Hey, Can A Woman "Ask To Get Raped"?

Sorry I can see the downside of destroying the ability to compare the tend in sexual crimes for a large fraction of a century and the only up side is for you graining a one time bump so you can falsely claim that rapes had taken a sharp upward jump.

Sexual assault laws help to protect both genders from unwanted, non-consenting sexual contacts. To act as though serious sexual assaults of men are not valid crimes, worthy of inclusion in federal rape crime statistics, is to do a terrible disservice to the victims of such crimes, and affects the allocation of funds to better assist these victims with needed interventions, supports, and treatment.

Of course sexual assaults on men are track however that damn damn FBI database is interfering with the Fireflies of the world ability to falsely claims that reported rapes of women had been doing anything but going down and down and down and down.

while I think reporting standards could be upgraded

intended to further your agenda at the expense of the truth

It's not just a matter of "upgrading" it's also a matter of the federal statistics more accurately reflecting the crimes that occur on a local level--and that also affects the allocation of funds and resources on the local level

You, and the "feminists", are really both relics of the past, and so is the federal government's current definition of "rape". It's time to recognize the reality of where we are now.

The domestic-violence incident involving former New York City deputy mayor Stephen Goldsmith illustrates what Harvard Law professor Jeannie Suk has written about. Domestic violence has become an area where the government takes control away from the individual woman.

After Mrs. Goldsmith said to her husband, “I should have put a bullet into you years ago,” Mr. Goldsmith shoved her into a counter, smashed a phone, and held her for some moments. She called the police. When they got there, she didn’t want her husband arrested, but it didn’t matter. Arrest is mandatory once the woman has made the call, and her husband spent two days in jail before the charges were dismissed when she declared her wish that he not be prosecuted. (And the Goldsmiths were fortunate there. According to Suk, many disputes result in mandatory prosecution and sentencing, over the objections of the woman.)

Now the Goldsmiths have begun a public-relations offensive, calling the domestic-violence incident a “mistake” and a “misunderstanding.” No, it was not a mistake or misunderstanding. It is the law. A woman who declares herself a victim of domestic abuse by calling the cops will for a time be seen as incapable of making her own decisions. Evidently Mrs. Goldsmith regrets her action, but now his career is in shambles, his children have suffered, and the marriage is marred. No evidence has been presented that Goldsmith was a serious abuser; it was all for nothing.

As I mentioned in a previous PBC entry, Suk argues that, thanks to feminism, the home has been defined for the purposes of the law as a ”place of male violence.” This is due to what Suk calls “governance feminism,” developed by Catharine MacKinnon, which “focuses on the subordination of women by men, particularly in intimate and sexual relationships.” According to Suk, MacKinnon’s “influence on our legal system’s understanding of men and women cannot be overstated. If you talk to police, prosecutors, lawmakers, and judges about domestic violence, perhaps they have not read MacKinnon, but they often subscribe to the premise that men subordinate women through sex and violence.” Suk’s book, At Home in the Law: How the Domestic Violence Revolution is Transforming Privacy, from Yale University Press, was published in 2009

It just one more example of women being view as children.

You will search far and wide for data on how restraining orders are used, for instance how many are issued and what percentage are based upon documented abuse and what percentage are based upon fear of abuse...but you will not find any....

Misuse of restraining orders is claimed to be widespread. Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Bar Association, has remarked, “Everyone knows that restraining orders and orders to vacate are granted to virtually all who apply…In many cases, allegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage.”

A 1995 study conducted by the Massachusetts Trial Court that reviewed domestic restraining orders issued in the state found that less than half of the orders involved even an allegation of violence. Similarly a West Virginia study found eight out of 10 orders were unnecessary or false.

The effectiveness of restraining orders to protect people from violence is questionable. Samuel Goldberg, a Boston attorney specializing in partner abuse cases, remarks that restraining orders are awarded so casually that “they are not taken as seriously as they should be.” The Independent Women’s Forum likewise decries these legal tropes as “lulling women into a false sense of security.”

