“Damn, not enough men are being imprisoned!”


——————————————————-

07 December 2006

Juries reluctant to convict men of rape if woman was drunk

Juries are reluctant to convict men of rape if the woman who brings the allegation was drunk, research has found.

..

The findings are compelling fresh evidence that juries composed of ordinary people are unwilling to comply with Government demands to deliver more convictions for rape.

Ministers say there are too few convictions and have been altering the rape laws in order to try to get more men jailed after rape trials. Barely five per cent of allegations end in conviction

The government, as mentioned in this article, has been “altering” rape laws – and the definition of rape – in order to put more men in prison on the word of a woman, and earlier this year promised to bring in “experts” (i.e. feminists with degrees in Wimmin’s Studies) to give “evidence” at trials to gloss over any doubts juries may have, such as explaining why some women took ages to come forward and bring an allegation against a man. It mentions this later in the article:

He announced plans to allow “expert” witnesses to explain to juries the damaging impact of rape, and video evidence showing distraught women in police stations within hours of alleged rapes.

Trials should be about objectivity; facts, evidence and impartial rules. Here we have fembots trying to cast that aside and twitter on about how “distraught” some woman was, and trying to urge juries to bring a guilty verdict based on how upset a woman looked (bear in mind women often get flustered and upset about anything these days, whenever their Entitlement Princess mentality encounters an obstacle, like Real Life. Or they can just fake it and turn the waterworks on like a switch.)

So, as juries are less willing to send a man to prison because some woman claims “I didn’t consent, honest, even though I was practically sucking his dick on the dance-floor beforehand”, expect the government to perhaps consider all-female juries, or dispense with them altogether. We’ll soon have men accused of rape being tried by a single judge; a female one, naturally. Anything to get more men in prison and grant women greater powers to snap their fingers, get the police in, cry raaaaype and have a man locked up.

Since the Act came into force, a defendant has had to pass a tougher test and show it was reasonable for him to believe she consented.

This is how rape laws work. It is up to the man to prove his innocence, rather than for the prosecution to prove his guilt. It’s all arse about tit, and completely unfair and counter to the concept of justice, just so the screaching fembots can watch more men dumped in prison solely on the word of a woman. Often a drunken slapper regretting whoring around, or one who wants to get back at a man who didn’t call her the next day.

I can understand that a woman who is too drunk to even talk is unable to give her consent, but the laws are trying to say that any woman who is a bit intoxicated cannot consent, and even if she says “Fuck me NOW!” whilst on her back, just because she’d even so much as a bit tipsy, a man who complies is a raaaypist and must be locked up if the woman changes her mind the next day.

Bear in mind of course that the concept of spousal rape means that this will apply to a guy having sex with his wife if she’s drunk. Have sex with your wife after she’s had a few glasses of wine and you are, effectively, guilty of raping her. She’ll know that, and believe me she’ll bring it up if/when it comes to divorce. You’re in for a severe financial bum-raping in the divorce courts even if you’ve done nothing wrong, so think of what you’re in for if wifey mentions to the judge that time you “raped” her. Kiss goodbye to everything you own, probably including your liberty.

But some judges, lawyers and criminologists believe that the Home Office is leaning on juries to convict innocent men and that jurors are right to resist pressure.

Dr David Green of the Civitas think tank said: “The whole point of a jury is that it allows the opinions of wider society to be heard in the justice system.

“This study appears to show that juries are reflecting public opinion, which broadly is that people have a personal responsibility for their behaviour. If a woman gets drunk and loses control, that is something for which she is responsible and must take the consequences.

“A man who has sex with her in that state may be acting in an ungentlemanly way, but that is not a crime.”

Dr Green added: “A jury is there to bring elites crashing down – especially in areas like rape law which has been subject to a sectarian campaign by extreme feminists.”

Crikey! Some sense of justice coming from judges and lawyers. Maybe there is hope!

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 6:04 PM
——————————————————-

At 7:54 PM, Anonymous said…

I’m all for these rape laws. Things have to get worse until they get better. If men INSIST on chasing after women even in these conditions, then I want those men thrown into jail. I refuse to support stupidity. Hopefully after a few years all the “PUAs” are in jail for rape, and we can go back to having a normal society again. Chances are though that these laws will only punish innocent men, as the truly guilty know not to give women any power over them in the first place.

——————————————————-

At 7:55 PM, Anonymous said…

Notice the comments. People mostly have no problem with this – nevermind, that this undermines the basic “innocent-till-proven-guilty” thingie. People just don’t seem to mind, since hey, we’ll protect poor womyn with this.

I think I’m gonna puke.

——————————————————-

At 8:20 PM, Anonymous said…

Dr Green added: “A jury is there to bring elites crashing down – especially in areas like rape law which has been subject to a sectarian campaign by extreme feminists.”

That needed to be emphasized!

——————————————————-

At 8:31 PM, Anonymous said…

I must agree with the feminist sentiment reflected in this article. All men are rapists. All men rape and eat children, as well. In fact, I ate several children this morning. Because men are so dangerous (and oppressive) to women the only solution is for gentlemen to avoid ladies. No contact. It is for their protection. That should be our highest priority. Women should be free from the bondage of oppressive matrimony. Ladies should be given the solitude to pursue their careers and explore the safer companionship of the feline kingdom. If you respect women you will do this for them.

— A Gentleman Bachelor

——————————————————-

At 8:52 PM, byrdeye said…

Gee, what’s next – excusing drunk drivers who killed pedestrians…because they were drunk???

This is what happens when you start using “chick logic…” You get ridiculous rationalizations and excuses for girls’ voluntary behavior like here.

——————————————————-

At 12:13 PM, Anonymous said…

The logic is simple:

A drunken man is responsible for his actions.
A drunken female is not responsible for her actions.

Man = responsible…woman = irresponsible.

I was at a charity event a couple of months ago when the beer was flowing. The behaviour of the women was…well…unladylike. 2 fell over, drunk as skunks and drooling over some men.

Thats why i haven’t got a great issue about Islam. Covering them up and stopping them getting pissed might just be a way of preventing some of these women from getting raped.

——————————————————-

At 2:39 AM, Anonymous said…

I don’t know whether anyone here has been hit on & dragged off to a “beddable” area by a drunk chick, but even when drunk myself, I NEVER found it pleasant. And please note that the VERY few times it happened in my life it was NOT my idea or initiative. And there would be NO way I could deny it if I WERE accused.

——————————————————-

%d bloggers like this: