Categories
4chan antifeminism men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny racism rape rape culture

“Did you know that there is no proof that punishing rape is actually beneficial for a society?” 4Channer asks

sideeye

It’s amazing just how quickly a visit to 4chan’s /pol/ board can strip you of any lingering faith in humanity.

 

Consider the following 4chan “infographic” posted recently on Twitter:

profowlrape

A quick Google search of the language in this graphic led me to an archived 4chan thread, where this particular “argument,” and the graphic itself, seem to have originated, making it exceedingly unlikely that (as per the small print on the graphic) “Prof. Owl” is actually a “married father of four daughters and three sons” and exceedingly likely that he is instead an overgrown adolescent nursing a giant grudge against women.

The good news is that not everyone in /pol/ agreed with Prof. Owl’s reprehensible views; the not-so-good news is that their views on rape were often just as reprehensible.

So let’s take a look at some of the, er, highlights of /pol/’s debate on the proposition that rape is “nowhere near as bad as people make it out to be.”

1) Prof. Owl’s contribution

But is rape rally all THAT bad?  1. Rape is not only exaggerated 2. but rape legislation is unproven to be beneficial. There is no proof that harsh rape punishment outweighs the detrimental effects of false rape allegations.

2) “The true male equivalent of rape is not rape, but rather paternity fraud.”

>So why do feminists, see rape as the worst thing that can ever happen to woman and we aren't even talking about the obvious bullshit ''rape'' as in ''he stared at me in the elevator, it's like I was just raped!''.   Sexual selection. Rape means losing the authority over who you mate with, meaning possible shit offspring. That's why rape is so traumatic for women and not so much for men.   The true male equivalent of rape is not rape, but rather paternity fraud.

3) “We live in a cunt overglorification culture thus it’s blown completely out of proportion.”

>Yeah, but why exactly? Why is rape such a horrible thing to most people?  Women love to pull the victim card.   A woman being penetrated by a man is the same as a man being circumcluded by a woman.   Not a big deal.  but we live in a cunt overglorification culture thus it's blown completely out of proportion.

In case you’re wondering, here’s what this fella’s graphic says:

1402726333586

4) “It is actually more traumatic for men … Getting forced to accept a dick in the anus shows that that man is not able to protect anything. Which makes him unqualified for mating.”

not so traumatic for men  Are you fucking kidding me? It is actually more traumatic for men, the reason is simple. Men have believed that they are conquerers, that they are the stable income of the household and are the commander of their family. Getting forced to accept a dick in the anus shows that that man is not able to protect anything. Which makes him unqualified for mating.  Rape is equally shit for both sides.

5) “Rape is significantly less traumatic than being jumped by a gang of nigs.”

Rape is significantly less traumatic than being jumped by a gang of nigs

6) “The violence should be punished of course. But the heterosexual rape itself only minimally.”

The violence should be punished of course. But the heterosexual rape itself only minimally.  So if a man hits a woman and breaks her arm and then rapes her then then hitting and fracture should be punished, the rape itself only minimally.

7) “If people just stopped their victim privilege and lend a help to someone who is raping them and just went with the flow. There wouldn’t be any rape incidents.”

I know right, if people just stopped their victim privilege and lend a help to someone who is raping them and just went with the flow. There wouldn't be any rape incidents.

(I’m really hoping that this guy is being sarcastic, but sadly I think he probably isn’t.)

8) “My female friend told me it was a complete turn off for her if someone asked her directly if she wanted to have sex, which … feminazis completely ignore.”

Ironically OP, most men and women are engaged in what would be called rape in any legal sense every time they meet at a bar and go home afterwards and have sex, because consent is never explicit, it is always implied.  Even my female friend told me it was a complete turn off for her if someone asked her directly if she wanted to have sex, which I agree with, and feminazis completely ignore.

9) “Maybe I’m just an old fashioned guy with a sense of historical perspective. Rape may not be so bad.”

Long ago rape was considered bad by men because they considered women to be property. Rape has never been uncommon. Sadly cunts get equally wet through the gentle loving touch of a cherished partner and through the panty ripping, slam the cock in, sex act we associate with rape. In days gone by either way was considered good.  Maybe I'm just an old fashioned guy with a sense of historical perspective. Rape may not be so bad  pic related. a few nice Scandinavian chaps here to introduce themselves to your ancesters cunt

 

10) “I was raped once, and it was really unpleasant when it started. But then after I let myself go and loosened up it actually felt quite good.”

I was raped once, and it was really unpleasant when it started. But then after I let myself go and loosened up it actually felt quite good.

11) “There is no such thing as rape. … There is only the fair and equal redistribution of pussy.”

Females make up half of the population, but they control 100% of the vaginas. This vagina inequality is wrong. We need social ownership of the means of reproduction.  There is no such thing as rape. Rape is just a feminist construct. There is only the fair and equal redistribution of pussy. I am the 50%.

12) “I’d be mad if I were raped, but as long as I wasn’t injured or infected I’d get over it pretty quick”

I'd be mad if I were raped, but as long as I wasn't injured or infected I'd get over it pretty quick. I mean, I was sexually abused as a kid and I don't lose any sleep over it.  Every organism on Earth suffers from the sinister urge. How can you blame someone for wanting to mash their flesh against you. They're designed for it. Their very being compels them to do it. People grossly overestimate their will. And really, rape isn't personal. It's not like they want to psychologically scar you. They just wanna fuck.  Most of the trauma of rape has to due with social implications - perceived emasculation, promiscuity, etc. Which is the fault of the victim for tying their head in a knot over absolutely nothing. It's stupid. "What will they think of me?!" They'll think you're over-reactive and histrionic.

13) “When a woman is raped her entire identity (her vagina) is being stolen for free, when usually you’d have to buy her shit, date her, marry her or whatever.”

Because as much as they might not like it, vaginas are a commodity.. a good to be traded, sold, given etc.  when a woman is raped her entire identity (her vagina) is being stolen for free, when usually you'd have to buy her shit, date her, marry her or whatever.

14) “It undercuts their princess status.”

