Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    	RE: .0  edp
    
    	This is not the beginning of a debate with you - I'm not interested
    	in pursuing this with you at length, but simply wanted to make a
    	few comments about what you said.
    
    	Legal defense against rape is largely built on the ideas that women
    	either consented to intercourse (then changed their minds) or that
    	they were "asking for it" (by dressing or acting a certain way.)
    
    	If we eliminate the idea that a woman can "ask for" rape by the
    	way she is dressed, we're still left with the larger problem of
    	women being subject to the common rape defense that she "consented"
    	to the act (and is charging rape falsely now.)  
    
    	>As mentioned, just changing the definition of rape is a problem because
    	>making the definition broader so that it applies to more cases also
    	>makes it apply to more cases that it should _not_ apply to.  
    
    	"Changing the definition of rape" addresses the problem of there
    	being forms of rape that are still LEGAL in many states (such as a
    	man raping his wife.)  
    
    	As I'm sure you would agree, a marriage license is not tantamount to 
    	a man having a "pink slip" (of ownership) on his wife.  When a
    	husband commits the violent crime of sexual assault on his wife,
    	the law shouldn't see it as his "right of way."
    
    	In the relatively few instances where marital rape cases have been
    	prosecuted, the evidence was pretty severe (such as the case of the
    	man who raped his wife with a crowbar, as mentioned by Nancy.)  There
    	is nothing to suggest that angry wives are successfully prosecuting
    	their husbands without any corroborating proof that a violent crime
    	occurred.
    
    	We can't keep certain forms of rape legal as a way of protecting men
    	from being subject to false charges.  
    
    	We don't make certain forms of bank robbery legal as a way of
    	protecting people from false charges of robbing banks, after all.

>    	We can't keep certain forms of rape legal as a way of protecting men
>    	from being subject to false charges.  
    
     Has someone suggested that we do that? Who? Where? I must have missed
    it.
    
     The Doctah

    re .2, Mark-
    
    >> 	We can't keep certain forms of rape legal as a way of protecting men
    >>	from being subject to false charges.  
    >
    > Has someone suggested that we do that? Who? Where? I must have missed
    > it.
    
    I guess so.
    
    .0> As mentioned, just changing the definition of rape is a problem because
    > making the definition broader so that it applies to more cases also
    > makes it apply to more cases that it should _not_ apply to. 
    
    Suzanne's case in point (the states which legally PREVENT marital rape
    fomr ever being charged) amounts to a request to change the definition
    of rape in those states.  -edp's too-broad claim declares that this
    redefinition will make it apply where it shouldn't.  That's why Suzanne
    offered the point.
    
    DougO

    I will not argue that there is no need for continue reform in the laws 
    and procedural rules for trying rape cases.  However, I think that is
    the "easy" part.  I think the difficult part is changing societal
    attitudes so that jurors, judges and attorneys don't, in their heart
    of hearts, believe that the woman either consented or asked for it.
    Rmember that most judges today are older and have older
    attitudes/values.  And in many, if not most places, juries tend to be 
    largely uneducated people and retired people.  Again, a tendency towards
    older attitudes/values.  So, one way we can make a contribution to
    improving our justice system, especially in rape cases is to NOT opt
    out of jury duty when we're called.  Another is to support efforts to
    bring a higher level of awareness on this issue.
    
    I don't think that there are going to be quick or easy fixes here.   
    And I think that the legal and attitudanal issues need to be worked in
    parallel.

>    Suzanne's case in point (the states which legally PREVENT marital rape
>    fomr ever being charged) amounts to a request to change the definition
>    of rape in those states.  -edp's too-broad claim declares that this
>    redefinition will make it apply where it shouldn't.
    
     I just wasn't reading it that way. Sorry.
    
     The Doctah

    Doug et al.,
    
    In *every* criminal trial, the prosecution must prove that a particular
    event or series of events occured, and that this sequence fulfills
    the definition of the crime under consideration.
    
    Thus, for robbery, there must be proof that 1) money or goods were
    taken 2) by force 3) et cetera.  For murder, there must be proof that
    1) a human being 2) died by the 3) unlawful use of force 4) performed
    with malice aforethought.  It is just the same for rape -- except
    that extra considerations have, from time to time, been added on.
    
    For example, there has been the requirement that there be an
    independant witness to the rape.  Alternatively, there has been the
    requirement that the woman's testimony must be "within the realms
    of probability and credibility."  Additionally, "[n]o judge should
    ever let a sex-offense charge go to the jury unless the female
    complainant's social history and mental makeup have been examined
    and testified to by a qualified physician."
    
    If there are men who fear that even these safeguards have been
    insufficient, perhaps those men should examine their souls to figure
    out what they have been doing to make women so irresponsibly vindictive.
    (First one to spot the tongue in my cheek wins.)
    
    							Ann B.

    
    I totally agree that the issue of rape conviction has a major problem.
    
    	Society's view of women as the "keeper of the ring" so to
    speak.  Women are historically in charge of a man's chances to have
    sex.  Women supposedly tolerate or even hate sex and men supposedly
    craved it as often as they urinate.  Of course, I've left out the "Bad
    Girls" who love sex.  They're thought of as whores or dirty women.  I
    think this is why a woman's past sexual life is brought to trial so
    often.  If it can be proved that she actually enjoys sex sometimes,
    then she must be a slut.  If she enojoyed it once then either she was
    horny this time too and probably begging for it, or she doesn't matter 
    anyways.  (You know, the old who-cares-if-you-murder-a-hooker problem.)  
    So, if she likes sex, then she deserved to be raped and she probably
    like it.
    
    In addition, I think there is, historically, a sort-of anger at women
    for being the "keeper of the ring", the person to say no.  Remember
    back in high school when you stopped a boy at first, second or third
    base?  Remember his anger?   Marriage is supposed to solve this problem
    for men.  Since
    marriage was always considered ownership of the woman, then the man
    becomes his own keeper.  The woman can't say "no" anymore, she doesn't
    own her body.  (So there is no "rape" between married people.)
    (just think about the marriage ceremony itself and you'll see that the
    ceremony is mostly just a transfer of ownership from father to
    husband.  And what about "now you may kiss the bride" ? The bride
    doesn't get much choice does she?  How about, "now you may ask the
    bride for a kiss".)
    
    
    It's no wonder, with this background perception of women and sex, that
    rape trials are a horror for the victim.