Drink and Rape.
Rape victims told alcohol consumption may cost them compensation.
And I don’t understand the outrage. You get drunk and you lose your ability to defend yourself, you lose certain awarenesses of your surroundings, you become more vulnerable: but all of this is voluntary – nobody forced these women to drink. Their drinking led to an increased likelihood of getting into a situation where they would be likely to be raped. I’m not saying that they deserved it, or were ‘asking for it’ (that would indeed be an awful thing to say), but they made themselves accomplices to their rapists. I find it far more offensive and far more concerning that one of the women affected by this was awarded full amount (£11,000 of taxpayer’s money) after her solicitor claimed that the 25% cut amounted to ‘indirect sexual discrimination’: notice how no claim like this has ever been made for the patently direct sexual discrimination of the legal definition of rape excluding male victims of sexual assault. Here is evidenced another example of how the knife does not cut both ways: everyone wants equality so long as it benefits them or makes them a little more equal than everyone else.
This raises another point: I don’t understand the logic behind the existence of CICA, nor do I understand why victims of crimes should be given compensation appropriated from taxpayer’s funds: the sixty-one million people of the United Kingdom did not each commit a crime against any given victim, only a handful (at most) did. These multi-thousand pounds payouts at a time would be better spent improving policing in order to 1) prevent these crimes and 2) catch the criminals behind these awful acts.
Being a victim of a violent crime should not be viable as a secondary income stream.
September 6th, 2008 at: 11:25 pm
So let me get this straight. In the UK if someone commits a crime against you the state gives you monetary compensation? Really? How do you put a price on something like rape? I don’t understand it at all.
September 7th, 2008 at: 10:36 am
No, you’re right. I have no idea why they assign the values that they do; but every ‘violent’ or ’sexual’ crime is eligible for compensation.
September 10th, 2008 at: 3:15 am
Hmm… I’m always quick to come to the defense of rape victims, regardless of whether alcohol was involved. Although I can’t say I liked that you wrote: “they made themselves accomplices to their rapists” by drinking, I’m surprised that taxpayers’ dollars go toward compensating victims of rape and other violent crimes in the UK. I’m not saying they don’t deserve monetary compensation – but I’d much rather victims sue their attackers.
“These multi-thousand pounds payouts at a time would be better spent improving policing in order to 1) prevent these crimes and 2) catch the criminals behind these awful acts.”
I completely agree…
April 18th, 2009 at: 2:44 am
Well, I have to agree to you on some level. However at the same time I think of date rape as more a comment on society. What kind of society must we live in where we cannot trust our fellow man not to take advantage? I guess it’s when things such as greed and lust set in, but theyre known as one of the ‘7 deadly sins’ for a reason, right?
In concern to CICA: I think that although we must pursue the cause of the problem it would be inhumane not to deal with the effects foremost. The physical and mental side effects of a traumatic event can be vast and expensive. It’s not like the government couldn’t cut back in other areas of the budget to find funds for this.
Also Athena, I think suing would be ineffective as often victims of violence or sexual assault are too scared or hurt to confront those who hurt them in the first place, meaning the victims would be left helpless.
Anyway, isnt it our job as members of society to help those who need it. Try not to think of it as being punished for the crimes of others, more being a responsible and effective member of a national community.
Finally, the idea that equality is there to convenience people is paradoxical in itself. Okay, some people use the guise of equality to flaunt their clearly biased views (Take Carol Ann Duffy and her “feminist” approach) but the vast majority of people, I’m sure, would say that equal is defined as fair to both sides. Men who have been raped have an equal right to press charges. I must concede that women are far more encouraged to report such crimes. Fortunately now, more awareness is being raised about issues that where stereotypically associated with women and their men who become victims; whether it be bulimia (John Prescott), male rape or men being the victims of domestic violence.
December 22nd, 2009 at: 3:47 am
I would like to point out that when you quote ” (£11,000 of taxpayer’s money) ” that in another article on benefits you stated that it is not our money, we vote governments in and it is the state money. i agreed with you here yet now don’t see why you seem to differentiate between this and providing compensation for rape victims. also i think rape is one of the only crimes where the victim is questioned as a suspect. this is a major problem, and although i agree that men are subject to sexual abuse is it on the same level as that perpetrated against women? and if it is not which i suspect it is not looking at the figures then we actually arn’t equal and therefore should not be treated as equal until we are.. much like the classes.
December 22nd, 2009 at: 1:05 pm
The taxpayer’s money quote: I’ll admit that I can’t really defend that, other than in terms of ‘misappropriation of government funds’, in that case. It’s just a sense of prioritisation which accounts for differentiation: as cold as this may sound, I think that money would be better spent providing for the poorest (and for public goods like education, healthcare etc) rather than the victims of circumstance and poor policing. I just really fail to believe that any amount of money can compensate for rape, and the system is a little exploitable. The most evil of people (and it has happened, though I read it in the Mail/Sun/something else ridiculous and am therefore a little sceptical) can lie about being raped for the sake of whatever they’re end is if they’re committed enough to it.
I agree that it’s wrong that women are questioned as suspects, but men (in my limited anecdotal experience) as just laughed at it they’re past the age of 16, or 18 if a matter of breach of trust is involved – I think it happens on a similar scale, but is less reported than the already thin reports of rape amongst women.
Since this was written (fairly recently, actually: we’re talking Webb times), I’ve gained (unfortunately) a fair bit of third party experience to this sort of thing, and how useless our criminal justice system is with dealing with it, even when the criminal is known. It completely fails to take into account the stress brought on by the ‘event’ (to use a horrid colloquialism) when questioning the victim. If they’ve chosen to repress anything to help themselves deal with it, there won’t be a conviction. It’s shit all round.
December 23rd, 2009 at: 1:16 am
i take your points and think the main factor is that I think we need to look at the alternative which would be saying drunkenness means no rape, an undeniable truth is that a lot of young people are drunk and imagine how many people would fall foul of the law. if anything drunk people, being more vulnerable and helpless, need more of a defence. as actually is the law at the moment because on the other-side if you cant remember what you were doing because you were drunk it is a defence- protecting the vulnerable drunk! . sorry this is not very eloquent