The Student Room Group

Rape is now guilty before proven innocent.

Scroll to see replies

Getting voluntarily intoxicated is also a reckless course of conduct, so if the girl is the one accusing she gets to make false accusations in some instances, where as if it's the man then it's like "your a man you can't be raped by the other sex".

In summary, why is it the mans job to check if the women is consenting. If both are kissing, leading on etc shouldn't the woman also have a duty to check for consent. It should be more implied otherwise the dpp guidelines are too ambiguous ( which is why they want no doubt to "stop the floodgates of litigation opening" but in actually implementing these guidelines the opposite will happen)
Original post by chazwomaq
That's not true is it? The 2003 Act includes "reasonable belief" of consent.


Hence the use of the word 'previous' :smile: It was the position following a 1975 case where a group of men were told by the woman's husband that she would actively resist them having sex with her but she didn't really mean it.

Fortunately, that was changed with the SOA 2003 and the belief in consent now has to be reasonable.
Original post by Redemption?
Good point. Can men fully appreciate what rape does to a woman? Can women understand what a false allegation does to a man? Who can comprehensively state which is worse on the individual?


I would say a lengthy prison sentence and permanent stigma of being a convicted rapist simply because you couldn't prove your innocence is pretty bad.
Original post by unprinted
Demonstrating a reasonable belief in consent really is not difficult. Being able to say that you asked if they wanted to be sexual with you would be one step, for example.


They can also lie and say they believed they had consent when in fact they didn't. Unless you breach the "innocent before proven guilty" principle, I don't see how this aids the conviction of actual rapists, but I do see how it could lead to the false conviction of innocent people. If somebody is low enough to actually rape somebody, why would you trust their word?

There are circumstances where it is: if the other person was unconscious, for example.


The plaintiff would have to put forward evidence that they were unconscious, at which point the defendant would respond to this evidence (as per usual).
Original post by chazwomaq
The plaintiff says: I didn't consent.
The defendant says: I thought she did consent.
The plaintiff says: I never said yes.
The prosecutor says: Why did you think there was consent?
The defendant tries to give a good reason. Non-verbal signals, she was sexually responsive, she wasn't very drunk etc. If they're reasonable -> no prosecution. If they're not -> prosecution.

Would you accept it isn't good enough for the defendant to shrug and say "I assumed she consented for no good reason"?

I'm not sure these guidelines require proof on the part of the defendant. If so, that will be quickly shown to be unworkable.


So it is essentially one person's word against another, and therefore, essentially meaningless.
Original post by felamaslen
They can also lie and say they believed they had consent when in fact they didn't. Unless you breach the "innocent before proven guilty" principle, I don't see how this aids the conviction of actual rapists, but I do see how it could lead to the false conviction of innocent people.


Yes, guilty people have been known to lie about what happened. That's why you have trials, to establish what happened based on the whole of the evidence.

What this should do is reduce the number of cases that are dropped at an early stage. A classic example is Ian Huntley, the Soham murderer. Before he killed the two young women, several other women had accused him of rape. None of the cases went to trial: in one, CCTV footage of him kissing her earlier led to it being marked as 'no action'. If it happened today, and he said his belief in her consent was solely down to having kissed her earlier, he'd be found guilty: a earlier kiss does not mean '**** me now'.

The plaintiff would have to put forward evidence that they were unconscious, at which point the defendant would respond to this evidence (as per usual).


Well, it's the prosecution that puts forward the evidence, not the complainant, but obviously...
Original post by unprinted
Hence the use of the word 'previous' :smile: It was the position following a 1975 case where a group of men were told by the woman's husband that she would actively resist them having sex with her but she didn't really mean it.

Fortunately, that was changed with the SOA 2003 and the belief in consent now has to be reasonable.


Ah, OK, I thought you meant previous as in 2003 compared to these guidelines.

Far enough then.
Reply 67
Original post by unprinted
Demonstrating a reasonable belief in consent really is not difficult. Being able to say that you asked if they wanted to be sexual with you would be one step, for example.



There are circumstances where it is: if the other person was unconscious, for example.


It really is not as simple as that, you say you asked and then she says no you didn't and you haven't made an progress. There's even a case I read where a man said the woman consented she said she didn't remember if she did because she was drunk so they found she must have been too drunk to consent. It amazes me the conviction rate isn't higher because from all the cases I've read rape has seemingly always been skewed in favour of women


Posted from TSR Mobile
I am police officer in the Netherlands and had to deal with these cases. I think it is a very complex subject, particularly to judge about it.
I have an other question to people who are active now in this chat. I study business administrataion in Leeuwarden Netherlands (2nd year of 4). This evening I have my exam writing an essay in English. My English grammar could be better. This is my second chance. I wrote a concept and look for some body who would check it if there are probably stil some grammar problems in it. Please respond! Thank you very much. Sander
I am a little confused. This isn't a change in the law, it's just highlighting the issue of consent, no? It's not saying people are guilty until proven innocent.

It's kind of like in medicine, you don't need express verbal consent to take blood from someone - you just say what you're planning on doing and if they hold their arm out, that is consent. Similarly with this, if they are actively participating then that is consent, you don't need a signature. This new thing today doesn't somehow change the nature of consent to suddenly needing to be a verbal or written contract.

