Rape compensation cut overturned(20 Posts)
GOOD! I can't bellieve they took 25% of some rape victims compensation because they had been drinking before the attack!
QUOTE: "when she applied for compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA), which covers England, Scotland and Wales, she was told the standard compensation would be cut in her case to £8,250.
The authority told her the reason for the reduction was that "the evidence shows that your excessive consumption of alcohol was a contributing factor in the incident". "
oh - and in the case above, should it matter, the victim was raped by a stranger who was never caught!!
OMG! there is a woman on the radio saying that women who are drunk in town at night are 'asking for it' and that maybe compensation being cut would be an incentive towards women to encourage them to take more care of themselves. And if they are unable to run from their attacker because of their shoes for example then they are partly responsible for their attack!
I can't believe that. I've already posted this on another thread but the fact that the woman put herself in a vunerable position is all that she did wrong, not the drink not the clothes etc. The rape is 100% the attacker's fault. No wonder there is an outragous amount of rapes that go unreported.
Ah yes the old idea that women are responsible for men's behaviour still lives on.
so will they reduce the compensation for people murdered while out walking alone?
what kind of thought goes through their heads?
contributory negligence my a**e - surely we have the right to NOT get raped no matter what condition we are in?
my blood is boiling
25% cut is disgusting.
They might equally argue that the amount should be cut because it's the victim's fault for being (in this case) female.
Having said that, I can imagine that a drunk woman is more likely to be raped, on the grounds that someone in a vulnerable state is easier to attack. Does this make it even a billionth of a percent her fault? Only if you are barking mad and/or a rapist.
What about people who take short cuts down more deserted routes where an attacker can pounce without being seen (and skulk away unseen afterwards) do they get their compensation cut too ?
Outrageous - how will the message ever be clear to men that no means no if an inebriated female is entitled to less compensation because of the state she was in when the attack took place.
children are easier to attack too so they shouldnt get so much either
where oh where will it all end?
Sorry - Didn't realise there was another thread. Can someone link to it?
sorry to lead off the track a bit but i didn't even know you could claim for compensation.
My ex raped me, he had been drinking 2/3 of the times and i had not been any of the times.
When i reported it there wasn't enough evidence to have him convicted as he denied it. so i have no chance of getting anything because he denied it. so i should just accept that?
its bad enough that it happened and none of his family believe it happened and he got away scot free and there is a chance the 3rd time is when ds was concieved. but this is like another insult for being in a relationship with the monster who did this to me.
Oh yes - and those with disabilities of course:
Deaf girls can't hear attacker sneaking up
Blind girls can't see attacker
Those with mobility difficulties......
"I've already posted this on another thread but the fact that the woman put herself in a vunerable position is all that she did wrong, not the drink not the clothes etc. The rape is 100% the attacker's fault."1
i'd agree with this completely on a moral stand point. i was just wondering if anyone with a legal background could tell me if this is not the norm for civil cases involving things not as emotive as rape. i.e. if i was drunk and put myself in a "vulnerable position" as you put it with regard something as property/product liability or a personal injury would my drunkeness putting me in a vulnerable position not be counted as contributory negligence?
i know it's not even close to the same thing seeing as her drunkeness had no influence on the mans decision to rape her ( and presuming it wasn't a case of disputed consent/inability to remember consent) that attacker made an active decision to break the law where as she did no wrong.
my question was more with regards to how this was being treated as a civil compensation case rather than a criminal ase so was simply wondering about the wider influence of contributory negligence.
OMG Beanie. i cannot believe a woman would go on air saying something so ridiculous.
maybe the 90 year old granny who gets raped and beaten was askig for it too. she should have had trainers on not slippers...and that cardi was dead provocative.
It still astounds me that in todays day and age there are still people who do not understand that Rape has very little to do with sexual attraction and more about power and dominance.
I can't find it either... Any chance of a link VeronicaMars?
Rape is entirely on the hands of the rapist in terms of "guilt." Entirely. The victim is just that.
I worry when I see how drunk some girls are getting though, no because they are then "asking for it" which is an abhorrent idea if ever I heard one. These rapists are looking for any excuse, if they see someone who is obviously unable to know what is going on then they will take that opportunity. Whatever happened to looking out for each other on a night out?
I am so glad I am not 10-15 years younger. I am also so glad I don't have a daughter although it works both ways (male rape I mean.)
I had a schoolfriend who was raped. I saw what happened to her. I know what I think should happen to rapists but for your own sake you should take responsibility for your own safety when out boozing.
Now you can flame me for daring to have a different opinion.
The thread I'm talking about is not related to this news story, sorry for confusion.I have no idea how to link (must learn) but if you search messages under my name you'll see it. It was a thread on 13th July (near the bottom). The title was just about women drinking partially to blame for attacks. It was not specifically about anyone it was one of those 'discuss' threads'. Raised a lot of valid issues.
I have a friend who works for the Rape Crisis Centre and a lot of her calls are from people who were raped months even years before but never reported it and are still having serious issues with it. £11,000? Not a lot when you think that person will probably think about their attack a certain amount of times a day, it will always be there with them.
It's worrying when your parents tell you how different it was in their day. Whta the hell will it be like when my 2.5 yo daughter is 16. I dread to think.
mayorquimby - I haven't got a legal background but I did hear the woman's lawyer being interviewed this morning and she said that drunkenness is sometimes used as a contributing factor in things like fights but never in situations where someone's been mugged for example. She also argued that it was sexual discrimination for them to cut compensation in this instance, given the fact that 4/5ths of rape victims are women.
I hope the other women who have had their compensation cut come forward and demand the rest of it. What makes me really, really angry is that it was only when the BBC and the Guardian got hold of this story that the CICA decided to put out a statement saying that this wasn't their policy.
Join the discussion
Please login first.