jergul
large member
Sat Jun 02 21:34:07
It should perhaps be noted that I think morality should be removed from the equation. Essentially that rape be judged for what it is, instead of on the basis on archaic understandings of virtue or women as property violated by sexual activity.
murder
Member
Sat Jun 02 21:52:14

"It should perhaps be noted that I think morality should be removed from the equation. Essentially that rape be judged for what it is, instead of on the basis on archaic understandings of virtue or women as property violated by sexual activity."

WTF is your malfunction? Rape is not a horrific crime because of some archaic understanding of virtue or women as property. Rape is a horrific crime because some dildo decided to forcibly violate someone and the victim is physically and psychologically scarred as a result.

Average European
Member
Sat Jun 02 22:20:21
"A man can’t kill you with his penis"

They obviously haven't seen my penis.
hood
Member
Sat Jun 02 22:53:17
"I am actually talking about new Swedish legislation."

As I said, shithole. Both in subject matter and speaker.
Hot Rod
Revved Up
Sun Jun 03 03:12:02

pedowoo - Rape Rod, as an admitted rapist, I don't think you have much room to talk.


You really like that little lie, don't you? Let me set you straight one last time.

I was in the middle of sex with my girlfriend when she started begging me to stop.

I was giving her so much pleasure it was washing over her like a 10-second surf. She really did not want me to stop.


I probably ruined my ladies for you fart smellers. You will never be able to match what I used to give a woman.

Assuming you would even want to do it with a woman.

jergul
large member
Sun Jun 03 03:45:49
Murder
Thing is, it happens all the time. And usually does not inflict horrific physical and psycological damage.

Hood
http://en....rt#2018_World_Happiness_Report
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Jun 04 03:52:07
The new legislation in Sweden is a political knee jerk in the wake of metoo and will, as by the assessment of legal experts in Sweden, have no effect on conviction rates. Instead the he said she said is driven further back to chain. Did she consent? Yes! No! Did you rape her? No! Yes!

But I am all for experimenting with the judiciary because of social media outrage. Let us revisit the depths of Swedish rape stats in a few years, by that time the new report that will take into account ethnic background should be finished as well. Many many threads for us to fill.
jergul
large member
Mon Jun 04 07:23:41
Nimi
I think it will impact on conviction rates for people charged with sexual assault.

It will lower the threshold for charging people with sexual assault.

Another law introduces negligent sexual assault as a crime with a lower sentencing framework while the government also wants to increase sentences for violent sexual assault.

The reason for experimenting with the legal code is of course shamefully low conviction rates compared to the estimated number of crimes that take place.


jergul
large member
Mon Jun 04 07:32:18
I don't think it will impact on conviction rates for people charged with sexual assault*
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Jun 04 09:01:07
I think your intuitions on violence and crime are not very good. I think that if the legal council, whose job is to review the laws, says this law is ”unnecessary” (most of it already covered) and ”unsafe” (bristande förutsebarhet) then I will go with that.

http://www...samtyckeslag-osaker-och-onodig

Advokatsamfundet (attorny union) agrees with the council.

You are free to think what ever you fancy of course, but we will have the answers sooner rather than later on wether politically expedient intuitions or the consensus of the legal establishment won the day.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Jun 04 09:05:54
”shamefully low conviction rates”

Someone has likely explained to you (several times and several people), that sexual offence, regardless of how aggressive they are, are not evidence of crime. I know it is difficult to break out of a path once you settle into it, but it isn’t impossible. You can do it.
jergul
large member
Mon Jun 04 09:18:30
Nimi
No need to slip into troll mode. I know you like doing it, and its hard to break out of pather once you settle into it, but it isn't impossible. You can do it.

Sexual acts performed on other people without their consent are crimes.

Surely you are not denying that these crimes are hugely underreported?

The convictions to crimes commited rates are shamefully low.
jergul
large member
Mon Jun 04 09:32:23
I don't really understand the fuss.

Changing legislation and norms are not typically retroactive.

