Rape victim had compensation cut by a quarter because 'she was drunk'

[WriteDown]

Source: Daily Mail

A rape victim who had her compensation cut by 25 per cent because she had drunk alcohol on the night of her attack has had the decision overturned.

The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) told the 29-year-old woman the standard award of £11,000 would be reduced in her case to £8,250.

Helen, a beauty therapist, was raped after having her drink spiked...

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1043738/Rape-victim-compensation-cut-quarter-drunk.html

---

Unbelievable.

[wtmusic]

1. Seems the compensation should be increased, if anything nt

[enlightenment]

2. Note, however, that the ruling was overturned and

she did receive the full amount.

The UK does seem to have a problem dealing with rape - the record of follow-through and prosecution is abysmal - but they also have CICA, which is fascinating. Wonder how that would go over in the US?

[T_i_B]

8. We have a problem with rape convictions

Because rape is a crime that can be quite hard to prove. Plus it can often go unreported.

Plus things like this don't help. Mind you, at least the compensation error was rectified in this case.

[enlightenment]

13. From what I can tell - and I'm just googling, not really researching,

the conviction rate is about 13% in the US - but the estimated number of rapes is almost twice as high (1 out of 3 versus 1 out of 6). I don't think we're winning any prizes over here, either. Under-reporting is rampant here, according to this report:

From www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rsarp00.pdf

Rape and Sexual Assault: Reporting to Police and Medical Attention, 1992-2000

Most rapes and sexual assaults against females were not reported to the police. Thirty-six percent of rapes, 34% of attempted rapes, and 26% of sexual assaults were reported to police, 1992-2000. (page 1)

Reasons for not reporting to law enforcement authorities When victims of rape, attempted rape, and sexual assault did not report the crime to the police, the most often cited reason was that the victimization was a personal matter:
Rape: personal matter, 23.3%; fear of reprisal, 16.3%; police biased, 5.8%.
Attempted rape: personal matter, 16.8%; fear of reprisal, 11.3%; protect offender, 9.9%.
Completed and attempted sexual assault: personal matter, 25.3%; reported to different official, 12.4%; fear of reprisal, 11.3%.

The victim-offender relationship and informing the police The closer the relationship between the female victim and the offender, the greater the likelihood that the police would not be told about the rape or sexual assault.
When the offender was a current or former husband or boyfriend, about three-fourths of all victimizations were not reported to police (77% of completed rapes, 77% of attempted rapes, and 75% of sexual assaults not reported).
When the offender was a friend or acquaintance, 61% of completed rapes, 71% of attempted rapes, and 82% of sexual assaults were not reported.
When the offender was a stranger, 54% of completed rapes, 44% of attempted rapes, and 34% of sexual assaults were not reported to the police. (page 3)

Obviously, the 13% arrest/conviction rate doesn't include unreported rapes, so the statistic is somewhat misleading . . . I've not looked much at the UK numbers, but based on this http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hors237.pdf it appears that the level of under reporting is slightly less? (gads, statistics make me crazy).

It's the dichotomy between the perception and the compensation that fascinates me the most. I'm not trying to denigrate the victims at all - I just find the idea of CICA interesting. I don't think the US has anything similar to CICA. The mere idea that someone should be financially compensated by the government for a crime against their person - particularly if the offender was never caught and/or convicted - would have a lot of Americans' heads spinning like a top! I guess they'd argue that you can sue in civil court for damages.

[Pale Blue Dot]

3. Women, if you don't want to be raped

1. Don't drink alcoholic beverages. Drinking indicates to men that you are making yourself available to them, and are only seeking "liquid courage" to do so. It is predictable and reasonable that someone would spike your drink and rape you.

2. Don't wear provocative clothing. Exposing skin or wearing an outfit that shows that you have curves is an invitation to rape. It is best to wear a shapeless black garment that covers you from head to toe.

3. Don't go out in public unless you are with a man. Women who go out alone are saying to the world "I am available for sex" and therefore should not be surprised when they are raped.

4. Don't get an education. Uppity women are asking for it.

Remember that it is natural for men to want to rape you and therefore they can't be held responsible if they do. The best you can do is to not put yourself in a situation where you can be raped. If you do, it is your own fault.







For those who need clarification, this is :sarcasm:.

[WriteDown]

4. Who knew?

Islam is the ultimate religion :evilgrin:.

[Phillycat]

6. I would add...

Flirting, speaking, or even looking at a male is a direct invitation to sex, as far as any reasonable person is concerned. If you speak to a man, even if it's just "Excuse me" to get past him on the way to the bathroom at the bar, what you've really said is, "Please slip something into my drink; it would be great if you could violate me later."

I mean, duh.

[LiberalFighter]

7. You forgot to add... Don't allow others to spike your drink.

[CrazyDude]

5. Goddamn Brits

The UK is so backwards.

[truebrit71]

9. F*ck you.

Love,

TrueBrit

(I'll see this story and raise you ANY story from Alabama, Florida or Texas as far as "backward ass" goes)

[CrazyDude]

10. OK ... Texas

I'll give you a leg up ... all the innocents released in Dallas County for rape in the past few months. :(

I never said Texas wasn't backwards too. :)

[Spouting Horn]

11. When have judges from

any of those states (or any other US states for that matter) called for implementation of Shariah law in their own states?

(In case you don't know what I'm talking about, please refer to Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips and Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury)

[truebrit71]

12. ..and that has what to do with this?

..The British Judge was a tool...his judgement was over-turned, TX, AL and FL are so much more "backward-ass" then the UK or do you not hear of the religous nutjobs in those states?...not sure what your point is though...??

My point was that it was a very stupid thing to say the the "British" (ie all of them) were backward ass...

[LeftishBrit]

14. The Archbishop of Canterbury is NOT a judge!

And his views on Sharia law were rejected on all sides. Many suspect that his motivation was that the UK is becoming so secular, that the only way we'd continue to accept any intrusion of Christianity into politics/law is if all religions here made some common cause over this. It won't work; we don't want *anyone's* religion getting into the law! Roll on complete disestablishment and formal church/state separation! But at any rate he's not a lawyer or judge.

As for the Lord Chief Justice, he was not *calling* for Sharia law, but merely pointing out that Sharia courts making decisions on minor civil issues would not lead to disaster, as the law of the land is above it all. Actually, he's right. One can't *stop* a Sharia court, or a church, or a body of school governors, or the residents' association, or the local darts club, from voting on some decision. One can only ensure that British law is applied equally to everyone, and can trump the decisions of other bodies.

[LeftishBrit]

16. Get rid of Focus on the Family and Pat Robertson, and establish a national health service!

and then come and tell us how backward we are!

Actually there are elements of backwardness everywhere; and probably both our countries are more backward than the Scandinavian countries on some crucial issues.

[LeftishBrit]

15. Many British judges are very backward on the subject of rape

though it's not as bad as some years ago (in the 1980s, one judge gave a rapist a relatively short sentence because the victim had shown 'contributory negligence' by dressing provocatively!)

However, let's note that in this case the ruling was overturned. Let's also note that this was in the Daily Mail, which likes to make things sound as sensational as possible.

[moggie]

17. Surprised to see that no Mail readers have commented on the article yet

Though of course the Mail screens comments, so perhaps all of them have been too Neanderthal, even by Mail reader standards.

[T_i_B]

18. If you want neanderthalisms from the Mail on this subject

Try this article from today's paper. One or two neanderthal comments. Not a majority but there are some.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1044160/Dont-blind-drunk-women-rape-bear-responsibility-happens-them.html