Women know that their entire worth as a human being lies on their ability to offer vagina. >This is why they are TERRIFIED by sexbots, male contraception, etc, and this is also why they are TERRIFIED by rape, because it means someone "stole" their "ware" for free, lowering the value of pussy on the market if it becomes "accepted" practice.  This!!  It undercuts their princess status in two ways:  1. Their usage of beauty to achieve what they want failed (i.e. they could not make a man stop)  2. Their main asset (pussy) is taken without pay.  It's a double bummer and therefore it's so humiliating.  You can EMULATE rape by telling cunts to imagine that they have to pay to get sex. It's not as drastic as rape, but it's a very similar feeling in their head.  Women are parasites and as such are not used to pay for something.

15) “Who /rapist/ here? I’ve raped 7 girls”

Who /rapist/ here?  I've raped 7 girls

Please, please, please let this asshole be trolling.

H/T — r/againstmensrights

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

151 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Paradoxical Intention
6 years ago

Victim…privilege?

http://media.thedailytouch.com/2014/02/jean-grey-rage-GIF.gif

*incoherent screaming and swearing*

http://mrwgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Jeremy-Piven-Throws-His-Phone-In-Rage.gif

Excuse me while I go vomit up my lunch. I hate humanity and wish to become a fruit bat.

Bina
Bina
6 years ago

Okay, I’m back, and I’m in a rotten mood. Let’s see how much of this shit I can blaze through now:

“Rape is significantly less traumatic than being jumped by a gang of nigs.”

Considering that sometimes, being raped IS being jumped by a gang (of whatever color of males), I’m gonna go with FUCK NO for $2000, Alex.

“The violence should be punished of course. But the heterosexual rape itself only minimally.”

Because rape is, in itself, NEVER a violence? Well, then. I guess this guy won’t mind if someone were to hold him down and forcibly insert hard, unlubricated objects in his orifices, will he?

Oh wait, he probably would, because look at the use of “heterosexual” in that context. Obviously, he thinks it’s only homosexuals who get objects inserted into them. Because gays = girls. Riiiiiight.

“If people just stopped their victim privilege and lend a help to someone who is raping them and just went with the flow. There wouldn’t be any rape incidents.”

WHAT FUCKING “VICTIM PRIVILEGE”??? Victims have NO privilege. That’s why they’re victims, you fucking asswipe.

And no, “just go with the flow” doesn’t help anything or anyone. Except maybe the rapist, who’s already more than likely to get away with it as is.

“My female friend told me it was a complete turn off for her if someone asked her directly if she wanted to have sex, which … feminazis completely ignore.”

Hey idiot, what she probably meant was that if a guy just approached random women asking for sex, he’d get turned down, because nobody just accepts random dudes demanding sex out of the blue. What the fuck did you think she meant?

And no, there’s no such thing as “implicit” consent. You can just say, when the mood seems right, “Hey, you wanna?” and if the answer is yes, then you just got explicit consent. How fucking hard IS that for you, Sherlock?

“Maybe I’m just an old fashioned guy with a sense of historical perspective. Rape may not be so bad.”

Or maybe you’re just a pustulent dickfester with no sense of perspective whatsoever, and who should not be with anyone EVER. Because I fail to see what “may not be so bad” about something that can immediately result in catastrophic injuries and emotional trauma, and/or may later leave someone pregnant and/or infected with an STD that will either kill them or never be got rid of. And that’s not even counting PTSD, which is an entirely natural and logical response to something like this. As is fighting back violently and maybe killing the rapist in so doing — which, frankly, would be a best-case scenario.

There’s yer “perspective”, motherfucker.

“I was raped once, and it was really unpleasant when it started. But then after I let myself go and loosened up it actually felt quite good.”

COOL STORY, BRO. Why are you telling it in Troll Central, where liars are thicker on the ground than dirt?

“There is no such thing as rape. … There is only the fair and equal redistribution of pussy.”

Dude, get your non-working fuck-fingers off my socialism. And no, you do not get to “control the means of reproduction”, EVER. Vagina belongs to vagina owner, not penis owner. Got that?

“I’d be mad if I were raped, but as long as I wasn’t injured or infected I’d get over it pretty quick”

O RLY? Dude, you’re only a dude, and a not terribly bright one at that. What the fuck would you know?

And what gives you the right to dictate how an actual victim should act?

The answer to both questions is the same: NOTHING.

“When a woman is raped her entire identity (her vagina) is being stolen for free, when usually you’d have to buy her shit, date her, marry her or whatever.”

My vagina is not my “entire identity” by a long shot. And no, when you commit rape on whoever’s vagina, it’s not being “stolen for free” (from the Dept. of Redundancy Dept., no doubt) — it’s being penetrated by someone who is not wanted there. That someone is YOU. And YOU are a criminal.

And no, “buying her shit” won’t change that.

“It undercuts their princess status.”

WHAT FUCKING “PRINCESS STATUS”? Actually, it only reinforces the peon status we’ve held — wrongfully — forfuckingEVER.

“Who /rapist/ here? I’ve raped 7 girls”

I hope the FBI sees that. In fact, I hope they see the entire thread. Chances are that a huge backlog of rape kits could be cleared just by rounding up all the channers and DNA-testing them.

Imperator Kahlo
Imperator Kahlo
6 years ago

I… I read the headline as “Did you know that there is no proof that punishing rape is actually beneficial for a society?” and experienced a brief shining moment of hope.

On the appropriate criminal punishment for rape, I recall reading that Australia (or a state thereof) briefly contemplated or implemented a life sentence for convicted rapists. The (proposed?) law was protested by women’s groups concerned it would remove all incentive for rapists to leave their victims alive*.

::throws hands in air:: it’s a heinous crime that needs to be taken much more seriously, but the extension of criminal sentences might have some seriously bad unintended consequences.

*My Google-fu is failing me but I believe I read it in ‘Islamophobia in Australia’ by Alice Aslan; the more informed here should definitely correct me.

tl;dr: everything sucks

katz
katz
6 years ago

Imperator: I love your handle.

Imperator Kahlo
Imperator Kahlo
6 years ago

@Katz

thanks 🙂

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
6 years ago

@Paradoxical

I am mentally hugging you SO MUCH right now.

