One In Eight Convicted Rapists Spend No Time In Jail

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.news.com.au/national/one-in- ... 5822996139

As is typical with Murdoch publications, the full context of the circumstance is not permitted to cloud the political opportunity that is being exploited.

We are in no position to weigh in on individual cases, not being in possession of all of the evidence. A large number of sexual assaults take place within pre-existing relationships, and it is open to the victim to reconcile with the assailant, and make that reconciliation known to the Court.

Further, the word, "rape," in its common law meaning, required sexual penetration. Most common-law jurisdictions have define a much broader offence of sexual assualt, so that assailants could not escape conviction by claiming that penetration had not occurred. But this also means that the range of behaviours that are captured are extremely broad, requiring that the range of penalties for those behaviours is equally broad.

But why should context ever get in the way of the opportunity to propound the "lock-em-up-and-throw-away-the-key" agenda that passes for public policy on criminal law.

The first politician who actually puts forward a crime prevention agenda, rather than a greater punishment agenda with have my undivided attention.

Big deal.........here is something better for you. 95% of all rapes on US universitys goes un-reported/without any disiplinary actions.

its all in this report from the famous center of public integrity, whatever that is: http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/campus_assault/articles/entry/1838/ It´s somewhere in the report, I can´t find it right now.

This makes your figures pale, a lot....or a lot, lot.

Many politicians have put forth a crime prevention agenda at the Constitutional convention. The biggest agenda is
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The intent of this amendment was to guarantee individuals their right to own and use guns for the prevention of governmental tyranny, crime prevention, etc. Most of the time, when guns are used to prevent crimes, it is never even reported. I have personally been at the scene where a gun was brandished in ordered to prevent a burglary. The burglars were in the process of inserting a screwdriver into a door jamb when the owner of the property racked his shot gun. The teens who were about to commit the crime were never seen in the area again. There was no police involvement either.

This all comes down to whether you accept Free Will or not. If you accept Free Will then there is no way to prevent (absolutely) the will to do evil or promote (absolutely) the will will to do good. People will do what they will. The best one can offer is a deterrent to willing and doing evil, hence the threat of punishment or social rejection.

On the other hand if you feel that behavior is or can be determined, then what is the mechanism? No one alive has the answer to that question and no one has ever had it, since man arose by evolution.

ruveyn

Healthy people do not reconcile with people who have grossly violated them in such a way.

It's rather difficult to get this kind of conviction without the cooperation of the person allegedly assaulted. So these reconciliations you allege are taking place some time after the fact and only after the person has happily acted as witness for the prosecution, usually months after the assault. Frankly I do not expect that this would entail a significant proportion of all rape convictions. Nor do I believe that the courts should be in essence endorsing unhealthy and abusive relationships characterized by violence, and rape is violence.

Uh uh, and according to a poll 70% of all criminals drink Pepsi (or was it Coke?). The trick? Nothing else is available in prison. How easy it is to play with statistics to say what you want. <.< (apparently the poll has been done, though i can't remember the mark or the numbers <.< )

We are in no position to judge the health of a person who reconciles with an assailant. I do not see reconciliation, in and of itself, as an indication of mental or emotional illness, particularly where there is a substantial and ongoing relationship between the two individuals. Clearly, in cases of coercion, duress or similar manipulative behaviour, the reconciliation must be regarded with skepticism. But that is question of fact for the Court to decide.

If the Court is satisfied that a reconciliation is genuine, it is not the place of the Courts to make decisions about the health and propriety of people's relationships.

Once an Information has been laid, it is generally the state that is in control of the prosecution of an offence (this might vary in jurisdictions in which private prosecution exists, but they are few and far between). In cases of reconciliation, the usual pattern is for the assailant to agree to plead guilty, in order to ensure that the victim is not subject to subpoena and exposed to a charge of contempt of court for failing to testify after laying a complaint. This approach spares the victim the requirement to testify, it allows the state to record a successful prosecution, it allows the Court to exercise a compassionate approach to punishment, it gives the assailant a criminal record that can be a contributing factor to any prosecutions in the event of recidivism.

The best decision that a Court can make is a decision that all concerned parties agree is the fair and correct decision.

Bear in mind, I said, "crime prevention," not, "crime elimination."

I fundamentally disagree that deterrence is the best that one can offer. I think it is possible for us to make a critical examination of the social, economic and demographic factors that contribute to crime, and to make decisions about the well-ordering of our society that minimize the incentive to resort to crime.

By improving the life chances for youth at risk (typically the poor, the underemployed and the undereducated) we can score a double win--higher economic participation in the skilled labour pool and lower participation in crime. By ensuring that every citizen has access to food, to clothing and to shelter, we disincentivize reliance on property crime as a means of subsistence. By refocussing our public policy on illegal drug use to harm reduction rather than prosecution we diminish the economic drain going (untaxed) to the coffers of organized crime.

There is--or at the very least there should be--room in the public policy debate for more than one response to crime. If more and bigger prisons is really the only idea that we have, then I question the intelligence, the wisdom and the creativity of our public policy process.

Now that is a crime prevention policy I would love to see implemented in America.

You may not be, but from my position there is an unobstructed view point.

We are not discussing reconciliation, in and of itself, but rather reconciliation with someone that a person tesitified in a court of law raped them. That's not like reconciling after an argument about whose parents you were going to spend Christmas day with.

We are discussing rape. If X rapes Y then, X and Y do not have a healthy relationship, and X is an abuser of Y, who may very well may be co-dependent or suffering from spousal abuse syndrome.

If you think that rape occurs in healthy relationships, you are very much mistaken and I am very relieved to not be in a relationship with you.

So how many of these rapes are actually statutory rapes that are reported by p*ssed off parents whose daughters got knocked up by their older boyfriends?

I'm just wondering cause it's really annoying and ridiculous to see all these people who are being charged with something that's only considered a crime by overprotective parents with real serious rape offenses like pedophilia and such.

The 1 in 8 figure doesn't seem like cause for outrage, and it rather meaningless devoid of context. "Rape" is a broad term. If someone gets convicted of rape due to age differences or drunken miscommunication, I'm not going to lose any sleep at the thought he or she is free to walk the streets.

This really pisses me off because the monster that raped my friend with cerebral palsy got off lightly with very little jail time.

So it's ok to have sex with minors and this should not be construed as rape? Is it ok to supply minors with alcohol when they want it? Is it ok to let a minor come and live in your home without their parents knowledge or permission because they'd rather live with you as their parents keep making them do their homework?

I did not know that rape became legal or non-harmful via the addition of alcohol either.

Date rape is still rape, "I was drunk" is not an excuse, if being drunk makes you rape people then you shouldn't be drinking.