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?

She absolutely wasn't putting the blame on the victim, but simply saying protect yourselves! The same way a man or a woman would in any situation where they could be preyed upon. It's common sense. And drink does stupid things to people. So just be careful out there.

That is what I thought

A lot of people are saying the judge has been misquoted or misinterpreted but having read endless articles on it I don't think that is the case. The backlash has come because they don't agree with what she said. Unfortunately however well intentioned her comments it will give momentum to misogynists to further blame rape on women. They already account for about 30% of the population. To them this is official validation of their views.

I agree with the bits of the Judges statement that I've seen. I haven't seen the whole statement though. (Has anyone? - if so I would be grateful for a link)

She was being very careful to put ALL blame on rapists and not on any victims. She stressed that woman should be free to do whatever they like. All she was doing was warning women to be careful. Just like I do with my own children.

I'm not sure why she is being critizedvwhen surely it should be the rapists and the people who actually think woman who drink too much or dress in a particular way or whatever are to blame for getting raped.

Does anyone actually believe the Judge thinks that women who drink too much and get raped are in any way to blame for it because I don't think she thinks that for one second.

Does anyone actually believe the Judge thinks that women who drink too much and get raped are in any way to blame for it because I don't think she thinks that for one second.

No, I don't think she thinks that either. But by focussing on alcohol and therefore by extension the victim's behaviour in getting drunk, her words can be construed as giving validation to those who think women are in some way to blame.

I have seen the whole statement (sorry don't know how to link) but she has not been misunderstood it's just some people don't agree with her. I know the context she said what she said but she should also have said something in the way that most rapes don't involve drunk people. This is important point as their are still huge numbers of people who still have strange ideas about what rape is, this will further mis unform the public and therefore the jury pool.

opal "I will never encounter a rapist where there will be any ambiguity that a rape has occurred. " are you celibate then? Do you never sleep under the same roof with any men who could potentially be seen as your date/bf etc?

The safety advice given re other crimes, when victims report those crimes even if they haven't followed the advice they're not disbelieved and I'd say those victims don't feel the same shame as rape victims.

Judge only trials? Have you seen the comments some judges make on rape? Even when it's children?

DJBaggy - you ever been assaulted? Lots of women freeze - in fear! They CAN'T say no! A lack of NO Is not consent!

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

But NOT all men know WHAT RAPE IS, there are men that still think that it isn't rape if the victim is their date/gf/wife/ex, THAT IT ISN'T RAPE IF SHE IS TOO DRUNK TO CONSENT, that it isn't rape if she didn't SPECIFICALLY say no, that it isn't rape if she changed her mind, that it isn't rape if she's wearing a short skirt, that it isn't rape if they anally penetrate because she agreed to vaginal penetration, that it isn't rape if the victim flirted with them, that it isn't rape if the victim is promiscuous, that it isn't rape if they've used emotional blackmail...

" 'Sensible advice' that's been said a million times before, is nothing to new to anyone, and over all the years it's been dished out, hasn't made a blind bit of difference to the incidence of rape - report or otherwise..."

"We have tried this message. It doesnt work. Maybe just maybe we could try something different." Exactly!

"No, I don't think she thinks that either. But by focussing on alcohol and therefore by extension the victim's behaviour in getting drunk, her words can be construed as giving validation to those who think women are in some way to blame."

In particular men with a predisposition to be the kind of rapist who doesn't think what they did is rape, the kind of guy who takes a drunk, flirty woman home and thinks it's ok to rape her (they think it's just 'having sex') even though she's in no fit state to consent!

Graphista

opal "I will never encounter a rapist where there will be any ambiguity that a rape has occurred. " are you celibate then? Do you never sleep under the same roof with any men who could potentially be seen as your date/bf etc?

I don't know what life experience you have had, so I will forgive you for your vulgar insinuation. However let me be clear... I trust my husband. He has never given me so much as a small reason to question this trust. I'm in disbelief that he could be a suspected future rapist in your eyes just because he has a penis. I hope some day you can experience deep trust in a relationship.

You would always consider it sound advice to be told to lock your front door on leaving the house. That's not victim blaming.