JM
JM
6 years ago

Since when did anyone have a problem or was protesting against sex bots? Those guys want to fuck a toaster…go ahead. Get all crispy. As long as you leave the rest of humanity alone, you can go through all your kitchen appliances.

I get the feeling this is an argument along the MGTOW line: “Oh you’d hate this if we did it, you’d hate us not being involved…wait, you don’t have a problem? Oh yes you do, you just don’t realise it yet…”

katz
katz
6 years ago

Since when did anyone have a problem or was protesting against sex bots? Those guys want to fuck a toaster…go ahead. Get all crispy.

Presumably this toaster.

marinerachel
marinerachel
6 years ago

That’s a sexy toaster.

weirwoodtreehugger
6 years ago

They always claim we’re terrified of being replaced by sexbots. The only people I hear talking about them is the manosphere. I’ve never heard a feminist or any woman express terror at the prospect of sexbots.

Alice Sanguinaria
6 years ago

I thought a bunch of feminists would be happy if sexbots got invented, so that misogynistic men could shut the fuck up already and stop bothering us.

level14boss
level14boss
6 years ago

These guys are fucknuggets. One thing I’m curious about and should really look it up. Has any country talked about teaching consent and what consitutes and doesn’t constitute it to school children?
I know that it wouldn’t help against scum like these, but the more I read about this the more I think lessons in consent should start as early as possible.

Paradoxical Intention
6 years ago

katz | July 8, 2015 at 6:21 pm
Presumably this toaster.

Can we name it Georgia O’ Keefe?

Bina
Bina
6 years ago

Since when did anyone have a problem or was protesting against sex bots? Those guys want to fuck a toaster…go ahead. Get all crispy. As long as you leave the rest of humanity alone, you can go through all your kitchen appliances.

Evil person that I am, I immediately pictured a MGHOW in a blender, whirring away at full speed. And smiled.

I get the feeling this is an argument along the MGTOW line: “Oh you’d hate this if we did it, you’d hate us not being involved…wait, you don’t have a problem? Oh yes you do, you just don’t realise it yet…”

No, I don’t s’pose I do…and I hope I never do.

Honestly, no one would miss these shitfuckers.

A Land Whale
A Land Whale
6 years ago

The sad thing is these are not extremists….they’re NORMAL within the Moralless Righteous Asswipe Movement.

Paradoxical Intention
6 years ago

Bina | July 8, 2015 at 8:24 pm
Evil person that I am, I immediately pictured a MGHOW in a blender, whirring away at full speed. And smiled.

I pictured that graphic scene from this “Real Life ER” show my grandma was watching on the fourth. A lady put her hand in the blender to get something out, and she leaned over and accidentally hit the “pulse” button.

I almost threw up my BBQ. They got REALLY graphic with the visuals.

(I pointed it out to my grandma that she likes this stuff, but can’t stand horror movies, and I like horror movies, but can’t stand that stuff. We had a laugh about it.)

megpie71
6 years ago

To quote “Going Postal” by Terry Pratchett on the efficacy of the death penalty:

“Do you really think all this deters crime, Mr Trooper?” he said.

“Well, in the generality of things I’d say it’s hard to tell, given that it’s hard to find evidence of crimes not committed,” said the hangman, giving the trapdoor a final rattle. “But in the specificality sir, I’d say it’s very efficacious.”

“Meaning what?” said Moist.

“Meaning I’ve never seen someone up here more’n once, sir. Shall we go?”

I suspect a lot of the people who are commenting on the efficacious nature of imprisonment against rape recidivism are very much commenting about what could be stated the “specificality” of the punishment – namely, while the criminal in question is imprisoned, they generally aren’t raping people. As Mr Trooper points out, it is very hard to find evidence of crimes not committed, so any discussion of deterrence has to happen very much at the individual level (as in “what would stop you from doing this again?”). However, it has to be accepted that a lot of people who are repeat offenders in this case aren’t going to stop – in the worst cases, they will continue to offend any time they’re released on parole (see any number of examples – the killer of Jill Meagher is probably the best known one here in Australia) and won’t stop until they’re dead.

(Incidentally, while in Ankh-Morpork, the death penalty may possibly be able to be appealed – see Mr Slant, the zombie lawyer, for details – here on Roundworld it isn’t, which is why I object to it on principle. I also object to mutilation as a punishment for very similar reasons – it’s rather hard to re-attach bits when you discover someone’s made a mistake somewhere along the line.)

As with all violent crimes (including rape), the main correlation is between attitudes of entitlement and violent actions – the people who habitually commit violent crimes believe they’re entitled to do these things, because of who they are, what happened to them as children, who their victims are, or what their victims were doing at the time. So what we need to do is start working on changing the social conversations which say there are excuses for acting in a violent fashion.

Ken L.
6 years ago

At least in America we put the cart before the horse. People talking about tougher punishment for crimes. The fact is that punishment is not a deterrent, rather that the idea that punishment will be swift in coming is. Give the poor records of investigations even with a victim who is brave enough to come forward, it’s very easy to see why, The US justice system is a failure.

Robjec
Robjec
6 years ago

Hey I’ve been reading this for a month or two now, and lurking on the comments a lot but it’s my first post. I just wanted to say a bit off topic but some people have said here and elsewhere that no one will protest sex dolls, well it has kind of happened once, there’s this this called real dolls, which is supposed to be kind of intellect sex dolls or have personality or something along that line, not really sure. But they are the closest things to sex dolls now, I think ( I don’t look this up I just know about this one controversy)

See they made 2 or 3 personalities which were rape victims, and which were immediately protested, so yes people have protested sex dolls.

I doubt the people using this as a defense will realize/care it was for normalizing rape (I belive the company’s stance was “It will reduce rape because they can get their power rush from something that’s not real, and then this got involved with docussions on what happens when robots are as smart as people and can feel, ect)

Tldr: people have protested sex bots for being fake rape victims, it’s horrible but may be what these guys are referring too. Also ewww.

Olive O'Sudden
Olive O'Sudden
6 years ago

Females make up 50% of the population but control 100% of the vaginas?* Ummmm…maybe that’s because vaginas are part of our bodies? I can’t help but read that what the ‘I am the 50%’ guy who calls for the ‘equal redistribution of pussy’ is really saying is that both men and women should be born with half a vagina each. I’ll grant that his post sounds almost too well-constructed to be genuine and I would have no trouble believing it was satire. It would be so much better if it were satire.

