Rape and politics

In an article today in The Independant : A feminist presumption of victimhood impairs justice Mary Dejevsky voices the following view:

"Rape is rape is rape – and a very serious crime. Let's get that over with. Most people also have a very clear idea of what constitutes rape – and if they don't, and they find themselves sitting on a jury in a rape trial, they will be put right pretty quickly by the judge and the prosecuting lawyers. The difficulty in recent years has been less and less judicial practice than the propagation of a hardcore feminist view intent on broadening the definition of rape and presuming guilt rather than innocence. The lines between rape, sexual assault and personal "mistakes" risk as a result becoming blurred."

MD gives an evaluation about the police getting better at handling these cases but how "There are certainly reasons for continued dissatisfaction with what happens between the first report and a trial. The treatment of rape victims at police stations is still patchy, although much has improved. There are still complaints that rape by an erstwhile partner or acquaintance is not regarded with the same seriousness as rape by a stranger – even though (or perhaps because) it is far more common."

About judges: "There was a time when low conviction rates for rape were blamed almost exclusively on judges, whose comments about the dress or behaviour of the victim routinely drew indignation from the woman and her advocates. With judges now generally alerted to the need to show more sensitivity to victims, however, responsibility for the failure of rape cases now rests as much with the juries as the judges."

Juries: "..the mainstream, as represented by the 12 good men (and women) and true, remains to be convinced by the arguments of hardcore feminism: that every violation claimed by a victim can necessarily be defined as rape. "Date-rape" between people who know each other; the value of consent given – or withheld – by victims who are drunk or drugged; "

The main question raised in the article is whether the recent wave (my expression) of hard-core feminists who, among other things, state that the default opinion should be that all accused of rape are considered guilty and that all women in that situation are victims is really doing anyone any good.

As I see it myself, the treatment of rape victims were beyond description and the chances of getting convictions 6%. A lot of work have been done about that, by among others femimists, and things are now a lot better with a conviction rate of 60% which is in UK is " a par with most other crimes", and a lot of things are much better if not good enough. More work is needed.

But this new wave of what the article calls 'hard-core feminists' and which I will call fundamentalists seems bent of trying to go into the opposite ditch, in which an acccusation equals conviction regardless of circumstances.

I am thinking especially of the Assange and Strauss-Kahn in which these accusations are soooo convenient for certain parties, and, in my view, calls for reasonable doubt.

Also thinking of these hot potatoes: date-rape and ex-partner rape. Real enough in many cases wihtout a doubt, but also cases where emotions can run high and above all hard to prove.

So, should an alleged rape viticm always be believed?
Is there room for a more nuanced view - grades of rape - such as both parties under age?
Can there be honest misunderstandings?
Political implications?

Should we 'sharpen' the laws, or is it possible to take a more nuanced view without loosing what has been won in the last many years?

PS: Why oh why are fundamentalits feminists given so much space in the press??
I guess the answer if probably that the more outrageous your views are, the more papers you sell, and never mind the rest of the population's more sensible ideas!

thir....nice article....I think rape will be one of the very few crimes in today’s society where there will always be reasonable doubt. I know here in the UK we have had our fair share of proven false claims of rape, but I think it is numbered less than 1%. I feel that this is a follow up on your thread about the sentence for rape in Sweden, but it is a crime that is very seldom discussed because of the controversy that surrounds it, IE: - proven guilt.

Let’s make no mistakes here because whether the rape case is proven or disclaimed, the outcome is broken lives for both parties. I have always maintained that rape is the most heinous of crimes after paedophilia, whether it is male or female as the victim. It is also the male victims that are less believed than the women, because of their macho image.

I remember in the late 60s while I was in the army, a case that appeared in the News of the World. A young man just out of his teens was walking home late one night, and was set about by 4 women. They took him behind a hedge and after stripping his clothes off took turns in raping him. Being very naive at the time all the lads in the barracks including me were laughing at the article, not one person said it was a disgrace, all that was said was, “What’s he complaining for.” I don’t think the case was ever taken to court or properly investigated because of the outrageous claim by the man. The macho image strikes again.