You would always be told to keep your wallet/purse hidden and not have it sticking out of your back pocket. That too isn't victim blaming.

If you still think this judge was victim blaming, then please have a read of the excellent Secret Barrister's blog: thesecretbarrister.com/2017/03/12/accusing-this-judge-of-victim-blaming-is-unfair-wrong-and-dangerous/ - a woman, for those of you who think that relevant.

As I think I said in a previous post I was abused from the age of 13 by my father. I've been assaulted several times, by strangers and men I thought were friends, safe.

But I'm not projecting. There are several threads in relationships and on other forums and I've heard of one case in real life, where women have been with partners/husbands for years, no abuse previously or the women have dismissed much lower levels of abuse. They've then been raped/sexually abused by these husbands/partners when drunk, asleep, on sedatives (including post gynae op's/birth), when not completely conscious when ill. In some cases they didn't know until discovering photos/video taken WHILE the rape/abuse was being carried out that's how unconscious they were. If I recall there was one where the man was drugging the woman in order to abuse her including anal rape which she always made clear anal sex was something she didn't want to do. Sometimes it happens when the relationship is breaking down where the man hasn't previously been abusive, sometimes upon discovering the woman has been unfaithful...

Nomalt - no all men are not rapists, but most rapists are men.

Rape cannot be equated to property crime or identy theft ffs. It's like beind stabbed or assaulted. Its interpreted as life or death by your body. You are not the enactor in rape so your actions do not necessarily control the outcome.

THank you collaborate

It is in many ways bizarre that at a time when there is a belated emerging social consensus that tackling “general” crime requires a multi-faceted approach, looking not only at the individual culpability of the offender but the broader environmental and causative factors that create the conditions for crime to occur, the tune of self-professed progressives is often one-note when it comes to sex offences. In political terms, emphasising that an effective criminal justice policy has to recognise the social and environmental factors that facilitate crime, and that so doing does not excuse the moral culpability of the individual, has been a gruelling campaign of the centre-left. It is usually the gravel-throated wails of the reactionary right that drown out attempts at nuanced assessments of crime that move beyond locating cause (as opposed to moral culpability) solely in the offender. But this is the adopted philosophy of those who shout down HHJ Kushner’s advice with the *mantra of, “Rape is only caused by rapists”.

My ex - a shit of almost the highest order, knew my history and I am confident would never do such a thing

My brother a police officer who has dealt with rape victims and perpetrators also thinks there is a LOT of work to be done in educating men and boys on TRUE consent. He cannot discuss individual cases but he can discuss the issue from a point of experience. He says most rapists genuinely do not believe they are rapists - even the ones that get quite forceful with women they've just met. Many just keep repeating 'she didn't say no'.

Graphista I'm sorry that he did that. But you suggesting that I can not trust any man is even more restrictive that this judge suggesting I should not get shitfaced in a bid to protect ourselves.

I absolutely trust my husband. Your unreliable suggestions that I shouldn't fall on deaf ears.

I hope someone earns your trust someday, and I'm sorry it was so badly damaged before you were grown by a man who should have protected you.

Rape cannot be equated to property crime or identy theft ffs. It's like beind stabbed or assaulted. Its interpreted as life or death by your body. You are not the enactor in rape so your actions do not necessarily control the outcome

Why don't people understand that when this analogy is made, people are NOT saying the crimes are the same. They are saying it is a situation where the victim is encouraged to take precautions, but full blame for the offence is put on the offender. It does NOT mean that anyone is saying that your body is like a house or handbag. That is willful ignorance.

Additionally, property theft IS sometimes accompanied by assault/stabbing- ie in the case of muggings and street robberies. But we don't seem to have an issue with warning people about avoiding certain areas or avoiding certain behaviour (including getting too drunk) in order to prevent being mugged or beaten up. Why is that?

Graphista I'm very pro education but I'm not anti the judges sentiment. I don't see it as an either/or situation

Collaborate - that blog has only just been posted a few posts upthread. And responded to.