*He obviously isn’t including transmen who may have vaginas. Also I’m assuming the poster identifies as a ‘he’.

Hambeast, Social Justice Road Warrior
Hambeast, Social Justice Road Warrior
6 years ago

Since when did anyone have a problem or was protesting against sex bots? Those guys want to fuck a toaster…go ahead. Get all crispy.

I would like to humbly suggest the toaster from Red Dwarf.

sylviaplant
6 years ago

Vikings had laws against rape. So much for their “historical perspective.”

autosoma
6 years ago

I do feel that a custodial sentence is a deterrent, having received all manner of fines, community service, group attendance and duty Sargent desk telling off thingies (I can’t remember what it’s called on of the English Legal people can probably remind me), I know that I’m more than likely to receive a custodial sentence. That knowledge made me turn around my perspective on committing common assaults – I will stress that in the main they were pub thuggery and being lary at demos and rallies.

From my own perspective I would never consider that I was entitled to perform act of violence and aggression, I would say that there was an enablement, my childhood and upbringing enabled me but not entitled me. My time in the army enabled me to perform some rather nasty things but never entitled me.

Hmm! Maybe this is in some part has caused a (semi) successful rehabilitation as I don’t expect to be entitled to anything.

I realise that this is going slightly off topic as rape, sexual violence and sexual assault are very strongly held boundaries of mine and so I can’t put myself into the mindset of men who do commit such acts and when I’ve been out and about with fellas who express the opinions like the ones we’re all criticising is generally when I end up thumping the fuckers and get myself into trouble.

I’ve found it very useful in reading peoples opinions and in many respects an Eye-opener for me, do thanks all. Downside is is that it has in part enabled me to justify (in my head), some things I’ve done in the past, but fortunately I can now silo it and say “not good – don’t use it, be mindful” Don’t get me wrong I’m not advertising myself as a white knight, that really is something I could never be, but wow, you lot are really insightful people, thank you.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
6 years ago

@ autosoma

Sargent desk telling off thingies (I can’t remember what it’s called on of the English Legal people can probably remind me)

Does the phrase “Do you accept my award?” ring any bells? 🙂

I like the ‘award’ bit; makes it seem like you’ve won something.

autosoma
6 years ago

Sorry Alan I can’t really remember what was said. I do remember thinking “blimey that’s a really high podium behind the custody desk, it must be designed for effect” and secondly “did my trousers are falling down and I don’t have knickers on” cos they hadn’t given me back my belt. They did let me keep the book I was reading at the time in the cell which was about the derivative markets.

misseb47
misseb47
6 years ago

Wow, just wow. This is some serious disgusting shit. And the whole ‘equal redistribution of pussy’ thing? Just eww. ‘Females’ own are 50% of the world’s population and ‘control access to’ 100% of them because it is part of the female anatomy. They are part of women’s bodies and we have the right to bodily autonomy. Men are also 50% of the world’s population, ‘control access to’ 100% of all penises, but you don’t hear anyone arguing for ‘equal redistribution of penis’, do you? It won’t surprise me at all if these people are actual rapists. Words cannot describe how I feel about these vile vomit stains, so I am going to use a bunch of memes instead.

http://www.london24.com/polopoly_fs/1.3983080.1425670929!/menu/standard/file/angry-eyes.gif
comment image

http://24.media.tumblr.com/72032ee5041f24ad621896a3783cb0e9/tumblr_mn6752u8iA1ryfjvao1_500.gif

http://www.cccoe.net/social/images/angry.gif
comment image

http://media.giphy.com/media/aaoG2VSbUdUe4/giphy.gif

banned@4chan.org
banned@4chan.org
6 years ago

Moot reintroduced the /pol/ board based on the idea of “containment,” that people who want to share shitty ideas on the sexes and races would want to have their say on /pol/ and not elsewhere. This is actually the original reason for /b/, that if you wanted to post something completely gonzo you could put it up there and let the other boards stay on-topic.

However, more and more, I’m seeing complaints about “SJWs” and “Tyrones” on other boards. Containment isn’t working here, and it seems to be having the opposite effect.

Orion
Orion
6 years ago

Some people here talking about the issues with convicting rapists to a criminal standard.
In New South Wales a few years ago (haven’t seen any new stats come in on this sorry) we tightened up laws around rape in regards to what is required to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The standard in NSW is now that the prosecution must show that an offender (from the act):

(3) Knowledge about consent A person who has sexual intercourse with another person without the consent of the other person knows that the other person does not consent to the sexual intercourse if:
(a) the person knows that the other person does not consent to the sexual intercourse, or
(b) the person is reckless as to whether the other person consents to the sexual intercourse, or
(c) the person has no reasonable grounds for believing that the other person consents to the sexual intercourse.

The prosecution must therefore only show that the assailant was reckless in regards to consent or that they were being unreasonable to believe they had consent in the circumstances. Other sections prescribe that being drunk is not a defence to this part.

This reframes the debate in court around the accused rather than the victim to an extent. Did they seek consent? Did they check to see if the other person was intoxicated or scared to say no?

Furthermore hearsay rules in Australia are much looser due to certain cases, such as one where the prosecution witnesses had been 3 other people the woman had run to complain to at the party after the rape occurred, these witnesses only witnessed the victim’s testimony, they saw nothing of the actual incident, it was pure hearsay. But it was admitted because it was still relevant evidence as to the victim’s state after the incident and it lent obvious credibility that was key in making proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Even if it does improve conviction rates I expect change to come slowly as most people are deathly afraid of going to court and it is still harrowing to be on cross-examination. If this makes court for victims a better experience with better conviction rates it would be some time before this filters into the general consciousness.

Anarchonist
Anarchonist
6 years ago

Aww, adorable pandas and other lovely cuddlies! Thanks, people! I’m just going to sit staring at them for a while.

sunnysombrera
6 years ago

(b) the person is reckless as to whether the other person consents to the sexual intercourse

I wish this could be copy pasted into every rape law across the world. It would do SO much to help. Good job Australia.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
6 years ago

@ sunnysombera

That’s pretty much the case in England now (I don’t want tt be all ‘little Englander and suggest we had it first, came in in 2005)

Here’s some light reading if you can face it.