Now older and more mature I have often wondered about that young man, and I think of the injustice that he received from his fellow man. I would think also, that to be held captive by 4 women and used in such a way must have changed his life. Even today very few men cry rape, and again it is all to do with the macho image. Even if they did cry rape, who is going to prove it and how?

There is a law in the UK that if a Husband forces himself on his wife after she says no, then that is rape. I know that statistics show that the rape law in that context has been used many times, but I have never heard of the law being used against the woman. Again I ask; is the macho image getting in the way once more?

Case 2

While driving articulated trucks in the UK after leaving the forces, I pulled up in a service station for a breakfast. The only place to sit was on a table with another driver. After he had eaten he took a picture of a family out of his pocket, it was of him, his wife and two children placing it on the table, and all the time he was drinking his tea he never took his eyes off of it.

I had to ask, “Is that your family?”

He then told me his story about picking a woman hitch hiker up in a service station, and on dropping her off some thirty miles up the motorway she cried rape. He was sentenced to five years, and during his prison sentence his wife divorced him and remarried. About three years into his sentence after another rape case similar to his, a bright policeman, [Yes we do have a few in the UK] decided to look up rape cases to see how they were investigated. To his astonishment this woman had been raped four times, she was a habitual victim. He was released along with the other three drivers an exonerated of all charges, paid compensation and that was the end of it. He had all the documents in his pocket still.

“You still see your children though?”

“No I can’t look them in the face.”

“Why not?”

“Because they never wrote to me while in prison, and not once did they believe I was innocent. I look at their picture of how I left them and I don’t want to know how they look today. I’ll give you a tip son, don’t pick up hitch hikers whether man or woman, because most have a grudge with life and most are looking for a victim to vent their anger.”

I never saw him again after he left the cafe, but I always hoped he would find some sort of reconciliation with his children.

It takes very clever detection to prove rape, and if it is not there then there will always be an element of doubt. Either way whether real or false it breaks up marriages and ruins lives, both for the victim and the falsely accused. As Ken Clarke in the UK found out this week, rape is a criminal act and politicians should not comment on things they know damn all about. Judges in the UK are also more open minded now and give a fairer verdict.

Be well IAN 2411

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IAN 2411

thir....nice article....I think rape will be one of the very few crimes in today’s society where there will always be reasonable doubt. I know here in the UK we have had our fair share of proven false claims of rape, but I think it is numbered less than 1%. I feel that this is a follow up on your thread about the sentence for rape in Sweden, but it is a crime that is very seldom discussed because of the controversy that surrounds it, IE: - proven guilt.

---

Indeed. And here it is where I say that before all odds were stacked against the victim, but now a group of fantics wants to go in the opposite direction: to make and accusation equal a conviction, and that does not seem right either. However, the atmosphere of the debate they run is such that you are practically a rapist yourself if you happen to disagree with them or imply that it is, as you say, difficult to prove.

Quote:

---

I remember in the late 60s while I was in the army, a case that appeared in the News of the World. A young man just out of his teens was walking home late one night, and was set about by 4 women. They took him behind a hedge and after stripping his clothes off took turns in raping him. Being very naive at the time all the lads in the barracks including me were laughing at the article, not one person said it was a disgrace, all that was said was, “What’s he complaining for.” I don’t think the case was ever taken to court or properly investigated because of the outrageous claim by the man. The macho image strikes again.
Now older and more mature I have often wondered about that young man, and I think of the injustice that he received from his fellow man. I would think also, that to be held captive by 4 women and used in such a way must have changed his life. Even today very few men cry rape, and again it is all to do with the macho image. Even if they did cry rape, who is going to prove it and how?