It just makes sure that people will ask an important question in interviews surrounding these crimes. It doesn't somehow prejudice the answer or raise the standard of consent (it's always been wrong for instance to have sex with a virtually comatose drunk!). To be honest it's a question which they should have been asking anyway - probably many were.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by orange crush
What about guy and girl get together on a night out, go home and have "consensual" sex, then she wakes up and regrets it and claims she was too drunk to consent?


Does it matter if the guy was also too drunk to consent? Are they both rapists?


You need a penis to rape in UK law.

They could both be guilty of a sexual offence, or one, or neither, depending on circumstances. It depends on the evidence and the meaning of the inverted commas!
Original post by felamaslen
So it is essentially one person's word against another, and therefore, essentially meaningless.


Many rape accusations boil down to this, hence why they're so hard to prosecute.

But there could be extra evidence. He may admit that they met after she was too drunk to walk properly, was slurring her words, but didn't resist when he had intercourse.

He may believe he had consent. The evidence would be against him in this case.

In another case he may say she gave verbal consent and she may deny it. But then there might be physical marks of a struggle, damage to her genitals, torn clothing, blood under fingernails and so on...which would damage his case whatever he says.
Original post by neal95
If both are kissing, leading on etc shouldn't the woman also have a duty to check for consent.


If both are kissing and leading on...then that would give reasonable consent to both parties. Consent doesn't have to be verbal.
Original post by SarcasticMel
They should just make punishement harsher on both sides - much longer terms for rapists, but the same term for false accusations.


I totally agree with that. I mean rape is an awful act and should not be punished lightly at all, but accusations can ruin peoples lives. I mean I know its a little different but look at all these cases in the news of underage sex offences and celebrities etc. for some people even when they are totally proven innocent it affects their career and there name is always tainted. I think people who are proven to be lying in such cases should get in a lot of trouble too.
Original post by Lord Baelish
there is then a reverse burden on proof put on the accused to prove that they received consent from the victim.


No there isn't. There's just the need to get the jury to think that they may have had a reasonable belief in consent.

This is exactly where Ched Evans got caught out because he admitted to having sex with her and at that point the onus was on him to prove he also had consent. How could he prove that? If Ched Evans had lied and said sex hadn't taken place and the woman also couldn't remember anything then he would have likely not been convicted because they'd have had to prove sexual intercourse took place before a reverse burden of proof came into play. His own honesty of admitting to sex taking place led to his conviction.


Yep, if he had denied having had sex with her, he very probably wouldn't have been charged.

Mind you, that would have meant hoping that McDonald or his brother or the other friend or the night porter didn't say Yes, Evans ****ed her' and at least three of them knew very well that he had. (I can't remember if the night porter heard sex happening before or after McDonald left.) Being caught lying about that would have been very bad.

Nothing he said lead to any reason to believe he might have had a reasonable belief in consent, and plenty of what he said suggests that he did not. McDonald's testimony didn't help him either - he denied that he had asked if she wanted to have sex with Evans, and he was clearly not at all happy with Evans arriving with his brother and the other man in the way that they did.

it is highly likely that M is going to be convicted for rape.


It really isn't.
Original post by Lord Baelish

M is cheating on F with another woman.
F finds out about M cheating but does not tell M that she is aware.
F decides to get revenge on M for cheating.
F acts nice when he comes home, the two of them have food, a little to drink and a relaxing evening.
F and M engage in marital sexual intercourse in the bedroom.
F wakes up and phones the police to say she has been raped (no consent) by her husband (to get back at him).
M admits to having sex with F as that actually took place and he's an honest man (cheating aside).
M is charged with rape because sex has been proven to have taken place (he admitted to it) and the case will now go before the courts.
In court it is established that M and F had sex that night. F claims she gave no consent. M cannot prove there was consent because as far as he was concerned he was just having another night in with his loving wife.
M is asked to provide proof of consent under a reverse burden of proof but cannot do so. It is therefore established that (a) sex took place and (b) no proof of consent can be put forward.

In the above scenario, unless M's lawyer can get F to admit to not being raped or there are various other factors at play, it is highly likely that M is going to be convicted for rape.


I'm not at all sure this case is strong against the guy. He could say her actions gave him reasonable grounds for consent.

She may deny she consented non-verbally but it would be a he said / she said again.
Original post by hycurrie
I totally agree with that. I mean rape is an awful act and should not be punished lightly at all, but accusations can ruin peoples lives. .. some people even when they are totally proven innocent it affects their career and there name is always tainted. I think people who are proven to be lying in such cases should get in a lot of trouble too.


See, to give just one example, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2988208.stm

Neil Hamilton is a **** - he wrongly took money for asking questions in Parliament - but no-one thinks he raped her. And she did get into a lot of trouble.
Reply 77
What a ****ing travesty :L

I'm glad I don't sleep around, I'd be ****ting myself 24/7 that some girl I nailed got jealous and decided to stitch me up...
Original post by unprinted
See, to give just one example, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2988208.stm

Neil Hamilton is a **** - he wrongly took money for asking questions in Parliament - but no-one thinks he raped her. And she did get into a lot of trouble.


I wasn't talking about any specific cases I was just talking about in general. You are always going to get uncertainties I mean nothing is ever so straight forward.
It's certainly a good thing in one way that the totally false rape claim I had made against me around February/March last year was last year and not recently then, or my life would be even more wrecked then it is now! :eek: :frown:

Quick Reply

Latest