The first of several...

[lovingboth]

The Sexual Offences Bill is currently going through Parliament (the committee stage in the Lords, to be precise). There are several controversial points within it.

Starting with clause one... Rape has traditionally meant penetration of the vagina by a penis without the woman's consent. Adding male rape in the 90s meant that anal intercourse without consent is currently also 'rape'.

It is proposed that putting a penis in someone's mouth without their consent should also be 'rape'.

It is currently 'indecent assault', a rather wide ranging offence covering everything from an unwanted sexual proposition to penetration using objects without consent. The alternative in the bill would be to include it in the new offence of 'sexual assault'.

What do you think?

[Poll #119958]

Comments

More detailed breakdown seems good

[pavlos.livejournal.com]

I haven't thought in detail about this particular split, but I've thought for a while that breaking up the offence is an excellent idea. Currently, something either is rape or it isn't. This means cases are systematically under-judged, either because the offence isn't technically rape or because the court feels that rape is too strong a judgement, while occasionally the court may over-judge for lack of available options.

I don't know how this would work in practice. I suspect people may plea-bargain and get lesser offences. Is that bad, given the poor rate of conviction currently and the fact that, when it's one person's word against another, it would be hard to make an absolute judgement in any case? Personally I'd rather see a higher rate of lesser convictions, as I think this is more likely to change attitudes and behaviour.

Pavlos