Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    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!
    Nobody will say the second answer.:rolleyes:
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    Nobody will say the second answer.:rolleyes:
    You would be surprised.
    At any rate the advice requires (at least as I understand it) that a belief in consent be 'reasonable'.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ebony19)
    To be fair no man was ever penetrated against their consent with a vagina
    With that logic, if I rape a girl and she cums then it absolves the rape.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    Nobody will say the second answer.:rolleyes:
    They will say what amounts to the second answer ie there will be no identifiable occasion when the victim said or did anything that a reasonable person would have treated as consent to sex.

    However, perhaps more importantly the change in policy will force the police to concentrate on asking the relevant question. If you have a lot of contested facts, the police can lose sight of the key issues. The accused and the complainant may give widely differing accounts of what happened and the police may become bogged down in those discrepancies. However, those discrepancies do not matter if the accused (a) accepts he had intercourse and (b) is unable to say in what manner the victim demonstrated consent.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jebedee)
    With that logic, if I rape a girl and she cums then it absolves the rape.
    she almost certainly wouldn't *** if she's being raped but more to the point I was being silly. Equally I'm not really sure of your logic as a counter argument but okay. I wasn't being serious I was replying to a friend actually just mucking about. I don't think any sexual assault is ok.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kingoftheting)
    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.
    First of all, there's no such thing as "rape culture". It's just another theatrical term invented by attention-seeking feminists to suit their own agenda, presumably because reality isn't quite as dramatic as they'd like it to be.

    Banning drunk sex would mean closing down clubs, bars, pubs, restaurants that serve alcohol and all the economic activity that goes with it. I hope you realise how extravagantly moronic your suggestion is.

    And lastly, the 0.3% figure is totally made up (for the same reasons as above, I would imagine) so I'm not even going to comment on it.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not suggesting that anyone ban drunk sex, I'm suggesting people (men, women, whatever) use better judgement in when they engage in sexual intercourse. If a someone is too drunk to consent, don't do it. It's pretty simple. Especially if that person is someone you just met in some club, with no idea of anything about them.

    As far as your assertion that rape culture doesn't exist, I only need point you in the direction of things such as Dapper Laughs in rebuttal. Or you can head to Twitter and check out the hashtag #RapeCultureIs for thousands or examples of it. I'm sure those thousands of people are all morons of feminists, though.

    And I apologise for the 0.3% figure. It's actually 0.6% as detailed here:
    https://fullfact.org/factchecks/fals...but_rare-29200
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kingoftheting)
    I'm not suggesting that anyone ban drunk sex, I'm suggesting people (men, women, whatever) use better judgement in when they engage in sexual intercourse. If a someone is too drunk to consent, don't do it. It's pretty simple. Especially if that person is someone you just met in some club, with no idea of anything about them.

    As far as your assertion that rape culture doesn't exist, I only need point you in the direction of things such as Dapper Laughs in rebuttal. Or you can head to Twitter and check out the hashtag #RapeCultureIs for thousands or examples of it. I'm sure those thousands of people are all morons of feminists, though.

    And I apologise for the 0.3% figure. It's actually 0.6% as detailed here:
    https://fullfact.org/factchecks/fals...but_rare-29200
    But if you're also very drunk as a man how is it reasonable to say you should know if she's too drunk?

    So we also have a pedophile culture because Jimmy Carr and Frankie Boyle joke about them all the time, they also joke about murder a lot so we have a murder culture too.

    You do realise that's of incidents where it's proven wrong, it doesn't take into account all the times the CPS don't get a conviction but choose not to try and prosecute the woman


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wade-)
    But if you're also very drunk as a man how is it reasonable to say you should know if she's too drunk?

    So we also have a pedophile culture because Jimmy Carr and Frankie Boyle joke about them all the time, they also joke about murder a lot so we have a murder culture too.

    You do realise that's of incidents where it's proven wrong, it doesn't take into account all the times the CPS don't get a conviction but choose not to try and prosecute the woman


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    If you drink and drive and kill someone, that you didn't know you were too drunk to drive isn't a defence.

    I think you need to look up what rape culture is, because I don't think you really understand the issues if you're using Jimmy Carr, Frankie Boyle, peadophile and murder jokes as a comparison.

    I can only quote available statistics.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    If the accused (a) accepts he had intercourse and (b) is unable to say in what manner the victim demonstrated consent.
    This is all you need to know. You don't need written consent with a solicitor present or any other hyperbolic nonsense. It's usually pretty clear if someone is capable of giving consent, and from there you should be able to demonstrate in what way that person did so. If you're worried about getting so drunk that you can't stop yourself from having sex with someone else who is just as drunk, and therefore not capable of giving consent, maybe you need to look at your drinking habits and the situations you put yourself in.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kingoftheting)
    This is all you need to know. You don't need written consent with a solicitor present or any other hyperbolic nonsense. It's usually pretty clear if someone is capable of giving consent, and from there you should be able to demonstrate in what way that person did so. If you're worried about getting so drunk that you can't stop yourself from having sex with someone else who is just as drunk, and therefore not capable of giving consent, maybe you need to look at your drinking habits and the situations you put yourself in.
    This.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wade-)
    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
    I'm sorry but I doubt this is true. I'm certain that fundamentally, the evidence needed to convict has not changed. As much as y'all like to believe that feminists are working off the clock to ruin your lives, the idea that "guilty until proven" innocent will ever become a thing is HIGHLY improbable in any circumstance . C'mon now. Don't buy into the propaganda.

