Tougher sentencing for rapists may be needed to tackle the "moral collapse" demonstrated by the belief of young men that it is sometimes acceptable to force a woman to have sex, David Cameron will warn today.
Cameron will say today: "Studies have shown that as many as one in two young men believe there are some circumstances when it's OK to force a woman to have sex. This is an example of moral collapse."
OK, yes, this is indeed a worrying statistic but where on earth does it come from. I don't think that I know anyone who thinks that is it acceptable to force a woman to have sex, so there much be vast swathes of the country where everybody thinks that this is acceptable! A moral collapse indeed.
And I don't really have a problem with harsher sentences for those convicted of rape either: it's a fucking shitty crime and those who are convicted should be severely punished.
The Tory leader will highlight the growing "justice gap" which sees only 5.7% of prosecutions result in a conviction.
Erm... OK, Dave, you fucking cock, what is the "correct" level of convictions? As we keep on saying, rape, by its very nature, tends to be something of a difficult one to convict on and in this country we still—just about—have this quaint old notion a presumption of innocence.
Are you planning to overturn that?
Experts agree that the extent of the problem is even greater because only 25% of sexually assaulted women report cases to the police...
Well, I am very sorry about that, but I am afraid that if the women do not report the crime then there is no way that anyone can be fucking prosecuted for it, is there?
... and many of those incidents which are reported do not reach court, according to the British crime survey.
Oh? And why is that?
Explanations range from the prejudices of juries to the failure of police and prosecutors to follow Home Office guidelines. A report published this year by the independent watchdogs for the services found they were regularly failing victims by wrongly recording cases as "no crime" and dropping others prematurely without following possible lines of investigation.
Ah, right: so it's a fucking failure by inefficient, crap government services. Why am I not surprised?
Yes, rape is a terrible crime but you cannot simply set a target for the proportion of convictions. If you are going to do that, you might as well just drop that tremendously expensive trial and just get the accused to draw fucking lots.
And might I also suggest that the supposed 75% of women who are suffering a sexual assault actually fucking report it?
UPDATE: The Reptile makes a very valid point about the rise in reporting versus the low conviction rate.
The reason that the conviction rate is so low is that the definition of rape has broadened to the extent that it is now primarily so-called date rape. In these cases, the fact of sexual intercourse is not denied—what is at issue is whether there was consent.
In the majority of these cases, the only evidence is the word of the protagonists—'he said, she said'. In order for more of these cases to get a conviction, either the burden of proof must be reversed, or the weight of proof must be lowered. Neither would be just. Cameron calls further for longer sentences for rapists, and there can be little opposition to this. Except that the current length of sentence—life imprisonment being available to the judge—is one of the factors that make it less likely that a 'date rapist' will be convicted at all. Either the Conservatives have to push for a division between 'stranger rape' and 'date rape'—and there isn't much philosophical merit in that, both are a violation and a breach of trust—or accept that in cases where there is no solid evidence, juries are unlikely to convict.
It is a difficult offence to prove: trite and tragic but unfortunately true.