Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniMastermindBOSS)
    A lot of sick and twisted women are gonna have fun with this...
    Oh dear lord yes.

    No one deserves to be raped, but men already have little say in a relationship scenario anymore. OUTSIDE of this event of cozrse!

    I mean seriously there are people who would say it's only rape if he's ugly :lolwut:

    Equally there are wives who will file false rape accusations just to win a divorce case with a hubby they're bored of

    They should have thought this through.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandst...sed-me-of-rape

    this ^^^^^, falses accusations can completely ruin someones life.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alice_95)
    Well it was only a matter of time...

    I've just seen people on Facebook saying "What a great law, YES mean YES hashtag feminist blah de blah"

    Yes, consent is great. But this law is so easily open to manipulation and the destruction of men's lives. Especially with the broader definition of rape these days. I wish people (meh, I mean feminists) really would stop screaming about the perceived injustices, and that we as a society could say "Take some responsibility for your actions." Yes, rape is horrendous, but if your definition includes going out, getting wasted, having a one night stand and regretting it the next morning then you're pretty awful. People make mistakes and do things they regret. Does that mean they were raped? Most probably not. Please stop demeaning serious crimes done to both men and women and please, please, start to consider the consequences of your actions.

    Also, rape is something so hard to prove. Many people do not seek help when they have been raped initially, and this means all evidence is destroyed. So weighting the law is this way is really unwise. I hope this doesn't affect many before the error of the law is realised.

    (Original post by Ekemini)
    False accusers are going to love this. Boys if you know you know a girl that tends to be a little psychopathic, do not be caught dead in the same room as her alone. I saw a story where a high school girl falsely accused a potentially great football player of rape and he spent 5 years in jail. The girl later recanted her story after getting a 1.5 million dollar settlement from the school and the guy was freed but NOTHING happened to the girl. The justice system is messed up. She nearly destroyed his life and got away with it. Rape is a serious offence that destroys lives and families but so is false accusation
    Respect. It is very hard for a guy to share these fears and not sound like hellspawn, so I appreciate it.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Prosecution guidelines don't change the burden of proof, which enters at the trial stage. It does not matter what a policeman or the CPS think you have done. If they cannot prove it then they cannot make a successful prosecution in court. I doubt they will choose to bring large numbers of obviously unwinnable cases.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Puts the Burden of proof on the defendant to prove he is innocent rather than the prosecution to prove he is guilty. Unfair and against article 6 echr. Abstain is the best way than you cannot even be accused lol
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jebedee)
    Probably not nearly as much as a false rape allegation.
    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.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Clip)
    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"
    There was I hoping the Evans fan club had gone away...

    When she woke up in the urine soaked bed - she'd been so drunk, she wet herself while unconscious - she didn't think she had been raped. She couldn't remember a thing and thought she'd been robbed. So she went to the police about that. It was clear that two men had been in that room, McDonald and Evans. So the police interviewed them both. Based on what they said, including that they'd both had sex with her, and the evidence of witnesses who'd seen how drunk she was, they were charged with rape: the case being she was so drunk as to lack capacity to consent.

    Unless you're suggesting the jury - who saw and heard all the evidence - tossed a coin to decide their verdicts, that McDonald was acquitted and Evans convicted is a sign that they did follow the route to verdict that they were supposed to do.

    Did she have the capacity to consent? No. (If the answer had been yes, both men would have been acquitted.)

    Despite that, did McDonald have a reasonable albeit mistaken belief in her consent? Yes, he may have done. He had actually talked to her outside the hotel, and she'd gone with him to it, for example. So he was acquitted - as others have said already, a reasonable belief in consent is enough.

    Did Evans have a reasonable belief in her consent? No! He turned up, uninvited, unexpected, and unwanted in the room, having lied to get the key and very probably sent his brother and another friend to the window where they were trying to film what was happening. His only contact with her before then turned out to be stepping over her body as she was literally falling down drunk in a kebab shop. Both he and McDonald gave evidence that they didn't ask if he could have sex with her, but he did so anyway. No-one - including the pair outside the window or the night porter who listened at the door at one point and could hear what was happening inside the room - heard her "repeatedly" "calling out" "**** me harder" as he claimed she did. He left as though he knew he'd done something wrong. Basically, he was convicted on what he said he did and didn't do...