---

In those days it was said that men cannot be raped, which is of course not true. I am afraid that that is one area where we have not moved an inch! Same with domestic violence. I was completly taken aback when I saw a poster in my GP's waiting room stating that one man die a day due to domestic violence. I knew it excisted, but had no idea that it was that much.

Quote:

---

There is a law in the UK that if a Husband forces himself on his wife after she says no, then that is rape. I know that statistics show that the rape law in that context has been used many times, but I have never heard of the law being used against the woman. Again I ask; is the macho image getting in the way once more?

---

Hm..I am sad that we have moved so little, but I can see no other explanation. They are not believed, just as there still is a probem with the juries to believe date rape or rape from someone you know, or used to know.

Quote:

---

Case 2
He then told me his story about picking a woman hitch hiker up in a service station, and on dropping her off some thirty miles up the motorway she cried rape. He was sentenced to five years, and during his prison sentence his wife divorced him and remarried. About three years into his sentence after another rape case similar to his, a bright policeman, [Yes we do have a few in the UK] decided to look up rape cases to see how they were investigated. To his astonishment this woman had been raped four times, she was a habitual victim. He was released along with the other three drivers an exonerated of all charges, paid compensation and that was the end of it. He had all the documents in his pocket still.

---

These things do happen, too. Not, as you said, very often, but they do.
I don't know - do these cases get less investigated? Or is it simply that so often it is
word aginst word and nothing else?

Quote:

---

“Because they never wrote to me while in prison, and not once did they believe I was innocent. I look at their picture of how I left them and I don’t want to know how they look today. I’ll give you a tip son, don’t pick up hitch hikers whether man or woman, because most have a grudge with life and most are looking for a victim to vent their anger.”

---

That kind of thing - false accusations - is rape by another means. It is as bad as the other, and sabotages all the progress made over the years to make it easier to report rape and manage the court case.

Quote:

---

It takes very clever detection to prove rape, and if it is not there then there will always be an element of doubt. Either way whether real or false it breaks up marriages and ruins lives, both for the victim and the falsely accused. As Ken Clarke in the UK found out this week, rape is a criminal act and politicians should not comment on things they know damn all about. Judges in the UK are also more open minded now and give a fairer verdict.

---

I believe all he said was that there are grades of rape, and I think there are. Like, youngsters under age having a forbidden sexual relationship, which is officially 'rape', versus someone taken against their will and maybe beaten half to death into the bargain.

He also (I think it was him) suggested shortening the sentence by half if a rapist confesses before the trial.

What do you - and the list - think of that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IAN 2411

Let’s make no mistakes here because whether the rape case is proven or disclaimed, the outcome is broken lives for both parties.

It takes very clever detection to prove rape, and if it is not there then there will always be an element of doubt. Either way whether real or false it breaks up marriages and ruins lives, both for the victim and the falsely accused.
Be well IAN 2411

---

Innocent until proven guilty is the foundation of the law. But I have noticed a very weird tendency on many occasions: If it is a really henious crime, out goes the need for proving it and people are baying for blood! Why is that?

You see it with alleged treason, alleged paedophillia, alleged terrorism.. Innocents accused of these crimes also have their lives destroyed, whether convicted or not, and the public opinion makes it worse.

In the case of paedophillia, I do not believe a real concern for the children's safety, because if so you'd be very interested in proving it. I mean, taking a child away from a happy home is as bad as having it molested, it is molestation by another means believe you me!! And often the foster homes are also abusive. So where is the logic? Finding the truth is vitally important for eveybody's sake. But nobody gives a damn, they just seem to want to ventilate their self-rightous anger which is not helpful at all.

Terrorism is the same thing. What good does it do to persecute innocent citizens, or put them in jail? If you suspend civil and democratic rights, then the actual terrorists have surely won.

As for rape that has already been discussed, but I have wondered in the cases of both Assange and Strauss-Kahn. In either case a lot of persons have expressed hateful feelings against either party seemingly simply because of the allegations, and in spite of the fact that 1) there are significant political reasons to suspect a set up and 2) in both cases there is very little in the way of evidence and a lot to speak for the fact that they may be completely innocent.

