Forfeited Rights?
While living in England this summer, I quickly noticed that the failure of the justice system to adequately deal with rape was a highly contentious issue. While the number of rapes reported annually is rising, the number of successful prosecutions is falling. It is estimated that 50 000 British women are raped each year but less than six percent of these cases result in a conviction.
One reason why the justice system falters in rape cases is for want of clear definition – is rape essentially concerned with the lack of consent or the use of force in a sexual act? Though it is clear that the use of force is criminal, a large number of rape victims do not sustain physical injuries (beyond the rape itself), which leaves the floor open for debate on the nature of consent and how to ascertain that it was given.
In England last year a case was closed wherein a young woman claimed to have been raped by a student security guard who had assisted her to outside her room in the university residences. She had been very drunk and remembered little about the night.
The judge came to the decision that “Drunken consent is still consent.”
When regrettable choices are made during drunken inhibition, those involved just have to come to terms with it in the cold light of day. But when persuasion is forceful, protests are ignored, and trust is breached, a rape has occurred. The judge’s decision was called “a green light for rapists” and essentially confirmed the popular sentiment that if a woman will get herself that drunk, whatever happens to her, she only has herself to blame.
Coming across an article, such as in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, which states the right of everyone to “security of person”, I have to wonder what this phrase means. Does a woman who is drinking with a stranger, or working in the sex industry, or wearing revealing clothing forfeit this right?
While a fair trial is a right enshrined in the English Bill of Rights and Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for the benefit of the accused, at times it is the accuser that faces undue stereotyping and presumption of guilt. Women who press rape charges face intense emotional strain by having the legitimacy of their experience questioned, their private lives openly displayed, and their actions and character scrutinized for flaws. A significant number of people, including those who will judge her case, tacitly accept rape as natural within circumstances that she helped to create, such as by drinking or her style of dress.
The justice system will continue to blunder its handling of this human rights violation until both those who work within it and the general public are corrected on the many stereotypes and misconceptions surrounding this issue.
Sources:
http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/005.htm
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1889086,00.html
http://www.legalappeal.co.uk/pages/introduction/what_is_a_false_allegation.php
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4453820.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/2005_47_mon_01.shtml
tag: last301
One reason why the justice system falters in rape cases is for want of clear definition – is rape essentially concerned with the lack of consent or the use of force in a sexual act? Though it is clear that the use of force is criminal, a large number of rape victims do not sustain physical injuries (beyond the rape itself), which leaves the floor open for debate on the nature of consent and how to ascertain that it was given.
In England last year a case was closed wherein a young woman claimed to have been raped by a student security guard who had assisted her to outside her room in the university residences. She had been very drunk and remembered little about the night.
The judge came to the decision that “Drunken consent is still consent.”
When regrettable choices are made during drunken inhibition, those involved just have to come to terms with it in the cold light of day. But when persuasion is forceful, protests are ignored, and trust is breached, a rape has occurred. The judge’s decision was called “a green light for rapists” and essentially confirmed the popular sentiment that if a woman will get herself that drunk, whatever happens to her, she only has herself to blame.
Coming across an article, such as in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, which states the right of everyone to “security of person”, I have to wonder what this phrase means. Does a woman who is drinking with a stranger, or working in the sex industry, or wearing revealing clothing forfeit this right?
While a fair trial is a right enshrined in the English Bill of Rights and Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for the benefit of the accused, at times it is the accuser that faces undue stereotyping and presumption of guilt. Women who press rape charges face intense emotional strain by having the legitimacy of their experience questioned, their private lives openly displayed, and their actions and character scrutinized for flaws. A significant number of people, including those who will judge her case, tacitly accept rape as natural within circumstances that she helped to create, such as by drinking or her style of dress.
The justice system will continue to blunder its handling of this human rights violation until both those who work within it and the general public are corrected on the many stereotypes and misconceptions surrounding this issue.
Sources:
http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/005.htm
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1889086,00.html
http://www.legalappeal.co.uk/pages/introduction/what_is_a_false_allegation.php
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4453820.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/2005_47_mon_01.shtml
tag: last301
posted by Serena at 12:02 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home