Rape is now guilty before proven innocent.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by UniMastermindBOSS
A lot of sick and twisted women are gonna have fun with this...
There are a lot of sick and twisted men who have had their fun too by raping..
Although I don't think any crime should be guilty until proven innocent that's just stupid. It shouldn't be made so easy for people to accuse others of crimes as you have to think of the persons reputation and wellbeing if they happen to be innocent.
Original post by looseseal
I remember a while back on here people joking about having to sign a written form before having sex with someone but now this new law literally means that.
This is quite possibly one of the most ridiculous pieces of legislation I've ever seen.
This is quite possibly one of the most ridiculous pieces of legislation I've ever seen.
hardly. I think it's rather sensible. All it requires is for you to only ever have sex when there is certain consent, and ideally, some sort of encouragement. Unless you have actually raped someone, then this law won't affect you, because you don't need to prove there was consent. All it means is that if you have raped someone then it's harder for you to be falsely acquitted.
Original post by UniMastermindBOSS
This law won't help those cases at all, all it will do is allow women to accuse men of rape without needing to back it up.
yeah, those man-hating, evil women who are just out to destroy mankind.
false allegations of rape happen in very small, isolated cases where the fundamental issue is that the person who has accused falsely another is simply not a nice person rather than "just like all the other women."
that's a stupid generalisation.
Original post by Redfrost
There are a lot of sick and twisted men who have had their fun too by raping..
Although I don't think any crime should be guilty until proven innocent that's just stupid. It shouldn't be made so easy for people to accuse others of crimes as you have to think of the persons reputation and wellbeing if they happen to be innocent.
Although I don't think any crime should be guilty until proven innocent that's just stupid. It shouldn't be made so easy for people to accuse others of crimes as you have to think of the persons reputation and wellbeing if they happen to be innocent.
but then you have to look at the number of suicides and cases of depression in women who have been accused (almost always falsely) of false accusations of rape.
surely, since in the majority of cases, there is a female victim of rape, we should focus on protecting that victim, as they are more likely to be the ones in need of protection rather than the alleged rapist?
Original post by Guills on wheels
hardly. I think it's rather sensible. All it requires is for you to only ever have sex when there is certain consent, and ideally, some sort of encouragement. Unless you have actually raped someone, then this law won't affect you, because you don't need to prove there was consent. All it means is that if you have raped someone then it's harder for you to be falsely acquitted.
You're making the assumption that people don't make false accusations (something which has happened to a couple of people I know).
It's essentially your word against theirs. This law shifts the burden of proof to the defendant to show that the person in question actually consented to sex. And considering pretty much all indicators are non-verbal (which you'd need video evidence to prove without doubt) makes this law quite a silly one.
It's ridiculously open to abuse and almost impossible to properly enact. Altogether it's just very poorly thought out. The law has pandered to pressure groups rather than using common sense.
Original post by looseseal
You're making the assumption that people don't make false accusations (something which has happened to a couple of people I know).
It's essentially your word against theirs. This law shifts the burden of proof to the defendant to show that the person in question actually consented to sex. And considering pretty much all indicators are non-verbal (which you'd need video evidence to prove without doubt) makes this law quite a silly one.
It's ridiculously open to abuse and almost impossible to properly enact. Altogether it's just very poorly thought out. The law has pandered to pressure groups rather than using common sense.
It's essentially your word against theirs. This law shifts the burden of proof to the defendant to show that the person in question actually consented to sex. And considering pretty much all indicators are non-verbal (which you'd need video evidence to prove without doubt) makes this law quite a silly one.
It's ridiculously open to abuse and almost impossible to properly enact. Altogether it's just very poorly thought out. The law has pandered to pressure groups rather than using common sense.
"do you want to shag?"
"yeah."
"fancy having a **** this evening?"
"yes please!"
simple as.
I feel like having the law the other way round, where the alleged victim has to prove the alleged rapist guilty places too much pressure on the prosecution, who, in most cases, are innocent and telling the truth. This kind of pressure for justice especially after the trauma of rape, can be soul destroying. Not to mention the fact that in some cases accusations from the defendant of false accusations of the prosecution can aggravate this pressure and lead to depression and sometimes suicide.
