Rape is now guilty before proven innocent.

Lots of them. I am shocked by the number here who think asking 'wanna ****?' is too difficult a thing to do before sticking their penis in someone.



"Although it is men who perpetrate rape, it is women who are urged to modify their behaviour by abstaining or drinking less, and thus accommodate the danger posed by predatory men."

Campaigners hail DPP's tough new rape guidelines as 'huge step forward'


Radical changes to the way sex offences are investigated have been hailed as a “huge step forward” by campaigners.

New guidance to be issued to all police forces and prosecutors will require rape suspects to convince the authorities that a woman consented to sex.
Police and prosecutors must now put a greater burden of responsibility on rape suspects to demonstrate how the complainant had consented “with full capacity and freedom to do so”, according to the new guidance.
Rape victims should no longer be “blamed” by society if they are too drunk to consent to sex, or if they simply freeze and say nothing, Alison Saunders, the Director of Public Prosecutions, said.
“For too long society has blamed rape victims for confusing the issue of consent - by drinking or dressing provocatively for example - but it is not they who are confused, it is society itself and we must challenge that,” Mrs Saunders told the the first National Crown Prosecution Service/Police Conference on Rape Investigations and Prosecutions in London.
“Consent to sexual activity is not a grey area - in law it is clearly defined and must be given fully and freely.
“It is not a crime to drink, but it is a crime for a rapist to target someone who is no longer capable of consenting to sex through drink,” Mrs Saunders continued.
“We want police and prosecutors to make sure they ask in every case where consent is the issue - how did the suspect know the complainant was saying yes and doing so freely and knowingly?”
The ability to consent to sex should also be questioned where the complainant has mental health problems, learning difficulties or was asleep or unconscious at the time of the alleged attack, Mrs Saunders said.
Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner Martin Hewitt, the Association of Chief Police Officers lead on adult sex offences, said: “As report after report has shown, there is still far too much variation in the way that forces move a complaint of rape through the system.
“Reporting of sexual offences is up 22 per cent in the latest statistics because of increased confidence in our service and recording but we have further to go.
“We need to tackle the iconic issues of 'no further action' and, particularly, 'no crimes' head on and reduce inconsistencies in our processes so that we can send a clear and unequivocal message to victims about how they will be treated.”
Around 85,000 women per year are victims of rape in the UK; some 90 per cent of these women know the perpetrator.




http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/campaigners-hail-dpps-tough-new-rape-guidelines-as-huge-step-forward-10009595.html

Be prepare to record all your sex with hidden camera guys, u gonna need it. Or get 4 witness to watch you having sex, that will work too.

The system has been like this for some time. In most cases there is a burden of proof but in rape cases, where the accused has admitted to sex taking place or it has been proven by other means, there is then a reverse burden on proof put on the accused to prove that they received consent from the victim. The problem with this is that honest men that admit to sex, but not rape, are then put in a position whereby they have to prove they also got consent. In most cases this becomes his word vs her word and therefore it is extremely hard for him to prove this.

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.

This sets an extremely dangerous precedent because (a) it encourages men to state that no sex took place to put the onus on the prosecution to prove sex did take place and (b) it also leaves many men in a situation whereby they will honestly admit to having sex but won't be able to prove consent under a reverse burden of proof leaving them in a situation whereby they're stuck.

Look at the below scenario to see how dangerous this is. I will use M for the male and F for the female.

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.

The problem with the reverse burden of proof is that men who have not raped can actually be sent down for rape purely on the basis that they cannot provide evidence of consent. Not being able to put forward evidence of consent does not make someone a rapist.

I find it hilarious how you have chosen to take part of what I said out of context as opposed to the whole statement. If sex has been proven, through admittance or through evidence provided by the prosecution, then yes there is a reverse burden of proof that comes into play.

I refer to you the case of: Dougal, R vs Swansea Crown Court

he would have to provide evidence of consent because he had admitted to having sexual intercourse with his wife.

Would rather not get into it to be honest, but yes.

Talking about it though makes me realise that it's probably more a problem with definition. Rape encompasses everything from someone springing from the bushes to a simple accident. Should the definition be split to allow the police to differentiate between what personally I'd call 'Actual rape' and 'Consent ambiguity'?

In the heat of the moment, people actually ask?

I would have thought body language would be a much more obvious signal. If a woman started kissing and undressing and touching a guy and he suddenly stops and says 'you wanna do it?' I'd have thought the woman would be like 'well.. duh!'

If even it was verbally asked, there's no way to prove that in court.

I doubt there would have been any danger at all if the woman hadn't chosen to drink so much. .. Sometimes behaviour has to be modified to avoid creating trouble for yourself.

No. If the accused admits to sex then the burden of proof is on them to provide evidence of consent.



Right, so there is a reverse burden of proof then. He needs to provide evidence which therefore proves that the burden of proof is now on him, as opposed to being placed on the prosecution to prove he never had consent.

And in the trial example given, the case was about the defendant being too drunk. The examples given in quotes are merely examples and still apply to those overly intoxicated through drink. I quote:

Rape encompasses everything from someone springing from the bushes to a simple accident.

Should the definition be split to allow the police to differentiate between what personally I'd call 'Actual rape' and 'Consent ambiguity'?

How do you accidentally stick your penis in someone?



Ah, you mean 'bad rape' and 'good rape'.

And in the trial example given, the case was about the defendant being too drunk.

.. the Ched Evans trial. He was found guilty because he (a) admitted to having sex and (b) couldn't prove under a reverse burden of proof that he had received consent for it.

And the onus would be on him to prove that he had received consent. See above.

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:

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

By accident I believe he means where you think someone is consenting but they're later found to be too drunk to reasonably consent.

Rape does need to be split down a line based on confusion with regards to consent and where you know a person is specifically not consenting. The same method is used with homicide so why not rape

I'd rather live in a society where women can be passed out drunk without any harm coming to them than one that goes 'Well, what did they expect?'

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.

O

Given the choice, would you prefer to be raped or accused of rape?
I think it's a fairly simple conclusion for most people - and it's worth noting that men can be victims as well as perpetrators.

Posted from TSR Mobile

How do you accidentally stick your penis in someone?



Ah, you mean 'bad rape' and 'good rape'.