Drop the charge of rape. It's now a joke.

[mistermack]

My proposal? Bring in a charge of sexual offence. And have a numbering system of seriousness, from one to a hundred. Why? Each and every incident is different. Some of the latest charges of ''rape'' are simply not what most people would call rape. Most of the latest ones would have been previously called under-age sex.
Changing the wording doesn't make it rape. It's now a ludicrous situation. But the only people who suffer are the accused. The media love it, they get a headline that turns heads and sells copy. Why should they worry?

So my scale goes from one to a hundred. Post your suggestions, for what constitutes a five, a ten, forty, fifty etc, if you like.

I think a 1 is obviously a kidnapping, rape and murder of a three-year-old by a complete stranger.
That should get a whole life sentence with no chance of parole, no matter what ''personality disorder'' they might be ''diagnosed'' with. One thing the US does often do better.

Unless you can think of something worse, as a 1.

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

I dunno.
Things could get confusing if the offence took place in a Chinese takeaway, I think.

[aspire1670]

My proposal? Bring in a charge of sexual offence. And have a numbering system of seriousness, from one to a hundred. Why? Each and every incident is different. Some of the latest charges of ''rape'' are simply not what most people would call rape. Most of the latest ones would have been previously called under-age sex.
Changing the wording doesn't make it rape. It's now a ludicrous situation. But the only people who suffer are the accused. The media love it, they get a headline that turns heads and sells copy. Why should they worry?

So my scale goes from one to a hundred. Post your suggestions, for what constitutes a five, a ten, forty, fifty etc, if you like.

I think a 1 is obviously a kidnapping, rape and murder of a three-year-old by a complete stranger.
That should get a whole life sentence with no chance of parole, no matter what ''personality disorder'' they might be ''diagnosed'' with. One thing the US does often do better.

Unless you can think of something worse, as a 1.

Your butchering of logic and facts is certainly worthy of a 1.

[tattuchu]

When most people hear the word rape they think violent sexual assault, particularly forcible intercourse. In our modern society however, at least in the legal sense, the term can mean pretty much anything. Any type of sexual offense, no matter if it's consensual or harmless, is referred to as rape. It's definitely reached the point of absurdity. We read a news item about an attractive female teacher, for instance, who sucks off her teenage student. This is now referred to as rape, and the happy recipient of the blowjob is now a "victim". And any plea for common sense is met with shrieking hysterics.

[MrJonno]

Rape already can already carry a sentence of a warning to life in prison. I think the murder laws (in the UK at least) are a higher priority for reform . Currently smothering your partner who has been in a coma for 10 years carries the same life sentence are going into a school and machine gunning the entire classroom (there are different periods where parole may be considered put official penalty is the same)

[mistermack]

Your butchering of logic and facts is certainly worthy of a 1.

Your lack of logic or facts isn't worth a monkey's toss.

[mistermack]

Rape already can already carry a sentence of a warning to life in prison. I think the murder laws (in the UK at least) are a higher priority for reform . Currently smothering your partner who has been in a coma for 10 years carries the same life sentence are going into a school and machine gunning the entire classroom (there are different periods where parole may be considered put official penalty is the same)

I agree entirely. You could have a similar system for murder.

One thing it could achieve, is more accurate charging. Prosecutors could look at earlier similar cases, and see what the crime eventually scored in court.
You could have a system where someone was charged with a 15, but the jury had the option of finding you guilty of a 25. Eventually, you would build up a a record of previous similar cases, and what they ended up scoring in court.

[MrJonno]

I do think its right that a judge has a lot of discretion in sentencing, in fact one of the good things about the English (and presumably Scottish) system is the police have a lot of discretion in whether they even prosecute or not.

2 15 year old having sex could technically get many years in jail but the reality is they would unlikely to even get a warning.

I'm really not sure how you could have categories of rape and its better to leave it to the judge and guide lines when it comes to sentencing, the sentence can be appealed anyway by the convicted and the prosecution to decrease/increase it

[mistermack]

When most people hear the word rape they think violent sexual assault, particularly forcible intercourse. In our modern society however, at least in the legal sense, the term can mean pretty much anything. Any type of sexual offense, no matter if it's consensual or harmless, is referred to as rape. It's definitely reached the point of absurdity. We read a news item about an attractive female teacher, for instance, who sucks off her teenage student. This is now referred to as rape, and the happy recipient of the blowjob is now a "victim". And any plea for common sense is met with shrieking hysterics.

