Everyday on the news or whatever, you hear about someone getting Raped, or a Rapist getting prosecuted.

 

Now it seems to me, that way to many cases of Rape are going on in the UK every day. It seems like every time you switch the TV on, You hear something bad.

 

In my opinion, The jail sentence for rape is not long enough. The fact that you can rape someone and be let out in less then 10 years if you "Behave Well" is awful.

 

What do you think about Rape?

Vilest thing to happen to a woman is being raped, genuine cases deserve castration and lengthy prison sentence (20-30 years) but being falsely accused of rape is the vilest thing a woman can do to a man and sadly that is happening a lot these days particularly alcohol related incidents and these cases where the woman has made it up because she feels guilty about the night before makes it harder to get convictions in genuine cases too

 

Rape is getting harder and harder to prove now (1 in 20 cases result in conviction) because the false allegations over the years has made people suspicious of rape cases which is sad as many genuinely raped women are seeing the attacker walk free

 

 

Vilest thing to happen to a woman is being raped, genuine cases deserve castration and lengthy prison sentence (20-30 years) but being falsely accused of rape is the vilest thing a woman can do to a man and sadly that is happening a lot these days particularly alcohol related incidents and these cases where the woman has made it up because she feels guilty about the night before makes it harder to get convictions in genuine cases too

 

Rape is getting harder and harder to prove now (1 in 20 cases result in conviction) because the false allegations over the years has made people suspicious of rape cases which is sad as many genuinely raped women are seeing the attacker walk free

 

Was their not a story on the news rescently about a man who was jalied for 17 years for a Rape he didn't commit. If I was the Jury on that day, I wouldn't know how to feel right now. It would be a mix of Guilt and embarssment. -_-

What do you think about Rape?

That it's a vile thing, and only a lowest form of a person will do it. -_-

 

I suppose rape has probally been around since the Celts I suppose, so it's always been around, but it's a growing issue I guess. What annoys me is that someone in this thread is bound to go, "Well rape only happens because teenage girls are walking around dressed as slags/sluts craving for attention".

 

Anyone can get raped, Male or Female, Kid/Teenager/Adult/, Pretty or Ugly, ANYONE can be a victim.

Vilest thing to happen to a woman is being raped, genuine cases deserve castration and lengthy prison sentence

One way of guaranteeing that the conviction rate falls even lower. How convinced would you need to be to convict someone of rape if you knew that they might be castrated? when the death penalty was abolished, the conviction rate went up suggesting that some jurors were unwilling to convict when they knew the potential consequences of a wrong conviction were irreversible.

 

This is supposed to be a civilised country. Barbaric practices such as castration have no place in a civilised society.

Was their not a story on the news rescently about a man who was jalied for 17 years for a Rape he didn't commit. If I was the Jury on that day, I wouldn't know how to feel right now. It would be a mix of Guilt and embarssment. -_-

 

an example of where dna would have resulted in the case being thrown out and that bloke (who died soon after release) having a 'normal' life. instead his one life was destroyed.

DNA would just prove that intercourse took place that is not enough on its own to secure a conviction, most rape trials result in the accused being acquitted as it is notoriously hard to prove that consent did not take place

DNA would just prove that intercourse took place that is not enough on its own to secure a conviction, most rape trials result in the accused being acquitted as it is notoriously hard to prove that consent did not take place

 

 

I've said that many a time Craig, but Rob's got DNA testing on the brain, even though it's not exactly the totally certain science it's cracked up to be, and there are examples where such evidence has been pretty seriously flawed, such as the Maddie McCann case....

 

Which is basically why I would never comply with a Govt DNA database, it's nowhere near as certain as fingerprints...

DNA would just prove that intercourse took place that is not enough on its own to secure a conviction, most rape trials result in the accused being acquitted as it is notoriously hard to prove that consent did not take place

 

But wasn't he nowhere near her though when the rape took place?

One way of guaranteeing that the conviction rate falls even lower. How convinced would you need to be to convict someone of rape if you knew that they might be castrated? when the death penalty was abolished, the conviction rate went up suggesting that some jurors were unwilling to convict when they knew the potential consequences of a wrong conviction were irreversible.

 

 

You have to admit Craig, the guy has a point here.... Rape is notoriously difficult to call as it is, you bring castration into the equation, then you're gonna be talking aquittal 100% across the boards, especially when it just boils down to "he says/she says", which pretty much is the way it is in the vast majority of cases .....

 

No, I really do think that David Cameron's points about boys being taught in school at an early age that "no means no" is actually a pretty sensible one... Christ, I'm actually agreeing with a bloody TORY!!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

But wasn't he nowhere near her though when the rape took place?

 

exactly! dna would have proven this man innocent as he WASNT there, but the law didnt believe him and he was wrongly convicted.

I've said that many a time Craig, but Rob's got DNA testing on the brain, even though it's not exactly the totally certain science it's cracked up to be, and there are examples where such evidence has been pretty seriously flawed, such as the Maddie McCann case....

 

Which is basically why I would never comply with a Govt DNA database, it's nowhere near as certain as fingerprints...

 

overreacting again.... i have never claimed that dna is the be all and end all alone. it is a very good TOOL to be used in conjunction with other forensic evidence to help secure convictions.

 

you would oppose fingerprinting if it was discovered today.. i bet... lol.

exactly! dna would have proven this man innocent as he WASNT there, but the law didnt believe him and he was wrongly convicted.

 

And again, you make a moot point, I've not argued against use of DNA testing when a person is suspected.... Just as long as when the innocence is established, then that test is destroyed..... My objection is to submitting to a database which assumes everyone is guilty, not to individual tests where there is a viable suspect as there was here....

