No such thing as rape

[Gob]

within marriage....

A senior Muslim cleric has been condemned by police and other Muslim leaders for claiming that there is no such thing as rape within marriage.

Sheikh Maulana Abu Sayeed, president of the Islamic Sharia Council in Britain, sparked outrage when he said he believed that men who rape their wives should not be prosecuted because 'sex is part of marriage'.

He further claimed, during an interview with the blog The Samosa, that many married women who made accusations of rape were lying. His comments have caused fury among senior police officers, who already face great difficulties in getting women to report rape - a crime that all too often goes under-reported.

In the interview, Sheikh Sayeed said: 'Clearly there cannot be any rape within the marriage.

'Maybe aggression, maybe indecent activity... Because when they got married, the understanding was that sexual intercourse was part of the marriage, so there cannot be anything against sex in marriage. 'Of course, if it happened without her desire, that is no good, that is not desirable.'

Sheikh Sayeed also said that women who claim to have been raped by their husbands should not immediately go to the police, saying: 'Not in the beginning, unless we establish that it really happened. 'Because in most of the cases, wives... have been advised by their solicitors that one of the four reasons for which a wife can get a divorce is rape, so they are encouraged to say things like this.'

British law was changed to make rape within marriage illegal in 1991.

The senior cleric further claimed, during an interview with the blog The Samosa, that many married women who made accusations of rape were lying. When asked how Muslim men who are found to have raped their wives should be punished, he replied: 'He may be disciplined, and he may be made to ask forgiveness. That should be enough.'

Dave Whatton, Chief Constable of Cheshire and spokesman on rape for the Association of Chief Police Officers, said: 'We know that the majority of rapes do not take place through strangers attacking women late at night but between acquaintances and within marriages and partnerships. 'It is a fundamental principle that sharia law should not replace the laws of the UK.

'Putting out views that rape can be dealt with in another way fundamentally undermines everything we are trying to do.'
Inayat Bunglawala, the chairman of Muslims4UK, supported the police position and said: 'Sheikh Sayeed's comments are woefully misguided and entirely inappropriate.

'Rape – whether within marriage or outside it – is an abominable act and is clearly against the law."



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z12TDTSpmX

[Andrew D]

I agree that rape of a wife by her husband (or, for that matter, of a husband by his wife) should be criminal. Still, this bears noting:

British law was changed to make rape within marriage illegal in 1991.

So even though the president of the Islamic Sharia Council in Britain is lagging behind British law, he's not lagging behind behind by very much.

[Gob]

True...

[BoSoxGal]

The US hasn't got anything to be really proud about in this regard, either:

Until 1976, marital rape was legal in every state in the United States. Although marital rape is now a crime in all 50 states in the U.S., some states still don't consider it as serious as other forms of rape. The only states that have laws that make no distinction between marital rape and stranger rape are Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia. These states have no marital rape exemptions.

Despite the illegality of marital rape in the US at present, as a former advocate in the DV movement, I can attest that one rarely sees a marital rape case prosecuted.

[Andrew D]

The erstwhile legal principle that a husband cannot rape his wife belongs in the dustbin of history, where, blessedly, it now reposes. That does not change the fact that rape is among the most difficult crimes to prove.

The problem, of course, is that in most cases, the fact of sexual intercourse is undisputed. Which usually throws all of the physical evidence out the window.

It most often ends up boiling down to "the accuser says 'X', and the accused says 'Y'".

If we actually took the presumption of innocence seriously, the result of that, no matter the sex(es) of the accuser and the accused, would always be acquittal. Instead, we throw our collective hands up in the air and leave it to the jury to decide who is the best storyteller.

If that is a rational way of doing justice, I need to move to another planet.

Or maybe I am just visiting ....

[BoSoxGal]

If that is a rational way of doing justice, I need to move to another planet.

Or maybe I am just visiting ....

I often feel this way myself.

[loCAtek]

Well, remember to tip your Earthling.

[Scooter]

If we actually took the presumption of innocence seriously, the result of that, no matter the sex(es) of the accuser and the accused, would always be acquittal.

The message we would be sending, then, is that rapists can rape with impunity so long as they don't leave behind any physical evidence, or at least that which cannot be explained away. "What can I tell you Officer, I was just walking down the street minding my own business when this nun ran up, threw her arms around me and begged me to fuck her. So I took her into the alley and..."

