[QUOTE="shaunk89"]
i'd agree with joshrock...the law is generally framed in such a way as to make it very difficult for a man to be the victim of sexual assault by a woman. In the UK (where I live) it's actually a legal impossibility for a man to be the victim of rape. Sure a guy can fight back if he feels he is the victim of sexual harassment, but he would then generally be either not believed with regards to the prior sexual assault, or arrested for assault & battery without mitigation. the fact is that social mores tell us that men simply can't be the victim of a sexual attack. you're free to disagree, but i would defy you to present evidence of sufficiently identical sex assault cases where a male victim is given the same credibility as a female one.
And I would tend to side with Theokoth too....you MAY be required to retreat, but teh duty to retreat is by and large confined to quite specific circumstances. If you have to use force while making said retreat, that will also be justified. By and large, reasonable use of force to protect yourself, others, or your property is accepted as an exculpatory defence at law for pretty much any crime. sure, it varies in the fine detail, but as a whole, around the world the judge/jury is required to look at the defendant's conduct and ask if it was reasonable in all the circumstances. if it was, its all kosher...
LJS9502_basic
I disagree with the assumptions here. First...sexual assault is hard to prove no matter which gender claims the assault. When it comes to the law in these cases the evidence has to be more than he said/she said or juries tend to not believe. Plus, the defense is allowed some leeway in discrediting the accuser. I think we all know sexual assaults occur. Some cases are justified. But many are not taken seriously. If one ever knew anyone attacked the attitude wouldn't be so cavaliar about this subject.As I said before...theo is advocating force and that is not how the law works.
I don't really understand how that is relevant to what I said, but you are nevertheless 100% right. Sexual assault has one of the lowest conviction rates of any crime, despite being one of the most prevalent crimes in modern society. My point was simply that (certainly in the UK, and i imagine to a degree in the USA too) the legal framework in terms of the evidential requirements you correctly mentioned as being necessary, are very female orientated. They become exponentially more difficult to present in cases where the victim is male. Case in point, in the UK, rape is defined as penile penetration of any orifiice (disgustingly clinical, no?), thus rendering it a total legal impossibility for any woman to be convicted of rape. at most, they can be convicted of assault by penetration, if they use an....implement...of some kind.
The simple fact remains, all this aside, is that insufficient numbers of sexual assault victims come forward with their claims, due to fear of social stigma amongst otehr things. But teh social stigma attributed to male victims is vastly greater, and therefore very few ever come forward. sad, but true.
Log in to comment