Rape is now guilty before proven innocent.

A lot of sick and twisted women are gonna have fun with this...

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.

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

Probably not nearly as much as a false rape allegation.

Juries have been proven in empirical study time and again to make bad decisions. One feature is that juries tend to think that "someone must have done something" and fail to understand that even if an offence has been committed but there isn't the evidence to convict a defendent - they do so anyway so that someone pays.

A classic example is Ched Evans. What we have is an exploration of an extremely contentious point of law. At what point is a person too intoxicated to consent? V says she was raped by D1 and D2. The jury basically has no clue what is going on and probably does not understand the law. So they acquit D1 and convict D2, when there was probably insufficient evidence to convict either of them. Essentially, if you give V the best possible light, she was intoxicated and "thought" she had been raped - and therefore accused two people. The jury has come back with "Yes, you were raped by D2, but not D1- even though you accused them both" which makes no sense. The jury has essentially decided the issue of V's consent.

I would go so far as to suggest that the jury thought process was "We feel a little bit sorry for you, but not too much. You were all behaving badly, but D2 was behaving more badly. We'll convict him because then at least someone gets the blame for this whole mess even though there isn't really the evidence and we don't understand the law"

Are you real? Having your body violated by a man is far worse than being accused of doing so. Granted the latter is horrendous too and anybody who makes false claims should be given prison time.

To quote the sexual offences act 2003:

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.

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.

And how exactly would the defendant "prove" that there was consent? Have a video camera round your neck during foreplay?

It shouldn't be the defendant's job to prove anything.

Are you real? Having your body violated by a man is far worse than being accused of doing so. Granted the latter is horrendous too and anybody who makes false claims should be given prison time.

And how exactly would the defendant "prove" that there was consent? Have a video camera round your neck during foreplay? It shouldn't be the defendant's job to prove anything. They should only have to respond to evidence put forward by the plaintiff.

Yep, that's right. The previous position was that any genuine belief in consent, no matter how unreasonable, was a sufficient defence.

How many people actually ask each other if they want to have sex before actually having it?

.. if women choose to get themselves legless, surely they must realise they've also chosen to be more vulnerable and at risk of these things happening. I disagree with people who say women are entirely innocent and blameless when it comes to rape because of drunkenness.

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.

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



That's not true is it? The 2003 Act includes "reasonable belief" of consent.

Are you real? Having your body violated by a man is far worse than being accused of doing so. Granted the latter is horrendous too and anybody who makes false claims should be given prison time.

What would happen if the defendant claims that verbal consent had been given?

Then it's a classic he said / she said. Without further evidence, very hard to prosecute I would think.