Rape reforms in Scotland; more prosecutions now!


14 June 2006


“Och aye, loch up more men!!”

Rape procedures overhaul outlined

Significant changes have been proposed to the way rape cases in Scotland are investigated and prosecuted.

Ah yes, the old crap about how so few rape accusations lead to convictions, meaning Something Must Be Done.

As many others have pointed out, the claim that rapists are “getting away with it” is absurd, because if it turns out the woman consented to sex after all – but just changed her mind afterwards of flat-out lied to get revenge on a guy – then it’s not rape. The man is not a rapist.

This is different from, say, burglary. If someone reports that someone has broken into their house and stolen some of their things, and a quick visit from the cops sees that there’s a broken window or kicked in door and the place has been ransacked and items clearly missing, then a burglary has indeed taken place. Sure, there are the tiny number of cases of insurance frauds where someone may fake a break in, but otherwise, if someone’s been broken into and had stuff stolen, and the person responsible is not convicted, then a burglar has gotten away with burglary.

It’s different for the crime of rape because just because a woman has been fucked doesn’t mean a rape has taken place; just that it’s a question of whether the woman consented or not. If she consented, a rape did not take place and the man is not a rapist. He isn’t a “rapist getting away with it.”

These proposals are all a case of trying to guarantee that a woman claiming she did not consent will be believed, without any evidence to back it up. Parallel legislation in England seeks to achieve the same end.

Detailing the main reforms, Ms Angiolini told MSPs there would be a “presumption” in favour of prosecution where there was sufficient “credible and reliable” evidence to prosecute.

For starters this is all proposed by a woman who uses the made-up title “Ms”; a feminist for sure. Secondly, this is blatantly to remove what few rights men have when accused of rape. Don’t be fooled by the insistence on “credible and reliable” evidence; even now that basically just means a woman’s say-so.

Note that they also talk of “public concern” about how rape cases are handled, as if a majority of the population are baying for accused-rapist’s blood. If anything it’s the other way round, with the majority of men – and some women – disturbed by the ease in which a woman can tarnish a man’s reputation and even have him sent to prison for years merely by crying rape, as well as the way she remains anonymous, unlike the accused.

She acknowledged Scotland had the reputation of having one of the worse conviction rates for rape.

Or, if you don’t believe women are Sugar and Spice and incapable of lying, it has one of the highest levels of false accusations of rape.

Ms Angiolini said: “A third of all cases of rape reported fall at the first hurdle, when reported to the procurator fiscal by the police.

“Of those cases, the overwhelming majority, approximately 80%, were marked ‘not to proceed’ by the procurator fiscal on the basis of insufficiency of evidence.

OMG!! You mean, men are not being prosecuted merely because there is insufficient evidence! Terrible! What sort of outdated patriarchal justice system requires evidence other than a woman’s word! Something must be etc etc..

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 7:05 PM

At 7:58 PM, Captain Zarmband said…

It is indeed interesting that Feminists keep on claiming that “the public” are concerned by the level of rape allegations that do not lead to a prosecutions. In 94% of case juries find the man not guilty. Since juries are made up exclusively of members of “the public” this is evidence that the majority of “the public” find these allegations to be false and indeed, malicious.


At 9:21 PM, ChicagoMan said…

I’m still not sure why harsher punishments don’t exist for making false allegations about rape. If you think about this severely handicaps the accused’s life. Also whatever happened to basic law practices such as innocent until proven guilty and being able to face your accuser.

These nutjobs with the false allegations should be locked up, emotional trauma my ass.

Women keep shooting their sorry asses in the feet day in and day out. All this will do is encourage more men to not try and sleep with them.

This will lead to more BBC and MSN articles about how men aren’t emotionally available to have sex with them.

It is remarkable how so few of them have logic and common sense and can’t even separate cause and effect.


At 2:57 AM, Anonymous said…

They seem quite determined to make ANY type of relationship with a woman a high-risk proposition. Is it worth the risk anymore?



At 3:58 PM, Anonymous said…

Would consent-to-have-sex forms solve the problem? Maybe a quick trip to the magistrate before the deed is done for legal blessing to give the dog a bone?


At 3:25 AM, Anonymous said…

Registering for permission…that would work right up until the time the woman decided she changed her mind at the last minute. It is never too late for them to say no, remember. If some had there way, even 2 or 3 months after the deed is not too late to say no.


%d bloggers like this: