Does it worry you that six WOMEN are convicted of rape?

[loveyouradvice]

Mail today..... about how far more sex crimes are being committed by women....including six rapes.

To commit rape you have to have a penis - that is the definition of rape (intentionally penetrating vagina, anus or mouth with his penis without consent)

So at least six of these crimes committed by women - and probably far more - have been committed by men who identify as women.....

This really worries me

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5465541/Record-number-women-convicted-sex-crimes-Britain.html

[Ereshkigal]

You're wrong worridmum. What you describe is not classed the same as a more minor sexual assault. It is a specific offence "causing sexual activity without consent".

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/4

[worridmum]

the upper end of sentences are the same rape and sexual assault carry the same maximum. But the problem with lumping all sexual crimes together lumps things like forced sex (aka sex without consent i cannot call it rape) is classed the same as a simply unwanted sexually attention someone pinching your bottom.

The difference if with the crime sexual assault there is no minimum tariff and the definition is so broad with the spectruim of things that fall with it so vastly different its almost disgusting they are treated the same.

sex without consent is AS BAD AS rape but if its done without a penis (sexist crap) is branded as sexual assault which also covers someone being having the bottom pinched or breast groped (i am NOT saying either is good but one is much much worse its like scarping murder and manslaughter charge and lumping it together with normally assault.

Woman commit sexual crimes every day but in England and Wales its true that their is only a couple of female rapist but if with could class ALL non consensual sex as being rape the figures would not be any where as low as people think it would be.

In most of Europe non-consensual sex = rape but not in England and Wales were it is labelled simply as sexual assault.

[mirialis]

Ereshkigal - I just really want to know the facts on this and signed up to a (free) account on thelawpageslcom

I think, from the basis of that, women CAN be charged and convicted or rape (by joint enterprise/aiding and abetting) but there was nothing like 6 per year and all bar one I saw were an abused woman). There was one where the woman was clearly not an abused woman being cajoled into anything and as he actually got a longer sentenced than the man she had "organised" to do the raping.


The one we have discussed from 2016 was Julie Beards (awful and heart-breaking story) but there didn't seem to be any other rapes by women in 2016. I don't doubt the MoHJ stats but they are not showing up in what is available to the public.

I have no reason to think the people who committed these crimes and were recorded as "female" were not female, but there were 2 murders that were committed by born males who were recorded as "female".

[Ereshkigal]

This is the thing, everyone talking about joint enterprise where a woman was convicted of rape is referring to a case in 2001.

[Ereshkigal]

They could have been, yes. But I think it's fair to ask how common this is in practice.

[Hoardinghobbit]

It could be that you someone is convicted for being what is erroneously called an 'accessory'. For example if a gang fight results in a stabbing, all gang members might be convicted of manslaughter/murder if they were aware that someone in the gang had a knife - even if they were unarmed. There is no 'accessory' to an offence, it is the same offence. The women concerned could have been a willing part of an group of abusers.

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

Some of this may or may not be relevant:

transcrimeuk.com/2016-convictions/

[Ereshkigal]

That's the point. Everyone is referencing a case from 17 years ago.

[Ereshkigal]

It seems quite rare though.

[Lostmyunicorn]

Both under the old legislation and the 2003 act a person can commit the offence (and actually almost any other offence too) by joint enterprise or as a secondary party (what is sometimes called aiding and abetting. The date of the previous case is irrelevant. The principles of joint liability and secondary liability are largely established under common law and the enactment of the 2003 act doesn’t change that. There are similar principles in Scotland but they may not be exactly the same. my post relates to the law in England and Wales.

[Ereshkigal]

Look at the date on the story when the woman was convicted of rape by "joint enterprise" and seems to be the one story people can find and keep referencing.

It's a good point.

[holycheeseplant]

A fascinating discussion.

I'm very interested to know how statistics will change over the next 25 years, not just due to things like self id but also due to what appears to be increasing levels of violence to women in porn verses the metoo stuff - sadly I fear the former will trump metoo and self id/ trans etc will begin to complicate statistics. I don't want to brush away the fact that women abuse also however.