Reasonable belief in consent

Deciding whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps (A) has taken to ascertain whether (B) consents (subsection (2) of sections 1-4). It is likely that this will include a defendant’s attributes, such as disability or extreme youth, but not if (s)he has any particular fetishes.

The Act abolished the Morgan defence of a genuine though unreasonably mistaken belief as to the consent of the complainant. The defendant (A) has the responsibility to ensure that (B) consents to the sexual activity at the time in question. It will be important for the police to ask the offender in interview what steps (s)he took to satisfy him or herself that the complainant consented in order to show his or her state of mind at the time.

The test of reasonable belief is a subjective test with an objective element. The best way of dealing with this issue is to ask two questions:
1.Did the defendant believe the complainant consented? This relates to his or her personal capacity to evaluate consent (the subjective element of the test).

2.If so, did the defendant reasonably believe it? It will be for the jury to decide if his or her belief was reasonable (the objective element).

Top of page

Evidential presumptions (section 75)

Section 75 lists the circumstances in which rebuttable evidential presumptions about the absence of consent apply. If the defendant did the relevant act, as defined in section 77 (the sexual activity within sections 1-4), and the circumstances specified in subsection (2) exist and the defendant knew they existed, then the complainant is to be taken not to have consented.

The Act imposes an evidential burden on the defendant to adduce sufficient evidence to raise an issue that the complainant consented and whether or not the defendant reasonably believed the complainant consented. The question whether the defendant adduces sufficient evidence to raise an issue to be left to a jury is a matter for the judge. The issue should be left to a jury where the evidence, if accepted, raises a prima facie case. Once the defendant has done this, it will be for the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that the complainant did not consent and that the defendant did not reasonably believe the complainant consented.

Prosecutors should note that in practice the evidential presumptions very rarely apply.

Top of page

Conclusive presumptions (section 76)

Section 76 provides two conclusive presumptions that the complainant did not consent to the activity and the defendant did not believe that the complainant consented.

The first presumption, based on the defendant intentionally deceiving the complainant as to the nature or purpose of the relevant act, has been the subject of discussion in several cases including:
In R v Jheeta [2007] EWCA Crim 1699 where the defendant had deceived the complainant and pressured her into having sexual intercourse more frequently than she would have done otherwise, the conclusive presumption did not apply because there had been no deception as to the nature or purpose of sexual intercourse.
In R v Tabassum [2002] 2 Cr App R 328 where the defendant conducted breast examinations for his own sexual gratification, on the pretence that he was collecting data for a cancer screening programme there was no genuine consent because the complainants had consented only to an act of a medical nature and not for any other reason.
In R v Devonald [2008] EWCA Crim 527 the conviction of causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent was upheld where the defendant in order to embarrass his victim, posed as a young woman and persuaded him to masturbate in front of a webcam.

Top of page

‘Conditional’ Consent

Section 74 has recently been considered by the High Court and the Court of Appeal in a series of cases where ostensible consent in relation to sexual offences was considered not to be true consent, either because a condition upon which consent was given was not complied with or because of a material deception (other than one which falls within section 76 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 [SOA]). The resultant judgments identified three sets of circumstances in which consent to sexual activity might be vitiated where the condition was breached.

In Julian Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority [2011] EWHC 2849 (Admin), an extradition case, the President of the Queens Bench Division considered the situation in which Mr Assange knew that AA would only consent to sexual intercourse if he used a condom. Rejecting the view that the conclusive presumption in section 76 of the SOA would apply in these circumstances the President concluded that the “issue of materiality …can be determined under section 74 rather than section 76”.

On the specific facts the President said:

“It would plainly be open to a jury to hold that if AA had made clear that she would only consent to sexual intercourse if Mr Assange used a condom, then there would be no consent if, without her consent, he did not use a condom, or removed or tore the condom ….. His conduct in having sexual intercourse without a condom in circumstances where she had made clear she would only have sexual intercourse if he used a condom would therefore amount to an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003….”

In R (on the application of F) v The DPP [2013] EWHC 945 (Admin), the High Court examined an application for judicial review of the refusal of the DPP to initiate a prosecution for rape and/or sexual assault of the complainant by her former partner. “Choice” and the “freedom” to make any particular choice must, the Court said, be approached in “a broad commonsense way”.

Against what the Court described as the “essential background” of the complainant’s partner’s “sexual dominance” and the complainant’s “unenthusiastic acquiescence to his demands”, the Court considered a specific incident when the claimant consented to sexual intercourse only on the clear understanding that her partner would not ejaculate inside her vagina. She believed that he intended and agreed to withdraw before ejaculation, and he knew and understood that this was the only basis on which she was prepared to have sexual intercourse with him. When he deliberately ejaculated inside the complainant, the result, the Court stated was:

“She was deprived of choice relating to the crucial feature on which her original consent to sexual intercourse was based. Accordingly her consent was negated. Contrary to her wishes, and knowing that she would not have consented, and did not consent to penetration or the continuation of penetration if she had any inkling of his intention, he deliberately ejaculated within her vagina. In law, this combination of circumstances falls within the statutory definition of rape”.

The third case, Justine McNally v R [2013] EWCA Crim 1051, differs from those referred to above. Unlike Assange and F, both of which turned on an express condition, McNally was concerned with the material deception of the victim by the Appellant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed McNally’s appeal against her conviction on six counts of assault by penetration contrary to section 2 of the SOA and allowed her appeal against sentence. The “undeniably unusual” facts considered by the Court involved the relationship between two girls which, over 3 years, developed from an internet relationship to an “exclusive romantic relationship” that involved their meeting and engaging in sexual activity. From the start McNally presented as a boy, a deception she maintained throughout the relationship. Examining the nature of “choice” and “freedom”, the Court determined that “deception as to gender can vitiate consent”.

