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

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by unprinted)
    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.



    "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."
    In the heat of the moment, people actually ask? I would have thought body language would be a much more obvious signal. If a woman started kissing and undressing and touching a guy and he suddenly stops and says 'you wanna do it?' I'd have thought the woman would be like 'well.. duh!' If even it was verbally asked, there's no way to prove that in court.

    It's the world we live in. Indulging in a risky behaviour such as going out and getting blind drunk invites possible negative consequences. A man wasn't necessarily 'predatory' or it was premeditated, a woman presented an opportunity. I doubt there would have been any danger at all if the woman hadn't chosen to drink so much. You can't get around the fact that the woman acted first and instigated the risk. It's the same kind of thing if a woman goes out wearing a really short skirt and revealing clothes and finds she's subjected to unwanted leering. Yes, in theory she should be able to wear what she wants but that's not reality. Sometimes behaviour has to be modified to avoid creating trouble for yourself.
    Offline

    6
    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.
    I'm a bit of a dogger, so I will be fine.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Baelish)
    The system has been like this for some time. In most cases there is a burden of proof but in rape cases, where the accused has admitted to sex taking place or it has been proven by other means, there is then a reverse burden on proof put on the accused to prove that they received consent from the victim. The problem with this is that honest men that admit to sex, but not rape, are then put in a position whereby they have to prove they also got consent. In most cases this becomes his word vs her word and therefore it is extremely hard for him to prove this.

    This is exactly where Ched Evans got caught out because he admitted to having sex with her and at that point the onus was on him to prove he also had consent. How could he prove that? If Ched Evans had lied and said sex hadn't taken place and the woman also couldn't remember anything then he would have likely not been convicted because they'd have had to prove sexual intercourse took place before a reverse burden of proof came into play. His own honesty of admitting to sex taking place led to his conviction.

    This sets an extremely dangerous precedent because (a) it encourages men to state that no sex took place to put the onus on the prosecution to prove sex did take place and (b) it also leaves many men in a situation whereby they will honestly admit to having sex but won't be able to prove consent under a reverse burden of proof leaving them in a situation whereby they're stuck.

    Look at the below scenario to see how dangerous this is. I will use M for the male and F for the female.

    M is cheating on F with another woman.
    F finds out about M cheating but does not tell M that she is aware.
    F decides to get revenge on M for cheating.
    F acts nice when he comes home, the two of them have food, a little to drink and a relaxing evening.
    F and M engage in marital sexual intercourse in the bedroom.
    F wakes up and phones the police to say she has been raped (no consent) by her husband (to get back at him).
    M admits to having sex with F as that actually took place and he's an honest man (cheating aside).
    M is charged with rape because sex has been proven to have taken place (he admitted to it) and the case will now go before the courts.
    In court it is established that M and F had sex that night. F claims she gave no consent. M cannot prove there was consent because as far as he was concerned he was just having another night in with his loving wife.
    M is asked to provide proof of consent under a reverse burden of proof but cannot do so. It is therefore established that (a) sex took place and (b) no proof of consent can be put forward.

    In the above scenario, unless M's lawyer can get F to admit to not being raped or there are various other factors at play, it is highly likely that M is going to be convicted for rape.

    The problem with the reverse burden of proof is that men who have not raped can actually be sent down for rape purely on the basis that they cannot provide evidence of consent. Not being able to put forward evidence of consent does not make someone a rapist.
    I disagree, in a trial the burden of proof would still fall upon the prosecution (as in any 'innocent until proven guilty' system); the only change is that cases will be investigated further/taken to court if the man cannot demonstrate a reasonable belief that consent was given. The law has not changed, nor has the definition of rape - and the fact remains that the number of actual rape cases which fail to be prosecuted massively outweighs the number of false accusations.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Lord Baelish)
    I find it hilarious how you have chosen to take part of what I said out of context as opposed to the whole statement. If sex has been proven, through admittance or through evidence provided by the prosecution, then yes there is a reverse burden of proof that comes into play.
    Nope. You don't have to get to 'innocent on balance of probabilities' or even 'innocent beyond a reasonable doubt'. That's a reverse burden of proof.

