Wednesday, October 25, 2006


Posted by Devil's Kitchen at 10/25/2006 12:35:00 pm

Via bookdrunk, this lovely little article in which Julie Bindel complains that not enough men are convicted of rape. Leaving aside the rest of the article, I found this mildly perplexing.
And, given the current media fixation on women bringing "false allegations", it would be easy to assume our prisons were full of innocent men. In fact, the conviction rate for rape is at an all-time low. In 1985, 1,800 complaints of rape were made and one in four men convicted. In 2003, 13,000 complaints were made but only one in 20 was convicted.

Despite improvements, there remains a culture within the police that assumes that women who report rape are lying. One study found that a third of police assumed that at least a quarter of all reports were false.

Right, this is bad. But, as far as I can make out, Julie is assuming that 19 out of 20 men—the ones who who were acquitted—were lying.

How many men should be convicted of rape, Julie? Shall we set an arbitrary percentage, or would you prefer to make it a proper number (graded with population growth, of course). By Julie's figures, there are about 650 men convicted of rape every year; how many would you prefer Julie? Shall we set it at a nice, round 1,000; or is that not enough for you? Tell you what: we'll convict half of the complaints, no matter what the evidence is, shall we? 7,500 are goin' daaaaaaan whether there is any evidence or not. Happy now?

There was a discussion about this over at Rachel's (in which the lady herself discussed the role of alcohol); but it is the comments from NotSaussure who works in the criminal justice system) that presented the truth of the low conviction rate. Yes, I'm afraid that it is that tedious "innocent until proven guilty" rule again...
I'm not at all sure the phrase 'Vulnerability is not culpability' is particularly useful; the only person in whose culpability the court is interested is the defendant. It's important, I think, to remember that an acquittal in a rape case doesn't necessarily mean 'the jury didn't believe her' or 'the jury thought she was to blame.'

The question the jury is asked, when the issue is consent, is not 'do you think she's telling the truth' but 'are you sure he isn't?' If a juror thinks, 'Well, I'm pretty certain she's telling the truth and she didn't consent, but I can't be sure she didn't', the vote's got to be 'not guilty'.

And more...
One of the main reasons there's such a low conviction rate in rape trials is that, almost uniquely in criminal cases, it so frequently comes down to one person's word against the other's, with no other evidence to assist the jury.

Short of changing the burden of proof, which I'd be very unwilling to do, I don't see how you fix it unless you become a lot less willing to prosecute without corroborative evidence. But that's obviously not a particularly desirable approach, either. I'm not at all sure there is a solution.

Quite. Mind you, the presumption of innocence idea does not seem to be treasured by this government and certainly does not exist in many other EU countries. I can see the day when "harmonisation" will bring the conviction rates that Ms Bindel would like to see, simply because the defendent will be unable to prove his innocence.

But until then, ladies, I'm afraid that you are just going to have to be really careful—either of yourselves, or to obtain corroberative evidence. But, until then, could we please stop this continual, perennial moaning about how few people get convicted simply on your say-so, please?

But Julie's last paragraph is absolutely stunning.
If more cases such as Shabnam's occur, we may as well forget about the criminal justice system and train groups of vigilantes to exact revenge and, hopefully, deter attacks.

For fuck's sake, woman, I hope that you are being facetious. You know what would happen if you did that? You'd train your vigilantes determined to defend your honour, and then your accused would form his own group of vigilantes to "take out that lying bitch" and next thing you know, there's a full-scale turf war. You stupid woman.

You are feeling bitter because you did not report the attempted rape on yourself; you can't get bitter about it, you stupid cow, because you didn't fucking report it. Do you understand? But, since you didn't and the case wasn't tried, you do, at least, get to state this attempted rape as a fact, unsupported by any evidence, that happened to you in a nation newpaper. Nice one.
Because if I were raped, I would rather take my chances as a defendant in court, than as a complainant in a system that seems bent on proving that rape is a figment of malicious women's imagination.

You stupid, stupid woman; you vicious, awful harridan. If you want to live in a country where the burden of proof is on the defendent, why don't you fuck off and live in France? You'll get your justice there. You'd just better hope that no one accuses you of anything.

For fuck's sake, everyone thinks that they should be a special case, eh?

Posted by Devil's Kitchen at 10/25/2006 12:35:00 pm

13 Blogger Comments:

Blogger Reactionary Snob said...

Yes, I remember from my law lectures (millenia ago) something about 'better 100 guilty men go free than an innocent man be jailed' - something to do with a golden rule?