Instead, we throw our collective hands up in the air and leave it to the jury to decide who is the best storyteller. If that is a rational way of doing justice, I need to move to another planet.

Except that the he saids and the she saids are not necessarily equally plausible. Someone accused of rape would have an obvious reason to be lying about whether the sexual intercourse that occurred was rape. If there is a reasonable explanation proffered as to why the complainant could be lying, then sure, the jury should acquit. But if he/she has no conceivable reason to lie, and he/she is not crazy or some sort of attention hound, then why would he/she put herself through that ordeal?

On a sort of sideline point, conventional wisdom is that the prosecution does not want the complainant's sexual history (particularly if rather checkered) to be allowed into evidence, and many jurisdictions have passed rape shield laws to that effect. Maybe I march to a different drum. but if I were a juror confronted by a complainant who was a real Good Time Sally, who frquently enjoyed the company of many, many men, I can't see how that would prejudice me such that it would make me think she was lying about being raped this time. If she had had that much consensual sex and never cried rape before now, then why would she be doing so now? It woud seem to me that the repressed virgin who claimed rape would be more likely than a promiscuous woman to be lying, if for example she succombed to "temptation" in a moment of "weakness" and is now remorseful about it. Apparently the typical jury cannot be trusted to see it that way. Is there a reason why a sexually promiscous woman is more likely to lie when she cries rape, or do most juries not really care whether she is telling the truth or not, simply because "loose" women deserved to be punished and so she got no more than she deserved?

[oldr_n_wsr]

Is there a reason why a sexually promiscous woman is more likely to lie when she cries rape

Money. While the defendent my not get convicted, it does set up a possible civil suit.

[Scooter]

So why didn't she cry rape after the first 200 guys? Why did she wait for Mr. 201 to hatch this plan?

[oldr_n_wsr]

Mr. 201 has the money.

[Scooter]

And none of Messers. 1 to 200 did?

[Jarlaxle]

Maybe Mr. 201 didn't call her the next day.
Or she didn't like the restaurant he took her to.
Or maybe he dumped her & she wants to get even.

[Scooter]

So how would revealing her sexual history hurt her in that case?

[Andrew D]

The message we would be sending, then, is that rapists can rape with impunity so long as they don't leave behind any physical evidence, or at least that which cannot be explained away.

No. The message we would be sending, then, is that we are not willing to send someone off to prison on the basis of nothing more than "The alleged victim says that it is true, and we believe her." Which is exactly the message we ought to send.

[Scooter]

The effect of which would be to let rapists know that they can rape with impunity so long as they don't leave behind any physical evidence, or at least that which cannot be explained away.

So in the scenario I painted above, where the nun claimed it to be rape and the accused claimed it to be consensual, are you saying that no jury should be willing to convict based solely on the testimony of the two of them? That when the complainant's testimony is completely credible, and the accused's testimony is completely fanciful, that we should let the accused walk?

[loCAtek]

He said/she said. That's why they have Rape Kits

[Big RR]

Lo--the kit can show whether a man had sexual intercourse with a woman, maybe even the degree of violence in the encounter. But most rape trials don't dispute that the sex occurred, the he said/she said centers on consent.

[Andrew D]

Except that the he saids and the she saids are not necessarily equally plausible. Someone accused of rape would have an obvious reason to be lying about whether the sexual intercourse that occurred was rape. If there is a reasonable explanation proffered as to why the complainant could be lying, then sure, the jury should acquit. But if he/she has no conceivable reason to lie, and he/she is not crazy or some sort of attention hound, then why would he/she put herself through that ordeal?

A perfect example of the perversion of the presumption of innocence. It is not the accused's job to show that the accuser might not be telling the truth. It is the prosecution's job to prove that the accuser is telling the truth.

Your way of looking at things is how innocent people end up in prison. And you don't seem to have a problem with that.

[oldr_n_wsr]

So how would revealing her sexual history hurt her in that case?

Human nature. It's up to a jury, and right or wrong, most people will be more inclined to believe a nuns story of being raped than a prostitues (or a promiscuous female).
And what do past sexual exploits have to do with the case at hand anyway?