Anyone reading this must be aware of the ongoing rape
stupidity of the last couple of weeks. What is rape? What counts as rape? How
do you prove rape?
The Oxford Dictionary definition is: the crime,
typically committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual
intercourse with the offender against their will. The legal definition in the
UK is based on the 1956 definition, seen below. There have been additions and
modifications since but in essence:
Rape of woman or man.
(1)It is an offence for a man to rape a woman or another
man.
(2)A man commits rape if—
(a)he has sexual intercourse with a person (whether vaginal
or anal) who at the time of the intercourse does not consent to it; and
(b)at the time he knows that the person does not consent to
the intercourse or is reckless as to whether that person consents to it.
(3)A man also commits rape if he induces a married woman to
have sexual intercourse with him by impersonating her husband.
(4)Subsection (2) applies for the purpose of any enactment.
[Sexual Offences Act 1956]
Consent is the critical term I believe and the one where
some rape prosecutions begin to fall down, as some victims stop fighting if
they’re scared for their life. But by the 1956 definition George Galloway is
still wrong. “At the time does not consent to it.” Boom, done. Idiot.
Proof of the crime is tough unless you do something about it
immediately. Later on there is no evidence. It becomes a case of witness
statements, character assessments and a case of he-said, she-said.
Which brings me on to the doping in cycling, Lance Armstrong
case. I was saying I don’t see how they can punish him, remove his Tour de
France wins, without evidence. One of my twitter followers (@DavidMLindsay)
pointed out there were supposedly ten people ready to witness that he had done
it, even if there was no drug-based evidence.
What does it matter? Well this comment covers it and it was
this comment that got me thinking about it further:
“This is about young promising cyclists on their way up
looking up to Armstrong and Armstrong and Bruyneel letting them know they had
no chance of getting on Armstrong's team if they weren't prepared to dope.
Would armstrong have won 7 tours if he hadnt had the most
doped team in the race? No. Was he using these young riders? Yes.”
This isn’t a victimless crime. There were people with
careers who had to either fail or comply. They had to submit or else. It will
have had an effect on their lives.
Do I put too much faith in physical evidence for physical
crimes? Do I trust the man, the witnesses or the agency? Am I applying a
blanket judgment on very different types of crime? I don’t even know.