In my eyes it hinges on the fact that doing things this way round reduces the pressure on the prosecution (which should be the case in any justice system worth it's salt).
The thing that is maintained with this law is that, as long as you have consensual sex with someone when they are not in a position where they could be taken advantage of, then this law will not affect you. If you have, then you're a rapist and you deserve to be locked up. It's not hard. Surely, if there is a false accusation then it cannot be too hard to prove or at least indicate that the supposed rapist is innocent?
Original post by Guills on wheels
"do you want to shag?"
"yeah."
"fancy having a **** this evening?"
"yes please!"
"yeah."
"fancy having a **** this evening?"
"yes please!"
Are you actually being serious?
Do you really think people in real life have conversations like this before they have sex?
Original post by Clip
I personally think the problem in sexual offences cases is juries. I'd advocate (no pun) the removal of jury trials and have judges-only.
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"
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"
Absolute nonsense. The first guy had reasonable belief in her giving consent. Ched did not, and his overall actions that night (I.e basically breaking into the hotel room and slipping away via fire exit) only confirms that.
Original post by Guills on wheels
I feel like having the law the other way round, where the alleged victim has to prove the alleged rapist guilty places too much pressure on the prosecution, who, in most cases, are innocent and telling the truth. This kind of pressure for justice especially after the trauma of rape, can be soul destroying. Not to mention the fact that in some cases accusations from the defendant of false accusations of the prosecution can aggravate this pressure and lead to depression and sometimes suicide.
In my eyes it hinges on the fact that doing things this way round reduces the pressure on the prosecution (which should be the case in any justice system worth it's salt).
The thing that is maintained with this law is that, as long as you have consensual sex with someone when they are not in a position where they could be taken advantage of, then this law will not affect you. If you have, then you're a rapist and you deserve to be locked up. It's not hard. Surely, if there is a false accusation then it cannot be too hard to prove or at least indicate that the supposed rapist is innocent?
I feel like having the law the other way round, where the alleged victim has to prove the alleged rapist guilty places too much pressure on the prosecution, who, in most cases, are innocent and telling the truth. This kind of pressure for justice especially after the trauma of rape, can be soul destroying. Not to mention the fact that in some cases accusations from the defendant of false accusations of the prosecution can aggravate this pressure and lead to depression and sometimes suicide.
In my eyes it hinges on the fact that doing things this way round reduces the pressure on the prosecution (which should be the case in any justice system worth it's salt).
The thing that is maintained with this law is that, as long as you have consensual sex with someone when they are not in a position where they could be taken advantage of, then this law will not affect you. If you have, then you're a rapist and you deserve to be locked up. It's not hard. Surely, if there is a false accusation then it cannot be too hard to prove or at least indicate that the supposed rapist is innocent?
So you're basically saying the defendant is guilty until proven innocent. Pretty much going against the one of the basic tenets of our justice system?
There is very little appreciation here of just how marginal this area of the law is.
The main difference between sexual offences and other kinds of offences is that the actions are in many cases identical to permissible actions, except for the issue of consent. For example, consent or not, it is unusual to punch or kick someone. Going into a stranger's house at night and carrying away their possessions. On the other hand, millions of people have sex every day. It's an entirely normal act, with the proviso of consent.
It seems so simple to say "Only have sex if you have unequivocal explicit consent". That's not realistic, and if it's a woolly concept with rape, think about the consequences of applying that to sexual assault. It's an impossible situation. Every couple in Britain would have one partner asking the other "May I touch you?" before doing so. There are times when consent is implied and normalised.
Something becomes "sexual" when it is inherently sexual, or the context makes it so. There is a big deal about "low-level" sexual assaults (groping/touching) at universities at the moment. Not to minimise this where it is an issue - but there is a point at which consent has to be implied - otherwise we would be in a state no different from the ultra-conservatives.
Sure, if a woman is walking through the corridors at university during the day, and someone gropes her bottom - that's entirely unacceptable behaviour. On the other hand, on a nightclub dancefloor - exactly how is the consent to touch a person going to come about?