In the newest case, that of strauss-Kahn, I read a lot of comments about how this white rich bastard deserved all he got for (allegedly) raping an African woman.

If I were an African woman, I do not think I would have appreciated the implied thought that I was a born victim, or automatically helpless, simply because of being African!

As for the other, it begs the question: would it have been much better if the perpetrator had been a black, poor man raping a rich white woman? She probably deserved it for being so rich, the bitch!

Rape is rape. It is the same crime whoever commits it, and the same pain for the victim whoever that might be.

Somehow Arnold Swartzneggar also got into this, repeatedly,for having had an affair outside his marriage. Ok not rape but that will surely come, the bastard...I do not get what one has to do with the other, except for a distaste for sex and a suspicion of men in general.

Is that what lies behind this? Or is it simple envy for someone with money and power? What makes people completely disregard the rather obvious heavy political implications?

Why do people so often believe the worst about others, seemingly without a second thought?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thir

In those days it was said that men cannot be raped, which is of course not true.

---

In fact legally it is true (here at least): the legal definition of rape precludes male victims. It shouldn't of course, but does.

Quote:

---

I believe all he said was that there are grades of rape, and I think there are. Like, youngsters under age having a forbidden sexual relationship, which is officially 'rape', versus someone taken against their will and maybe beaten half to death into the bargain.

---

I'm inclined to agree with that ... and indeed the law (in Scotland at least) does actually distinguish there. When I was at school, two of my best friends had sex with each other. Legally, being (both) under 16 at the time, this was "rape". They were 14, so it would have carried up to 10 years in prison for the boy; had they been 13 instead, it would have been a higher sentence. Should that have been treated the same as if he had grabbed a stranger and violently assaulted her? I don't think so. Dafter still, a bit younger than that and it becomes legal again, because the boy would be considered too young to be convicted of a crime.

Quote:

---

He also (I think it was him) suggested shortening the sentence by half if a rapist confesses before the trial.

What do you - and the list - think of that?

---

Mad. The sentences are already far too lenient; worse, giving such a big 'discount' risks pressuring innocent people into pleading guilty rather than risk the greater sentence, while excessively rewarding guilty parties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by js207

Mad. The sentences are already far too lenient; worse, giving such a big 'discount' risks pressuring innocent people into pleading guilty rather than risk the greater sentence, while excessively rewarding guilty parties.

---

I believe he never said half, I think it was a shorter sentence.

Most rapists go to prison being found guilty after pleading not guilty. While in prison they keep up the same pretence and when offered help refuse. They come out after X amount of years and repeat their crime.

I believe what he meant was, if the defendant pleads guilty he is also saying “I need help,” and could well get the psychological help needed to help him from reoffending. Surely it is to the better interest of society that he gets at least the chance to reform?

If a person is not guilty of rape, i would like to think that he will fight to his last breath to prove his innocence, even if it takes place years after he is released. Read my first post.

Be well IAN 2411

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IAN 2411

I believe he never said half, I think it was a shorter sentence.

---

That's a little different, then - but they already get a one-third discount, as I understand it.

Quote:

---

I believe what he meant was, if the defendant pleads guilty he is also saying “I need help,” and could well get the psychological help needed to help him from reoffending. Surely it is to the better interest of society that he gets at least the chance to reform?

---

A better place for that, surely, would be a parole hearing? Impose the full sentence - then, if the inmate participates fully in some process which might reduce reoffending, then let them out earlier. In effect, suspending part of their sentence, so if they do reoffend they have to serve that time as well.

Something I have thought about in the past is that perhaps the maximum sentence should almost always be imposed - but with a large part usually being suspended. No more 'revolving door': repeat offenders actually end up being put away for a long time, first-time offenders have an extra incentive to be law-abiding in future. Right now, we have criminals who appear regularly in court on 'minor' offences they have committed many times before; the only thing that will stop them reoffending is being in a cell where they don't have the opportunity.

