Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Social ScienceGender & Women's Studies · 2 months ago

Did rapists in the 1700s get away with their rape sprees? As there was no DNA or cameras?

20 Answers

Relevance
  • Foofa
    Lv 7
    2 months ago

    The rape of women in most parts back then was considered a crime against her father or husband rather than against the woman herself. Whether law enforcement even took notice usually had to do with the victim's father or husband's social position. So if you didn't own land and weren't important no one would even attempt to prosecute your rape.

  • Elana
    Lv 7
    2 months ago

    The lack of modern technology simply means that more innocent people were sentenced (and yes, executed) for crimes they didn't commit. People were as sure then that they were guilty by virtue of the fact that they didn't sink when tied and thrown in water as we are now when DNA links somebody to a crime.

    Some crimes outrage the community so much that to keep order, a perpetrator must be found and punished in order to keep order. That was true then, that is true now. The difference is that now the perpetrator is more likely to have had at least something to do with the crime.

    Yes, more rapists got away with their sprees. But more innocent people were punished/executed due to them being the the wrong demographic.

  • Zirp
    Lv 7
    2 months ago

    Are you kidding me? they didn't even have laws against raping your own wife halfway the 20th century

  • Marla
    Lv 7
    2 months ago

    Those who dared surely did. Back then, unless caught in the act or identified by the victim, there was no proof. In most cases the victim would be blamed with the argument that she somehow enticed the rapist.

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • Anonymous
    2 months ago

    Using DNA evidence to solve crimes is a fairly recent thing - it was first used in 1986. So yes, rapists and other criminals got away with a lot in the past, and we don't have to go back several centuries for it. As recently back as the 50's women were still being blamed if they were raped and asked in court about what they were wearing when they were assaulted.

  • Nāga
    Lv 7
    2 months ago

    Communities tended to be smaller then and it would have been easier to identify a rapist, and justice would be dealt with quickly and harshly.

  • 2 months ago

    "Vicky" says her mother was under the age of consent when a family friend she claims was in his 30s raped her.

    She says her birth is proof of the crime and wants DNA testing to convict her dad of unlawful sexual intercourse.

    West Midlands Police says the law does not recognise her as a victim.

    Vicky - not her real name - from Birmingham, was adopted in the 1970s at seven months old.

    Aged 18, she began searching for her birth mother and discovered from a social worker and her social services records that her conception was a result of rape.

  • 2 months ago

    Why yes, yes they did.

  • 2 months ago

    White boys have been raping blacks since the beginning

  • Anonymous
    2 months ago

    Rape wasn't a crime in the 1700's

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.