Restraining orders can also escalate partner conflict. In its Family Legal Guide, the American Bar Association warns, “a court order might even add to the alleged offender’s rage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restraining_order

Quote:

Normally such an important part of the legal system would be subject to some rigorous analysis, to see what it does and how it might be improved, but not here

There is a great deal of research on the effectiveness, or lack of it, of restraining orders. There is a great deal of legal discussion on the matter. These things are quite easily found on the internet. These issues are most definitely out in the open and subjected to quite a bit of scutiny. Because you are uniformed, and mired in your paranoid conspiracy theories, doesn't mean that the information isn't available.

Which feminist organizations or feminist groups support restraining orders?

Which feminist organizations or feminist groups support restraining orders?

In a 7-2 decision, the Court ruled that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to police enforcement of her mandatory court-ordered restraining order against her husband. Gonzales had filed a $30 million lawsuit against the Castle Rock, Colorado police department for
failing to respond to five phone calls she made reporting a violation of the restraining order. The town of Castle Rock, backed by the Bush administration and several police organizations, won their argument that it would be unrealistic to enforce every restraining order. With the vast
majority of restraining orders requested by women, according to the National Center for Violent Crime, the Castle Rock decision puts women’s lives in jeopardy and potentially lets police departments off the hook for failing to enforce mandatory orders.

FMF (Feminist Majority Foundation) President Eleanor Smeal said of the ruling, “It is upsetting that this decision, which affects so many women and children, has been virtually ignored by the press. Even when women manage to pass tougher legislation, we can’t get it enforced. Mandatory restraining orders aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on if police officers are not required to enforce them.”


The National Center for Women and Policing joined Women in Federal Law Enforcement, the National Black Police Association, the National Association of Black Law Enforcement Officers, the National Center for Women & Policing, and Americans for Effective Law Enforcement, Inc. in filing an amicus brief in support of Gonzales’ claim that her due process
rights were violated

GENEVA (23 August 2011) – The UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, Rashida Manjoo, urged the United States Government to reexamine its current policies on dealing with violence against women. Her call follows a landmark decision by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights finding the US government responsible for human rights violations against Jessica Lenahan (Gonzales), a survivor of domestic violence, and her three deceased children.

“Violence against women is the most pervasive human rights violation which continues to challenge every country in the world, and the US is no exception,” Ms. Manjoo stressed. “The US Government should reassess existing mechanisms for protecting victims and punishing offenders, and establish meaningful standards for enforcement of protection orders and impose consequences for a failure to enforce them.”

“To achieve this,” the human rights expert said, “the State should initiate local and national dialogues with relevant stakeholders to consider the effectiveness, in theory and application, of expedited proceedings, mandatory arrest policies, mandatory prosecution policies, and batterer’s programs.”

“Earlier this year, I conducted a fact-finding mission* to the country,” Ms. Manjoo recalled. “In my discussions with government officials, victims, survivors, and advocates, including Jessica Lenahan, I found a lack of substantive protective legislation for domestic violence victims in the United States, as well as inadequate implementation of certain laws, policies and programs.”

While landmark US legislation such as the Violence Against Women Act exists to address the high incidence of violence against women, the Special Rapporteur noted “there is little in terms of legally binding federal provisions which provide substantive protection or prevention for acts of domestic violence against women.”

“As highlighted in my 2011 report to the Human Right Council, States’ should adopt a holistic approach to addressing discrimination and violence against women,” said the human rights expert recalling four key recommendations:

1. “At the outset, States’ responses to violence should be based on the premise that the human rights of women are universal, interdependent, and indivisible.”
2. “They should not treat all women homogenously, but bear in mind that discrimination affects women in different ways depending on how they are positioned within the social, economic and cultural hierarchies.”
3. “States’ should also recognize that the various forms and manifestations of violence against women are simultaneously causes and consequences of other instances of violence.”
4. “Efforts to end all forms of violence against women must consider how structural and institutional discrimination perpetuate and exacerbate women’s experiences of abuse.”

“As the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights found in the Jessica Lenahan case,” the UN Special Rapporteur said, “State inaction towards cases of violence against women, fosters an environment of impunity and promotes the repetition of violence.”

Ms. Rashida Manjoo (South Africa) was appointed Special Rapporteur on Violence against women, its causes and consequences in June 2009 by the UN Human Rights Council, for an initial period of three year. As Special Rapporteur, she is independent from any government or organization and serves in her individual capacity. Ms. Manjoo is also a Professor at the Department of Public Law at the University of Cape Town.

