Judge - 'women must be careful'- help me argue against my Daily Mail quoting mother argh

There problem wit the burden of proof is that it is set up with the 'ten guilty men go free' doctrine but in the case of rape it's more like 1000 guilty men go free.

Yep. It's also the doctrine of the person who wonders just what gave you the impression that the sleeping woman wanted to have sex? Compel me with your logic, cos she says she wasn't into it and on the balance of probabilities...

Innocent until proven guilty is an internationally recognised human right (article 11 Universal Declaration of Human Rights). Whilst it might be tempting to throw that out at times, the ramifications for everyone if we do not uphold it are dire indeed.

Guilty until proven innocent is the doctrine of the tyrant.

I can see a third, reverse the burden of proof. Let a man demonstrate how he knew he had consent rather than force women to prove they didn't consent. It's more likely to get close to the truth - women aren't in a perpetual state of consent save for an extraordinary circumstance.

@DJBaggySmalls I've always had a small crush on Joe, mainly due to his bromance with Obama (says more about me really)

But it's nice to know he happy to stand up and challenge

I am a man, and it's not in the least bit sexist to point out men rape.

However where the judge is coming from is that in criminal cases the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore whomever brings forward a prosecution will always be at a disadvantage in proving their version of events.

I think it must frustrate a lot of judges as I believe they are well aware how many rapists get away with it, but their hands are tied on the burden of proof. So they say things like this in a desperate attempt to move the needle somewhat. However we do operate on the principle of better 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man is jailed.

It is clear however something has to change as in the way things are reported in the public psyche a not guilty verdict indicates the woman was lying and made a false accusation. What is interesting is there is always a huge fear of libel/slander when rapes are reported. When actually a false accusation is also criminal and any suggestion of such will effect a woman's reputation negatively yet people freely suggest this but without the same fear of slander.

Two possible ways I can see moving forward without blaming victims:

• We setup a charity that will offer legal aid to rape victims to pursue rapists who escape conviction at criminal trial through the civil courts. The bar there is on the balance of probability and not beyond reasonable doubt. Far fewer rapists would get away with it and whilst not ideal would at least change public perception and the discussion around rape.
• We say fuck it and call a spade a spade. For example I'll make the statement "Ched Evans is a rapist". Now he's welcome to sue me but again it's a civil case so balance of probabilities, and I'd say he's on thin ice trying to win that. (There is technically a criminal libel law on the books but it's not been used in a long ass time and there are moves afoot to remove it).

If some people want to help me set up said charity outlined above I'm game, not sure precisely how to go about it, and I am a man so I feel it would be better if it was led by women.

The problem with this, IMO, is not really what the judge said (in context) as such but how we as a society have the unfortunate tendency to frame rape in a different manner than other crimes.

It's absolutely advisable (and, generally speaking, not sexist as such) for people to take reasonable precautions against falling victim to a crime and/or misfortune. Depending on where you live and who you are, this may include not getting totally shit-faced and walking home alone, locking your front door or double-checking business propositions before entering into an agreement. Nothing horrible about that at all.

The actual problem, of course, is that rape is (almost) unique in that it is widely framed as a crime that is somewhat inevitable on the perpetrator's side, i.e. that it's something that victims are capable of causing via a lack of caution as opposed to a decision the rapist actively makes, and that a non-cautious victim therefore bears some of the blame. Now, that of course is wildly sexist (against men as well as women, FWIW; all the men I know possess basic self-control).

But I personally don't think drinking til I would be unable to give consent is a good position to put myself in anyhow, my phone may get stolen - it would not be my fault, I may be attacked, again not my fault, I may be raped or murdered - again not my fault.

BUT I know - for me - that I am personally safer and more mentally aware and able to run (from whatever situation) if I don't drink lots - so I don't.

I see nothing wrong in being asked to take responsibly for my own safety. It's not victim blaming, it's ensuring that your not putting yourself directly in harms way.

How can a woman do that, then? Never leave the house or live with any man, ever?

Telling women to be careful is essentially saying "try to reduce the chances of it being you who gets raped". It does nothing to tackle rape or address the real issue - rapists. It sees rape as inevitable and doesn't seek to prevent rape, more tells women to try to prevent being raped themselves (which is impossible anyway), whilst feeding into rape myths.

Joe Biden Tells College Men: “A Woman Who’s Dead Drunk Cannot Consent. You Are Raping Her.”

If we judge a sexual assault victim on whether they drink, we may as well declare rape legal

(In which case you didn't prevent rape, you just made sure it hit someone else)

i'm sorry - but this is an abhorrent view YOU didnt make it hit someone else, YOU stopped it hitting you - this is worse than victim blaming

Telling women they won't be raped if they're sober and dressed like nuns is not only incorrect, it's magical thinking.

Indeed. If I believed being dressed like a nun would keep me safe, I'd order a nun's habit tomorrow.

But there's zero proof, or even indication, that a piece of cloth will magically prevent a man who wants to rape away from you.

Sure, if he's just looking for any victim, he might rape a drunk girl in a miniskirts instead.(In which case you didn't prevent rape, you just made sure it hit someone else)
But if it's not your lucky day, perhaps he has dirty fantasies about nuns and targets you because you are dressed like a nun.

