Judge's warning to drunk women

[FirstShinyRobe]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-39233617

AIBU to think she had a marvellous platform with her retirement speech to issue instead a warning to men not to rape women?

It is instead designed to protect potential victims.

I think that sums up my feelings on this matter. I believe what the judge said she said with good intentions and motivations. To protect not to subjugate.

Maybe that makes me naive. Maybe I'd feel differently with the shoe on the other foot.

But I truly believe that this judge has been a victim of biased reporting and that if we are to be angry with anyone, it should be the media and not the content of the entire transcript.

I think the problem of telling people how to keep themselves safe from rape upsets so many people because it's partly historical. In the past judges have said rape is the only crime where a woman has to prove she is totally blameless. So when you compare it to other crimes it doesn't seem genuine, it feels like a regressive step. It also puts off victims reporting the crime as soon as it happens, this is important to try and collect as much forensic evidence as possible. People on this thread can say as much as they want that it's not the victims fault but when you have just been through a trauma like rape thinking straight and logically is difficult and by the time you have come to realise it's not your fault it maybe too late to report it.

I agree Totally and yes, rape has an unfortunate history. However, we have a system of jury trial here, where juries do not have to give reasons and are not accountable for their verdicts. Police officers KNOW that it's much harder to secure a conviction where the victim was very very drunk. Therefore, they need to ask.

I would actually say (and this is not a popular opinion, I know), that moving away from jury trials to judge-only trials is a better option, as we are less likely to see extreme prejudice or fundamental misunderstanding, especially around rape and sexual assault. Having worked in the legal system, I don't hold juries in high regard. But I appreciate that that is an unpopular view.

Totallymyownperson your posts are very considered and I thank you for that. I do still think that she did a good thing, but I can certainly see it from your point of view too.

The thing is, you can keep your inanimate objects relatively safe by putting them under lock and key.

As a woman, you can't put yourself under lock and key.

As a human being, living life, there will always be times when you have - or want - to take a (calculated) risk. It's unavoidable.

If you've moved away from home, travelled, lived/worked in another country, had a raucous night out, walked through a car park alone at dusk/night, caught a bus home from a late work shift, gone for a run(!) - basically, if you've stepped outside your door unchaperoned, you've put yourself at risk. You've essentially done something to place yourself in the path of someone who might harm you. All of us have done it.

My very first comment on this thread was to say that I will tell my daughter and son to take precautions when they're old enough to be out and about.

But we can never keep ourselves completely safe - because being drunk doesn't mean you will or won't get raped, any more than being sober protects you from rape.

As a woman, you can never protect yourself fully.

And as long as the message continues to focus on what women should and should do, the implicit blame culture persists.

To be fair, I don't think her telling men to not rape would have achieved anything. Telling politicians to make better laws against rape, possibly.

But men already know rape is wrong. Telling them again would be pointless.
If judges worked together to give rapists higher sentences and convicted more rapists, then the rapists would notice, no need to tell them.

Just leaving this here (or attempting to).

bbc.in/2meR7Tl

As a woman, you can never protect yourself fully

That is true, but nobody is saying that you can. We also don't seem to have an issue about warning people about other sorts of crime or even accidents, that could cause harm to the person rather than possessions. All humans are inherently vulnerable.

The point is that warnings about personal safety are made on a regular basis, but it seems that it is only in relation to rape that they are seen to be victim-blaming and restrictive of autonomy. We don't have an issue with things like this:
-don't drive in bad weather conditions
-be careful when you cross the road

• never get into a car with someone who has been drinking
• don't walk through certain areas of town where there is a high rate of violent crime

-avoid large crowds (risk of crushing etc) -avoid going to X country on holiday because of the political situation -avoid getting into confrontations with people, especially when they have been drinking

These are all warnings to people to prevent them from becoming physically rather than financially injured (although some involve both- e.g. muggings). But we don't seem to have an issue with warnings like this. We don't say 'well, don't warn us because we can never make ourselves 100% safe, so you are implying it is our fault'. There is a difference between blame and advice to take precautions. We know that certain conditions increase risk (wherever that risk comes from), so we encourage people to take precautions, even though such precautions will never ever remove the risk 100%.

Ok link didn't work. Essentially it a Tracey Ullman sketch where a police officer is telling a bloke who was mugged that he's asked for it.

