Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

sexual history of rape victims

401 replies

dorade · 24/09/2013 23:29

As I understand it, judges have the discretion to allow the defence to question a rape complainant on her sexual history. (Please correct me if that is not correct).

Can anyone explain to me why judges need this discretion and under what circumstances, if any, the use of it could be justified?

OP posts:
Beatrixparty · 27/09/2013 09:49

Much of how the law interprets various issues such as consent and also the prosecution witness being untruthful can be seen in this document - training manual for judges basically for summing up to juries.

www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Training/benchbook_criminal_2010.pdf

all good stuff.

Norudeshitrequired · 27/09/2013 11:33

Moderately - I understand what the law says in relation to rape. But there is an amendment to the law (passed in 2007) in relation to the issue of consent where the woman is too drunk to consent. If a woman says yes but wasn't capable of understanding what was actually happening due to her level of intoxication then despite saying yes she hasn't actually consented and it is rape. There is no allowance in this for men who are too drunk to consent. The law does not account for men being too drunk to consent. I would like to see the law applied equally to both sexes in relation to the issue of consent.
If they were both too drunk to comprehend their actions then it could be argued that neither has consented and both (or neither)should be charged with rape. But the law doesn't say that as it stands as the 2007 amendment doesn't include men being very intoxicated.

EldritchCleavage · 27/09/2013 11:57

I would be horrified at any reversal of the burden of proof.

I also don't agree with a blanket ban on evidence of the victim's sexual history. You have to deal with it on a case by case basis as now, but the presumption against hearing that kind of evidence should be strengthened.

I'd rather see judge alone rape trials (i.e. no juries) . That would very likely lead to more convictions.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones · 27/09/2013 12:01

I have never heard of a case where a man's sexual history has been dragged up in court when he is the accused. Has anyone?

Norude - in the the UK a penis is required in order to commit rape, therefore a woman cannot be charged with rape.

Norudeshitrequired · 27/09/2013 12:09

Current legal definition of sexual (indecent) assault

Sexual assault is an act of physical, psychological and emotional violation, in the form of a sexual act, which is inflicted on someone without consent. It can involve forcing or manipulating someone to witness or participate in any sexual acts, apart from penetration of the mouth with the penis, the penetration of the anus or vagina (however slight) with any object or the penis, which is rape.

From moderatelys link posted above.
The current definition includes objects as well as penises.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones · 27/09/2013 12:13

You are talking about sexual assault, Norude. Rape, by legal definition, is by a penis.

Norudeshitrequired · 27/09/2013 12:15

Well the line 'penetration of the anus by any object is rape' only applies to a female anus penetrated by a man holding the object then - more fucking double standards. Apparently a woman's arse is somehow more worthy of protection by law.

BuffytheReasonableFeminist · 27/09/2013 12:17

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones · 27/09/2013 12:23

That is also my understanding Buffy.

Certain MRAs people like to make out this isn't the case, that this is somehow a double standard and that rape is not a gendered crime and that women can do it too. This is not the case.

We really need Beach's promised thread on consent too - I really would like to examine 'consent' as a patriarchal construct, in view of norude's posts.

Norudeshitrequired · 27/09/2013 12:29

It is double standards if a woman can force a man to penetrate her and not be charged with rape but the man can be charged with rape by doing the reverse. There isn't anything patriarchal about wanting the law to be applied both ways. Feminists are constantly arguing that they want equality when it really seems that they want to be superior to men and have additional protection by law. I would like to see the law working in the same way for everybody regardless of gender.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones · 27/09/2013 12:32

In the event of a woman forcing penetration it would be a sexual assault. As a woman doesn't have a penis, it cannot be rape.

Norudeshitrequired · 27/09/2013 12:39

But my argument is that it should be rape - the law should allow for it to be rape. Why is a man forcing his penis into a woman's vagina any less serious than a woman forcing her vagina onto a mans penis?
I am aware (before you point out) that aggravated sexual assault can carry the same sentence as rape; but the terminology used should be the same if we want it to be truly equal.

BuffytheReasonableFeminist · 27/09/2013 12:41

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones · 27/09/2013 12:49

I would think historically it goes back to the law of rape as introduced under patriarchy - that women were daughters first, then wives - owned as chattel by their fathers and husbands. And following the 'women as the gatekeeper's of sex' model. Any man penetrating another man's daughters or wives was violating their property.

Don't blame feminism for historical patriarchal law - we're still working on getting a higher than a 6% rate of conviction for rape.

Serious sexual assault has a similar sentence structure to rape anyway. It's just that rape is a very specific crime for which you need to be in possession of a penis to commit.