It strikes me that a few slight changes to the wording of the law would impact statistics hugely aswell.

[mirialis]

blackteas - so glad someone with some professional knowledge turned up. But now I see your previous post was deleted and I don't know what you said.

My questions:

Is it right to say that the 2003 Act means that Rape in England & Wales can only be committed by a male with a penis?

Is information about the 6 women convicted of rape not available to the general public - as so much information about other trials and convictions are reported in MSM - and if not, what reasons would there be for that?

[blackteasplease]

I'm trying to explain the legal thinking here.

Sexual assault is often described as "sexual touching" (without consent) in court.

Sorry if the Sexual Offences Act 2003 offends any one.

And I genuinely meant I hope it helps

I'm a criminal lawyer with specialist rape training btw.

[unplugmefromthematrix]

If we don't know who has done what to whom, we have no hope of working out why they did it and if there is anything we can do to stop it happening again.

Self-ID is a nightmare.

Trans-status should not be invisible one minute then there the next - if it is to be recorded as a factor eg in a hate crime, then it should be routinely recorded as other charcteristics are routinely recoreded so that we can all drill down and see what is going on.

[anneoneill]

So mumsnet allows a poster to say a man who is forced into non-consensual sex wasn't really raped, and deletes my post for calling out the sick poster who said it? What the fuck?

[sagamartha]

Would there be an issue with self id if enough male criminals disingenuously identified as trans to skew the stats for transwomen

I certainly think there's an issue with some criminals saying they are trans when convicted / in prison to gain access to female spaces or better treatment in prison.

I also think that self ID opens up a whole can of worms.

[acquiesce]

The number of men convincted of rape worries me more.
Yet another trans thread yawn

[Squishysquirmy]

I think that is plausible sagamartha
Do you think that stats should be collected in such a way as to distinguish between men, tranwomen, women and transmen?
Would there be an issue with self id if enough male criminals disingenuously identified as trans to skew the stats for transwomen?
E.g. If transwomen as a group were made to seem more violent/ criminal than they really were by male criminals lying about how they identified?

[sagamartha]

If some people are adamant that transwomen are not given to a higher risk of commiting sexual offences against women than biological women

That's not what's been said. But compared to the average man, the statistics might well show that a transwoman is less likely to commit sexual offences - and then within the subgroup of transwomen (because definitions are important), there might well be a difference as well.

[unplugmefromthematrix]

Collecting stats on crime commited by people who have transitioned would be the best way to make things clear one way or the other.

If some people are adamant that transwomen are not given to a higher risk of commiting sexual offences against women than biological women, then the stats will bear that out and they will be vindicated. Therefore they should be pushing for the collection and publishing of detailed and transparent stats that record transition/ natal sex as part of crime statistics ASAP. But are they?

Also, I believe that stats are collected on other groups such as ethinicity and age etc. as well as gender/sex, probably disability too... It would be very strange if trans people were the only demographic/ protected characteristic not to be counted.

[mirialis]

A quick search shows a woman without a penis can actually be convicted of rape

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1225124.stm

Look at the date on the story when the woman was convicted of rape by "joint enterprise" and seems to be the one story people can find and keep referencing.

2001.

The 2003 Act clearly states that rape is a crime that can only be committed by someone with a penis.

[BigChocFrenzy]

We need separate statistics in the UK for transwomen and women for at least a few years, so that we have sufficient information from a large population.

The Swedish study was of the entire post-op trans population in their country,
They found that transwomen retained the pattern of male criminality

Trans activists now dispute those findings, saying that the Swedish population was too small then and it was an old study etc

We need facts from the UK, to settle this
There is no reason the UK can't separately record transwomen and women

[Boulshired]

The problem is how do you introduce reforms when the statistics mean little. If the increase is due to testosterone and male rage how can education and rehabilitation be centred around women. If the increase has nothing to do with trans women but it is assumed it is the same problems occur with wasted resources.