    McDonald did not - and in light of the jury's verdict for Evans could not - prove consent. He could - and did - give evidence that led the jury to believe that he may have had a reasonable belief in consent. That's raising a reasonable doubt about the case against you, and it's sufficient for an acquittal. Evans failed to even do that, of course.

    I refer to you the case of: Dougal, R vs Swansea Crown Court
    Nothing new there.

    The bit you've quoted in big text applies in specific circumstances: see s75 rather than s74. Those include the victim being proved to be unconscious or the victim of non-consensual drug use or the defendant having been proved to be using violence etc etc.

    I don't know about you, but I think it's OK for someone accused of raping someone who he was beating at the time to have to make an extra effort to demonstrate consent...

    he would have to provide evidence of consent because he had admitted to having sexual intercourse with his wife.
    No, he just needs to give evidence about his reasonable belief in consent.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hal.E.Lujah)
    Would rather not get into it to be honest, but yes.

    Talking about it though makes me realise that it's probably more a problem with definition. Rape encompasses everything from someone springing from the bushes to a simple accident. Should the definition be split to allow the police to differentiate between what personally I'd call 'Actual rape' and 'Consent ambiguity'?
    This is a good idea, but will get shot down by the chronically outraged straight away.
    I am inclined to agree with one of the posters above who said that there should be harsher punishments for both sides if found guilty. However, when I picture a rapist I think of a guy with a knife lurking in alleyways, where as there are plenty of people who have a broader definition that includes men who did not got repeated verbal consent before and during the event.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Veggiechic6)
    In the heat of the moment, people actually ask?
    Yes, people actually ask. Not everyone, obviously.

    I would have thought body language would be a much more obvious signal. If a woman started kissing and undressing and touching a guy and he suddenly stops and says 'you wanna do it?' I'd have thought the woman would be like 'well.. duh!'
    Actually in my experience they are delighted that someone is asking rather than assuming that just because kissing and undressing have happened and she's touching me, intercourse is wanted and is wanted now.

    Enthusiastic consent is great for both parties.

    If even it was verbally asked, there's no way to prove that in court.
    In the Evans case, his problems include the way that he said McDonald asked her and McDonald said he didn't... Had McDonald lied on oath and said that he did ask and got a positive response, Evans would almost certainly have been acquitted.

    I doubt there would have been any danger at all if the woman hadn't chosen to drink so much. .. Sometimes behaviour has to be modified to avoid creating trouble for yourself.
    I refer you to the passage I quoted earlier. I don't think getting drunk is good or wise, but it's not an invitation for rape and I'd rather live in a society where women can be passed out drunk without any harm coming to them than one that goes 'Well, what did they expect?'
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    feminists being in favour of anti-justice. surprised? I'm certainly not. anything that causes women to be legally superior to men is all they care about, and if stepping all over traditional principles of fairness before the law is the price, they won't give a damn
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Baelish)
    No. If the accused admits to sex then the burden of proof is on them to provide evidence of consent.



    Right, so there is a reverse burden of proof then. He needs to provide evidence which therefore proves that the burden of proof is now on him, as opposed to being placed on the prosecution to prove he never had consent.

    And in the trial example given, the case was about the defendant being too drunk. The examples given in quotes are merely examples and still apply to those overly intoxicated through drink. I quote:



    [/FONT][/COLOR]Source: http://sixthformlaw.info/02_cases/mo...0Crown%20Court

    The reverse burden of proof also applies in these incidents if sexual intercourse can be proven to have taken place, as is the case in the Ched Evans trial. He was found guilty because he (a) admitted to having sex and (b) couldn't prove under a reverse burden of proof that he had received consent for it.

    Under the current interpretation of Criminal Law, Ched Evans was rightly convicted. Whether you believe the law is correct in using a reverse burden of proof is another debate altogether.
    There is nothing in the new guidelines which states that - the advice applies to determining whether cases go to court and has no bearing on the actual trials.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Hal.E.Lujah)
    Rape encompasses everything from someone springing from the bushes to a simple accident.
    How do you accidentally stick your penis in someone?

