to think that rape is NOT the only crime

[Justforlaughs]

that blames the victim? I keep reading this and think that actually most victims of crime are blamed to an extent. Did you leave your windows unlocked? Yes, then we're not paying out on the insurance for the burglary. Why were you walking down a dark alley with an expensive mobile phone on display? - of course you're asking to get mugged. Did you give someone else your password? Of course you are the victim of fraud. Did you watch your suitcase every second in the airport? No, then you allowed someone to plant those drugs in your case. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying that it happens. I don't understand it when people say that this only happens in rape cases.

Suzanne
I am aware of that. I just wondered why you were bringing hanging into the discussion at all.

Actually we were burgled after leaving our front window open at night so obviously it might not have happened if we had shut it. However, the police were wonderful and we were never made to feel we were to blame in any way - and they caught the guy and offered victim support if we needed it.

suzanne don't understand your points,

manicunsomniac very brave and excellent post. I too was raped as a teen by an ex bf although at the time I would have used the words ' persuasive sex and going too far' and although upset at the time and fucking angry now as an adult with dds ,it does not compare with the absolute hatred, fear and emotion of being burgled.

the consequences of that to me and my dds have been just dreadful. far worse than the sexual assault.

the crime is what the victim says it is and not what others say it should be.

op I guess the point is people are always searching for an answer or a solution/prevention.

in the case of rape this of course can be presented in a dreadfully insulting way as in 'was the victim wearing a short skirt?' which should be met with so bloody fucking what!

I had a wooden panel on my back door, didn't expect a fucking bastard burglar to kick it in.

The burglary analogy is not good: insurance is a negotiated contract. If you want cheap(ish) insurance then you buy a policy that covers you for burglary only after forced entry, if you pay more then your insurance policy can cover you whatever the circumstances - I do not have to lock my windows, or my doors and I am still covered for burglary because I have chosen that policy. Just because an insurance company won't pay out on your policy if you left the door unlocked, does not mean anyone is blaming you. It just reflects the contract that you decided to buy.... the more risks you want covered, the more expensive it will be. It is not victim blaming.

suzanne You say:

" "extraneous shit gets dragged in to try to muddy the waters" or, put another way, "further evidence is introduced in order that a more accurate picture of events may be drawn"."

I have seen rape trials where all sorts of IRRELEVANT evidence that does NOT help draw an accurate picture of events, has been presented in order to try for a "jury verdict" ie a verdict where the jury has chosen to disregard the law and the Judge's directions because for some (illogical, sexist, oldfashioned) reason they have thought a logical verdict would be in some way unfair on the defendant eg if the woman was "asking for it." I saw one trial, in which there was overwhelming evidence of guilt, where the defence barrister tried to argue that it was impossible to put a penny in a bottle if the person holding the bottle didn't want him to. He spent quite some time on this line of argument in his closing speech. The basis of his argument amounted to a proposition that rape was not possible. I could see several jurors actually looking puzzled as if they were trying to imagine the bottle and the penny. This was NOT further evidence presented in order that a more accurate picture could be drawn". It was "extraneous shit". And it is extraneous shit that is the problem and that tends to consist of irrelevant evidence about what the woman was wearing, her past sexual conduct, the fact she was friendly to the rapist, the fact she survived the attack, the fact she was not injured enough, the fact she was too frightened to scream etc etc

Since the earliest days of criminal law, there have been occasions when an arrested person has been convicted in the minds of the public (or a significant section of the public) not only before the all evidence has been weighed but sometimes immediately the arrest is announced.

Crowds would (and still do) gather outside jails and police stations, demanding that the alleged culprit be handed over to them in order that s/he may be dealt with both violently and immediately, without troubling the courts.

Sometimes - notably in the southern states of the USA - being black was and is sufficient reason in the minds of many people to lynch any man accused of rape.

And sometimes - everywhere in the world - being accused of rape was and is sufficient reason in the minds of many people to lynch any man accused of rape.

In either circumstance, the mob deems everything that happens between arrest and conviction (or execution if the law allows it) to be 'extraneous shit'.

That was the point I was making.

I think the difference between rape and say burglary is that rape often comes down to the issue of consent. No-one can consent to a burglary - that is mad thinking. But barristers etc will argue that the victim has consented to the crime, and in order to establish this consent will bring up other examples of when the victim has consented to sex. Which misses the point entirely - just because a victim has consented to sex and some point in their lives, it doesn't mean that they have consented to sex at that particular time. It's pretty useless trying to draw parallels between that and burglary because as I say consent is not an issue there. So your entire thread is based on a false premise. Sorry.

Also, no-one would ever try to argue that a burglary hasn't taken place because the person being burgled consented to it. But people will try to argue that rape hasn't taken place because there was consent. Rape is almost unique in that sense in that it hinges on the issue of consent. There was a case years ago when there was some fairly heavy s&m activity going on (bollocks being nailed to boards and the like) where the issue of consent did arise, but in pretty much every other criminal case - murder, assault, burglary etc - the issue of consent does not figure.