10/25/2006 01:10:00 pm  
Blogger bookdrunk said...

But, as far as I can make out, Julie is assuming that 19 out of 20 men—the ones who who were acquitted—were lying.

No. You might reasonably assume that she thinks that more than one out of every twenty were guilty and falsely acquitted, but nowhere does she argue that every man accused of rape and brought to court is guilty of rape.

10/25/2006 01:19:00 pm  
Anonymous AW said...

Wouldn't it be equally fair to say that not enough women are convicted of violence against men?

What about female college students taking advantage of drunk males? Isn't arousal partly involuntary?

This background noise of one-sided demonisation just plays to the man-hating tendencies of Hewitt, Harman etc.

10/25/2006 01:19:00 pm  
Blogger chris said...

She probably wants a 100% conviction rate for everybody suspected. In Julie's world "all men are rapists". Slavering beasts that want nothing more than to force themselves upon her in a sub-Mills and Boon fashion, even the gay ones.

10/25/2006 08:14:00 pm  
Anonymous JuliaM said...

"Police had decided Shabnam was lying on the strength of the "evidence" captured on the mobile phone..."

Why the scare quotes around the word evidence here? It was evidence!

10/26/2006 05:56:00 am  
Anonymous queenspanky said...

AW, arousal may be involuntary, but actually using arousal isn't. Men have to physically act to have intercourse where they are the penetrator, whereas women don't - they can literally be passed out with no physical functions and still have intercourse (although that is defined as rape in Scotland, but you get the picture.)

The main problem is that rape is such a her word against his crime. It's all very well having evidence of bruising and lacerations and even a neighbour hearing thumps or screaming.

But all the guy's lawyers have to do is prove that she liked sex, and sometimes rough sex, either by calling an ex-boyfriend or even demonstrating that she had seen porn with a quasi-violent scene in it, to cause plausible doubt in the jury's mind.

The reason why so many women, like Julie, complain so bitterly, is that women are tired of it seeming like 'if women like sex, then it couldn't be rape' or 'if women get drunk, then it wasn't rape'.

I'd like to live in a world where my sexual proclivities and alcohol tolerence didn't over-shadow the fact that I said no and meant it.

10/26/2006 12:12:00 pm  
Anonymous JuliaM said...

"The main problem is that rape is such a her word against his crime."

Not a problem that's going to be solved by giving unequal weight to one side to get a 'better' conviction rate....

10/26/2006 03:16:00 pm  
Blogger Angry Steve said...

If people are found bringing false accusations of (serious) crime, they should be jailed for the maximum sentence that the alleged crime carries... The accused is generally named, and reputation damaged by these claims, even if found innocent... Perhaps the plaintiff should also be named in the press?

Insufficient evidence is an entirely different bag of ferrets, and changing the burden of proof would just screw up our legal system, and my mind.

10/27/2006 12:09:00 pm  
Anonymous queenspanky said...

Well, I would argue that there is already unequal weight due to years and years of ingrained misogyny (thanks, organised religion!) in society, but then I am a woman, so what would I know?

10/27/2006 12:11:00 pm  
Anonymous JuliaM said...

"Well, I would argue that there is already unequal weight due to years and years of ingrained misogyny (thanks, organised religion!) in society, but then I am a woman, so what would I know?"

So am I, sweetie. So am I......

I just don't think that possession of a particular type of sex organ means I have to back the kind of unjust, vengeful, idiotic codswallop spouted by fellow owners of aforesaid sex organs.

10/27/2006 02:35:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Well, I would argue that there is already unequal weight due to years and years of ingrained misogyny (thanks, organised religion!) in society, but then I am a woman, so what would I know? "

Have you been reading Dan Brown books?

No offence intended but...

Yawn. "Woe is me. Evil Western/Christian/whatever patriachal blah blah... etc."

The "misogyny" you talk about is probably to be expected in almost any culture and is not a result of organised religion, if anything the religion will just reflects the culture.
At least it isn't a Shariah court, there a woman's testimony is worth a fourth of a man's.

"I'd like to live in a world where my sexual proclivities and alcohol tolerence didn't over-shadow the fact that I said no and meant it."

Can it be taken as a fact if you are a juror though? If the two people's testimonies conflict one must be lying, but which one?

"It's not what you know, it's what you can prove"

That is the main problem, the burden of proof not "misogyny". Rapists don't walk free because of male jurors think the victim is a slut, it's because it can't be proven that he the defendent really did rape her.