Perhaps the rapist wants to rape you because you are too assertive. Or he targets you because you are timid and seem like easy prey.

Perhaps he rapes you because you wear trousers and sensible shoes and this offends him.

If you don't want to be robbed, the only thing you have to do is to appear as though you don't have money, and the likelihood of you getting robbed will be decreased.

If you don't want to be raped, the only thing that would help would to make it appear as if you don't have a vagina. Which is not something most women can do.

Rapists shouldn't rape, theives (sic) shouldn't steal, murderers should (sic) kill but they do. There are monsters out there and always will be.

While what they do might be monstrous, rapists aren't monsters, they're just men. .

I see nothing wrong in being asked to take responsibly for my own safety. It's not victim blaming, it's ensuring that your (sic) not putting yourself directly in harms way.

No, it merely ensures that someone else is raped, and then the onus will be on them to show why they didn't "deserve it" in the highly unlikely event that it goes to court.

Do you not teach your children about stranger danger?

Honestly? No, I taught them about consent, being able to say no to anyone, and that I would always listen and take them seriously. Most children are not harmed by strangers, but by people known and trusted by their family. In the same way as most women are raped by people they know and trust.

Tell your sons and daughters to be safe on nights out?

Yes, but in the context that people who are drunk tend to do daft things like walk into roads or believe they can fly. Not in the context that if they don't drink, the boogie man won't get them.

Lock your doors at night?

This example always interests me. How do you suggest women lock their orifices up, because that's the only way this analogy works.

Rape seems to be the only crime in which if we dare to educate people in how to keep safe or minimise risk we get accused of victim blaming.

Given that most rapes are perpetrated by men we know, take place when the women are sober and wearing everyday clothes, exactly how much risk limitation do you think happens by telling women that if they don't get drunk they won't get themselves raped? Telling women they won't be raped if they're sober and dressed like nuns is not only incorrect, it's magical thinking. Rape also seems to be one of the few crimes where the victim has to prove they are actually a victim, but I see you have nothing to say about that.

Drives me nuts!

Sorry about that.

Ferrets - wow, you are so right

Here's the thing; I know fine well that if he hadn't raped me but had assaulted me physically another way instead then I would have had no problem going downstairs to my family and saying "Wtf, x has just punched me in the face!". I would have probably had no qualms about going to the police either.

this 100%

(please dont think i am being goady) what stopped you from saying he raped you? Was it a 'shame' thing? or a 'you thought you would be blamed thing'

i've long thought that victims of rape, and child abuse often don't talk about their experiences, or try to hide them due to 'shame' - which is so wrong, its not the victims fault, its the arsehole who did it to them

Rapists shouldn't rape, theives shouldn't steal, murderers should kill but they do. There are monsters out there and always will be.

I see nothing wrong in being asked to take responsibly for my own safety. It's not victim blaming, it's ensuring that your not putting yourself directly in harms way.

Do you not teach your children about stranger danger? Tell your sons and daughters to be safe on nights out? Lock your doors at night?

Rape seems to be the only crime in which if we dare to educate people in how to keep safe or minimise risk we get accused of victim blaming.

Drives me nuts!

FerretsAreFeminists

Excellent posts. Sometimes just spelling it out in the way you have draws all the points together.

Certainly, only allowing responsible men over 35 the option to be licenced to drink alcohol would reduce crime and violence.

They'd be more careful about what Mr Penis gets up to if we reversed the presumption of innocence in rape cases and made men have to prove that they had consent for sex if a question arose.

" even if the police are confident her story is true the case won';t go to court if the defence can just cast doubt on her evidence. I don't know what way there is around that."
Good point. And it's a cycle thwn - drink women are more likely to be attacked as men know they're a lot more likely to get away with it.

Drunk men are probably responsible for a lot of physical assaults, drunk driving, robberies, criminal damage as well as rape so maybe we should ban men from drinking alcohol.

It really is telling when drunk women are compared to unlocked houses.

it would be really interesting to know what proportion of reported rapes happen to women who are drunk and how that compares to being the victim of any other sort of crime.
One factor that hasn't been mentioned is the difficulty of getting a conviction if a woman is very drunk/drugged- even if the police are confident her story is true the case won';t go to court if the defence can just cast doubt on her evidence. I don't know what way there is around that.

No of course they won't stop, and sadly there is a disproportionate number of sex workers and other vulnerable women that are raped, attacked and murdered because they regularly are in high risk situations so the chances of it happening are higher. It's odd though because there are other people- bank/ money security guards spring to mind- who also 'choose' to work in a high-risk environment and yet when they get robbed and shot no one says 'they should never have put themselves in that position, it was totally predictable that they might get robbed and shot'

From Alcohol Concern:

A fifth (29%) of all violent incidents in 2013–14 took place in or around a pub or club. This rises to 42% for stranger violence.
Over two thirds (68%) of violent offences occur in the evening or at night
Victims believed the offender(s) to be under the influence of alcohol in over half (53%) of all violent incidents, or 704,000 offences

Looks like drinking might be pretty bad for you.

But being too drunk to know what you are doing puts you at all sorts of risks.

It certainly seems to. Men need to be aware that they may rape someone if they become drunk. This could lead to lengthy prison sentences (ideally). Why are they not more cautious about their own welfare?