Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Rape is now guilty before proven innocent. watch

Announcements
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ebony19)
    To be fair no man was ever penetrated against their consent with a vagina
    I didn't mean that. And I am not trivializing rape. So please don't think that.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    I didn't mean that. And I am not trivializing rape. So please don't think that.
    Okay
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ebony19)
    To be fair no man was ever penetrated against their consent with a vagina
    Actually this has happened. Men have participated in sexual intercourse against their will (men cannot always control getting an erection). These "made to penetrate" cases involving female perpetrators legally class as rape/sexual assault in the US and Canada, for example. According the US CDC, some 5 million men in the US have been forced into sex by a female partner against their will [link].

    EDIT: unless you mean 'literally penetrated by a vagina' (which would be impossible, I agree).
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    Actually this has happened. Men have participated in sexual intercourse against their will (men cannot always control getting an erection). These "made to penetrate" cases involving female perpetrators legally class as rape/sexual assault in the US and Canada, for example. According the the US CDC, some 5 million men in the US have been forced into sex by a female partner against their will [link].

    EDIT: unless you mean 'literally penetrated by a vagina' (which would be impossible, I agree).
    I hear you and I understand it isn't just women who can be sexually assaulted and wouldn't wish that on anyone. Penis, vagina alike
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Rape culture running wild in this thread.

    Don't have sex with drunk women, thereby cutting your chances of being accused of rape by up to 99.7% (0.3% of rape allegations are false). If the only way you can get laid is by targeting (yep) drunk females, maybe you need to do a little self-improvement.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Is it really guilty till proven innocent tho?

    Pretty sure the same weight of evidence to convict is needed. Only this time round, a greater emphasis is put on the suspect to provide evidence. Which is possibly necessary in case like rape, where a lot of the crucial evidence may be withheld by the perpetrator with mere silence.

    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Truths)
    Is it really guilty till proven innocent tho?

    Pretty sure the same weight of evidence to convict is needed. Only this time round, a greater emphasis is put on the suspect to provide evidence. Which is possibly necessary in case like rape, where a lot of the crucial evidence may be withheld by the perpetrator with mere silence.

    Once there is a consensus that sexual intercourse occurred the burden immediately shifts to the man to prove that she had consented when it should be down to the CPS to prove she didn't


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by clh_hilary)
    It's losing your family, all your friends, your career, and consequently your life.

    Worse still, this is not something you can control. You cannot even tell yourself 'I'll be strong and this will be over one day' because you will not be hired.



    So you've been accused of being raped? If not, your experience does not add to the 'argument'.

    Regardless, there is no argument. What I'd prefer is not necessarily what you would prefer.



    How about because of the fear of being accused of rape and never talk to any woman ever again?



    As if people who have been falsely accused of rape do not experience the same thing.



    The difference between being raped and being accused is that, with or without PTSD, you're losing your career if you're being accused, no matter what; if you're being raped, you may not.



    Not only is their anonymity granted for people who accuse of other people of rape, but this also does not make being raped better.



    You didn't respond to this this.



    As if living through a court case does not follow you the rest of your life, both emotionally and practically.



    There will always be people like you around, who would accuse of people 'thinking women are merely chattel' when you don't realise the fact that I'm not even straight and thus have no desire for any woman whatsoever.

    'Feminists' like you just automatically assumed that people are anti-feminist or something when people merely disagree with you. For the last time, the question asked what I'd prefer. I answered, and if you cannot deal with the fact that not everybody feels the same way you do, maybe you should grow up. Or just stop responding telling me what I should prefer.

    my brother, you may be the best poster on this forum.. i agree ENTIRELY with every single word you've said on this forum

    tbh; i really don't see why such a stupid, obviously idiotic legislation would still be alive to this day and second.

    and i will proudly state that if there was ever a movement against such an idiotic legislation (you know, the one that requires men to have cameras, lawyers and triplicate documents; before having a one night stand with a female who CHOSE to get drunk in the first place, i'd be first on that list.

    i mean, if a drunk driver caused an accident, then the fault would be on the driver for being drunk and not on the other driver for driving normally. why. can't. it. be. the. case. for. situations. like. this.?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    This is ridiculous. Our entire justice system is based around innocent until proven guilty. The fact that I could pull a girl in the club, have absolute consent for having sex with her, then for her to wake up the next morning decide she regretted it and cry rape, for me to be instantly guilty.

    Absolutely ridiculous.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ebony19)
    To be fair no man was ever penetrated against their consent with a vagina
    1) to be fair, no woman has ever been sentenced for false accusing a man of rape. (i mean the exact amount of years or similar that the man would've spent; had he been convicted)

    2) to be fair, no woman has ever had to live with the torture of being falsely accused of rape. having all you've ever known stripped away from you.. friends, family, house, kids, jobs.. and then being branded a 'rapist'; with no opportunity of parole.
    when it was just a case of bad decisions on the females' part and the realisation of waking up in the morning.. and not liking what they see in front of them. (after all, if it was a hot guy; it wouldn't be rape would it)

    3) to be fair, no woman has ever had to sit through torment and mental, psychological break down (for years on end - almost to the point of insanity); during the process of which said individual has had to rethink his entire life since birth..
    because a female INITIATED sex whilst drunk.. and then didn't like her choices. it takes two to tango, feminists forget this.

    you wouldn't be claiming that normal, law abiding, driver was at fault in a drunk related accident, so whys' the government against males when females choose to get drunk and have sex?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josh93)
    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.