10/27/2006 03:11:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think Bindel is marvellous. No matter what her contention is, she always manages to find some sliver of personally anecdotal, utterly unsubstantiable evidence to back it up. Why, it's little short of a miracle how she ALWAYS comes up with the goods!

6/04/2007 02:21:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bindel should fuck off and die, i think is better that the man who supposedly rapes a petty little bitch like her walks away than it would be if we lived in a totalitarian state like the one she advocates, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty is a key part of our society and i would happily kill the evil man hating whore to protect it. She should go FUCK OFF and DIE!

9/17/2008 03:14:00 pm  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


Previous Posts



  • "The best British political/libertarian blog on the web. Consistently excellent but not for the squeamish."—Christopher Snowdon
  • "[He] runs the infamous and fantastically sweary Devil’s Kitchen blog, and because he’s one of the naughtiest geeks (second only to the incredibly, incredibly naughty Guido Fawkes) he’s right at the top of the evil dork hierarchy."—Charlotte Gore
  • "I met the Devil's Kitchen the other night. What a charming young man he is, and considerably modest too..."—Peter Briffa
  • "The Devil's Kitchen exposes hypocrisy everywhere, no holds barred."—Wrinkled Weasel
  • "People can still be controversial and influential whilst retaining integrity—Devil's Kitchen springs to mind—and attract frequent but intelligent comment."—Steve Shark, at B&D
  • "Sometimes too much, sometimes wrong, sometimes just too much but always worth a read. Not so much a blog as a force of nature."—The Nameless Libertarian
  • "The Devil's Kitchen—a terrifying blog that covers an astonishing range of subjects with an informed passion and a rage against the machine that leaves me in awe..."—Polaris
  • "He rants like no one else in the blogosphere. But it's ranting in an eloquent, if sweary, kind of way. Eton taught him a lot."—Iain Dale
  • "But for all that, he is a brilliant writer—incisive, fisker- extraordinaire and with an over developed sense of humour... And he can back up his sometimes extraordinary views with some good old fashioned intellectual rigour... I'm promoting him on my blogroll to a daily read."—Iain Dale
  • "... an intelligent guy and a brilliant writer..."—A Very British Dude
  • "... the glorious Devil's Kitchen blog—it's not for the squeamish or easily offended..."—Samizdata
  • "... a very, smart article... takes a pretty firm libertarian line on the matter."—Samizdata
  • "By the way, DK seems to be on fucking good form at the moment."—Brian Mickelthwait
  • "Perhaps the best paragraph ever written in the history of human creation. It's our Devil on fine form."—Vindico
  • "Devil's Kitchen is the big name on the free-market libertarian strand of the British blogosphere... Profane rants are the immediate stand-out feature of DK's blog, but the ranting is backed up by some formidable argument on a wide range of issues particularly relating to British and European parliamentary politics, economics, and civil liberties."—Question That
  • "... an excellent, intelligent UK political blog which includes a great deal of swearing."—Dr Aubrey Blumsohn
  • "I like the Devil's Kitchen. I think it's one of the best written and funniest blogs in the business."—Conservative Party Reptile
  • "The. Top. UK. Blogger."—My Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy
  • "For sheer intelligence, erudition and fun, Iain Dale's Diary, Cranmer and Devil's Kitchen are so far ahead of the rest I don't see how they can figure in a top ten. They are the Beatles, Stones and Who of the blog world; the Astair, Bogart and Marlon Brando of the blog world; the Gerswin, Porter and Novello of the blog world; the Dot Cotton, Pat Butcher, Bette Lynch of the blog world..."—Wrinkled Weasel
  • "It's the blogging equivalent of someone eating Ostrich Vindaloo, washed down by ten bottles of Jamaican hot pepper sauce and then proceeding to breathe very close to your face while talking about how lovely our politicians are... But there's much more to his writing than four letter words."—Tom Tyler
  • "God bless the Devil's Kitchen... Colourful as his invective is, I cannot fault his accuracy."—Tom Paine
  • "The Devil's Kitchen is a life-affirming, life-enhancing blog ... This particular post will also lead you to some of the best soldiers in the army of swearbloggers of which he is Field Marshal."—The Last Ditch