And again, you make a moot point, I've not argued against use of DNA testing when a person is suspected.... Just as long as when the innocence is established, then that test is destroyed..... My objection is to submitting to a database which assumes everyone is guilty, not to individual tests where there is a viable suspect as there was here....

 

i know that... weve had this convo before... fact is, that if there was a dna database serial killers like sutcliffe, would have been caught much earlier on, saving many innocent lives. why would any rational intelligent person want to argue against that?

A curious statistic on the 'news' last night. Apparently 26% (or 20 something%) of rape 'vivtims' don't consider themselves to have been raped.

 

So if the victim doesn't think they have been raped..... who is saying it is?

I am pretty sure I would know if I had been raped!

How are they reaching this statistic?

 

 

Unfortunately in our society now though, a number of women do use 'rape' as an excuse when they change their mind.

 

No means no is all very well - but surely some level of responsibility lies with the female saying no all along?

(I am of course refering to the smaller percentage of date rapes, not violent attacks)

 

 

 

 

Langham wins early jail release

 

Actor Chris Langham is to be freed from jail after his 10-month prison sentence for downloading child pornography was reduced by the Court of Appeal.

The Bafta award-winner was jailed at Maidstone Crown Court in September after he was convicted on 15 counts of downloading images of children.

 

Langham was expected to be freed from Elmley Prison, Kent, on Wednesday after the sentence was cut by four months.

 

At his trial the 58-year-old actor had denied all the charges.

 

He claimed he viewed the images as research for a paedophile character.

 

The father-of-five, from Golford, near Cranbrook, Kent, had been due for release early in the New Year, when he would have served about half his sentence.

 

'Not a paedophile'

 

The comedy actor is well known for his starring role in the television drama The Thick Of It.

 

At his trial, he admitted viewing the images but said he was not a paedophile.

 

He said he was preparing for a role in the TV series Help and trying to make sense of the sexual abuse he suffered as a child.

 

The jury cleared Langham of having sex with an under-age girl.

 

Langham was arrested in November 2005 when video files of child abuse were found on a computer, a laptop and an external hard disk drive at his home.

 

His appeal was allowed by Lord Justice Gage, Mr Justice Openshaw and Dame Heather Steel.

 

An earlier written application for permission to appeal against the sentence was rejected in October.

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------

 

This is what I mean <_< He should be locked up forever... Fukin Prick

Langham wins early jail release

 

Actor Chris Langham is to be freed from jail after his 10-month prison sentence for downloading child pornography was reduced by the Court of Appeal.

The Bafta award-winner was jailed at Maidstone Crown Court in September after he was convicted on 15 counts of downloading images of children.

 

Langham was expected to be freed from Elmley Prison, Kent, on Wednesday after the sentence was cut by four months.

 

At his trial the 58-year-old actor had denied all the charges.

 

He claimed he viewed the images as research for a paedophile character.

 

The father-of-five, from Golford, near Cranbrook, Kent, had been due for release early in the New Year, when he would have served about half his sentence.

 

'Not a paedophile'

 

The comedy actor is well known for his starring role in the television drama The Thick Of It.

 

At his trial, he admitted viewing the images but said he was not a paedophile.

 

He said he was preparing for a role in the TV series Help and trying to make sense of the sexual abuse he suffered as a child.

 

The jury cleared Langham of having sex with an under-age girl.

 

Langham was arrested in November 2005 when video files of child abuse were found on a computer, a laptop and an external hard disk drive at his home.

 

His appeal was allowed by Lord Justice Gage, Mr Justice Openshaw and Dame Heather Steel.

 

An earlier written application for permission to appeal against the sentence was rejected in October.

 

--------------------------------------------------------

 

This is what I mean <_< He should be locked up forever... Fukin Prick

 

What a crock of fukking $h!te! This is where the justic system is all wrong, I get so fukking pissed off reading about p****'s getting let off! WHAT ABOUT THE VICTIMS they have to live with this FOREVER! It NEVER goes away!

A curious statistic on the 'news' last night. Apparently 26% (or 20 something%) of rape 'vivtims' don't consider themselves to have been raped.

 

So if the victim doesn't think they have been raped..... who is saying it is?

I am pretty sure I would know if I had been raped!

How are they reaching this statistic?

Unfortunately in our society now though, a number of women do use 'rape' as an excuse when they change their mind.

 

No means no is all very well - but surely some level of responsibility lies with the female saying no all along?

(I am of course refering to the smaller percentage of date rapes, not violent attacks)

 

maybe they were too drunk to consent (or remember), isnt that a crime now? (for a man to seduce a drunken woman?)

 

i do think that women DO have some responsibility here. not only in being sober enough to say no, but not to send out the wrong signals. dressing like tarts and acting like it (when drunk) MIGHT be seen as some scumbag as the green light to help himself. asking for it?.... well 99.9 % of blokes wouldnt think so, but in the real world there ARE blokes who will see them as 'fair game'.

 

 

No woman deserves to be raped based on what she is wearing it is the responsibility of guys to control their urges

 

Even if a woman went out clubbing in a micro skirt and top so short her t*ts were hanging out or even went out in a g string that ain't a red light to rape her, no one deserves to be raped or should expect to be raped because of what they wear

No woman deserves to be raped based on what she is wearing it is the responsibility of guys to control their urges

 

Even if a woman went out clubbing in a micro skirt and top so short her t*ts were hanging out or even went out in a g string that ain't a red light to rape her, no one deserves to be raped or should expect to be raped because of what they wear

 

in an ideal world yes... but in the real world there are a minority of men who will not, or cant, control their urges. the point is.... i think women should take some responsibility here..... and if they dress in such a manner (is it really necessary?) then they must be aware that it MIGHT attract the unwanted attentions of creeps. NO it doesnt excuse it, but in reality thats what could happen.