The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Ched Evans submits 'fresh evidence' in attempt to overturn rape conviction

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Good bloke
If I were on the jury, I'd be thinking the fact that the woman was so drunk that she can't remember the events would be prima facie evidence that, if sex went ahead, it would have been in the face of either no consent at all or consent given while incapable. Either way it is rape.


How do you know though? Some people black out but to others they are acting just as normal. I myself black out sometimes if I drink a little bit too much juice but many people couldn't tell as only my memory is affected. Just appear a little bit tipsy but nothing major.
Original post by Jebedee
How do you know though? Some people black out but to others they are acting just as normal. I myself black out sometimes if I drink a little bit too much juice but many people couldn't tell as only my memory is affected. Just appear a little bit tipsy but nothing major.


Either way consent is not effective once someone is drunk.
Original post by SnooFnoo
Either way consent is not effective once someone is drunk.


If the men are also drunk then why is it not equal?
Original post by Jebedee
If the men are also drunk then why is it not equal?


If both parties are intoxicated. Sex shouldn't occur as consent can never be made.

In this case the woman was seen stumbling on cctv. C.evans was not as intoxicated as the woman in question thus he had responsibility and should not have engaged in sexual contact.

In the eyes of the law this was rape.
Original post by SnooFnoo
If both parties are intoxicated. Sex shouldn't occur as consent can never be made.

In this case the woman was seen stumbling on cctv. C.evans was not as intoxicated as the woman in question thus he had responsibility and should not have engaged in sexual contact.

In the eyes of the law this was rape.


Aren't we debating the accuracy of the law though in these situations? So does rape depend on which party was more drunk? If that's your argument then any guy could rape as long as he's more drunk than the woman claiming rape.
Original post by Jebedee
Aren't we debating the accuracy of the law though in these situations? So does rape depend on which party was more drunk? If that's your argument then any guy could rape as long as he's more drunk than the woman claiming rape.


This is the whole point isn't it, it's the law what's the problem here.

The problem with discussing rape is that it's so emotive, people can't look at it logically at all.

Who is to say because she "stumbled" a little (the video actually proves to me that she's not as drunk as made out to be) that she's more drunk than Evans?

How many women do you think have been convicted of rape because the man doesn't remember, and he was very drunk?
Original post by arichmond64
This is the whole point isn't it, it's the law what's the problem here.

The problem with discussing rape is that it's so emotive, people can't look at it logically at all.

Who is to say because she "stumbled" a little (the video actually proves to me that she's not as drunk as made out to be) that she's more drunk than Evans?

How many women do you think have been convicted of rape because the man doesn't remember, and he was very drunk?


I think the main problem here is the lack of black and white laws in regards to rape. When you have a law which is very grey and open to interpretation these days. The person with the most SJWs backing their corner will win by default. That is what I have a big problem with.
Reply 27
Avatar for Wade-
Wade-
10
Original post by arichmond64
This is the whole point isn't it, it's the law what's the problem here.

The problem with discussing rape is that it's so emotive, people can't look at it logically at all.

Who is to say because she "stumbled" a little (the video actually proves to me that she's not as drunk as made out to be) that she's more drunk than Evans?

How many women do you think have been convicted of rape because the man doesn't remember, and he was very drunk?


Well the answer to that question is 0 because a woman is biologically prevented from committing rape.

The law needs to start taking a more consistent approach to intoxication. If I was voluntarily intoxicated then anything that happens because I was in that state is on my own head but if a woman gets too drunk, sleeps with someone and regrets all she has to do is report rape and technically she has a case.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Reluire
It hasn't been made public knowledge from what I can tell. At least not yet anyway. They're just saying fresh evidence has been presented which might give him new hope.



In which case, what's the point of starting this thread?

The evidence remains a secret, hence there's nothing to discuss that we haven't discussed multiple times already on this forum.
Original post by arichmond64
This is the whole point isn't it, it's the law what's the problem here.



The law is clear and simple to understand. Anyone having an encounter with a drunken woman should act like a decent human being and not take advantage of her inability to think straight. I can't see a problem with the law. The problem is with people's predisposition to get drunk before having social encounters. If they are intoxicated to the extent they can't understand that she is too intoxicated then they only have themselves to blame.

I think it is perfectly reasonable that anyone can become incapable of looking after themselves (whether through illness, drunkenness or any other reason) and not be subject to predatory sexual attacks.
Reply 30
Avatar for Wade-
Wade-
10
Original post by Good bloke
The law is clear and simple to understand. Anyone having an encounter with a drunken woman should act like a decent human being and not take advantage of her inability to think straight. I can't see a problem with the law. The problem is with people's predisposition to get drunk before having social encounters. If they are intoxicated to the extent they can't understand that she is too intoxicated then they only have themselves to blame.