And what relevance does it have to the woman's sexual history being brought up in court anyway?

Norudeshitrequired · 27/09/2013 12:53

As a feminist, I don't have a view on whether it's important that these crimes be called different things. Is it? Important in some way? If not, I don't care if it's changed.

I think the names we give these acts is important because regardless of what the sentencing guidelines say the title of a criminal offence does have some bearing on perceptions.
Manslaughter and murder for example - both acts have resulted in the death of an individual and both acts can receive a life sentence, but manslaughter is deemed differently due to issues of intent and provocation (mitigating factors) so often receives a much lesser sentence. I don't know what the differences in sentences actually handed out for rape and serious sexual assault are but I would be interested to know.

BuffytheReasonableFeminist · 27/09/2013 12:58

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SabrinaMulhollandJjones · 27/09/2013 13:00

You're just trying to make out that 'women do it too' or that somehow things are stacked against men in an unfair way, norude. It's the oldest men's rights trick in the book and we can see right through it.

Beatrixparty · 27/09/2013 13:03

Norude

here's the link to a document re: sexual offences sentencing - as should always be the case, the facts should determine the eventual sentence. No all rapes are the same just as not all sexual assualts are the same

sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/web_SexualOffencesAct_2003.pdf

mirry2 · 27/09/2013 13:04

If the defence is allowed to question the victim's sexual history, the prosecution should also be allowed to question the sexual history of the accused

BuffytheReasonableFeminist · 27/09/2013 13:19

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ModeratelyObvious · 27/09/2013 13:19

Rude, can you link me to the 2007 amendment you mentioned? Thanks.

Incidentally, a woman can be convicted of rape if she is involved in a conspiracy to rape,

ModeratelyObvious · 27/09/2013 13:29

The assault you describe fairly graphically above would be assault by penetration for both genders of victim or perpetrator. See CPS definitions.

www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/soa_2003_and_soa_1956/

ModeratelyObvious · 27/09/2013 13:29

CPS LINK

Beatrixparty · 27/09/2013 13:41

For the above bench book, here is the illustarion given for Judges to help them sum up to a juries on how they should regard sexual misconceptions. The Judge sums up only once the prosecution and defence have closed their cases.

Where the Judge is cautioning against misconception suggested by the defence

"The complainant was in a hen party which went to the nightclub at 11pm. There were 12 young women in the party, all scantily dressed. They were drinking in rounds and many were drunk, as the complainant
says she was. They danced with each other and they danced with men. The complainant told you that she danced with men she knew and did not know. She accepted that she was flirtatious with more than one of them. She danced with the defendant with whom she had had sexual intercourse on two previous occasions about 12 months before, during a relationship which had lasted 3 weeks. She kissed him and agreed that she went willingly with him outside the club for a cigarette. In the course of cross examination, it was suggested to the complainant that she was perfectly prepared for sex that night; that she was broadcasting her willingness by the way she dressed and the way she behaved; that she would not have kissed the defendant if she had not fancied him; that she expected when they went outside that there would be sexual contact between them.

I will summarise the evidence for you in a moment, including the complainant’s answers to those suggestions, but, first, I need to address the assumptions which appear to me to underpin counsel’s questions. Each of us knows, and it is certainly the experience of the courts, that people young and not so young can behaved in a socially disinhibited manner. Scantily dressed young women celebrating in hen parties is by no means unusual, nor is heavy drinking by young women during a night out, nor is flirtatious behaviour in nightclubs. We all know that alcohol and atmosphere can lead to disinhibited behaviour including sexual behaviour.

However, there appeared to be an assumption behind counsel’s questions that any one of this group of young women, just because they were behaving in an uninhibited manner during their night out, would have been prepared to engage in sexual activity with any man who happened to take a fancy to her, especially if that man was known to her and there had been a previous relationship between them. Is the realistic position this: a woman may or may not be prepared to engage in sexual activity with a particular man, depending upon the circumstances of the encounter and the mutual feelings between them? What you should not do is judge the intentions or inclinations of the complainant on this occasion by the application of a generalised assumption about people’s behaviour. What you should do is reach conclusions based upon the evidence."

EldritchCleavage · 27/09/2013 13:43

the terminology used should be the same if we want it to be truly equal

Rape is the term for sexual assault by penile penetration. Always has been. That's what it means.

Modern law has created sexual assault offences for other kinds of violent sexual penetration, but correctly not used the word rape for those offences.

That doesn't mean those offences are taken less seriously.

Now please stop derailing and read the CPS thread if you want more information.