    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    This thread is misleading and false!
    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 capacity to consent should also be questioned where a complainant has mental health issues, learning difficulties or was asleep or unconscious.
    • The freedom to consent should also be questioned in domestic violence situations and where the complainant may be financially or otherwise dependent on their alleged rapist.

    Prosecutors are now being instructed to ask how the suspect knew that the complainant had consented - with full capacity and freedom to do so.
    Where does it categorically say in that article that rape cases will now be "guilty until proven innocent"? Where does it say that the absolute burden of proof is on the defence? Yeh, that's what I thought. But don't allow me to disrupt your anti feminist circle jerk. Good day!

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Truths)
    I'm sorry but I doubt this is true. I'm certain that fundamentally, the evidence needed to convict has not changed. As much as y'all like to believe that feminists are working off the clock to ruin your lives, the idea that "guilty until proven" innocent will ever become a thing is HIGHLY improbable in any circumstance . C'mon now. Don't buy into the propaganda.

    I'm telling you that's how it is, I've studied sex crimes and I know the law. I think you need to realise that when it comes to sex crimes the law is 100% on the side of women to the extent they will invent no crimes and apply 'justice' retrospectively


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wade-)
    I'm telling you that's how it is, I've studied sex crimes and I know the law. I think you need to realise that when it comes to sex crimes the law is 100% on the side of women to the extent they will invent no crimes and apply 'justice' retrospectively


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    See my post above
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Truths)
    See my post above
    The prosecution will ask how did the defendant know the complainant was consenting thus they will need to prove a reasonable belief that there was consent when it should be that the prosecution must prove that the defendant did not have a reasonable belief in consent. Don't attempt to a read a small section of an article and claim that you know more than someone who has knowledge sexual offences and has read cases and seen how the law is applied in practice


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wade-)
    The prosecution will ask how did the defendant know the complainant was consenting thus they will need to prove a reasonable belief that there was consent when it should be that the prosecution must prove that the defendant did not have a reasonable belief in consent. Don't attempt to a read a small section of an article and claim that you know more than someone who has knowledge sexual offences and has read cases and seen how the law is applied in practice


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    This is rubbish.

    A policeman will ask that question in interview. The suspect will either (a) say "no comment" (b) give a credible explanation, (c) give an incredible explanation or (d) give an answer that amounts to an admission that there was no consent.

    At the trial, the Defendant's account will only go in if it amounts to admission or if the Defendant gives evidence and says something that wasn't in the police interview. It is the Defendant's choice whether he gives evidence or not. If he does, the prosecution can cross-examine him on how he knew the victim consented. If he doesn't give evidence, the prosecution will have to prove lack of consent some other way.

    However it is always for the prosecution to prove lack of consent.

    You are confusing the prosecution having to prove something with the Defendant being entitled to give his account without being asked any awkward questions.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    However it is always for the prosecution to prove lack of consent.

    You are confusing the prosecution having to prove something with the Defendant being entitled to give his account without being asked any awkward questions.
    Yep.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wade-)
    I'm telling you that's how it is, I've studied sex crimes and I know the law. I think you need to realise that when it comes to sex crimes the law is 100% on the side of women to the extent they will invent no crimes and apply 'justice' retrospectively


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Can you provide any evidence at all for this? I have never seen any cases of this innocent until proven guilty thing you are talking about.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    This is rubbish.

    A policeman will ask that question in interview. The suspect will either (a) say "no comment" (b) give a credible explanation, (c) give an incredible explanation or (d) give an answer that amounts to an admission that there was no consent.

    At the trial, the Defendant's account will only go in if it amounts to admission or if the Defendant gives evidence and says something that wasn't in the police interview. It is the Defendant's choice whether he gives evidence or not. If he does, the prosecution can cross-examine him on how he knew the victim consented. If he doesn't give evidence, the prosecution will have to prove lack of consent some other way.

    However it is always for the prosecution to prove lack of consent.

    You are confusing the prosecution having to prove something with the Defendant being entitled to give his account without being asked any awkward questions.
    Haha your legal knowledge is very bad. If that was that case how would anyone ever be found guilty of rape? Their defence would simply tell them to keep their mouth shut and unless it was recorded there would be no evidence that the complainant didn't consent.

    In real life the complainant would say she didn't consent and the defendant would have to attempt to convince a jury that she had, the judge would direct the jury to find the defendant guilty unless he could reasonably convince them that the complainant had consented.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.