Reply #505: change to rape law shifts court focus from victim [View All]

[Wonder]

There does seem to be a flux in rape law in the past year. the articles I found were from the UK and South Africa.

SOUTH AFRICA http://www.cab.kabissa.org/raplaw.htm

"The woman will no longer need to prove she did not give her consent," Artz said.

"The accused will have to prove there was sex, but no force was used and she had given her consent.

"There will be some burden on the woman to prove the rapist used force should the defence raise it in court."

The current definition under the common law reads that rape is "intentional, unlawful intercourse with a woman without her consent".


UNITED KINGDOM http://society.guardian.co.uk/crimeandpunishment/story/0,8150,920788,00.html

A crackdown on 'date rape' is under threat from a growing revolt by peers arguing it will lead to miscarriages of justice.

The flagship government reforms are designed to tackle a macho 'No does not always mean no' culture that sees only 7 per cent of rape cases end in conviction, with attackers evading justice by arguing that they believed their victim wanted sex, even if she was fighting them off.

The planned changes in the law would require such men to make genuine efforts to 'resolve doubts' over whether the woman was willing.

But Ministers are facing a long and bitter battle in the House of Lords later this month, with some peers warning that innocent men will be jailed as a result of relationships that sour or 'dates' that go wrong.


-------

It seems in these two cases the systems are trying to address some of issues which have impeded the judicial process in terms of enforcement. The fact is that enforcing date rape is near to impossible. That an attempt is being made to crack down on date rape in a way which would either discourage it as a practice, or better enable the trying of the crime is for the most part good news.

It is late, but when I said I was curious, I really meant I was curious. At one point it struck me in this thread that there had to be a reason this clarification in rape law has occurred. Regardless of what people may believe, proving sex crime is impossible, ergo many more guilty are acquitted than innocent convicted.

As you can ascertain from the Guardian article various societal prejudices have and do negatively impact chances to conviction. When one considers the various obstacles, it seems an effort is being made to address them. The clarification regarding consent withdrawal is one, and shifting the burden of proof onto the accused another.

Rather than denying what the realities are, in an effort to evaluate these shifts in the law, one must also recognize the issues the changes in the law attempts to address.

While neither of these articles are from the US, something tells me the concerns discussed would be similar here in the states. As the article in the Guardian suggests perhaps it is the laws desire to address what they called the "No does not always mean no' culture that sees only 7 per cent of rape cases end in conviction"

Again if this is the reason for the shift, it is good news. I will continue searching tomorrow.