Quote:

---

If a person is not guilty of rape, i would like to think that he will fight to his last breath to prove his innocence, even if it takes place years after he is released. Read my first post.

---

It would be nice to think that - but for too many people, making the consequences of being convicted after a not guilty plea severe enough compared to confessing, they'll take that option. On far less serious brushes with the law (speeding, parking) those who do go ahead and fight the ticket have a shockingly high success rate - but most just pay up rather than go to the extra expense and inconvenience. Supposing your truck driver acquaintance had been facing a much, much worse sentence if convicted after a not guilty plea, and his lawyer had told him he stood no chance of acquittal ... maybe he would still have stuck to his principles, but how many wouldn't?

(Conversely, I'm aware of at least one criminal defence lawyer here who always enters not-guilty pleas for guilty clients, who invariably go down for longer sentences because of it - but the lawyer gets paid more from Legal Aid that way. Hardly ethical or in the interests of justice, but it makes him rich and so far, "the system" doesn't seem interested in stopping these abuses.)

I think part of it is the issue that surrounds any sexual crime... whether it be rape or paedophillia or any sexual related offense, there seems to be a culture in the media that declares the plaintiff guilty before there is even a trial and this has massive impact on juries, especially in high profile cases where a celebrity is involved. It sometimes seems as if the age old concept of sub judice does not apply to these cases and so trial by media is becoming a common occurence.

Rape is an odd one... it is very hard to prove intent as it usually ends up as one person's word against anothers (after all, how many people take witnesses with them on a date?) and those sorts of court cases rarely end well or without mess and ambiguity. On the one hand I agree that women (and men) need to be protected from this absolutely vile crime (because I am something of a feminist myself, well by marriage anyway :) ) and that the law needs to shake off that old fashioned view that women 'were just asking for it' (and I am pleased that this article shows this to be the case) but I am also concerned about the fact that it is now easier for women to maliciously call rape and apparently get away with it. It is swinging in the opposite direction and that is going to lead to another backlash and a swing back to the bad old days of 'she wore a short skirt ergo...'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by js207

That's a little different, then - but they already get a one-third discount, as I understand it.

---

Not in England its not automatic any more, they have to earn it and prove that they have changed for the better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by js207

A better place for that, surely, would be a parole hearing? Impose the full sentence - then, if the inmate participates fully in some process which might reduce reoffending, then let them out earlier. In effect, suspending part of their sentence, so if they do reoffend they have to serve that time as well.

---

Good point, but we are talking about Money now because Parole boards cost money. These people dont come cheep and it is for that reason they are only used for Major crimes.

Be well IAN 2411

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fetishdj

I am also concerned about the fact that it is now easier for women to maliciously call rape and apparently get away with it. It is swinging in the opposite direction and that is going to lead to another backlash and a swing back to the bad old days of 'she wore a short skirt ergo...'

---

You have hit the nail on the head there fetishdj, there are a lot more sub paragraphs in the British rape laws that can easily be abused by unhappy wives. I think that there has to be some sort of measurement of the rape before you can set the punishment, and i am sorry to say that there is no way that can be achieved to suit all.

Be well IAN 2411

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IAN 2411

Not in England its not automatic any more, they have to earn it and prove that they have changed for the better.

---

Interesting - it isn't set at one-third here, but there is a requirement for the sentencing judge to take the early guilty plea into account. The sentence will always be given as "I would have given you two years in prison for this offence, but in light of the guilty plea I am reducing that by six months." It varies depending on how early in the process the guilty plea was tendered, and hence how much of the court's time was spared by the plea.

Quote:

---

Good point, but we are talking about Money now because Parole boards cost money. These people dont come cheep and it is for that reason they are only used for Major crimes.

