To think rapists shouldn't have the right to have their crimes forgotten?

[MipMipMip]

A trial case soon to go to court is whether transwomen (male to females) should have the right to have crimes that can only be commited be a male forgotten so that it doesn't out them as trans. There are a few historical crimes but the only one now is rape (in the UK a penis must be involved -otherwise it is sexual assult).

So if this case is successful it would provide precedence that would enable rapists to claim to be trans, have their rape removed as outing then when they have a criminal record check it would come back as clean!

A transgender offender is seeking to delete from her record two crimes that could only have been committed by a man.

“I do not wish my gender history to be more widely known and do not wish to disclose my trans status to employers,” the woman, who asked to be identified only as Helen, said. She is to launch a judicial review to remove two convictions for “importuning as a man” when she worked at a Soho “clip joint” in the 1970s and 1980s.

A right to removal, if established, could cover rape, another crime that can legally be committed only by a person with a penis.

AIBU to think this is a terrible idea and that it is even being considered a sign that some malignant indivduals are taking advantage of Trans people with body disphoria for their own agenda?

Article the quotes are from

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trans-offender-seeks-to-wipe-crimes-as-aman-from-record-qfk5w68lb?shareToken=9224a3234cfb01ef11ba3d794f7c7942

YAD 110% NBU. The victims won't forget, will they. Why should those dirty beasts not be haunted by their actions that they chose to take part it. It seems there's more sympathy toward the perpetrator than the victim. After all like I say The perpetrator always has a choice. The victims doesn't.
It's small wonder the British "Justice" System pisses so many people off.
If it were up to me. They'd be slowly and painfully castrated with the words I'm a disgusting rapIsts burned into their foreheads.

I like that plan.

Bloody outrageous

Any convicted rapist could - and probably would - identify as a woman, just to get his convictions removed.

It would make life much easier for paedophiles and other rapists to find new victims to groom & rape.

What. The actual. Fuck.

We already have the problem that trans criminals are counted as women in the crime statistics
which makes it falsely appear that women are becoming more violent, committing more serious sexual offences

I don't know how they legally define "a crime that can only be committed by a man", but the reality is that you don't need a penis to rape someone. You can violate someone with an object, for example. (Not that I've ever done this, but I have some education on gender-based violence.)

agnurse

But sadly not on the law, (if you're in the UK).

Of course its ridiculous. Like most things TRAs want/demand. I would laugh at the ridiculousness if I wasn't a bit worried that this lunacy will actually go through. I have lost all faith in pretty much everything over this ind of thing and the daft decisions made. Just because male people stamp their feet.

Agnurse in the UK it has to be a penis. So it could only be commited by a man. Or possibly a Trans man (female to male) who has had genital surgery, although I genuinely have no idea if constructed penises are functional.

Using anything else, including a dildo, in the UK is classed as sexual assault.

I don't think that is accurate.

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,

(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and

(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

(2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.

(3) Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.*

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

Basically, the government messed up big time when pardoning gay men for historical offences that today, are no longer crimes. They missed a whole bunch of offences that could only have been committed by men, such as importuning and soliciting other men in a public place, and these remain on people's records. As they are classed as sexual in nature, they are never removed from the records. Isn't it wrong that a CRB check will fail somebody who did something 20 years ago, but pass somebody who did the same thing last year?

The fact that "Helen" is trans is irrelevant to this argument. She should have the offences removed due to the nature of the offences, not due to her current status. The only way that rapists would have their records wiped is if the court makes an almighty mess of the case and the government subsequently makes another mess changing the law.
Article from 2016 illustrating the problem: www.independent.co.uk/voices/alan-turing-law-gay-men-historical-sex-offence-convictions-cautions-soliciting-not-wonderful-step-a7373426.html

The fact that "Helen" is trans is irrelevant to this argument. She should have the offences removed due to the nature of the offences, not due to her current status.

Yes and I agree, but Helen has chosen to approach this as a "privacy" issue caused by criminal records existing which inadvertently give away Helen's biological sex. It's not irrelevant to the facts of this case.

And the lawyer and chambers involved are strongly associated with a transactivist group who are approaching this as an opportunity for strategic litigation (and actively looking for other cases) to set the case law precedent that trans people's privacy supersedes DBS etc. Which could equally be applied to rape convictions.

Would it be forgotten/removed or converted to serious sexual assault? Sexual assault would also stop them working with vulnerable people, which seems like should stick for life.

I agree jCyclops. It's difficult with removing historic crimes because it does show a willingness to ignore laws which can suggest someone wouldn't be suitable in certain roles. But at the same time it was a hell of a long time ago and it's not exactly robbing a bank.

Maybe certain historic crimes should be merged into something that could be commited by both sexes and given a grading for seriousness? Rape should not be btw, you shouldn't be able to ever hide that. I'm really worried at the precedents this could provide.

Would it be forgotten/removed or converted to serious sexual assault? Sexual assault would also stop them working with vulnerable people, which seems like should stick for life.

I'm not sure they would be able to just do that would they? It's a different offence. Wouldn't it need a court judgement (IANAL)?

In my opinion, an offence such as this which has been committed and proven, should stick on records, no matter whether the guilty party has self-ID'd afterwards or is medically reassigned later on.

The mind has not altered, whether the body has or not.

In this case, the change in gender seems to be a very handy excuse.

The world is going utterly crazy.

Helen should not have raped people in that case - their own mess that they should live with forever

My stance on rapists would make this idea unnecessary anyway - they don't need background checks done by prospective employers if they're STILL IN PRISON WHERE THEY BELONG!

And a male prison at that!

Ffs this is getting fucking ridiculous!

Ragged - yes if it was converted to 'serious sexual assault' they'd still fail checks. Great. But then stats could be easily manipulated to claim 'rise in serious sexual assault committed by women' which is inaccurate - because at the time of committing the crime they weren't a woman by ANYONE's definition!

Slightly off topic - anyone else think it would be much simpler if when an employer was simply told "X person is not legally allowed to work with women/children/vulnerable adults" they don't really need to know why do they?

YADNBU

100% criminal record should not be able to be erased for transpeople.

But women can and have been convicted if rape in England. So although very, very rare - there are cases.

Can I point out there that the Government is asking for your opinion on proposals that relate to this - whether ANY man (rapist, murderer or the genuine gender dysphoric person it was intended for) should be able to "over the counter" declare womanhood, which could then lead to crimes like this being hidden (or at best, the stats for women "rapists" being falsely increased).

Now is the time to put your opinions forwards:

fairplayforwomen.com/full_guide/

This case is more nuanced than posters suggest.

The individual wants the conviction for “importuning as a man” changed.
This crime no longer exists on the statute books. It has been replaced by “soliciting” which is an offence which can be commited by men and women.

It does not seem unreasonable to me to ask that “importuning as a man” be replaced by “soliciting” if the individual needs to disclose to a potential employer.