Rape -Judy Finnegan

[HiawathaDidntBotherTooMuch]

DH and I were talking about this earlier. I hadn't heard anything about it, but he said 'Judy Finnegan got into trouble earlier for what she said about that footballer, going on to recount what she had said. Then he said 'you can understand what she meant though, there are different types of rape ...'. I flew off the handle, and said that I was offended and disgusted by what he had said.

He then went on and in about how sentences can vary to reflect the degrees of violence in rapes. I again flew off the handle and said that all rapes are violent.

He tried to explain what he meant. Which was that all rapes are disgusting, and every rapist should go to prison for their actions. But that some rapes involved more violence than others, just like some murders are more violent than others. He wanted to discuss it with me, but I couldn't speak to him, I was so disgusted. He has stormed off saying that I am pathetic and weird for not discussing what he had tried to explain.

I cannot get my head around what he is saying.

Yes, I was too angry to discuss this rationally with DH when it he raised it as we were settling down to sleep at 11ish last night. Incredibly long day, surly start in store this morning. Not the time for a long discussion.

I will think about it as today goes on, and put my views across calmly. But rape is an emotive topic, it does create strength of opinion. And no, DH did not seem to be talking about sentencing when he first said the things he did. He was talking about the actual crimes. He went on to talk about sentencing when he realised my reaction it what he had said.

Thanks for the replies that have helped me to make my thoughts more coherent.

We will talk tonight. But I do hope he takes on board what I think as this is something I will find very hard to agree to disagree on.

I dunno. I've not read her comments. However, I think your DH has a point.

I was raped/abused for years. Non of the rapes were 'violent', there was no physical damage done. I was young and blackmailed with various accusations.

Very different to someone who refuses and is beaten, held at knife point or the act being violent in itself.

I imagine the physiological damage is not that different for either though.

Is your husband allowed an opinion that differs to yours on any subject? It seems here he is saying rape is a disgusting crime, and perpetrators should be jailed. Here there is common ground with you.

When he then expresses a difference in opinion, effectively stating the law in the uk as it stands, you then do a radio silence flounce.

I think there are different degrees but the start point is "totally and utterly shit" rather than "perfectly fine" if that makes sense. No rape is perfectly fine even if there is no violence/injury beyond the physical act of rape. They are all abhorrent.

Actually, I guess that it is more a case of more than one crime being committed rather than any type of rape being worse - physical assault/GBH plus rape for example. Perhaps they should be treated as separate crimes and each punished accordingly with the rape standing separate to any violent assault.

What I mean is that the actual rape is the same but some have an extra violent assault on top of that.

Even without entering into other forms of violence, I'd think repeated rape versus single or anal versus vaginal or oral rape would be worse.

The problem for me is the starting point. Rape shouldn't be excused in any way, but I would recognise a scale of increasingly worse forms, as for other crimes.

I agree with owlcapone

Thats what I took it to mean when people say different levels of rape.

To break it down:

Rape is rape as defined by law - and all rapist should be given a minimum sentence - nothing should detract from the seriouness of this.

I think the level of violence can vary from holding down with body weight to being smacked about (sorry) or having a weapon used as threat. The same as assault, ABH and GBH distinguishes separate. I think they should be looked upon as seperate crimes from the actual rape - which should always be held as a serioius crime against a person and not be minimised or dtracted from by the level of violence.

I also think they should assess the mental impact more - I see this as crime a pyschological crime.

I think from when all this was firt mentioned (was it on radio by someone) the wrong terminology has been used which is suggestive that some rapes are less serious than others no they are not but the level of violence used during a rape incident may be less or greater.

Lweji, and sentencing can reflect that. The crime is still rape though.

It might be several counts of rape or in the event of increased physical force or physical damage (which might be more likely in anal than vaginal rape, though not always) a charge of rape with ABH as an aggravating factor.

But rape is held as a serious crime in the UK, the sentencing guide has a STARTING point of 8 years PLUS aggravating factors.

But there are very certainly different types of "rape", I have had an encounter which meets the legal definition of rape, but there is absolutely no way on earth my experience comes close to any of the women's experiences on this thread.

In my view, insisting that "rape is rape" in the way we see on here does diminish the seriousness of rapes accompanied by aggravating factors. Rape with a knife, by several men, resulting in serious physical damage is not remotely the same as a rape without aggravating factors. In fact this is exactly what plenty of women on this thread who have personal experience have been saying.

We are saying all rape is very bad, but aggravating factors can make it even worse. We are not saying all rape is bad but some is less important or not really rape.

But koala, murder is murder whether I ease you out of life with a little injection or beat you from head to toe until you die.

I would expect "life with a recommended minimum of 25 years" for the latter; maybe 18 years for the former. But no one would say insisting both are murder diminishes the second case.

Also, I am sorry you were raped, I should have said that first

Murder is not something that is socially or commonly minimised, whereas rape is.

Yes, I think we agree on that.

We disagree on the solution though. The violation of bodily autonomy that comes with rape is a serious violent crime and that comes with all rape - therefore rape is rape is the right message, AFAIC.

Tonic, I don't disagree with what you say at all. It's just the message that rape with aggravating factors is the same. When it seems from this thread that victims do not agree.

Rape is rape, which is why I wonder if any violence on top of that act should be treated as a separate offence to ensure that rape is always treated and seen the same regardless.

Actually, different victims see it differently - some who have sadly been raped once by a partner and on another occasion by a stranger felt that the partner betrayal was worse.

Lucy, back to be a rape apologist on yet another thread?

I don't think murder is a good example as it trumps any other crime committed as the victim is dead. ie if a person is raped and murdered, aren't they only tried for the murder?

Degrees of murder are kind of irrelevant, although a violent murderer is seen differently I think.

All rape is equally rape.

The key word is violent. Violent is a specific word with a meaning. As pp's have said, rapes can be non-violent. But still are rape and still as harrowing for the victim.

It's like saying all rapes are performed at knife point. A clear phrase with a clear meaning and certainly not true in all cases.

I don't agree with the sentiment that the sentence should reflect the level of violence though, as for some victims the emotional scars could run deeper than the physical ones of a victim of a more violent rape.

I don't think so, Owl. Harold Shipman was sentenced for four years for forging the will of one of his murder victims.

The CPS may decide which charges to pursue or the judge may give concurrent sentences but I don't think murder negates any other crime automatically.

Eminy, I see your point but I think rape IS a violent crime. It's an assault. A sexual assault.

Again, if I punch you on the top of the skull or in the stomach with the same amount of force, I have committed a violent assault on you, though in the former case you are less likely to sustain much physical damage.

For me the issue here is one of emphasis. People are not using this argument about whether a rape was "violent" to call for stricter sentences on some convictions. They are using this argument to minimise the seriousness of some rapes.

The context here is that JF was somehow arguing that the footballer in question wasn't a proper rapist because of the "absence of violence". This is part of the whole argument there is in society that it isn't a "proper rape" if the woman is drunk, or wears revealing clothes, or has previously enjoyed sex with large numbers of men.

There are lots of people who see rape in those circumstances as not a rape, or only half a rape. Perhaps we could all agree that in a certain abstract way a rape that involved a knife held to the throat was "worse" than one that involved a spiked drink. But it's not because one offence was only half a rape, it's because one involved overt threats of violence in addition to the violence of the rape.

Mathematically, 1 - 0.5 = 0.5 = 1.5 - 1 , but there's a big difference in emphasis between treating rapes as "half a rape"/"rape" or as "rape"/"rape plus grievous bodily harm".

Good post, knitting.

Yonicscrewdriver, if you can't read, I suggest you don't comment.