Lack of convictions for RAPE...I really want to do something about this, if possible

[InmaculadaConcepcion]

Having just read about the DM story concerning the man acquitted of rape because he was "too drunk" and the subsequent horrendous account of a poster's own failed attempt to get justice for her rape on the same thread I am spitting with rage.

I want to do something positive. I have a baby daughter and I don't think I can be comfortable with myself if I don't make some attempt to fight for justice for rape victims and send out a message that RAPE IS A SERIOUS CRIME AND SHOULD BE TREATED AS SUCH.

I have two thoughts so far about this:

1. Set up a campaigning blog reproducing press accounts of rape cases and (where no press reports exist) publishing rape survivors' own accounts.

and

1. Set up a charity specifically to raise funds to assist rape survivors to pursue civil cases against their attackers.

These are just kernels of ideas at the moment, but I would welcome any suggestions about how I could make this work.

re:Immaculada's post (08.56 yesterday) I remember having discussions about the sueing in civil courts idea when there was a case involving a dentist about 1992ish....the woman won damages, but it never seemed to go further. Does anyone know why? Cos an organisation could take several cases and pool fees and any damages won. So all who took part would at least get a bit of compensation and support. Not enough, obv. but better than current sod all?

Just realised there is a thread on winning damages by Ayerobot. Sorry! Well done finding it, Ayerobot

Yes, that was what gave me the idea...

liking that idea...

Women Against Rape do a lot of work in this area, they work on individual cases but also do campaigns.

I love the I believe you slogan.

Thanks for that tip, neeps - it's a good website.
(I hope the wind issues are easing...!)

OK, I've started to set up a blog by creating an email account specific to the blog.

Prolesworth (and others) would you be willing to put our "demands"/mission statement etc. on the website you've got the name for?
If not, I can include those in the blog (once I've had help from you guys in framing them..! pretty please).

I'm going to go ahead with the blog for collecting reports etc. illustrating the situation we are fighting. Then I will have links from the blog to other campaigning websites etc.

So, to keep the blog updated regularly, please suggest links etc. to cases/reports etc. that we can highlight.

TIA!!

Stop Rape is fine by me!

I'm going to go with setanewprecedent for the illustrative blog, but an unequivocal name such as that for the website is excellent.

Perhaps if the website framed demands for:

procedural change in rape cases that get to court?

a fund for rape survivors who wish to pursue their attacker through the civil courts?

education on the subject in schools?

specialist tutorials/seminars on the subject for trainee lawyers?

ditto for trainee police officers?

....??

Thanks Proles - I posted on the other thread that this is perfect to start the blog off - and what better day to set it in motion?

Can't find blog and link on other thread isn't working for some reason?

Ignore me - have found it :)

Interesting article on Barristers' Perspectives

Especially this bit - "It was, however, suggested that the statutory definition was more useful for lawyers than jurors, with many arguing that the jury would often struggle to interpret the definition. Indeed, several barristers felt that the 2003 Act may have overcomplicated the law,with one barrister specifically stating that juror?s lack of understanding may result in acquittals. Barrister one stated: ?... quite often, I do think that a juror, in a case on balance, may say well I just don?t understand this and I?m not going to convict a man or a woman of this because I don?t understand.?"

And this bit:

"Hence, while the 2003 reforms may lead to increased consistency in jury directions, this did not necessarily translate into consistency in jury decision-making. In particular, it was felt that juries would still fall back onto their own definitions and understanding of consent. For example, Barrister eight stated: ?I think there?s probably a common shared perception of what consent is and what it isn?t.? Accordingly, certain barristers felt that the statutory definition was unnecessary and that, ?? most juries, I think, would understanding what it means ...? (Bar 14). What may be considered disconcerting is the extent to which a juror?s own understanding of consent may permit stereotypical opinions relating to appropriate sexual behaviour, to unduly influence a decision. Thus, the question may not be whether there was or was not consent, but whether sexual intercourse was considered appropriate in such circumstances ? the definition of consent in such situations becomes somewhat irrelevant.

Barrister 14 provides corroboration for this point by arguing: ?? it looks academic ? but actually in real life ? half of the things just don?t come into play. It?s facts, facts and who believes who. That is what the jury are interested in.? Misgivings therefore existed regarding the extent to which the statutory definition has helped the jury."

I think that answers a lot of the questions we have on here when seemingly straightforward cases go pear-shaped.

Well spotted, AyeRobot! Thanks for posting the link.