This comes back to "reasonable belief". There will always be a marginal case, at which belief was or was not reasonable - but the way that this situation is portrayed here (TSR) is that a person is either a dangerous sex offender, or an entirely innocent party - based upon a very marginal decision. If you force yourself on someone - there is no consent. That is clear.
However, if two people are intoxicated, exactly where does the reasonable belief start or end? The law is very clear that drunken consent is still consent, and that only extreme cases of intoxication vitiate consent. On this basis, it would seem absurd to insist on not only explicit consent, but also abstincence in the (overwhelmingly more numerous) cases of doubt.
The main difference between sexual offences and other kinds of offences is that the actions are in many cases identical to permissible actions, except for the issue of consent. For example, consent or not, it is unusual to punch or kick someone. Going into a stranger's house at night and carrying away their possessions. On the other hand, millions of people have sex every day. It's an entirely normal act, with the proviso of consent.
It seems so simple to say "Only have sex if you have unequivocal explicit consent". That's not realistic, and if it's a woolly concept with rape, think about the consequences of applying that to sexual assault. It's an impossible situation. Every couple in Britain would have one partner asking the other "May I touch you?" before doing so. There are times when consent is implied and normalised.
Something becomes "sexual" when it is inherently sexual, or the context makes it so. There is a big deal about "low-level" sexual assaults (groping/touching) at universities at the moment. Not to minimise this where it is an issue - but there is a point at which consent has to be implied - otherwise we would be in a state no different from the ultra-conservatives.
Sure, if a woman is walking through the corridors at university during the day, and someone gropes her bottom - that's entirely unacceptable behaviour. On the other hand, on a nightclub dancefloor - exactly how is the consent to touch a person going to come about?
This comes back to "reasonable belief". There will always be a marginal case, at which belief was or was not reasonable - but the way that this situation is portrayed here (TSR) is that a person is either a dangerous sex offender, or an entirely innocent party - based upon a very marginal decision. If you force yourself on someone - there is no consent. That is clear.
However, if two people are intoxicated, exactly where does the reasonable belief start or end? The law is very clear that drunken consent is still consent, and that only extreme cases of intoxication vitiate consent. On this basis, it would seem absurd to insist on not only explicit consent, but also abstincence in the (overwhelmingly more numerous) cases of doubt.
Original post by Zander01
Absolute nonsense. The first guy had reasonable belief in her giving consent. Ched did not, and his overall actions that night (I.e basically breaking into the hotel room and slipping away via fire exit) only confirms that.
That will be borne out, very simply, upon appeal.
So basically all sex is rape unless the man can prove it otherwise? Well then, if I ever "get lucky" in the UK, I'll make sure to have a lawyer present or have her sign a ****ing affidavit.
(edited 9 years ago)
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.
That is deeply troubling as it goes beyond the express wording of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and the presumption of innocence.
Original post by Clip
Juries decide cases arbitrarily all the time. Sometimes it's not even as sophisticated as tossing a coin - there is widespread evidence in the United States of juries deciding cases so they can go home. In this jurisdiction, it isn't officially recorded (interviews not permitted), but in casual interviews that is the case all the time and it has been the experience of countless jurors that juries decide to punish "someone" just because they think they should.
Personally, I think it's rather unlikely that the jury just said 'That black guy from Liverpool, no way would he rape someone! But the local guy, the Welsh international, has brought shame on the area, let's convict him...' and even more unlikely that none of the jury would have gone to the judge if the rest hadn't taken it seriously.
Original post by Clip
That will be borne out, very simply, upon appeal.
Nope. His appeal - the very best arguments that the verdict was unsafe that his solicitors and a QC could make - was rejected a couple of years ago. Even the QC gave up arguing one of the four grounds they tried. For the rest, the different verdicts for the two men were entirely consistent, the judge's summing up covered the issue of consent properly, and the defence's new expert evidence (saying, incidentally, that their first expert was wrong) didn't help his case at all.
No-one's taken me up on the offer of a bet on the current attempt, going via the Criminal Cases Review Commission. Do you want to put your money where your mouth is on this?