I think it is perfectly reasonable that anyone can become incapable of looking after themselves (whether through illness, drunkenness or any other reason) and not be subject to predatory sexual attacks.


But why would the woman not be equally to blame for choosing to get herself drunk and then being more inclined to consent to sex?


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Wade-
But why would the woman not be equally to blame for choosing to get herself drunk and then being more inclined to consent to sex?


Posted from TSR Mobile


Well, for a start, the woman is not acting in a predatory manner and preying on those incapable of making proper decisions. Her behaviour (though naïve and silly) is simply not criminal, unlike that of the man. Any male who takes advantage of a drunk woman in this way deserves gaol.
Original post by Wade-
But why would the woman not be equally to blame for choosing to get herself drunk and then being more inclined to consent to sex?


Posted from TSR Mobile


Because she hasn't hurt anyone by doing that, so there shouldn't be any legal consequences. It's not as if a man can accidently take advantage of a drunk girl, you would know what you were doing.
Original post by SnooFnoo
If both parties are intoxicated. Sex shouldn't occur as consent can never be made.


You can consent when you are drunk.

That has already been established in the Courts.
Reply 34
Avatar for Clip
Clip
19
Original post by SnooFnoo
If both parties are intoxicated. Sex shouldn't occur as consent can never be made.

In this case the woman was seen stumbling on cctv. C.evans was not as intoxicated as the woman in question thus he had responsibility and should not have engaged in sexual contact.

In the eyes of the law this was rape.


All this is something that you have made up for yourself.

One of the main points of law in the area (that is very clear) is that drunken consent is still consent.

Consent only becomes ineffective when it is impossible to consent - and this is a point of law which is not at all clear and quite controversial. Intoxication has to be at the point where the subject can't consent - this may be unconsciousness (which would make consent irrelevant anyway), or the point at which the subject cannot speak; or at some arbitrary point before that.
Reply 35
Avatar for Wade-
Wade-
10
Original post by james22
Because she hasn't hurt anyone by doing that, so there shouldn't be any legal consequences. It's not as if a man can accidently take advantage of a drunk girl, you would know what you were doing.


Except a man by having him put in prison and then likely ruining the rest of his life? You can't set a legal precedent that you are responsible for all of your drunken actions except for consenting to sex


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Wade-
Except a man by having him put in prison and then likely ruining the rest of his life? You can't set a legal precedent that you are responsible for all of your drunken actions except for consenting to sex


Posted from TSR Mobile


She has not done that, the court has done that.

It's not about resonsibility for actions, it's about taking advantage of someone when they are clearly not in a state to consent. It's very easy to tell if a girl is too drunk, and if it isn't then you aren't guilty (if it's reasonable to assume she can consent, then you are not guilty of rape).
Original post by james22
She has not done that, the court has done that.

It's not about resonsibility for actions, it's about taking advantage of someone when they are clearly not in a state to consent. It's very easy to tell if a girl is too drunk, and if it isn't then you aren't guilty (if it's reasonable to assume she can consent, then you are not guilty of rape).


This isn't quite so clear cut as you are suggesting.

Generally speaking persons are not held liable for their actions when intoxicated. So for example if you buy a car when too drunk to know what you are doing you can get out of the contract.

However, as a matter of public policy voluntary intoxication is not a defence to certain crimes (called crimes of basic intent) of which rape is one.

So if the woman is so paralytic she cannot consent to intercourse, and the man is too paralytic to realise she is not consenting, it is rape if he chose to get drunk but not rape if someone slipped him a Mickey Finn.

That public policy rule for voluntary intoxication doesn't look so strong where both victim and perpetrator are so intoxicated as not to be responsible for their actions.
Reply 38
Avatar for Wade-
Wade-
10
Original post by james22
She has not done that, the court has done that.

It's not about resonsibility for actions, it's about taking advantage of someone when they are clearly not in a state to consent. It's very easy to tell if a girl is too drunk, and if it isn't then you aren't guilty (if it's reasonable to assume she can consent, then you are not guilty of rape).


That's literally like saying if I shoot someone I haven't killed them the bullet did.

Either you've never been drunk or drunk around women if you really think it's 'very easy' to tell if she's sober enough to reasonably consent when you're also very drunk


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Wade-
Either you've never been drunk or drunk around women if you really think it's 'very easy' to tell if she's sober enough to reasonably consent when you're also very drunk


The answer, in practical terms, is don't get drunk and then have sex with someone who is also drunk. It is directly equivalent to not drinking before driving.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you