Thank you for explaining. It isn't a particularly relevant point IMO. No-one here is suggesting a return to lynch mobs or anything of the like. We'd simply prefer rape trials to be tried on the relevant evidence, which doesn't include skirt length or inebration or the fact you consented to sex last Tuesday.

I note your post conveniently left out the 'extraneous shit' when discussing inter-racial rape in Southern America that your posited situation simply wouldnt happen in the case of a white man raping a black woman. Suggesting the issue in that case is race, not gender.

Sorry. Last post was to susanne

Suzanne

You are spectacularly missing the point. If the evidence being adduced in court is relevant to consent then, by definition, it is not extraneous shit. The cut of the victim's top and her prior sexual history is irrelevant and is extraneous shit. The court should be focusing on relevant matters.

Does anyone blame the victims of burglary, fraud etc? Radio 4 Money Box live regularly features stories about fraud where tbh I'm thinking how on earth could you fall for that, but it's never ever done in a way to blame or belittle the victim(and quite rightly so)

Hi all,

Thanks to those who reported this thread to us.

We think this would be a good time to link to our rape awareness campaign, We Believe You. www.mumsnet.com/campaigns/we-believe-you-mumsnet-rape-awareness-campaign

I think it's different because rape is the only crime I'm aware of where the actual crime taking place is questioned and where consent is such an issue. For example if you leave your window opened and you get burgled nobody would say you didn't get burgled because you left the window open. You may have made a mistake but the fact that you were burgled isn't in doubt. Whereas if people blame a rape victim saying stuff like 'she chose to go up to his room' it implies there was some sort of consent and the crime didn't happen.

The cut of the victim's top and her prior sexual history is irrelevant and is extraneous shit.

Many jurors would agree with you, and many would disagree. The important thing is that a defendant in any trial is allowed to defend himself to the best of his (and his barrister's) ability.

I note your post conveniently left out the 'extraneous shit' when discussing inter-racial rape in Southern America that your posited situation simply wouldn't happen in the case of a white man raping a black woman. Suggesting the issue in that case is race, not gender.

I didn't mention inter-racial rape.

And whether the issue is gender, race, religion, politics or anything else, my point is that there should be no assumptions made concerning a defendant's guilt until a court of law weighs the evidence and makes that decision.

Suzanne, afaik those things are no longer allowed to be brought up in court (not without very good reason and special application to the judge, anyway). Because it is irrelevant and extraneous shit.

No what matters is that it is determined that the relevant elements that make up the offence are proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is for the prosecution to prove the case all the defendant needs to do is demonstrate reasonable doubt.

It's not about whether or not jurors agree. It's whether or not matters are relevant to consent.

I am genuinely shocked at your response. A good defence is not the same as open season on the alleged victim.

My post is to Suzanne

In pretty much every other criminal case - murder, assault, burglary etc - the issue of consent does not figure.

One can give consent to be assaulted: boxers do so every time they enter the ring with an opponent. Even if one fighter beats the other to death (while obeying the rules of the sport), he is highly unlikely to face criminal charges as the now-dead man consented to being attacked by him in a very violent manner.

The same principle applies is many other sports where violent bodily contact is an accepted part of the game.

It is important to note that it's not simply a matter of consent: it's a matter of consent in a situation where the law allows consent to be given.

Surely the law allows me to consent to people taking my stuff (free cycle etc). When I don't consent! that's theft.
Similarly, the law allows me to consent to sex. When I don't consent, that's rape.
Currently, I can't consent under British law to someone killing me. But that's about it.
The difference is, you rarely find people telling the victims of theft that they are lying. With rape, it happens all the time.

I don't think it is rape per se that invites victim blaming, it is when the woman is a victim and the crime happens in a public space. I've heard similar rhetoric when women have been out in the evening and have been mugged or assualted 'what did she expect going out alone after dark'

I think it comes from an idea that women shouldnt access public Space (especially unshaperoned women after dark) and gives rise to a culyure of victim blaming.

A good defence is not the same as open season on the alleged victim.

Again, many people would agree and many would disagree.

If a woman has been raped, it is a tragedy of colossal proportions that she subsequently be made to re-live the events in court while having her character dragged through the mud in front of a room full of strangers.

Equally, if a woman has not been raped but claims that she has, it is I suggest a tragedy of no small magnitude that an innocent man be sent to prison for many years simply because his barrister was not allowed to test the woman and her evidence to the best of his/her ability.

There can be no winners in rape cases: victims (alleged and actual) and perpetrators (alleged and actual) all come out of it battered and bruised (emotionally and often physically too).

And in almost every case, an innocent person (be it the victim or the falsely-accused defendant) is scarred for life.

Suzanne, not sure I'm too worried if actual perpetrators of rape find the trial quite tough.
Falsely accused defendants of any crime presumably find the trial etc quite scarring.
Exactly what are you suggesting should happen?

If a woman has been raped, it is a tragedy of colossal proportions that she subsequently be made to re-live the events in court while having her character dragged through the mud in front of a room full of strangers.

She, unfortunately, has to relive her experience in order to obtain justice, and for the defendant to have a fair trial.

She, however, does not have to have her name dragged through the mud.