Rape is now guilty before proven innocent.

Scroll to see replies

I don't really see how the guidelines will change he said / she said scenarios, which are the basis of most of the difficulties in rape cases.

Prosecutor: Did she consent?
Defendant: Yes
Prosecutor: How do you know? Did she give verbal consent?
Defendant: Not directly, but her body language was positive and inviting, she was kissing me back, she was enjoying the penetration, she wasn't very drunk, and gave me hint that she wanted to stop.

Without extra evidence, these cases still can't be convicted, can they?

The only thing they would catch are defendants (and their legal teams) who say "well, she wasn't really moving or responding, and I didn't ask but I penetrated anyway and she never said anything so I thought it was ok." Or "well, she was so drunk she couldn't really talk properly but she sort of grunted that she wanted it."

As long as the man has reasonable belief that she consented, it's no conviction, isn't it?

Reply 21

felamaslen

One of the most basic principles of the rule of law is that of innocence before being proven guilty. Therefore this law is a farce and an insult to centuries of advancement of the legal system.

There are situations where it is reasonable to assume guilt before proof of innocence, such as war (you don't prosecute a soldier before shooting them), or a hostage situation, or in general, any case which is limited to a short period of time where you simply need to eradicate a threat. This does not fit these criteria.

Reply 22

Asolare

After re-reading the article again on several sources, I'm still so furious at this. How on Earth can they allow such A) Idiotic, B) Sexist, and C) Illogical (guilty > innocent) practices to be allowed into English law ...ever?

Look what feminism did for men guys :smile:

Reply 23

Alice_95

Well it was only a matter of time...

I've just seen people on Facebook saying "What a great law, YES mean YES hashtag feminist blah de blah"

Yes, consent is great. But this law is so easily open to manipulation and the destruction of men's lives. Especially with the broader definition of rape these days. I wish people (meh, I mean feminists) really would stop screaming about the perceived injustices, and that we as a society could say "Take some responsibility for your actions." Yes, rape is horrendous, but if your definition includes going out, getting wasted, having a one night stand and regretting it the next morning then you're pretty awful. People make mistakes and do things they regret. Does that mean they were raped? Most probably not. Please stop demeaning serious crimes done to both men and women and please, please, start to consider the consequences of your actions.

Also, rape is something so hard to prove. Many people do not seek help when they have been raped initially, and this means all evidence is destroyed. So weighting the law is this way is really unwise. I hope this doesn't affect many before the error of the law is realised.

Reply 24

Reue

Original post by chazwomaq

Prosecutor: Did she consent?
Defendant: Yes
Prosecutor: How do you know? Did she give verbal consent?
Defendant: Not directly, but her body language was positive and inviting, she was kissing me back, she was enjoying the penetration, she wasn't very drunk, and gave me hint that she wanted to stop.

Defendant knew the woman was drunk. Bye bye defendant.

Reply 25

chazwomaq

Original post by felamaslen

One of the most basic principles of the rule of law is that of innocence before being proven guilty. Therefore this law is a farce and an insult to centuries of advancement of the legal system.

I'm no legal expert, but I understand from the article that the law has not changed.

These are new guidelines that have been issued to police to interpret the law, particularly the "reasonable belief that the plaintiff consented."

It's still innocent unless proven guilty isn't it?

It's a bit like the "ignorance of the law is no defence argument." It's not good enough if the plaintiff "didn't say anything" or indicate consent in any way. The defendant has to show why his belief in consent was reasonable.

Reply 26

chazwomaq

Original post by Reue

Defendant knew the woman was drunk. Bye bye defendant.

I should think it's still a question of how drunk, as it is now.

If she can walk home fine, holds a conversation, gives clear verbal consent, then even if she is drunk it should be no conviction.

But if she can barely walk, is seen by witnesses falling over, then is penetrated by a man she hadn't yet met (Ched Evans...), then it's rape.

Reply 27

Clip

Original post by Reue

Defendant knew the woman was drunk. Bye bye defendant.

There's no suggestion that the nature of consent will change. Drunk consent is still consent.

Reply 28

Reue

Original post by Clip

There's no suggestion that the nature of consent will change. Drunk consent is still consent.

I wasnt trying to suggest anything has changed, just that in this example the prosecution will highlight the part of the defendant's statement.. point out that he knew she was drunk and then begin to question how the defendant could begin to judge how drunk she was. Too much of a slippery slope. Defendant would have been wiser to not mention alcohol at all.

