Persuasive Essay On Rape

Rape has been depicted as ‘the most serious, the most feared and the most debated’ of all sexual offences. During the Bill’s progress through Parliament, strong opinions have been expressed both for and against the proposed reforms on rape. The Sexual Offences Review Committee (SORC) proposed to extend the definition of rape to include penetration of the mouth – presently this act is regarded as an indecent assault and rape is confined to penetration from the penis into the vagina and anus. In the past, rape was limited to the penile penetration of the vagina until it’s redefinition in 1994 to include anal penetration. The SORC also proposed the introduction of an element of reasonableness into the ‘defence’ of mistaken belief in consent and the use of presumptions against consent and mistaken belief in consent.

During the debate in Committee, the Minister of State at the Home Office, Lord Falconer of Thoroton QC, said that there were 9,008 alleged rapes recorded in 2001. In 5.8% of these cases there was a conviction. Out of the 1,267 people actually charged and tried, 41.2% were convicted. He went on to say, through comparison, that the general conviction rate for trials by jury was 73.4%.

Professor Temkin stated that:

“the number of recorded offences of rape has radically increased, but the prosecution rate is dropping, as is the committal rate and the conviction rate. Thus, the attrition rate in rape cases after recording by the police is increasing.”

The proposal to change the mental element of the offence of rape has been the subject of extensive debate in the House of Lords. The House of Commons Home Affairs Committee (HOCHAF) set clarified their stance in their revision of the Sexual Offences Bill. Currently, ‘to be g...

... middle of paper ...

...that it would lead to injustice in some cases because it failed to consider the defendant’s particular characteristics, e.g. a learning disability. Also it was said to be unreasonably ‘complex and made more difficult by its operation in connection with the presumptions in Clause 78 (now Clauses 76 and 77)’. As a result, it was believed to be in danger of confusing juries and breeding appeals.

The Chairman of the Criminal Bar Association suggested to the HOCHAF that the test be amended to require the jury to consider “what a reasonable person (sharing the characteristics of the defendant) would have thought”. However, the Government opposed this on the grounds that it would require the jury to consider all the characteristics of the individual defendant and this is believed to be inappropriate because some characteristics “should not absolve the defendant of guilt”.