The safety advice given re other crimes, when victims report those crimes even if they haven't followed the advice they're not disbelieved

Are you sure about this Graphista? Where do you get the assertion that all other crime victims are always believed from? Also, where do you get the (unhelpful) suggestion that rape victims are definitely disbelieved from? Many police forces have specially trained teams who deal with victims carefully, sensitively and with dignity. This does not mean that every case will result in a prosecution or indeed a conviction. Not every other form of crime is prosecuted either and the crown court has a high acquittal rate because juries will tend to acquit if they have the slightest doubt.

Those of us saying 'rape is only CAUSED by rapists' are right.

I can't speak for other posters on the following but I certainly feel that it's BECAUSE rape victims are often blamed at least partially

By the rapist
By police officers when they report
By healthcare workers when they report
By the media
By friends and family and wider society
By jurors
By defence barristers
By prosecuting barristers
By judges
By politicians

That we need to redress the balance in commentaries, in narratives.

EVERY TIME a rape is reported in the media it shouldn't even MENTION what the victim was wearing, if she's attractive, if she's promiscuous, if she was drunk/high.

In Australia, Canada and USA a rape victims previous sexual conduct isn't allowed to be presented in court. I think we should have the same in uk.

I am not afraid of the police. I am afraid of the views of the general public. Have you seen the abuse some victims of rape have received. Have you seen what is actually said about them. No other victims are talked about in this way. Opal it's interesting when it is pointed out to you that actually being in a relationship with a man is actually quite a risky thing to do, that you don't accept that risk. I am not having a go at you here, I just find it interesting that you insist others modify their behaviour but won't even listen to that suggestion. I am not saying that you should restrict your behaviour, I am in a relationship with a man as well. But it is intersting how we react to people pointing out risks.

birdsdestiny Your comparison is ridiculous.

Opal I'm not saying that you shouldn't trust your husband, but that other women ALSO trusted their husbands and partners and were STILL raped.

I think (again can't speak for others) that the problem with the judges comments is the MISSED OPPORTUNITY. There's any number of OTHER BETTER things she could have said.

Police forces do have specially trained teams to deal with rape/sexual abuse but before those teams are put in contact with the victim, the victim has to speak to police officers who HAVEN'T been specially trained.

The experience of my brother and friends of ours that are also police officers is that while most police officers DO understand, are sympathetic and caring toward women reporting rape, sadly there are still a few who say and think appalling things about rape and rape victims, even if they don't say it to/in front of the victim/perpetrator.

Such officers are being weeded out, but they still exist and still come into contact with victims.

Worse, there's even police officers who have been convicted of rape even serial rape, violent rapes.

Graphista the time to clarify that was after my post of 7.04, not an hour later as a back track.

EVERY TIME a rape is reported in the media it shouldn't even MENTION what the victim was wearing, if she's attractive, if she's promiscuous, if she was drunk/high

This is very rare- I have not seen any reports in this country of whether the victim was attractive because the victim has anonymity. However, remember that a report of a court case is an account of what the people who were in the court room actually said. We have an adversarial system whereby everyone who is accused of a crime has a right to put forward their defence. Where the victim was drunk, the defence will leap on that and use it because it undermines the victim's account of what happened (often in terms of whether she remembers correctly). But we cannot get rid of the defendant's right to put forward a defence, because that would have to apply to all other crimes as well and it would be considered unjust. So we need to carefully strike the balance.

In Australia, Canada and USA a rape victims previous sexual conduct isn't allowed to be presented in court. I think we should have the same in uk

Hmm, this is also untrue. All those jurisdictions (and remember that in the US, the laws vary from state to state) have what is called a 'rape-shield' law. This limits the questioning of the victim on sexual history. However, none of them have an outright ban- there will be some circumstances where questioning IS permitted.

The other point is that we DO have an equivalent rape shield law in England and Wales under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 which clearly prohibits the questioning on sexual history (apart from in narrowly defined circumstances). This is what they have in the other countries too! It is difficult to strike a balance because of the potential accusations of breaching the right of the defendant to mount his defence.
I agree that there needs to be stricter rules on when sexual history evidence can be used, but it is a myth to suggest that all victims are questioned on their sexual history and that the law permits this/is out of line with other jurisdictions. It is not.

Graphista the time to clarify that was after my post of 7.04, not an hour later as a back track.

Come on Opal be reasonable