Reply 29

Reue

Original post by chazwomaq

I should think it's still a question of how drunk, as it is now.

If she can walk home fine, holds a conversation, gives clear verbal consent, then even if she is drunk it should be no conviction.

Again; wasn't trying to suggest that this had changed.

In the example she hasn't given clear verbal consent.

Reply 30

Ekemini

False accusers are going to love this. Boys if you know you know a girl that tends to be a little psychopathic, do not be caught dead in the same room as her alone. I saw a story where a high school girl falsely accused a potentially great football player of rape and he spent 5 years in jail. The girl later recanted her story after getting a 1.5 million dollar settlement from the school and the guy was freed but NOTHING happened to the girl. The justice system is messed up. She nearly destroyed his life and got away with it. Rape is a serious offence that destroys lives and families but so is false accusation

Reply 31

Josh93

Original post by Reue

Defendant knew the woman was drunk. Bye bye defendant.

You are completely missing the point - intoxication is not the issue, consent is. If an individual is drunk but clearly willing and consenting (as opppsed to simply unresponsive/not actively resisting), physically capable of resisting if they wanted (e.g. able to walk) and sufficiently orientated to provide informed consent (giggly and slight slurring probably fine, if she can't recall her name then call her a taxi and have a cold shower...) then that's fine.
The definition of rape as penetrative sex in the absence of consent has not changed; this is simply advise to prosecutors which 99.9% of normal guys would agree with anyway.
Basically, if consent is at all dubious then behave like a normal person and treat them with respect...Getting drunk is not a crime, it doesn't suddenly legitimise having sex with someone without their consent.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 32

chazwomaq

Original post by Reue

Again; wasn't trying to suggest that this had changed.

In the example she hasn't given clear verbal consent.

Or non-verbal...as long as it's clear.

Reply 33

Reue

Original post by Josh93

Too many probablys and maybes for my liking. Not worth the risk for a random hook up.

Also; to be clear yet again... I wasn't saying that drunk people couldn't consent but that it swings a burden of proof onto the defendant to try and demonstrate that they knew how (or how little) drunk the girl was and so was she able to give informed consent.

Reply 34

Tom_Ford

I am old enough (23) to remember when society was not so ****ed up tbh, when us guys could pull and not really have to worry about the feminist ****storms/rape accusations that we are getting more and more of these days. Good days man, shame the younger lads will never know just how free it felt.

Camera up today lads, you're going to need all the evidence you can get just in case. Alternatively, escorts. Much better than the possibility of a possible rape accusation.

Reply 35

Josh93

Original post by Reue

When have you ever been in a situation where you were getting together with a girl and it wasn't blindingly obvious that she was consenting...? If she's kissing you and ripping your clothes off then you're good; if she's semi catatonic and laying in her own vom then go home - it really isn't complicated.
At any rate whether you want to 'take the risk for a random hook up' or not is really irrelevant, that decision is up to you.

Edit: on reflection - probably make sure she can maintain her own airway before you go home...

Posted from TSR Mobile

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 36

Reue

Original post by Josh93

Apologies; I was under the misunderstanding that these were a public forums where you are encouraged to give your view and express what you would do in a situation. Sorry you personally find it irrelevant :smile:

This isn't a debating club.

Reply 37

felamaslen

Original post by chazwomaq

The onus is on the plaintiff to prove that the defendant is guilty. If someone is accused of rape, it should not be their job to prove that they didn't rape the plaintiff.

Maybe the law hasn't changed and it has always been a farce.

Reply 38

Josh93

Original post by Reue

This isn't a debating club.

It's irrelevant legally, and socially for that matter. The law protects the vulnerable, in this context the girl that is intoxicated is indisputably the vulnerable party; whether that legal protection impacts upon your ability to get your rocks off is, as I said, irrelevant (and it doesn't at any rate, if the girl is actively consenting then you're fine and if she isn't then why the hell are you having sex with her anyway/why would you want to?).

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 39

chazwomaq

Original post by felamaslen

To quote the sexual offences act 2003:

In relation to these offences a person (A) is guilty of an offence if she/he:

acts intentionally,
(B) does not consent to the act, and
(A) does not reasonably believe that (B) consents.

So the defendant has to reasonably believe that the plaintiff consented. The guidelines seem to make it clearer that the defendant has to justify that belief. He can't just say "I assumed she consented" based on nothing. I don't know if that was ever the case in court though.