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by looseseal
Are you actually being serious?
Do you really think people in real life have conversations like this before they have sex?
Are you actually being serious?
Do you really think people in real life have conversations like this before they have sex?
have you ever had sex before?
Original post by looseseal
So you're basically saying the defendant is guilty until proven innocent. Pretty much going against the one of the basic tenets of our justice system?
I think it makes sense when the prosecution is susceptible to significant stress and trauma from the defendant.
Original post by Borgia
So if I'm drunk, can I accuse a woman of raping me?
yes, if you were too drunk to consent and she was in a position where she could make a rational decision. if she knew what she was doing, then yes, of course you can.
Original post by Dandaman1
So basically all sex is rape unless the man can prove it otherwise? Well then, if I ever "get lucky" in the UK, I'll make sure to have a lawyer present or have her sign a ****ing affidavit.
not necessarily. If, in the unlikely case you were falsely accused of rape, it would be very easy to prove your innocence; if it was after a night out, friends would have probably seen you, and would have been able to testify on how drunk one of you was. I think there's very few people in this country who would ever outright lie out of the blue that someone raped them. It's usually the result of an underlying problem or to get back for something else.
Original post by Clip
That will be borne out, very simply, upon appeal.
I am afraid you are mistaken. Permission to appeal was refused. Here is the judgement of the Lord Chief Justice refusing permission to appeal.
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2012/2559.html&query=chedwyn&method=boolean
Original post by young_guns
That is deeply troubling as it goes beyond the express wording of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and the presumption of innocence.
This is about investigation technique and prosecution decisions.
You will be aware of the police caution:
"You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."
In most modern rape cases the question of consent is front and centre, What the DPP wants is for all alleged perpetrators to be asked right at the beginning how did they know the victim consented?
If the accused can't give a answer to that, which if true, would amount to a reasonable belief, during the first police interview, then their chances before a jury will be very slim.
"She was wearing a short skirt"; "she is the office bicycle", "she was looking very friendly towards my mate" aren't going to cut the mustard.
If the accused "no comments" the question, then he will be in for a torrid time before the jury.
If the accused gives a first answer that no jury will accept amounts to a belief in consent that is reasonable, his attempts to improve that answer later when the accused fully understands the implications of the question, will merely dig him a bigger hole.
If he says something that could amount to a reasonable belief, the case moves away from the question of consent to the easier ground of "can the prosecution prove what the defendant said happened, didn't happen?".
If you want to criticise this approach, it penalises the inarticulate. Accused who do not have, or who are not used to using, vocabulary that expresses the subtle signals that a person who is consenting to sex gives out, are at a substantial disadvantage.
In most cases the words of consent will be ambiguous such as saying "yes" to "do you want to come back to my place?". Someone may lack the language skills to explain why, in context, this is a consent to sex rather than a mere wish to continue talking/drinking/listening to music/dancing at the accused's address.
Original post by Borgia
So if I'm drunk, can I accuse a woman of raping me?
In UK law you need a penis to commit rape. But a woman can commit other sexual offences against a man, yes.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2754891/Seattle-woman-rapes-sleeping-man-wakes-pinning-down.html
If he was too drunk to consent I think that would absolutely count (were he to press charges...).
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- lnat essay feedback
- LNAT prep
- Unconscious bias - is it time to rethink how we address VAWG?
- Students accused of rape at university bringing lawyers to hearings
- is my lnat essay bad?
- can someone give feedback on my eng lit essay?
- can someone give me feedback and help on my eng lit essay? (A level)
- Enhanced disclosure check for nursing degree
- A-Level English Language Study Group 2023-2024
- A-level English Language A/A* Advice!
- LNAT Essay
- Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police review
- Atonement question about concealment
- Please rate my lyrics 🙏
- how could anyone be pro-israel?
- Will I get prosecuted for fare evasion?
- Can Muslims practice criminal law
- LNAT Essay
- Reported a racial harassment to police but now being afraid
- Shamima Begum was made a scapegoat – we would welcome her back, say Bethnal Green res
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