Checklist for the future:

1. Make sure you have consent.

2. If you fail to have consent, then make sure you do not piss off the person enough for them to press charges.

Easy peasy.
patom
Member
Mon Jun 04 09:52:17
Entering late. I like the idea of branding with tattoos. R-rapist, P-pedophile, etc.
patom
Member
Mon Jun 04 09:54:02
A man carrying a penis infected with some STD's should be charged with murder when their victim dies. Attempted murder pre-death.
Hot Rod
Revved Up
Mon Jun 04 10:09:38

patom, I agree with both of your posts.

I think the tattoos should be on the forehead.


I remember when aids were just starting up, there was a gay guy that said he was going to give it to as many people as possible.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Jun 04 10:59:17
Jergul
Did you give consent? No.

Did she give consent? Yes.

Solve the riddle.

Your ”solution” involves giving greater discretion to the judge, or atleast that is what the Swedish proposal does and one of the main points of criticism. Your entire line of argument is anchored in another world where convicted rapist (guilty or not) are not seen as social pariahs, beaten or murdered in jail. If the world wasn’t so, then we could maybe tolerate greater discretion putting a few more innocent people in jail.

You are on to something about normalizing rape as assault, I asked that question a while back on UP, why is rape a special category? I am pleased you reached the conclusion of the question. But as far as the technical situation (evidence and the act), it is very different than other violent crimes. So on that basis alone it will continue to be a difficult nut to crack. Legislation will do nothing but inflate the category (as has already been done in Sweden) as is now done with this proposal, but everyone fails to understand that the lack of evidence stays the same. Inflated categories also give the illusion of a far greater problem (Swen the rape capital) and relatively poor conviction rates.
jergul
large member
Mon Jun 04 11:30:01
Nimi
I would say that it gives greater discretionary powers to the prosecution.

There are lots of barriers that derail a process on its way to sentencing. But a main one is involves police unwillingness to fully investigate and charge suspects.

The Swedish law clarifies that consent must be active to be valid (if the question is contested).

It does not mean innocent go to jail, it simply means that wilful insensitivity no longer is a valid defence.

The Swedish government has also proposed legislation for negligent sexual crimes. This should go a long way in normalizing this particular form of criminal activity.

There is generally no lack of evidence (and advances in forensics continue) that a sexual act has taken place. This barrier has to be overcome in any trial and this is were the assumption of innocence rests.

Having to prove consent is simply in line with how legal codes are generally constructed. This is true from everything from self-defence to property transfers.

I think sexual assaults are probably about as common as DUIs and generally suffer from the same reporting issues.
murder
Member
Mon Jun 04 14:47:25

"Murder: Thing is, it happens all the time. And usually does not inflict horrific physical and psycological damage."

Really? So if the US uses rape on terrorists and their families and to secure compliance in occupied territories, it's no big thing, right?



murder
Member
Mon Jun 04 14:54:13

In fact, we can probably conclude that rape is a more humane method of conducting warfare, and even enforcing local laws.

Rob a bank? Sentenced to rape.

Shoplift? Sentenced to rape.

Get in a brawl? Sentenced to rape.

Public drunkenness? Sentenced to rape.

Rape? Get raped!
jergul
large member
Mon Jun 04 17:13:50
Murder
My theory is that 95% of rapes are cases of wilful insensitivity that do not involve violence or the threat of violence.

A "come on baby, you know you want it" as he snuggles up in a bed he was not invited into kind of scenario.

I am talking mostly about those. I am not adverse to harsh punishment for rapes involving violence or forcible confinement.

murder
Member
Mon Jun 04 18:52:45

"A "come on baby, you know you want it" as he snuggles up in a bed he was not invited into kind of scenario."

Snuggles up? Sex attained through the use of force is violence. Sex attained through the use of threats is violence. Sex attained by way of coercion is violence. Sex attained through intimidation is violence. Sex attained by being bigger and stronger and I want to have sex and I don't care what you want IS VIOLENCE.


"I am talking mostly about those. I am not adverse to harsh punishment for rapes involving violence or forcible confinement."

You mean involuntary guests participating in a non-optional lazy non-consensual physical activity?

That's crazy!

jergul
large member
Mon Jun 04 20:06:50
Murder
Read. I don't know what to say, so will say nothing.
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share