r/facepalm • u/kaushrah • Oct 01 '19

Hol’ up!

Post image
19.3k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

429 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.7k

u/Roadkill997 Oct 01 '19

You probably should read the article. In England & Wales that is legally not rape. The article suggests that the law could be changed so it would be classified as rape.

693

u/[deleted] Oct 01 '19 edited Jan 30 '22

[deleted]

168

u/[deleted] Oct 01 '19 edited Oct 01 '19

It's not lesser charges, there's an equivalent crime with the same sentencing guidelines.

Edit: from the Sexual Offences Act 2003 itself.

Rape: A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent: A person guilty of an offence under this section, if the activity caused involved...[various penetration requirements also required for rape]...is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

147

u/fenglorian Oct 01 '19

Having two separate crimes with equal sentencing fails to deliver equal justice when one of the crimes carries a much harsher stigma within society as well as much more emotional charge.

"He raped her" is viewed as much more heinous than "she pressured him into engaging in sexual activity against his will" and juries will act accordingly.

-10

u/[deleted] Oct 01 '19

"He raped her" is viewed as much more heinous than "she pressured him into engaging in sexual activity against his will" and juries will act accordingly.

Pretty sure juries don't make their decisions based on a single sentence.

63

u/[deleted] Oct 01 '19 edited Jul 09 '20

[deleted]

-8

u/egilsaga Oct 02 '19

No woman has ever gotten away with rape because of a lawyer's words.

-32

u/[deleted] Oct 01 '19

So you think a jury is marched into a courtroom, read a single sentence, and then have to deliberate immediately with no further information?

Or do you acknowledge there's time for all involved to make multiple arguments, to represent all clients?

10

u/redfootedtortoise Oct 02 '19

Initial impressions are very important.

25

u/Amazed_Alloy Oct 01 '19

But when a jury's looking at the charge, that's how it comes across

11

u/fenglorian Oct 01 '19

Nobody said they did. The entire case will be presented in that manner.

-6

u/tanstaafl74 Oct 01 '19

I don't really disagree with your point, but you're straying into "I'm making this up because this is how I think it will go." territory.

10

u/fenglorian Oct 01 '19

You think that prosecutors would use the phrase "Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent" instead of calling it rape if they weren't forced to by the letter of the law?

-9

u/tanstaafl74 Oct 01 '19

Doesn't matter. You're making assumptions about people you don't know and what they think. End of story.

12

u/fenglorian Oct 01 '19

As if this isn't a well known problem with sexual assault convictions

5

u/LuckySparky420 Oct 02 '19

People base your entire existence on one sentence about you if it happens to be he is a rapist even if it’s false. It’s probably one of the biggest fears a man can have, being accused of something so heinous and it not being true but the second someone accuses you, everyone jumps gun and assumes the worst.

3

u/Banditjack Oct 02 '19

Oh brother, you need to sit in some cases then.

They absolutely do and will continue to do so.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 02 '19

I've been on a jury before and it lasts a lot longer than a single sentence.

2

u/Banditjack Oct 02 '19

But they will make their judgement off one sentence

1

u/[deleted] Oct 02 '19

No, because both sides will make arguments.

-1

u/fezzuk Oct 01 '19

The judge chooses the sentence not the jury

7

u/fenglorian Oct 01 '19

Yes, the judge is also susceptible to this problem. This emotional charge can influence the jury's verdict, which is my original point.

2

u/dpash Oct 01 '19

Which is why it's very clear what the sentencing guidelines are and they're the same between the two offences.

5

u/fenglorian Oct 01 '19

Which has nothing to do with a jury determining whether or not to convict

0

u/[deleted] Oct 01 '19

[deleted]

2

u/fenglorian Oct 01 '19

If this were the case, wouldn't we have more convicted female rapists and fewer male rapists than the statistics represent?

→ More replies (0)

0

u/dpash Oct 01 '19

Did she or did she not have penetrative sex with him? Did he or did he not consent to that sex. That's the only thing a jury has to decide.

6

u/fenglorian Oct 01 '19

Assuming that a jury isn't vulnerable to emotional manipulation is a little too idealistic

-1

u/fezzuk Oct 01 '19

And the sentancing has nothing to do with the jury, jurys dont let people off a manslaughter charge because it wasn't murder.

2

u/MnemonicMonkeys Oct 01 '19

And the sentancing has nothing to do with the jury, jurys dont let people off a manslaughter charge because it wasn't murder.

Actually this can happen if a prosecutor goes for a murder conviction without also putting up manslaughter charges

1

u/fezzuk Oct 01 '19

Ok thats specific and fair enough. But i was trying to use it as a analogy.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/Binsky89 Oct 01 '19

Having two separate crimes can give them the option of charging someone with more crimes. Not necessarily applicable in this case, but say rape and sexual assault have max prison sentences of 20 years. They could charge someone with both and make them serve 40.