---

That sounds rather silly: why can it not be done cheaply and efficiently? I know, having worked on taxpayer-funded projects where we had a member of staff counting rows in a spreadsheet by hand (to generate our monthly website activity report, an admin assistant spend over a day going through the spreadsheet line by line, until I replaced that job with a script doing the same in 31ms) that efficiency and public sector don't always go together, but even having a checklist for early release (signs of remorse, engagement with treatment programme, etc) would help.

Of course, just making the early release conditional on actual good behaviour in jail, rather than reducing the sentence beforehand, should improve behaviour a lot - and I suspect couching it as an optional early release subject to good behaviour, rather than an extension of sentence in the event of bad behaviour, would avoid a lot of human rights quibbles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fetishdj

I think part of it is the issue that surrounds any sexual crime... whether it be rape or paedophillia or any sexual related offense, there seems to be a culture in the media that declares the plaintiff guilty before there is even a trial

---

Yes, but why? And it is not just the media. I have read comments of various articles as well as the articles, and for every one which says something like 'hang on, let's see what the courts say' you have about 10 that simply yell with hatred. Why such hatred for a man who nobody knows? Why this insistence that accusation = guilty? Why all these anti-sex remarks that if you have an active sexlife, you are a male pig and a rapist?

In early times of the feminist movement, women who were sexually active or even just considered a 'flirt' could never win a case accusing someone of rape. Her whole life and sex-life and way to dress and what not would be discussed, she was the acccused as well as the accused.

In this we are back to that way of thinking again: Strauss-Kahn is a rapist because he has lovers outside his marriage, is white and rich. We are back to a terribly attitude to sex in general, and to men. He is judged and condemned already.

This is not feminism. Feminism is about better chances for women, it is not about hating men, and not about hating sex. There is something completely wrong here.

Quote:

---

and this has massive impact on juries, especially in high profile cases where a celebrity is involved. It sometimes seems as if the age old concept of sub judice does not apply to these cases and so trial by media is becoming a common occurence.

---

What is sub judice?

Quote:

---

Rape is an odd one... it is very hard to prove intent as it usually ends up as one person's word against anothers (after all, how many people take witnesses with them on a date?) and those sorts of court cases rarely end well or without mess and ambiguity.

---

True. I do believe you shold give the woman's word a lot of word, but we cannot go to the extent of saying accusation means conviction automatically.
In the two of these cases there are so big, blatant political implications that it is just so weird that noone seems to discuss them!

Quote:

---

On the one hand I agree that women (and men) need to be protected from this absolutely vile crime (because I am something of a feminist myself, well by marriage anyway :) ) and that the law needs to shake off that old fashioned view that women 'were just asking for it' (and I am pleased that this article shows this to be the case) but I am also concerned about the fact that it is now easier for women to maliciously call rape and apparently get away with it. It is swinging in the opposite direction and that is going to lead to another backlash and a swing back to the bad old days of 'she wore a short skirt ergo...'

---

I do not believe for a moment that very many women would do so such a thing, but in these high profile cases it must be taking into consideration.

Frankly I think we close to a sort of mob rule here - with the press as the biggest part of the mob.

Thir: 'sub judice' is the Latin for 'under judgement': in general, while a case is on its way through the legal system, it's inappropriate to comment publicly on it, particularly if you are involved in some way. Particularly in cases like Strauss-Kahn's it can be damaging to the whole process for details to be published prematurely: how, for example, can you be sure of getting a 'clean' jury pool not influenced by media coverage beforehand?

There was a joke on the subject during the OJ Simpson trial:
'knock, knock'
'who's there?'
'OJ'
'OJ who?'
'You're on the jury!'

One detail I've seen reported, for example, is that NYPD's evidence collected at the scene includes the sheets from his room, with blood on. Unless it's his (a nosebleed perhaps?) it would quite strongly indicate some violent altercation took place - indeed, more violent than the little glimpse most media reports have given us of the incident. The story of a previous incident in which he went at a much younger female journalist "like a rutting ape" seems to fit that, though.

