FBI changes rape definition

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

On Friday the FBI announced they were changing their 83 year old definition of rape from:


"The carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will."

to

"penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."

Among the rapes that were previously omitted under the old definition and are now included are penetration of any other orifice than the vagina, rapes committed without force, those where the victim was incapacitated or unable to give consent due to any factor including alcohol, drugs or a mental disability. Rapes where a foreign object was used. And men. Rapes committed on men were never counted in the official FBI statistics.

The CDC estimates that 1 in 5 women will be raped in her lifetime and 1 in 71 men. Yet in 2011 the FBI counted only 84,767 rapes as having occurred in America. Their method left many victims unaccounted for and unrecognized, something a rape victim who is already struggling with society's attitudes towards them should never be made to feel by law enforcement. It was effectively saying to the victims that their rape never occurred.

This change, which has been requested by women's groups for over a decade now, will have a profound impact on the statistical analysis of the issue and it's related funding, reporting levels and hopefully law enforcement's attitudes in general.

Underreporting has long been a problem for this crime. When society and law enforcement consider your rape to not really be a rape it does not inspire confidence to come forward. Hopefully the new official definition of rape will change attitudes and understanding of the crime, especially among law enforcement and the legal avenues of recourse.

The most important change will be in finally recognizing how widespread of a problem this is and assigning funding and other resources to fighting it or to simply providing support for those affected. Rape crisis centres were forced to use the official FBI statistics in applying for funding. It is hoped that a big part of that change will be providing resources for men who are victims of rape, or violence in general, an area that has long been ignored and underfunded. There are very few resources out there for these men who often have to bear the shame and guilt associated with the crime on their own, something no victim should have to do.

The 1 in 5 statistic has been one that has been questioned by detractors given that it comes in part from self-reporting and surveys. With this change we will be able to give a true image of the problem and provide actual numbers which cannot be disputed.

Finally, this shows that activism works. Although women's groups have been asking for this change for a decade, it was only in the last few months that a large push was made, including a petition entitled "All Rape is Rape" being signed and forwarded to the FBI and meetings by feminist organizations and police chiefs in Washington. It is heartening to see the efforts of these groups finally being recognized and appreciated.


(It would be very nice if there were no lewd comments made about women or their sexual organs in this post. I can't believe I even have to request that but there it is)

Comments

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

What this change does is creates a way, for the first time, to actually track men being raped. It's the only key change - the definition has changed from gender-specific to gender neutral, and has updated terms to be more modern. It doesn't actually change any definition for women, but the concern was that there's a large sector of victims who weren't being covered under the previous definition for statistical accuracy.

I don't actually see the numbers moving for women under this. Anything that doesn't involve consent is forcible and against one's will, and I'm unaware of anything that's been noted by anyone neutral to the discussion that says "well, the FBI reporting is wrong because they treat consent differently than pretty much everyone else." Rape will remain rape.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

I believe the hope is that reporting individuals (not victims, but the people they report rape to, who report to the FBI) will take the new definition and apply it to more common, but under-reported crimes such as date rape or drunken rape. The combination of "forcibly and against her will" could have been read as requiring both conditions be fulfilled before it became rape.

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

Of course it will change the official federal numbers, many rapes, including all the ones I listed in the OP were never recognized before by the FBI for statistical purposes. At a meeting with them in September numerous police chiefs included examples of rapes reported and investigated in their jurisdictions that were discounted by the FBI as they did not fit their narrow definition.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

The other change it makes is that it might make Biden look less silly.
http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2012/01/vice_president_bidens_flint_co.html

[yahvah.livejournal.com]

Personally, I can't believe men were never tracked before on such an absurd technicality. I also can't believe anyone in this community would have any reason to infer lewd comments are appropriate in this context. I won't say what you're doing since it's too easy to think there's an insinuation so I'll just let you think about what it is you're doing on your own to have to write such a disclaimer.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

buh?

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

Well it sure is telling that you'd say that.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Why stop there, do tell.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I can. After all there is no homosexual rape, only the "sin of sodomy." An honest God-fearing man could *never* be raped by another man. Unless you were thinking of something different.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

I also can't believe anyone in this community would have any reason to infer lewd comments are appropriate in this context.

I can believe it. You'd have to be thick to be blind to it.

[ghostwes.livejournal.com]

This seems like a much more sensible definition, and I'm surprised it took them this long to change it.

However, as a non-American, I find myself a bit confused by this, and maybe someone can clear this up for me. My understanding of American law is that the FBI does not have the power to define rape, or any other crime. Rather, they just enforce the laws, albeit on a federal level. Would not the supreme court be the ones who would have to define what constitutes rape? Surely all levels of law enforcement use the same definition, since they are all enforcing the same set of laws, no?

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

The definition was one that was used by them for statistical purposes only. And yes, you would think that every law enforcement agency would use the same definition but apparently not. For example, in the articles I read on this topic I fond that Chicago has one of the broadest definitions of what constitutes rape in the US and Baltimore one of the narrowest. I don't understand this either, perhaps one of our American members can clear it up for us.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

States have different laws and names and definitions for crimes. There's also jurisdictional issues. Rape isn't actually a Federal case, neither is murder, but bank robberies are always Federal cases, for instance. Some States have "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" laws, whereas some states have something else or nothing at all. In Minnesota, you can't be prosecuted for a crime under the age of 10. In other states it might be 8 or 12. There are 50 different sets of laws.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

The Supreme Court does not define criminal offenses, the legislature does. Not all levels of law enforcement are enforcing the same laws, because every state has its own body of criminal law, and most often it's the states doing the actual enforcement.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

I'm guessing this thread will make it to over 9000.