The Courts reasoning was as follows:

“Thus while, in a physical sense, the acts of assault by penetration of the vagina are the same whether perpetrated by a male or a female, the sexual nature of the acts is, on any common sense view, different where the complainant is deliberately deceived by a defendant into believing the latter is a male. Assuming the facts to be proved as alleged, M chose to have sexual encounters with a boy and her preference (her freedom to choose whether or not to have a sexual encounter with a girl) was removed by the appellants deception.”

Demonstrating that the circumstances in which consent may be vitiated are not limitless, the Court explained:

“In reality, some deceptions (such as, for example, in relation to wealth) will obviously not be sufficient to vitiate consent.”

kupo
kupo
6 years ago

1.Did the defendant believe the complainant consented? This relates to his or her personal capacity to evaluate consent (the subjective element of the test).

2.If so, did the defendant reasonably believe it? It will be for the jury to decide if his or her belief was reasonable (the objective element).

I feel like if that were on the books in America you’d have all the judges agreeing with the dudebros that it’s reasonable to believe a woman saying “no” means “yes” because women never say what they really mean.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
6 years ago

@ Orion

Furthermore hearsay rules in Australia are much looser due to certain cases, such as one where the prosecution witnesses had been 3 other people the woman had run to complain to at the party after the rape occurred, these witnesses only witnessed the victim’s testimony, they saw nothing of the actual incident, it was pure hearsay. But it was admitted because it was still relevant evidence as to the victim’s state after the incident and it lent obvious credibility that was key in making proof beyond reasonable doubt.

That sort of thing has always been an expectation to the rule against hearsay in countries that Britain used to run. It’s called ‘evidence of recent complainant’. Technically it isn’t even hearsay because the repetition of the complainant’s words by the witnesses is not admissible as to the truth of those words but only as to the state of mind of the complainant.

Ironically we’ve moved away from that in England because it reinforced the myth that women who’d been raped would immediately raise hell about it, whereas in many cases women keep quiet for ages.

As a legal aside we’ve also got rid of the ban on hearsay evidence anyway.

Yutolia
Yutolia
6 years ago

To the person who said they are not effected by childhood sexual abuse:

I was also abused, and I also thought that it didn’t effect me – however, I also always hated myself (especially my child self) and thought for most of my life up to this point that I was inherently worth less than everyone else. I couldn’t figure out why, but I just “knew” somehow. I also didn’t have any boundaries because I wasn’t allowed to have them as a kid, which led me into more problems. This is ALL BECAUSE OF THE ABUSE!!! So either you were effected and haven’t realized it yet, or you’re lying…

freemage
6 years ago

Alan: You commented that it’s the juries, not the judges who make the decision about rape convictions in England, so getting rid of ‘bad’ judges would have a minimal effect. However, I believe that in the UK, as in the US, judges do rule on aspects of the trial itself, including the nature of the defense, what evidence can be introduced by either side, the applicability of testimony, andso forth, yes?

In the US, at least, these rulings have been horrible. Far too many judges will stack the deck against the accuser,either restricting the evidence they can present, or far more often, giving the defense vast latitude in presenting their case. And it’s very rare for a prosecutor to appeal such rulings, so they stand as precedent that can then be cited by other defense attorneys.

What’s truly needed is a clear statement of law that says that a woman who claims she has been raped should be given the same credibility as a man who says his car has been stolen. There may be an issue of who has committed the crime, but the argument that no crime has even occured should face a much higher barrier than it does now.

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
6 years ago

See they made 2 or 3 personalities which were rape victims, and which were immediately protested, so yes people have protested sex dolls.

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/thinks.gif

Hmm, I wonder why they would protest these sex dolls?

See they made 2 or 3 personalities which were rape victims, and which were immediately protested, so yes people have protested sex dolls.

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/mmhm.gif

Hmm…

See they made 2 or 3 personalities which were rape victims, and which were immediately protested

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/ewis1.gif

Hmm…

See they made 2 or 3 personalities which were rape victims

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/mth.gif

Hrmm…

2 or 3 personalities which were rape victims

I wonder…why would they protest sex dolls, which are meant to represent women that are complacent and you can fuck at any time, who have the personalities of rape vicitms?

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/thinking.gif

I mean, really now.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
6 years ago

@ Freemage

Judges do have final say over the admissibility of evidence but they have to abide by the relevant laws. So in England for instance evidence of previous sexual conduct of the complainant isn’t generally admissible.

There are also procedural rules, so for instance a rape suspect cannot cross examine a complainant himself; he must get a lawyer or forego the right to challenge the evidence (that in itself is an issue with the new restrictions on legal aid of course)

As a matter of practice very few defence barristers will ‘beat up’ on a complainant; juries don’t like that. Interestingly though most barristers who defend in (consent based) rape case are women (for reasons we’ve discussed before) and they can get away with going in harder on a witness than a man can (that’s one of the reasons for instructing them).

I can see your point about letting juries know that false allegations in rape cases are no more common than in other offences (anecdotally the largest example of false crime reports is ‘theft’ of mobile phones). However it’s a fundamental common law principle that credibility of a witness is the sole province of the jury. The court of appeal makes that quite clear. For a judge to say emphasise that false rape complaints are rare is in effect saying ‘you should believe the complainant’. False complaints in all areas are of course rare so if that was allowed in rape cases then prosecutors would have to be allowed to make that point in all cases. That could be problematic. In effect we’d be introducing a presumption of guilt.

Of course one of the things about rape is that it’s not enough to convict to show the complainant is telling the truth (i.e. that she did not consent). That may be accepted by the defence. The issue quite often is ‘belief in consent’.

There have been some changes here, judges now give some guidance on rape myths (e.g. they point out that many victims don’t immediately tell anyone), but saying any witness in a criminal case is inherently more credible than any other would be a hard sell in a common law jurisdiction. It also has to be borne in mind that in a criminal case the parties are the Crown and the Defendant; the complainant is just another witness. That’s obviously horrible, but that’s how criminal proceedings (as opposed to civil proceedings work).

Morrizaurus
Morrizaurus
6 years ago

About deterrence: think of the people who run away from the cops or who straight up lie to them while it’s obviously counterproductive. On those cases what the detained person is doing is the worst thing; if they cooperated their treatment and sentence would be lighter but they don’t, they aren’t thinking ahead or still have hope to get away Scott free.