Tying in with other recent headlines in the UK, this is what media reporting restrictions were originally supposed to be used for in the UK: where detailed media coverage of a criminal case in progress would impede a fair trial, not because releasing information is inconvenient to some 'celebrity'!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by js207

Thir: 'sub judice' is the Latin for 'under judgement': in general, while a case is on its way through the legal system, it's inappropriate to comment publicly on it, particularly if you are involved in some way.

---

My! It is not enforced at all, is it?
Thanks.

Quote:

---

Particularly in cases like Strauss-Kahn's it can be damaging to the whole process for details to be published prematurely: how, for example, can you be sure of getting a 'clean' jury pool not influenced by media coverage beforehand?

---

I get the impression that the whole media show is to get a conviction based on mob rule rather than facts!

Quote:

---

One detail I've seen reported, for example, is that NYPD's evidence collected at the scene includes the sheets from his room, with blood on. Unless it's his (a nosebleed perhaps?) it would quite strongly indicate some violent altercation took place - indeed, more violent than the little glimpse most media reports have given us of the incident.

---

I think the 'reported' details should be taken with a grain of salt: all kinds of rumours abound, many contradictory to each other.

Quote:

---

The story of a previous incident in which he went at a much younger female journalist "like a rutting ape" seems to fit that, though.

---

I do not get that. 'Went at'? 'Like a rutting ape'? Does that mean sex? Or does that mean rape? The actually aren't the same, though many people seem to think so, which is quite worrying! I do not see where the blood comes in.

Quote:

---

Tying in with other recent headlines in the UK, this is what media reporting restrictions were originally supposed to be used for in the UK: where detailed media coverage of a criminal case in progress would impede a fair trial, not because releasing information is inconvenient to some 'celebrity'!

---

I can see reasons for both restrictions. The first is obvious as we have discussed, but I cannot see any 'public interest' in who is sleeping with whom either, it is a matter concerning the involved parties only.

I do not see why it should be allowed to make peoples lives hell on earth, just because they are known and the press says it is ok.

A rape of a girl is the exploitation of an individual, corrupt politics is exploitation of mass, so politics and rape can be surmised as mass rape.

Here in India, rape and crime are often used as political weapon to change the rulers. Nowadays, Political parties are trying to increase their influence in UP (one of the state of India) by shouting against the recent rapes reported in the state. The thing that surprises me is UP is the state where the least number of rapes and crimes were reported in the year 2009 and 2010 as compared to similar crimes in other states, but within the last three months, sexual harassment and rape incidences have escalated dubiously. Recently, Rahul Gandhi, one of the prominent but certainly corrupt politician claimed that 70 girls were mass raped in a village of UP. Later on, the National Human Rights Commission investigate those claims and found them all fabricated and false.

Everybody knew that INC (one of the biggest political party of India) is trying to malign the government of UP state. However, it is also true that incidences of crime and rapes have been increased within last three four months. I strongly doubt that these rapes and crimes against women are politically motivated. The political parties in opposition to the current government are actually Sponsoring these crimes and on the other hand, they are expressing their discontent about Law & Order situations in UP and are planning an agitation against government. I am a libertarian and I strongly believe that government of any type (democratic, or aristocratic) is a burden on humanity in general and a torture on Individual in particular and the current situations in Uttar Pradesh are supporting the Libertarian views.

India is much more backward than USA when we talk of political freedom and political views. Yet, what makes me feel depressed is the fact that even in America, Rothbardian Anarchocapitalism (or at least Randian concept of Limited Government) is far from reality. I strongly feel that it is very difficult for American libertarians to challenge the corrupt American government and force it to return back to Gold Standard. However, it is a certain fact that the Fiat Currency (Dollars) are nothing but a corrupt tool of corrupt government to rob and loot general public.

