The specific offence of rape should be abolished, since it serves only to keep on the streets people who ought to be behind bars. Instead, the sexual element should be made an aggravating factor in offences against the person generally, enabling the maximum sentence to be doubled.
That way, a few silly cases that currently come to court would not do so, while many serious cases that currently either never make it to court or end in an acquittal would at least end in a conviction for something. My jaw drops when I hear or read reports (no doubt truthful) of women with serious injuries whose assailants were never charged with anything because there was considered little or no chance of a conviction for rape. Why were they not charged with, say, grievous bodily harm? This way, they would be.
Furthermore, this would be achieved without compromising fundamental principles such as trial by jury and the burden of proof on the part of the prosecution, both of which have already been eroded far too much (i.e., particularly in the latter case, at all).
At the same time, why is no one asking why, if there are so few convictions for rape, almost nobody who makes a false allegation of rape is ever even charged with perjury (with which, given its prevelance, next to nobody is ever charged in general), or with perverting the course of justice, or with making false statements to the Police?
Do you think that this represents a fair treatment to women who have been rape victims? far be it for me to indulge in 'victim talk', but I think that a good criminal offence must recognise the specifics of the crime involved, especially for the purposes of criminal records...
ReplyDeleteAnd the criminal record would say "sexually aggravated..." [whatever]. At present, a criminal record saying "rape" could actually refer to anything from sexaully aggravated attempted murder to a woman's having been too drunk to remember whether or not she had said yes. Hardly fair treatment of the former victim, that.
ReplyDelete