  • "... underneath all the ranting and swearing [DK]'s a very intelligent and thoughtful writer whom many people ... take seriously, despite disagreeing with much of what he says."—Not Saussure
  • "... the most foul-mouthed of bloggers, Devils Kitchen, was always likely to provoke (sometimes disgust, but more often admiration)."—The Times Online
  • "The always entertaining Mr Devil's Kitchen..."—The Times's Comment Central
  • "Frankly, this is ranting of the very highest calibre."—The Nameless Libertarian
  • "I don't mean it literally, or even metaphorically. I just find that his atheism aside, I agree with everything the Devil (of Kitchen fame...) says. I particularly enjoy his well crafted and sharp swearing, especially when addressed at self righteous lefties..."—The Tin Drummer
  • "Spot on accurate and delightful in its simplicity, Devil's Kitchen is one of the reasons that we're not ready to write off EUroweenie-land just yet. At least not until we get done evacuating the ones with brains."—Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
  • "This hugely entertaining, articulate, witty Scottish commentator is also one of the most foul-mouthed bloggers around. Gird up your loins and have a look. Essential reading."—Doctor Crippen
  • "The Devil's Kitchen is one of the foremost blogs in the UK. The DK is bawdy, foul-mouthed, tasteless, vulgar, offensive and frequently goes beyond all boundaries of taste and decency. So why on earth does Dr Crippen read the DK? Because he reduces me to a state of quivering, helpless laughter."—Doctor Crippen's Grand Rounds
  • "DK is a take-no-prisoners sort of libertarian. His blog is renowned for its propensity for foul-mouthed invective, which can be both amusing and tiresome by turns. Nevertheless, he is usually lucid, often scintillating and sometimes illuminating."—Dr Syn
  • "If you enjoy a superior anti-Left rant, albeit one with a heavy dash of cursing, you could do worse than visit the Devil's Kitchen. The Devil is an astute observer of the evils of NuLabour, that's for sure. I for one stand converted to the Devil and all his works."—Istanbul Tory
  • "... a sick individual."—Peter Briffa
  • "This fellow is sharp as a tack, funny as hell, and—when something pisses him off—meaner than a badger with a case of the bullhead clap."—Green Hell
  • "Foul-mouthed eloquence of the highest standard. In bad taste, offensive, immoderate and slanderous. F***ing brilliant!—Guest, No2ID Forum
  • "a powerfully written right-of-center blog..."—Mangan's Miscellany
  • "I tend to enjoy Devil's Kitchen not only because I disagree with him quite a lot of the time but because I actually have to use my brain to articulate why."—Rhetorically Speaking
  • "This blog is currently slamming. Politics certainly ain't all my own. But style and prose is tight, fierce, provocative. And funny. OK, I am a child—swear words still crack a laugh."—Qwan
  • "hedonistic, abrasive but usually good-natured..."—The G-Gnome
  • "10,000 words per hour blogging output... prolific or obsessive compulsive I have yet to decide..."—Europhobia
  • "a more favoured blog from the sensible Right..."—Great Britain...
  • "Devils Kitchen, a right thinking man indeed..."—EU Serf
  • "an excellent blog..."—Rottweiler Puppy
  • "Anyone can cuss. But to curse in an imaginative fashion takes work."—Liftport Staff Blog
  • "The Devil's Kitchen: really very funny political blog."—Ink & Incapability
  • "I've been laffing fit to burst at the unashamed sweariness of the Devil's Kitchen ~ certainly my favourite place recently."—SoupDragon
  • "You can't beat the writing and general I-may-not-know-about-being-polite-but-I-know-what-I-like attitude."—SoupDragon
  • "Best. Fisking. Ever. I'm still laughing."—LC Wes, Imperial Mohel
  • "Art."—Bob
  • "It made me laugh out loud, and laugh so hard—and I don't even get all the references... I hope his politics don't offend you, but he is very funny."—Furious, WoT Forum
  • "DK himself is unashamedly right-wing, vitriolic and foul mouthed, liberally scattering his posts with four-letter-words... Not to be read if you're easily offended, but highly entertaining and very much tongue in cheek..."—Everything Is Electric
  • "This blog is absolutely wasted here and should be on the front page of one of the broadsheets..."—Commenter at The Kitchen
  • "[This Labour government] is the most mendacious, dishonest, endemically corrupt, power-hungry, incompetent, illiberal fucking shower of shits that has ruled this country..."—DK


Campaign Links

All: Daily Reads (in no particular order)

Politics (in no particular order)

Climate Change (in no particular order)

General & Humour (in no particular order)

Mac,Design Tech & IT (in no particular order)