So what I feel that until political ruling power will not be nullified, politics will keep raping masses and politicians will keep raping individuals. From a libertarian point of view, Politics and Rape are so synonymous

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by js207

One detail I've seen reported, for example, is that NYPD's evidence collected at the scene includes the sheets from his room, with blood on. Unless it's his (a nosebleed perhaps?) it would quite strongly indicate some violent altercation took place - indeed, more violent than the little glimpse most media reports have given us of the incident.

---

I think this must be a mistake, since the prosecution lawyer has never been quoted as mentioning it when he lists the evidence he's still relying on. Semen samples yes, blood no.

Quote:

---

The story of a previous incident in which he went at a much younger female journalist "like a rutting ape" seems to fit that, though.

---

Actually, that could end up counting in his favour. Since his story is that he did have sex with her, but that she was a prostitute who cried rape because she wasn't paid enough, the fact that he has a taste for violent sex would help explain away any bruises on the plaintiff.

Quote:

---

Tying in with other recent headlines in the UK, this is what media reporting restrictions were originally supposed to be used for in the UK: where detailed media coverage of a criminal case in progress would impede a fair trial, not because releasing information is inconvenient to some 'celebrity'!

---

Actually, I think the converage has been pretty fair. When there was nothing but the prosecution case, they ran that: now the defence case is clear - and has been upheld to the extent of his going out without bail - that is being run just as widely.

If it was a conspiracy, it was a pretty half-baked one that seems likely to have the opposite result. (You'd think a conspiracy would have found a "victim" with fewer embarrassing secrets.) Even before this new development, 60% in France thought he was being framed. If he is cleared, which seems increasingly likely (and I speak of the legalistic position, not whether I think he did it), I would not be surprised if he was back in the French Presidential race with a PR boost as the man they tried to do down and failed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leo9

If it was a conspiracy, it was a pretty half-baked one that seems likely to have the opposite result. (You'd think a conspiracy would have found a "victim" with fewer embarrassing secrets.) Even before this new development, 60% in France thought he was being framed. If he is cleared, which seems increasingly likely (and I speak of the legalistic position, not whether I think he did it), I would not be surprised if he was back in the French Presidential race with a PR boost as the man they tried to do down and failed.

---

The accusation meant taking him out of the race according to all political observers. That is a pretty damn serious result. It also meant him resigning from the IMF, which is even worse.

I think you can safely say that the conspiracy, if any, have worked like a charm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thir

The accusation meant taking him out of the race according to all political observers. That is a pretty damn serious result. It also meant him resigning from the IMF, which is even worse.

I think you can safely say that the conspiracy, if any, have worked like a charm.

---

According to the French papers he is now back in the race with a bullet, the Socialist Party are discussing delaying their nomination process so he can be named after the court case (assuming, which they are assuming, that he will be cleared.) His popularity in France has soared. And the IMF has not refused loans to Greece, which was supposed to be the purpose of removing him from that post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leo9

According to the French papers he is now back in the race with a bullet, the Socialist Party are discussing delaying their nomination process so he can be named after the court case (assuming, which they are assuming, that he will be cleared.) His popularity in France has soared. And the IMF has not refused loans to Greece, which was supposed to be the purpose of removing him from that post.

---

Quite ... remember, he'd have had to quit the IMF anyway to fight the French election (can't really do that effectively from another continent!) and the French have a disturbingly high tolerance of appalling conduct by politicians and other public figures. Remember, this is the country which sheltered a notorious paedophile rapist from US courts even after conviction! Even if the French believe he's guilty, as long as he isn't physically detained at the time I doubt it will be any impediment to his campaign - perhaps the reverse.

Which, with conspiracy theories on the agenda, raises the possibility of it being a plot on his own side, perhaps backfiring slightly ... a few more minutes, he'd have been airborne and safely back on French soil, with no risk of extradition and a glamorous legend of how he outwitted NYPD to boost his profile back home!