Mark Townsend recently reported about legal reforms in the United Kingdom to increase rape convictions. Here’s an excerpt:
A new statutory definition of capacity to consent to sexual intercourse will mean that, if a woman is so drunk she is incapable of consent, a man who sleeps with her may be charged with rape.
The controversial move is strongly opposed by judges, who believe it should be left to a jury to decide whether an alleged victim was in a fit state to agree to intercourse.
Further steps, including an alleged attacker’s previous sexual convictions being discussed before the jury, and hearsay evidence in which the victim told family or friends about an attack – but not police – could also be permitted. Doubling the number of sexual assault referral centres from 15 to 30 by 2008 is another of O’Brien’s proposals.
The government also believes it is necessary to develop measures for dealing with rape victims with mental-health problems, as well as fresh methods of rehabilitating convicted sex offenders to stop them reoffending.
Ministers are also currently examining whether to grant judges the power to remove the right to anonymity of women who make false rape claims. Courts may be able to lift anonymity if there is concern that the woman will fake another assault.
I like to hear about reforms to increase the conviction of truly guilty rapists, and I hope more countries adopt such reforms.
However, I feel weary about increasing the prosecution of so-called date-rape, by expanding the definition of rape. I especially find myself disagreeing with this when the proposed laws seem to falsely suggest that we need date-rape laws to stop men specifically. Statistically, men drink as often as women before having sex. Thus, when using objective criteria (i.e. how drunk the person is) to define alcoholic date-rape, women date-rape men as much as men date-rape women.
I would prefer to see the states resources put towards stopping forcible rape, rather than put to stopping people who simply has consensual sex with a drunk.
People, both men and women, choose whether or not to drink alcohol. If we don’t consider a drunk person’s consent to sex legally valid, then how can we hold drunk drivers responsible for choosing to drive? In the same way we hold a drunk driver responsible for choosing to drive, we can hold a drunk person responsible for choosing to have sex. If someone cannot control themselves when drinking, that person needs to use their sober self-control to choose not to drink or accept the consequences of such as decision.
What do you think?