    The Evans case shows the jury doing its work properly.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by All_TheCyanide)
    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.
    And a quick search on somewhere like the BBC news website will show that they are.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chazwomaq)
    To quote the sexual offences act 2003:

    So the defendant has to reasonably believe that the plaintiff consented. The guidelines seem to make it clearer that the defendant has to justify that belief. He can't just say "I assumed she consented" based on nothing. I don't know if that was ever the case in court though.
    And how exactly would the defendant "prove" that there was consent? Have a video camera round your neck during foreplay? It shouldn't be the defendant's job to prove anything. They should only have to respond to evidence put forward by the plaintiff.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by chazwomaq)
    So the defendant has to reasonably believe that the plaintiff consented. The guidelines seem to make it clearer that the defendant has to justify that belief. He can't just say "I assumed she consented" based on nothing. I don't know if that was ever the case in court though.
    Yep, that's right. The previous position was that any genuine belief in consent, no matter how unreasonable, was a sufficient defence.

    See above for one recent example...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    How many people actually ask each other if they want to have sex before actually having it? Maybe people should be carrying around contracts that have to be signed before anything happens! They'll be no such thing as one night stands, they'll become 'too risky'.

    How is a guy supposed to know how drunk someone has to be before it would be considered rape? What if both parties are drunk? Men could easily argue that they were too drunk to consent also. Men who knowingly take advantage of women are pigs but if women choose to get themselves legless, surely they must realise they've also chosen to be more vulnerable and at risk of these things happening. I disagree with people who say women are entirely innocent and blameless when it comes to rape because of drunkenness.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by felamaslen)
    And how exactly would the defendant "prove" that there was consent? Have a video camera round your neck during foreplay?
    Demonstrating a reasonable belief in consent really is not difficult. Being able to say that you asked if they wanted to be sexual with you would be one step, for example.

    It shouldn't be the defendant's job to prove anything.
    There are circumstances where it is: if the other person was unconscious, for example.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    More good reason for men to be on high alert for "red flags" before any kind of sexual or emotional involvement with a woman.

    False rape allegations ruin lives, and there really are a sizeable minority of abusive women happy to resort to such legal abuse to get revenge for the most petty things.

    This book might be worth a read.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by All_TheCyanide)
    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.
    Matter of opinion.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by felamaslen)
    And how exactly would the defendant "prove" that there was consent? Have a video camera round your neck during foreplay? It shouldn't be the defendant's job to prove anything. They should only have to respond to evidence put forward by the plaintiff.
    The plaintiff says: I didn't consent.
    The defendant says: I thought she did consent.
    The plaintiff says: I never said yes.
    The prosecutor says: Why did you think there was consent?
    The defendant tries to give a good reason. Non-verbal signals, she was sexually responsive, she wasn't very drunk etc. If they're reasonable -> no prosecution. If they're not -> prosecution.

    Would you accept it isn't good enough for the defendant to shrug and say "I assumed she consented for no good reason"?

    I'm not sure these guidelines require proof on the part of the defendant. If so, that will be quickly shown to be unworkable.

    (Original post by unprinted)
    Yep, that's right. The previous position was that any genuine belief in consent, no matter how unreasonable, was a sufficient defence.
    That's not true is it? The 2003 Act includes "reasonable belief" of consent. Or were you being sarcastic?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Veggiechic6)
    How many people actually ask each other if they want to have sex before actually having it?
    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.

    .. if women choose to get themselves legless, surely they must realise they've also chosen to be more vulnerable and at risk of these things happening. I disagree with people who say women are entirely innocent and blameless when it comes to rape because of drunkenness.
    "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."
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chazwomaq)
    The plaintiff says: I didn't consent.
    The defendant says: I thought she did consent.
    The plaintiff says: I never said yes.
    The prosecutor says: Why did you think there was consent?
    The defendant tries to give a good reason. Non-verbal signals, she was sexually responsive, she wasn't very drunk etc.

    Would you accept it isn't good enough for the defendant to shrug and say "I assumed she consented for no good reason"?



    That's not true is it? The 2003 Act includes "reasonable belief" of consent.
    What would happen if the defendant claims that verbal consent had been given?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by All_TheCyanide)
    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.
    And what happens to rapists in jail?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by orange crush)
    What would happen if the defendant claims that verbal consent had been given?
    Then it's a classic he said / she said. Without further evidence, very hard to prosecute I would think.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chazwomaq)
    Then it's a classic he said / she said. Without further evidence, very hard to prosecute I would think.

    What about guy and girl get together on a night out, go home and have "consensual" sex, then she wakes up and regrets it and claims she was too drunk to consent?


    Does it matter if the guy was also too drunk to consent? Are they both rapists?
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
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.