JANUARY 1982 has seen unprecedented media coverage on the question of rape — on television, radio and in the newspapers.
In Glasgow — 'the rape case' where three youths charged with rape and attempted murder, have escaped prosecution, the papers have led with the story for about ten days.
It is not enough for us to be outraged and appalled at the unfairness of the Scottish legal system (and there are important differences here). We have to say what we want done.
The Women against Violence against Women group picketted the Procurator Fiscal's (the public prosecutor) office in Glasgow on Friday 22 January, and got favourable coverage. We were asking the basic question, still unanswered — why were the charges dropped?
We have to be very careful in supporting the changes in the law which have been suggested by various groups.
If I might first dispose of one option — that of a private prosecution. At present, the steps are being taken for the raped woman — Carol X — to pursue a private prosecution against the accused youths, and everyone would be happy if she succeeds — although it is very dubious whether the youths could now have a 'fair trial'.
Summary justice has already been dished out to one youth, who had his ear cut off.
A private prosecution costs an enormous amount of money (although I am sure this will be forthcoming, from one of a number of sources ) but it will only help one individual. It cannot be used as legal precedent.
Another option, supported by Judith Arkwright in Socialist Challenge 231, for a minimum custodial sentence for rapists is very much on the wrong track. Her reasoning is that, 'we should support changes in the law, including the ones mentioned for a minimum custodial sentence, to protect and benefit women.'
In fact, if there were to be such a change in the law, juries would be less likely to convict knowing the accused would definitely go to jail.
And it means 'bargaining' could be done, whereby the accused could plead guilty to a lesser charges — say serious assault.
It also gives the police another lever to dissuade a rape victim from pressing charge. It also centres the discussion around the accused man, rather than concentrating our efforts on making the ordeal of reporting a rape easier for the woman.
Another suggestion for changing the law is that the woman is allowed to give evidence in writing. This is a very delicate situation.
The only courts which allow written evidence just now are the Diplock Courts in Northern Ireland — and this facility is abused all the time by the police, since no cross examination is allowed.
But there is no doubt that a number of women do not press charges because they cannot face the ordeal of the court, especially the often brutal cross examination.
There is surely a case to allow the woman to submit her evidence in writing and any cross examination would be conducted with only the judge and jury present — clearing the court of press and public.
We must always remember, however, that the most disturbing factor in rape cases is that only one in four women ever reports her rape to the police and substantially fewer cases ever come to court.
The Rape Crisis Centres have called for changes in the police procedures in treating women who have been raped. We must continue to publicise the way rape victims are treated and try to change attitudes towards women who have been raped or assaulted.
No amount of changes in the law will change a society which treats women as second class citizens and as somehow responsible for the violence perpetrated on them by men.
These kinds of changes will take far more than tinkering with the law.
MARION KEOGH, Glasgow