On the other hands rapist in prisons can and often times do keep committing crimes, think of prison rape, locking horrible people together is a terrible strategy on the long run. So please consider that “removing the antisocial element of society” is not actually true when talking about prison, it’s pretty much just out of sight, out of mind.

Also think of prison overcrowding, many petty criminals are locked together with the scum of the earth which is beneficial to no one, creating on prisoners antisocial attitudes which they carry over once set free.

That is not to say rapist shouldn’t be incarcerated but thinking incarceration solves anything is wrong.
We shouldn’t look for harsher punishments prison is pretty harsh already, also getting back on your feet after prison is also pretty bad as well but we should look to reduce crime through work and culture.
I know it sounds stupid and it’s not really satisfactory for the victims, but what we can do for the victims is limited as we can never make them not be victims or not have to deal with the process to carry “justice” out

freemage
6 years ago

Alan:

It sounds as if your judges are on a slightly tighter leash. In the U.S., a judge who is horrible on such issues is often quite able to continue on without consequence. It’s remarkable for a prosecutor to appeal a judge’s procedural ruling (in part because they know the judge is likely going to take offense, thereby gumming things up for them even more going forward).

As for ‘belief in consent’… Honestly, I think that the standard should be moved to ‘lacking affirmative consent’. As odious as comparisons to property crimes are, they do highlight the absurdity of the ‘belief in consent’ notion. By the belief standard as it is usually applied, an unlocked vehicle would be legitimately available for the taking.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
6 years ago

@ freemage

Theoretically our judges have even less control. They can only be removed from office by act of parliament.

However, because most of our judges are former barristers and the Bar is quite small (we pretty much all know each other, certainly in a particular circuit) then good old fashioned social pressure keeps everyone in line. If a judge is a dick someone will have a quiet word in their ear and they’ll decide they want to spend more time with their families.

Judges also don’t hold grudges about being appealed here; it’s all part of the job. In fact it’s a rather bizarre fact that the first person you ask for leave to appeal is the judge you’re appealing against. They’re pretty good humoured about it:

“Your Honour, I seek leave to appeal…”

“Presumably on the ground I’m a senile old duffer who shouldn’t be trusted to judge a knobbly knees competition?”

“Well, that and your erroneous interpretation of Section 2 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act”

Bina
Bina
6 years ago

Vikings had laws against rape. So much for their “historical perspective.”

Yup. The Danelaw was so socially progressive that more conservative societies (i.e. rapey ones) often complained that the Vikings were “stealing” their women.

(They were also more ironic, but the irony was lost on them.)

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
6 years ago

“The Vikings! They BATHE! They GROOM! The convict RAPISTS! They let females FIGHT!

“WHY ARE FEMALES INTERESTED IN THEM? WE KEEP THEM AT HOME, COOKING FOOD AND POPPING OUT BABIES LIKE ALL FEMALES LIKE! Don’t they know that if they aren’t pregnant, their womb wanders?! Don’t they know that if they go long without getting pregnant, THEY TURN INTO LIZARDS?!

“But, there the Vikings are! Chopping off the heads of convicted rapists as if they aren’t doing females a favor! DO THEY WANT TO BE LIZARDS?!”

~Douchacles, “An essay on how Vikings are gonna steal all our female if we don’t chain them to the stove and constantly pregnant and ignorant” 92 BCE

freemage
6 years ago

Alan Robertshaw | July 9, 2015 at 6:07 pm

However, because most of our judges are former barristers and the Bar is quite small (we pretty much all know each other, certainly in a particular circuit) then good old fashioned social pressure keeps everyone in line. If a judge is a dick someone will have a quiet word in their ear and they’ll decide they want to spend more time with their families.

In the U.S., there’s a similar degree of familiarity, but it works the other way–judges are more likely to want to ‘protect the institution of the judiciary’ from scandal by refraining from calling out a judge who isn’t actually physically abusing people in his courtroom.

Judges also don’t hold grudges about being appealed here; it’s all part of the job. In fact it’s a rather bizarre fact that the first person you ask for leave to appeal is the judge you’re appealing against. They’re pretty good humoured about it:

Take a look at that family court transcript in one of the later threads–the judge there is so petty she’s sent three children (9, 10, and 15) to juvenile detention for refusing to build a relationship with their father. There’s a push growing for some sort of reprimand, but I can assure you, judges don’t reach that point without a long history of getting away with shit and not facing any consequences at all.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
6 years ago

@ freemage

Yes I saw that. Wow! Be very interested to know how that’s resolved and what the judge’s history is.

Carmen
Carmen
6 years ago

I think rape is the most obvious and visceral expression of a man’s contempt and/or disregard for women.

It’s funny…as someone with a lot of experience in this arena (not as a perpetrator), I can see it’s quite untrue that there is just ONE reason for rape. Sometimes it’s more motivated by sexual desire (and the man in question’s pathology/sense of entitlement, since he can’t “turn it off”) and sometimes it’s more motivated by hate (and is therefore, as many people say, about power, not sex). I mean, in a sense all rape is about power–men’s power relative to women’s in society (and thus sense of entitlement to their bodies when aroused), men’s physical power–but in terms of individual cases, rape motivated by sexual desire feels a lot less personal than rape motivated by hate (although feeling like nothing more than an object, an alluring set of holes, is extremely dehumanizing and also very traumatic).

So why is rape so traumatic? I mean to be honest, rape by an acquaintance or partner, etc., has the potential to be MORE traumatic than rape by a stranger (even if less violent), because of loss of trust in the men around you, as well as quite possibly leading to a “he-said she-said” scenario in your circle of friends with other acquaintances siding against you or failing to defend you (as, contrary to popular opinion, rape is NOT seen as that bad–or rather, that true–in society; much like the “Madonna/whore” trope there is the “good victim/bad victim” dichotomy, and any woman who is not pure, sober, and a virtual stranger to the perpetrator is a “bad victim.” So if you are alone somewhere with a guy/guys, drink with them, or flirt with them in any way–common behavior among men and women who are friends–you are responsible if they rape you, and in fact, it’s likely rape didn’t even occur, right? Obviously you slept with him/them. You are making it up. I think this head-in-the-sand attitude, coupled with the pervasiveness of violent pornography and male entitlement–including male rage at women’s growing power in society–is what leads to so many incidences of what has been termed “date rape” or “acquaintance rape” occurring; most women don’t report it, and may not even talk about it to their friends if the rapist is someone they know, for fear of become ostracized within their community).