Yeh.
That's the problem behind my suggestion. In your case, the police could charge you with a 10, but the jury could find you guilty of an 85, or obviously not guilty as well. As time went on, the prosecutors would probably try to match the charge with what the jury would be likely to find.

[mistermack]

I do think its right that a judge has a lot of discretion in sentencing, in fact one of the good things about the English (and presumably Scottish) system is the police have a lot of discretion in whether they even prosecute or not.

2 15 year old having sex could technically get many years in jail but the reality is they would unlikely to even get a warning.

I'm really not sure how you could have categories of rape and its better to leave it to the judge and guide lines when it comes to sentencing, the sentence can be appealed anyway by the convicted and the prosecution to decrease/increase it

The judge could still have discretion. But we use juries, because they have more common sense, as a group of 12, than one judge, who might have prejudices of his own.
You very often hear of juries who are aghast at the sentence, following their verdict.
This way, the jury would have a major input into the final outcome.

[MrJonno]

But we use juries, because they have more common sense, as a group of 12,

No we use juries because we are stupid to think a random selection of 12 people from the public are capable of doing anything

I would abolish the jury system tomorrow and either replace it 3 judges or perhaps 12 people taken from a pool of legally trained professionals. Most 1st world democracies do not use juries

Having a jury of 12 random idiots to decide on whether someone has committed murder makes as much sense as getting the passengers on an airline to vote on who should be the pilot.

Like many things in life it comes down to what you fear the most a 'tyrannical' government or the general public and in my opinion its normally the public that scare me a hell of a lot more

[JimC]

It does seem to be true that the term "rape" has developed a very wide range of meanings.

[mistermack]

But we use juries, because they have more common sense, as a group of 12,

No we use juries because we are stupid to think a random selection of 12 people from the public are capable of doing anything

I would abolish the jury system tomorrow and either replace it 3 judges or perhaps 12 people taken from a pool of legally trained professionals. Most 1st world democracies do not use juries

Having a jury of 12 random idiots to decide on whether someone has committed murder makes as much sense as getting the passengers on an airline to vote on who should be the pilot.

Like many things in life it comes down to what you fear the most a 'tyrannical' government or the general public and in my opinion its normally the public that scare me a hell of a lot more

I admit that juries aren't perfect. But nor are judges.
Who are the very best judges that a country of 300 million people can produce?
The US supreme court. What did they just decide? That praying isn't religious. See the thread two down from this one.

I agree, it's a choice of two evils. I'm just advocating a blend of the two, as the final outcome.
Something that might be better than how we operate at the moment.
We have at the moment the jury pronouncing on guilt or innocence, but with no say at all on the DEGREE of guilt or innocence. And judges who are actually bound a lot more than people think, by the original charge, and the verdict thereof.

This way, the jury has a say, not just in a bare yes or no to a charge, but WHAT the charge should have been in the first place. Which at present is in the hands of the very biased people in the prosecution office, who are subjected to all sorts of political pressures from above.

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

But we use juries, because they have more common sense, as a group of 12,

No we use juries because we are stupid to think a random selection of 12 people from the public are capable of doing anything

I would abolish the jury system tomorrow and either replace it 3 judges or perhaps 12 people taken from a pool of legally trained professionals. Most 1st world democracies do not use juries

Having a jury of 12 random idiots to decide on whether someone has committed murder makes as much sense as getting the passengers on an airline to vote on who should be the pilot.

Like many things in life it comes down to what you fear the most a 'tyrannical' government or the general public and in my opinion its normally the public that scare me a hell of a lot more

[Blind groper]

I agree with Mr. Jonno

Having a jury of blithering idiots selected at random from the general unwashed off the street is totally ludicrous. You would not run a company that way. To get effective decision making, you need trained, experienced, educated, and intelligent people. In other words, you choose them really, really carefully, and then you train them to within an inch of their lives. The current court system does the opposite. Duh!