Catitainahatia
- The Observer piece made a good case that there are serious problems with investigation by the police. I think most would agree that sentences are often too light too.
- You can't have a defence that doesn't try to discredit the alleged victim as a liar, if the accused is using the defence that it was consensual, and thus she is lying. Even if you got 100% of people to agree with the statement 'a woman is never partially responsible for being raped,' if the defendant says it was consensual the same thing will happen. Unless you want to change the law so that previous convictions should be known to the jury? In some cases this seems fair, but there are massive drawbacks too. Previous convictions will affect sentencing, not convinced they should be used to establish guilt.
And if you read the Amnesty poll, which I criticised, 92% of people thought a woman's sexual past made her 'responsible' (their words) for being raped. The defence may try to use it, but social attitudes don't need changing on that issue.
And there is no evidence that there is a mass of people who think going on a date means you wouldn't say no to sex. It's absurd, and I'll prove it. The poll revealed that roughly 20% of respondents thought a woman was 'partially responsible' if she got raped while being drunk or dressing provocatively. (Another 5% thought it made her totally responsible(!))At first glance, it seems you are right, those people need to get with the program and say 'no woman is EVER responsible for being raped, no matter what.'
Except, to quote you, I think you are going to go in circles there trying to argue with people who do not accept the basic premises from which feminists start when talking about rape. They were asked a question where they couldn't agree that such actions made you still 'totally not responsible.' As others have mentioned, these people are probably thinking 'it's common sense.' The poll says the people who answer this tend to be much older, so good luck changing their minds, and they'll be, er, dead soon anyway.
But here's where I finally prove my point. Whatever that 20% of people say in a phone survey, when they are on a jury, they may well think the victim was 'partially responsible' but they still convict. Yes? Conviction rates are 60% according to that article, 50% according to another. You need a unanimous verdict to say guilty, or if not 10/2. If people thought 'partially responsible' meant 'Their fault, they are to blame' then convictions wouldn't be so high.
Finally, no, not win/win. If women - and men - are led to believe they in a culture where nobody believes rape claims, that more people think women lie about rape than are raped, that it is pointless to report it as there is no chance that there will be a conviction, that your own prosecutor might lose the case on purpose because he wants to see rapists walk free, that it is only for the brave or the foolish to report it to police who will probably say 'ha, give over love you were probably asking for it!' - all rape myths I DO hear - then a victim is far less likely to seek justice and the rapist is free to do it again.
Child-abusers often say 'if you tell the police, nobody will believe you and you will get in trouble.' Lets not do the same thing to rape victims. Better to say 'things aren't perfect, it's hard to get a case to court and then to conviction on lots of violent crimes - but once there the conviction rate for rape is 50-60%. People will believe you. You can do it, get the bastard.'