Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site utcsstat.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsstat!laura
From: laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.legal,net.singles
Subject: Re: Rape (anywhere, not just Ontario)
Message-ID: <1534@utcsstat.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 9-Dec-83 07:13:51 EST
Article-I.D.: utcsstat.1534
Posted: Fri Dec  9 07:13:51 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 9-Dec-83 09:12:00 EST
References: <1509@utcsstat.UUCP>, <421@eosp1.UUCP>
Organization: U. of Toronto, Canada
Lines: 52

Aha, but what i would *really* like to see are very, very, very tough
rape and assault laws. But i do not think that you can get them while it
is possible for the guy to be 'framed'. So you get really short sentences
for such crimes. And you get people who believe that 'the rapist is not
responsible for his actions and only a product of our strange society's
preoccupation with sex'. I would like it if these people associated rape
with violence and did not try to make ammends for the Puritanitism of
their forefathers by letting rapists walk the streets. 

The disadvantage of having heavy penalties for rape is, of course,
that the rapist may decide to kill his victim to prevent identification.
And if you condone capital punishment then you had better be damn sure
that you are executing a rapist, and not killing an innocent.

The other end of this is to remember that the law does not protect you
from rape or assault -- it only gives you something to do to offenders.
(the arguments as to whether X is really 'deterred' by punishment Y
can go on for years.)

Given this understanding of the law, it is necessary to remember that 
people *will* get raped.

Clearly rape is not a very nice thing -- but there are several questions
which must be raised if you are going to reevaluate the rape (sexual
assault) law. For one thing, it is considered to be a very bad thing even
if the victim was only sexually assaulted, but not physically assaulted.
Why? is it really all that terrible, or is it merely that people are
conditioned to believe that it is terrible? if the problem is that
society teaches women to believe that sex is more special than it
really is, then should we expect our courts to uphold this belief?
Maybe we should try to change that belief instead. If, on the other
hand, the sex act *is* (for most people) something that special and
wonderful, regardless of the media hype, then rape and assault should
*not* be classified as the same offense, since the sex act is what is
significant. (perhaps you can charge rapists who assault their victims
with rape *and* with assault.)

By the way -- around here if you pull a gun or knife or other dangerous
weapon on someone you get charged with assault -- are the laws different
in the US?

The last problem is one of ethics. Does society have the obligation to
protect those who will not try to protect themselves and others? Why
or why not?

Of course, there are loopholes in no matter what is decided -- ranging
from kidney punches that show no marks (though blood in the urine may
tell) to people who will not fight due to strong moral beliefs (as
opposed to, say, fear). 

laura creighton
utzoo!utcsstat!laura