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

Really? I don't see the topic as all that controversial, these are very positive changes for all. I'm figuring on 35 comments, tops.

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

I was such an optimist in my assessment of comment numbers wasn't I?

[paedraggaidin.livejournal.com]

It's about darn time, too. Using a 19th Century definition for statistical purposes did no good at all.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

FBI: Rape: When thy hast knowest a woman against her will-- this is forbidden, amen.

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

Because the comments made in that post and in others were to and about women. Yes, there was one made about a mans body part, which was equally wrong. But for the most part lewd comments made here are not directed at men.

But in my case since I was referring to victims of rape, not the women of this community in general I would agree with you that yes, my parenthesis was not needed.

[il-mio-gufo.livejournal.com]

a good report! thanks

my thing with rape is that how hard is it to prove rape?? i mean would there normally be any witnesses?? i just always feel like it's such a hard thing to prove :/ *despair*

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

That is what is at the heart of the problem. It is why only 6% of rapists ever serve jail time for the crime. And that number is a huge improvement, it used to be 1%.

[awdrey-gore.livejournal.com]

This is long, long overdue. Though I know that in some manner misogyny-fed opinions on rape will never go away, I've always wondered how appropriately identifying male rape from a law-enforcement perspective would change the way rape in general is discussed and handled. In a society where rape against men is recognized and taken seriously, would rape apology attempts including promiscuity, style of dress, etc. begin to fade away from rape discussions? It's possible.

But more to the point, FBI failure to track rape against men had a side effect above and beyond the disenfranchisement of men from seeking legal redress for sexual assault - it has allowed the American prison system to use rape as a means of institutionalized control. In a perfect storm of an explosion in the male prison population combined with attempts to reduce the amount of money spent on prisons via understaffing or privatization of prisons has resulted in overworked and, in some cases, sadistic guards in permitting and tacitly encouraging rape. Prison rape has served the modern prison system in the USA very well because the sick hierarchy of rapists and victims and the always implied threat of sexual assault does a very good job of keeping prisoners in line. I think if we actually get to know the real statistics and rape horror faced by men in prison, it would be sickening.

(I really wish this could be discussed without the obvious derail that is happening above. A commenter who behaved deplorably insulting women in a previous post is overreacting to a mild comment asking the community not to insult women, no more, no less. As a community, is there any way we can just rise above and refuse to engage when we see an obvious derail in action? Please?)

[yahvah.livejournal.com]

Pardon me, but I participated the least in the thread that flowed from my initial comment. The most I did was defend geezer_also's position. I never once insulted women, either, and I resent your assertion. You need to make the distinction between insulting a person and insulting a behavior or belief your concern, otherwise the first rule is of no consequence whatsoever. All I did in that previous post was observe, initially, that from a legal perspective, a certain set of behaviors constitutes a double standard, then I observed a response to a statement about that double standard was another totally distinct double standard.

As far as your opinion of prison rape, it's good to see someone who's willing to admit the justice system is supposed to be balanced.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

This is a very good step forward indeed.

[muscadinegirl.livejournal.com]

I like the fact that the definition is conclusive, but it seems a bit broad.

What about children? Does it go on to define the difference between rape and taking temperature rectally or washing the anal area? Imagine a patient that is too sick or too feeble to give consent yet one and/or the other is a necessity?

I know it's a commonsense sort of thing, but if it's not defined people could use it to claim child/elderly/patient abuse or to claim the absence thereof when a rape has actually taken place.

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure about US hospitals but when I was in the hospital here in Canada this year I had to sign consent forms for all manner of procedures that may have been done on me. They still asked my consent before doing anything even slightly...personal but if I had been unable to answer they were covered by the forms I signed. If someone is unable to even give that consent this is a situation where a power of attorney would be warranted as if they are unable to consent to an anal temperature taking how can they consent if a more serious medical treatment is necessary?

As for children, I do not know, I would assume they are covered under this law as well but I would hope there are also laws regarding child molestation specifically as it is an entirely separate issue.

on rape

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

I'm confused. Which is nothing new.

Did you make this post to discuss the other post some more, or did you really want to talk about the expansion of the term 'rape'.

Because this thread got hijacked from the get-go and you seemed to allow it.

It is about time that male victims of 'rape' also be considered. In the case of men, the violation is even more (IN MY OPINION) heinous because it involves forced sodomy, which an area of many men who are not used to taking such an abusive attack.

Male or female, rape is equally heinous in its use of force and intimidation to force submission upon another. About time Law Enforcement kept track of all rapes, categorized by gender.

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

Actually if you'll notice I very deliberately did not reply to any comment made by a certain poster with a wish to derail. I did reply to a mod when I felt his comments were out of line and then replied to subsequent comments made to me. Posts often go off topic and this has always been allowed and I received clarification from a mod today that this is fine. If someone or several people wish to discuss an issue it is not up to me to stop it, unless they become abusive and even then it is more the place of a mod than mine. In fact a mod was one of the first people to comment on the issue. If you don't like it then don't participate.

But for the record, no, I did not make this post to discuss that issue, I am not nearly that subtle. If I'd wanted to make a post specifically about that I would have done so.

Now for on topic comments.

Is there a reason you used scare quotes when discussing rape?

I also disagree that male rape (or female rape) is more heinous in its method. Women are also raped anally and even when we are raped vaginally it is not an area where we are used to taking an abusive attack. The fact that you would not see the physical damage done to a woman in this way shows a startling lack of knowledge about female anatomy and arousal. No rape is worse than any other, in any way, regardless of the sex of the victim.

[whak-hat.livejournal.com]

good