Yup, those feminists are working in secret, and hiding things from the public.

Published June 2009
Chapter 7. Judicial Responses
Section 11 — Do protective orders work?
The research has not been able to answer this question definitively, mainly because it is not ethically permissible to randomly grant or deny protective orders to compare results.BULLSHIT, it is because the feminists have not wanted it studied, this here is excuse making Furthermore, these orders may "work" at different levels.
First, in terms of their effectiveness in deterring repeat abuse, before and after studies suggest that protective orders may deter certain abusers. In Travis County, Tex., over a period of two years before and after order issuance, physical abuse dropped from 68 percent to 23 percent after the orders were obtained, if victims maintained the order. If the abusers were also arrested at the time of the order issuance, the physical abuse diminished further; if they had children, it diminished less. [26] These studies cannot reveal whether or not the abuse would have naturally declined overtime without the orders because, for example, the victims are more likely to have left their abusers when they obtained the orders.
Several Seattle studies compared women who obtained orders to women who were abused (as indicated by a police incident report) but did not obtain orders. They found that women with permanent orders were less likely to be physically abused than women without them. However, women who had temporary orders that lasted only two weeks were more likely to be psychologically abused than women who did not obtain any orders. The women who did not obtain orders appeared at higher risk for abuse, involvement with alcohol and drugs, more likely to have been assaulted and injured as a result of the study incident, and less likely to have been married to their abuser. The study did not look at violations of protective orders that did not involve physical assaults. [120] The second Seattle study found that the orders were more effective nine months after they were obtained than during the first five-month period, significantly reducing the likelihood of contact, threats with weapons, injuries and the need for medical care. [121]
Finally, several other studies that compared women who maintained orders and those who dropped them, or did not return for permanent orders, found that order retention made no difference in reabuse rates. [105, 134] A Rhode Island study involving criminal no-contact orders, issued automatically during a domestic violence arrest, also found that whether victims allowed the orders to be continued for the length of the criminal case and probationary sentences that followed (usually one year) or not, the reabuse rates did not vary. [141]
At least one study suggests that the specific stipulations of the protective orders may make a difference. Specifically, victims are more likely to be reabused if their orders bar abusive contact but not all contact. Compared to women whose orders barred all contact, those that barred only abusive contact were significantly more likely to suffer psychological violence, physical violence, sexual coercion and injuries within one year. [150]
Nonetheless, the research consistently finds that victims largely express satisfaction with civil orders, even if they are violated by their abusers. That would be great if justice were not the purpose of the justice department, if women were the only stake holders in the society whos best interests mattered[134] In the multisite study in Massachusetts, 86 percent of the women who obtained a permanent order said that the order either stopped or reduced the abuse, notwithstanding the fact that 59 percent called police to report an order violation. Upon further questioning, the women expressed the feeling that the order demonstrated to the abuser that the "law was on her side." [182] In a multistate study, victims who obtained orders reported that the orders improved their overall well-being, especially if the abuser had a prior criminal history and was more likely to reabuse. [133] It may be that, even though orders do not stop abuse, they reduce the severity of the reabuse. Alternatively, although they may not affect the extent of reabuse, protective orders make victims feel vindicated and empowered.
Although not studied directly, it appears to be significantly easier for law enforcement to monitor and enforce protective and no-contact orders than to monitor and interrupt abuse in general. This may explain why abusers are significantly more likely to be arrested for protective order violations than other common domestic violence offenses. The rearrest rate for abusers in Rhode Island initially arrested for violation of protection or no-contact orders was 45.6 percent over one year, compared to 37.6 percent for domestic assaults, disorderly conduct or vandalism. [141] Of course, it may also be the case that abusers with orders are generally at higher risk for reabusing than abusers without orders.

Published June 2009
Chapter 7. Judicial Responses
Section 10 — How many abusers violate court protective orders?
Research varies, but violation rates have been found to range from 23 percent over two years [26], 35 percent within six months [133], to 60 percent within twelve months [105], and in between at 48.8 percent within two years. IE We dont have the first ******* clue what the answer is