Yawn!!

Firstly the media absolutely love stories and usually what is published in the papers, is written with more than a touch of sensationalism. Cold facts have very little do with a nice sensational story.

Secondly why not do away with the pretence of justice, fairness, and trials and just sentence men straight away once they have been accused.

It would save heaps of money and time. Dont worry about guilt or innonence just lock em up and throw away the key.

Writing an emotive article like this one, is not about justice and fairness, it is about manipulating the emotive strings.

Very selective articles. Much use was made of the statements of one judge from long ago as though everything rested on his views. No mention of more recent issues which have clouded the issue, eg the perception that a drunk male is more responsbible for negotiating consent than a drunk female.

Rape in marriage is a valid issue but I don't see similar outrage about women who threaten partners with retribution if they are not faithful. (and men do the same and it's equally abusive). The issue is not as clean cut as some would like to portray it.

It is a difficult issue, those genuinely sexually assaulted deserve all the support we can give them but the kind of simplistic spin I saw in this article does not help our understanding of the complexities which generally surround sex, consent etc.

R0bert

The thing is Jocelynne, in today's society, women have all the
sexual power. Not all are innocent little darlings.

If you are going to throw a bloke in jail for 5-6 years, it is
not unreasonable that there is solid evidence.

We know from the Assange case, that some women are openly vindictive.
Its hardly justice, if the law is such that they can use it to
achieve their objective.

For this very reason, ie justice for both genders, rape cases will
never be easy, for emotions and feelings of retribution need
to be considered, unlike many other crimes.

The interpretation of the law is hardly as bad as you seem to want
to portray it, or the issue of the 30 second rapist would have never
gone before the courts.

We all see the law through our perspective, but there are other
perspectives then just your own. Wisdom comes with being able to
imagine the world through those, to gain some kind of objectivity.

Yes but how do you change the cultrual mindset Jocelynne. I am not sure education is the key, it has not done much thus far. How do you change a largely victim-blaming psyche around the issue of rape?

I think it will take a couple of generations at least for this mindset to evolve and where BOTH accuser and accused are deemed innocent until proven guilty. As it should be.

Ascertaining who is telling the lie and the truth is always the difficulty - maybe a polygraph? Are they reliable? Fact is women really don't have much of a hope in these cases, rarely can one prove rape unless there is a witness and there rarely is. It is one person's word over another. Even DNA evidence is not enough as sex can be consensual, bruises and cuts may not be enough as "maybe she liked it rough" (you can hear the defence lawyer already). I've even heard pedophiles claiming the child enticed them or was sexually provocative.

Integrity is not the hallmark of a rapist nor a false accuser.

In certain situations one can understand why many women do not go to Court. Thankfully, at least there are rape crisis centres providing support as required. The fact is sometimes justice will be impossible.

Well said Pelican

It seems that some people prefer to get more upset about a couple of innocents being found guilty than to care about the thousands of guilty ones who walk free. I am not saying I don’t think it’s awful for those innocents, just that if the law is going to be biased in it’s slant it would be better if it was slanted towards punishing the guilty and giving justice to the thousands that do not get it.

I Think though technically it seems unjust to bring up the fact that a man has been accused or charged with rape previously; in his current court case, it is actually an injustice to the victim not to let the jury be aware of this fact, especially, when as is often the case these men walk free.

The media ran a case some years back where they questioned a man on TV
who had just been aquitted for the 3rd time of a rape which he had committed in exactly the same way on all three occasions.

Also in the Mrs. Brimble case, one of the accused had also been aquitted of a previous rape.

Also in the city I live in I know of at least one prominent rape case where the man was found not guilty and it was reported after the trial that he also had committed a previous rape.

With so many of the guilty walking free in these cases the law should be changed to let this fact of previous rapes be assessed in conjunction with the present case by the jury. This would be one step in seeing more justice towards the victim and more punishment for the guilty in rape cases.

Yabby,

I can’t agree with you on the Assange case. The woman did not actually accuse him of rape but of having sex with her without using a condom. That also is an issue of an abuse of power. If true it means that Assange put his own selfish pleasure ahead of the need to protect his partner and himself from sexually transmitted disease. Not to mention unwanted pregnancy.

It seems to me that this would fit with Julian Assange’s arrogance and disdain for authority.

He really proved the American government really doesn't have too many skeletons in their closet that we weren't already pretty aware of. I'm still waiting to hear some terribly earthshattering information that I couldn't have deduced myself about their activities.