Mirren

[ewx]

Does anyone agree with Helen Mirren? Or Anne Widdecombe (do the Conservatives reject the label “the party of law and order” now then?)

What's she asking for? A cup of tea?

...well, why not? Hasn't she heard the REM song?

Comments

[bellinghman.livejournal.com]

Human sexuality is an absolute minefield, so let's start tiptoeing and try not to get blown up.

Ideally, if either person says no, even at the last moment, then that should be it: stop. (This might have the additional effect that teenage pregnancy rates drop substantially and, backdated far enough, might obviate the damage to the planet caused by human evolution...). The problem is that that 'ideally' assumes that the signals are unambiguous, and if there's one time that signals are all too often ambiguous, it's during the circumstances Mirren mentions.

Rape is often held to be a crime motivated by an attempt to assert power over someone else rather than about sex. I think that's a pretty fair view, but while it may be valid for stranger rape, or marital rape, I don't think it really fits the date rape model.

(As for the 'when is the last second' question, that's even harder. Is it just before penetration, or can it be somewhat later?)

[stephdairy.livejournal.com]

I'd settle for a cup of coffee, but tea is what I really need?

(S)

[aldabra]

There's a confusion here between "what is rape" and "what do you have a chance of proving", I think. Just because you can't do anything about date rape doesn't mean it's OK.

Back in my day it was Boy George wanting cups of tea. Allegedly.

[damerell.livejournal.com]

Is Mirren perhaps just being misrepresented to sell newspapers? The actual quotes - it's rape, but she doesn't think the woman could see the man in court - could equally be a comment on evidential standards; that the legal system cannot distinguish a false accusation after consensual sex from last-minute non-consent where there was no violence.

[lnr]

If Mirren means it would be difficult to get a court to make a conviction in this sort of case, and hence perhaps more stress on top of an already horrible situation, then perhaps I think some women who are in that situation might agree with her and decide not to try and prosecute. Sadly it sounds like she doesn't think you should even try if it were worth doing though.

[j4.livejournal.com]

Would anybody dare say so if they did agree with her?

[gerald_duck]

It's tricky. Nowadays, the law defines rape fairly exactly, though I don't think the legal definition exactly coincides with popular understanding. For starters, it's only possible to commit rape in a legal sense using a penis (strictly, one's own) — everything else is dealt with a few sections later under "causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent".

Rape (and indeed causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent in a peculiarly-chosen subset of circumstances) carries a mandatory life sentence, but in practice means serving something approaching a decade behind bars.

What Helen Mirren describes clearly (to me) falls within the legal definition of rape, and indeed within popular understanding. I think she's very wrong when she says Mike Tyson didn't commit rape, for example.

Do such crimes merit a life sentence with a ten-year tariff? Actually… being locked in the room inclines me to say so. But there probably are rapes which merit more lenient sentences. I note that Tyson only got six years and served three (though in the USA, obviously).

Some people seem to say there's no such thing as less serious rape; some want the definition of rape extended; some want harsher penalties for rape. It may be taboo to say so, but I think giving in to all three groups would lead to injustice.

Helen Mirren's surely right that nothing much would have happened if she'd gone to the police about such an incident in the 1960s, though?