To combat this, women need to stand with women. Of course false accusations occurs, but it occurs at a rate far lower than the rate of rape, which is severely underreported (and in fact many women will not acknowledge that they experienced rape, though they are just as affected by it). And all the “not all men” out there also need to stand with women, and believe them. Even the specter of false accusation is so overblown; such a minimal number of men are convicted of rape that it is very unlikely that a man would be both falsely accused and convicted; and “acquaintance rape” cases rarely make it to the courtroom anyway. Most men who are falsely convicted are victims of mistaken identity in stranger rape cases (which is terrible, obviously, but not the same as a woman maliciously accusing an innocent man on purpose; and it is to be hoped that DNA science should help cut down on such instances in the modern age).

Why is it that rape is so traumatic, even if not violent? Because it’s social violence. It’s a hate crime. It’s a reminder, in the most extreme way possible, that you are what society tells you you are but what you have fought so hard not to be: less than men; worth only what’s between your legs; a thing, an object. Not a person worthy of respect. Rape erases your humanity. And if you become numb to sexual violence–as many women do (I was once)–you die a little inside every day. It erodes your self-confidence and ability to thrive in life; it kills your love for yourself and any inkling that you deserve better, that you deserve respect. It is a way to keep women in line in the often violently patriarchal societies we live in.

It is not, as evopsych would have it, because the right to select who bears your children has been taken from you. It is because you have been turned into a thing (and, as women who have been raped once are seven times more likely to be raped again–often coming from a vulnerable group, or perhaps because of PTSD changing them from the once-vibrant women they were into more fearful beings, which predators can spot–or because of subsequent promiscuity or reckless behavior driven by sorrow–women often are turned into things over and over and over again until the message finally sinks in. I think prostitution–the majority of it, in which women are unwilling participants–and sex trafficking and pornography are the most obvious representations of this phenomenon).

As far as effects go, women who have been raped may make less money over their lifetime; are more likely to experience divorce or become involved in abusive relationships; are more likely to become addicted to alcohol and drugs; get sick more often; and are more at-risk for heart attacks and strokes as they get older. Rape has a very real physical and emotional cost. Getting beat up once on the street doesn’t.

There needs to be rape and sexual violence education in school to supplement sex education. Men (and women) need to learn both why it is so bad and how not to have it occur. It’s so important for the happiness–and happy sex lives and interpersonal relationships–of both genders that we strongly advocate the affirmative-consent model.

Carmen
Carmen
6 years ago

Not to mention having issues with self-esteem, mental health, and trust, all of which interfere in one’s ability to have healthy and happy relationships, both friendships (especially with the opposite gender) and romantic relationships (which, if it persists, means no kids, no family, when one might have wanted that…it gets taken away), and issues achieving goals or realizing one’s full potential in life (something that occurs anyway because of constant negative messages women receive in our society, but which is magnified by rape)…obviously none of this is a given, and all of it can be overcome. It depends on background, social support, therapy (paid or otherwise; writing can be great therapy for example, as can talking to supportive friends), and the individual make-up of the woman in question…but the damage of sexual violence, especially as it is SO pervasive in so many women’s lives–especially those who already come from at-risk situations, like the poor (especially poor women of color) and the mentally ill–cannot be overstated, IMO. It doesn’t mean it’s insurmountable, but it also does a disservice to all women to pretend that emotional (and therefore physical, as our bodies and minds are connected) damage resulting from sexual violence is not a real thing.

And sexual violence is awful for both genders–again, being turned into a thing feels awful–and men face ridicule or not feeling “like a man” if they disclose sexual violence committed against them (whether by another man or by a woman), and may be even less likely than women to report it. However, within society (excluding prison) sexual violence is so much more pervasive against women, and acts in combination with all the constant messages of inferiority women already receive (and constant fear of the threat of violence curtails women’s lives and affects emotional health), so I’d have to say that it is still worse for women, in that sense (though obviously results in the same psychological ill effects for both genders).

Within prison, however–where far too many men guilty of minor, nonviolent offenses are incarcerated–mostly poor men and men of color–rape is an all-too-real threat that we as a society do need to take more seriously (as we need to take sexual violence in general; it’s time we ask the question no one wants to ask; “why are men so violent, and what can we do about it?” And again, IMO, it all comes back to the way we are raised. I.e., the patriarchy. The only solution to these problems is a radical restructuring of society. But I am preaching to the choir here, I know).

ChekhovsPun
ChekhovsPun
6 years ago

Threadomancy here, but why did they make a convoluted backstory for a fictional owl?
And why is that puzzling me more than the rest?

isidore13
isidore13
6 years ago

@chekhov’spun, I was assuming the owl was a representation of the person creating the thing.

ChekhovsPun
ChekhovsPun
6 years ago

@isidore13 Ah, that makes more sense. Marginally.
Here I was thinking Professor Owl was some kind of rejected kid’s character, a la Cool Cat. Only misogynistic and paranoid.

Robert
Robert
3 years ago

The creepos have a point of sorts. If rape was left out of aggravated assault, choking, strangling, punching, kidnapping, threatening with weapons, and such like, it would be much easier to get convictions. Juries will readily convict for brutality but by insisting on prosecuting for rape many rapists go free because “she said, he said.” It’s relatively easy to create a “reasonable doubt” in the minds of jurors. All that is needed is to create a reasonable doubt in the mind of ONE juror to get a hung jury. Often the prosecution will decline to retry the case. Often the victim-prosecution witness will be worn out by the trial and will not be willing to go through another.
Rape could still be introduced at sentencing as an aggravating factor for enhancement of sentence. The burden of proof of aggravating factors at sentencing is much lower than “beyond a reasonable doubt.” It’s more on the order of “preponderance of the evidence,” the standard for civil lawsuits. And, even if introducing rape at the sentencing hearing doesn’t gain a sentence enhancement, the convict will be sentenced for the assault, battery, kidnapping, etc.