    I agree with the view that false allegations are absolutely destructive to a person's life but equally I think that has to be viewed on balance against the psychological damage and unequivocal violation of personal autonomy that rape represents.
    At the end of the day this has to be viewed in context, the law isn't saying that you need a 'receipt of consent' or video evidence, or that you are 'guilty until proven innocent'; the point is that if you have any doubt as to whether someone is able to consent then you shouldn't be having sex with them and that responsibility rests with you. It's exactly the same principle as the informed consent required in Medicine; you don't need proof but you need to be certain of it before you proceed and if needs be, be able to justify that decision later. Frankly, any half reasonable person should be doing this already anyway...

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    That's a rather silly and pointless question.

    Women are severely affected by rape obviously. If a man is falsely accused, then he may lose his friends, family, job etc - even if the charges are later dropped.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Guills on wheels)
    have you ever had sex before?



    I think it makes sense when the prosecution is susceptible to significant stress and trauma from the defendant.



    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.



    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.

    look mate.

    all you're advocating is that average joes' like me leave the house with a breathalyzer, a lawyer, triplicate consensual sexual forms; a camera at my house for video purposes (even though in a court, all this is all nonsense; as it: STILL WOULDN'T HOLD UP!!!!!)

    after all, you cannot tell me that females do not at some point in the night drink some form of alcohol (e.g. they ALL go for pre-drinks). that means that; if they claim rape they have the evidence (as you know - breathalyzers); so where's the justice in that?

    how come it is that in every other fact or facet of life a drunk person is held accountable for their actions, but in this they aren't?

    '..very few people..' mate, you do not leave your house much, do you? money is the goal here. and the rules? to get it by any means.

    '..friends would've probably seen you..' what friends..? the ones that already had some form of drink that night? how would that help their testimonies in the witness box in any way shape or form?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by qwertyking)
    That's a rather silly and pointless question.

    Women are severely affected by rape obviously. If a man is falsely accused, then he may lose his friends, family, job etc - even if the charges are later dropped.
    I'm afraid that we disagree both on the relevance of the question and, I suspect, the answer.

    At any rate the change in advice increases neither the likelihood of you being accused of rape nor the likelihood of you being convicted based on a false accusation - the only difference that it will make is to encourage the police/CPS to continue investigations further.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josh93)
    I'm afraid that we disagree both on the relevance of the question and, I suspect, the answer.

    At any rate the change in advice increases neither the likelihood of you being accused of rape nor the likelihood of you being convicted based on a false accusation - the only difference that it will make is to encourage the police/CPS to continue investigations further.
    You are completely missing the point. Nobody should be convicted of anything if there isn't enough proof, particularly with a crime like rape. You're turning it into an emotional issue and being and somewhat manipulative.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by qwertyking)
    You are completely missing the point. Nobody should be convicted of anything if there isn't enough proof, particularly with a crime like rape. You're turning it into an emotional issue and being and somewhat manipulative.
    No, you are missing my point...I could not agree more that conviction must require reasonable proof - we are not discussing the grounds upon which an individual should be convicted but rather the advice which determines whether the police choose to pursue an investigation.

    The legal definition of rape has not changed, nor has the requirement that a jury be presented with evidence before determining guilt.

    Of course it's emotional - there is no objective morality so all justice must be subjective and by extent, emotional. As for manipulative; in what sense am I being manipulative?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniMastermindBOSS)
    A lot of sick and twisted women are gonna have fun with this...
    I know right. Some women are so evil.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HucktheForde)
    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...-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.
    There's no straight forward way to go about such a horrible case, but why is he guilty without proof? Imagine accusing an innocent man of something so vile.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pomum96)
    There's no straight forward way to go about such a horrible case, but why is he guilty without proof? Imagine accusing an innocent man of something so vile.
    For the hundredth time...The DPP is NOT advocating that anyone be convicted without proof, or presumed guilty until proven innocent for that matter - they lack the power to make a change like that.

    All that has changed is that the police/CPS are now ADVISED to pursue an investigation if an accusation of rape is made and the defendant is unable to demonstrate a reasonable belief that the victim consented/was capable of consenting to sex.
    To put it in context:

    1) Officer: "Why did you believe X was consenting to sex?"

    Defendant A: "She invited me back to her house, undressed and started kissing/undressing me and continued to make it clear that she was enjoying herself throughout/at no point indicated in any way that she wanted to stop."

    Officer: "That's great, have a nice day."

    2) Officer: "Why did you believe that X was consenting/able to consent to sex?"

    Defendant B: "She kissed me earlier at the start of the party and she was really, really drunk but hey, she never said no!"

    Officer: "I am arresting you on suspicion of rape, you do not have to say anything..."

    Hope this helps!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josh93)
    For the hundredth time...The DPP is NOT advocating that anyone be convicted without proof, or presumed guilty until proven innocent for that matter - they lack the power to make a change like that.

    All that has changed is that the police/CPS are now ADVISED to pursue an investigation if an accusation of rape is made and the defendant is unable to demonstrate a reasonable belief that the victim consented/was capable of consenting to sex.
    To put it in context:

    1) Officer: "Why did you believe X was consenting to sex?"

    Defendant A: "She invited me back to her house, undressed and started kissing/undressing me and continued to make it clear that she was enjoying herself throughout/at no point indicated in any way that she wanted to stop."

    Officer: "That's great, have a nice day."

    2) Officer: "Why did you believe that X was consenting/able to consent to sex?"

    Defendant B: "She kissed me earlier at the start of the party and she was really, really drunk but hey, she never said no!"

    Officer: "I am arresting you on suspicion of rape, you do not have to say anything..."

    Hope this helps!
    Sorry darling.
    I didnt exactly read every answer.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pomum96)
    Sorry darling.
    I didnt exactly read every answer.
    Everything that I said was explained in the piece of text that you quoted.
    I'm sorry, i'm being short with you and that probably isn't warranted but it's 02:30 and I'm getting really fed up of the complete rubbish being spouted in this thread (also pretty disturbed by some of the views to be honest but that's irrelevant).
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.