I agree dowager life is full of risk.
If all women stopped drinking to excess rapists will always find another way to target women. 30 years ago we mostly heard of stranger rape in the news than the police changed the way they dealt with rape they actually started to investigate and prosecute aided by developments in forensics like DNA. Rapists than had to come up with another way of getting off so they started raping women they know after dates to explain away the DNA in victims. Even though date rapists are still not being convicted, they have a new MO targeting women who are so drunk they cannot fight back and or remember so they either never report it or are not believed. Just like car thefts have reduced because of improvements in anti theft technology, those thiefs are now targeting people via stealing their ID and producing credit cards in their name.
I think of rapists as any other criminals who adjust their MO so they can get away with it.
You only have to look around the world to see a woman's chance of being raped is not reduced by restricting what she does. In Some countries women are not even allowed to smile in public in case it attracts men. But you will never hear about the many rape cases from those countries because reporting rape can get you killed by your own family in those countries.

I saw the Tracey Ullman sketch yesterday - great use of satire to get the point across.

Ok link didn't work. Essentially it a Tracey Ullman sketch where a police officer is telling a bloke who was mugged that he's asked for it

Yeah, I think I saw it on facebook. Was it where they asked the guy what he was wearing? I am not sure if the sketch is as outrageous as it makes itself out to be. For example, I think that actually the police already DO ask blokes whether they had been drinking when they were mugged. If they were very drunk, the CPS might not prosecute because eye witness evidence is less reliable. They may also ask them what they were doing in a particular area of town as well. I don't think it's the case that female rape victims get torn apart by the police whereas male mugging victims are believed 100% and never questioned on their account.

We have to separate out cause and effect. The judge did not say, nor did she mean I'm sure (for this is, as everyone says, an old debate) that getting drunk is the cause of the rape. The cause is clearly a rapist on the look out. I don't think we need to feel so offended by another woman who wants women to protect themselves from rapists.

Meantime. Do mothers tell their sons not to get legless in case they get accused of raping someone they thought they were having sex with? Probably should, no?

Terrible that any woman should support this view. A non-rapist would not rape a woman even if she was drunk and naked in the road. He'd cover her with a jacket and ring an ambulance.

Terrible that any woman should support this view

I wonder if many people on this thread read the judges comments.
She said there is no excuse for rape, and that the blame lies with the rapist.
I expect the BBC correspondent who phoned Rape Crisis for a quote missed that bit out.

As for 'dont teach your sons no means no, teach them yes means yes', it actually goes;

Whoever we are
Wherever we go
Yes means yes
And no means no.

All children need to learn to give and receive a clear 'no' with good grace.

I did DJ. I think what she said was pointless and suspect that she hoped to go out with a big bang after an annoyingly quiet career. She has her wish.

She is right.

You are more vulnerable, male, or female, if you're drunk. In an ideal world, we'd all be able to get drunk and walk down the street half naked, but this is the real world....

Terrible that any woman should support this view. A non-rapist would not rape a woman even if she was drunk and naked in the road. He'd cover her with a jacket and ring an ambulance

What view? I am a woman. I know a non-rapist would not rape a woman. However, rapists do not walk around with a big R tattooed on their forehead. Many seemingly ordinary, nice, normal blokes can be rapists. Also, they will sometimes choose a victim that is vulnerable. Someone who is drunk and naked in the road would therefore be a target for them. If you are drunk and naked in the road, you could be lucky and be helped by a kind person or you could be unlucky and fall victim to an opportunistic rapist. It is not always the case that a rapist will rape you whether or not you are drunk. Sometimes the rapist will only rape you if he has the chance to rape you. This does not apply to all rapes- it applies to opportunistic rapes where the victim is very very drunk.

All children need to learn to give and receive a clear 'no' with good grace

Agree. It is not helpful to bring your kids up to think that they can have whatever they want.

Agree. It is not helpful to bring your kids up to think that they can have whatever they want.

Or do whatever they want. Or go wherever they want. They must learn the about our real world, not just the ideal goal.

In an ideal world, we'd all be able to get drunk and walk down the street half naked, but this is the real world....

How many times have you seen this? And if you did, what would you do? I think most people would avoid someone like this whether they or the naked drunk was male or female. The worst most people would do is post it on YouTube.

And yet the judge, who with all her experience, knows that is most rapes don't occur between legless victims and random predators, chose to suggest that they do.

To be fair, I don't think her telling men to not rape would have achieved anything.

But men already know rape is wrong. Telling them again would be pointless.

Do you honestly think there is no benefit in more education around consent / enthusiastic consent / coercion / healthy relationships?

You really think everyone - young people, teenagers and adults are fully clued about this?

Because I do not. And that this the root of this problem.

You really think everyone-young people, teenagers and adults are fully clued about this?

Actually, the judge made these remarks in a case where the defendant raped his victim on a canal path. She screamed at him to stop and the police were called by a passer by. Are you honestly saying that this is something that consent-education could resolve. That maybe this young man was just mistaken and if he had been told properly that no means no, he would have stopped.

Hardly- this is an opportunistic criminal who was looking for someone to rape that night.