    Should the definition be split to allow the police to differentiate between what personally I'd call 'Actual rape' and 'Consent ambiguity'?
    Ah, you mean 'bad rape' and 'good rape'.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by unprinted)
    How do you accidentally stick your penis in someone?



    Ah, you mean 'bad rape' and 'good rape'.
    By accident I believe he means where you think someone is consenting but they're later found to be too drunk to reasonably consent.

    Rape does need to be split down a line based on confusion with regards to consent and where you know a person is specifically not consenting. The same method is used with homicide so why not rape


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Lord Baelish)
    Right, so there is a reverse burden of proof then. He needs to provide evidence which therefore proves that the burden of proof is now on him, as opposed to being placed on the prosecution to prove he never had consent.
    That is not a 'reverse burden of proof', just as if you're accused of robbing a bank based on CCTV footage of you waving a sawn-off shotgun around, you don't have to prove someone else did it or prove that the video is faked or prove the bank said it was ok to take the money or do anything else apart from raise a reasonable doubt that, say, it was you in the CCTV footage.

    And in the trial example given, the case was about the defendant being too drunk.
    Voluntarily. There's a difference between voluntary intoxication and involuntary intoxication. The latter does involve - quite reasonably - the burden being on the defendant.

    .. the Ched Evans trial. He was found guilty because he (a) admitted to having sex and (b) couldn't prove under a reverse burden of proof that he had received consent for it.
    No, he was convicted because he admitted having sex with someone who the jury decided was too drunk to consent and nothing he said gave any indication that he may have had a reasonable belief in her consent.

    McDonald was acquitted of rape, despite having sex with the same woman minutes earlier, because he was able to raise a reasonable doubt. He did not, and could not, and did not have to, prove consent.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Baelish)
    And the onus would be on him to prove that he had received consent. See above.
    Wouldn't the onus be on him to prove he had "reasonable belief in consent" rather than the consent itself (video camera or voice recording). To quote the act again:

    The test of reasonable belief is a subjective test with an objective element. The best way of dealing with this issue is to ask two questions:

    - Did the defendant believe the complainant consented? This relates to his or her personal capacity to evaluate consent (the subjective element of the test).
    - If so, did the defendant reasonably believe it? It will be for the jury to decide if his or her belief was reasonable (the objective element).
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Wade-)
    By accident I believe he means where you think someone is consenting but they're later found to be too drunk to reasonably consent.

    Rape does need to be split down a line based on confusion with regards to consent and where you know a person is specifically not consenting. The same method is used with homicide so why not rape
    You and I have had this argument elsewhere and we don't need to have it again.

    You can accidentally kill someone, but you can't accidentally stick your penis in them. The nuances of just how badly you behaved when sticking your penis in someone without a reasonable belief in their consent is dealt with perfectly adequately by the sentencing guidelines.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    War on men continues.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by unprinted)
    I'd rather live in a society where women can be passed out drunk without any harm coming to them than one that goes 'Well, what did they expect?'
    Well, I'm afraid you don't. That's not going to change anytime soon.
    Offline

    16
    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.
    Taking away the raping of men from the equation. I think that being falsely accused of rape is the worst a man can come to experiencing such an horrendous act as rape itself.

    I've known a friend who was falsely accused of rape. And it damn near broke him. I'm serious, he became a total shell of himself until he was cleared, he wouldnt go out, he wouldnt talk to anyone, he lost his job, his confidence and his self respect.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Men accused of date rape will need to convince police that a woman consented to sex as part of a major change in the way sex offences are investigated.
    So it's pretty much guilty until proven innocent.

    Notice this doesn't apply to women. Can't believe under UK law a woman still isn't able to rape a man... bull****.

    Article
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I do believe there is good reasoning for it, and if they said yes it shouldn't be hard to prove, however, how do you prove spoken word unless it's recorded?

    I do feel for the guys who get accused when not guilty by psycho women because it means it's very hard for them to prove they're innocent. And I think it's important if we talk about equal rights then we need to discuss equal rights for men in regards to this law.
    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.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    That's a rather silly statement. Many (probably most) men would probably prefer to be raped by a woman than to spend 15 years in prison because of a false allegation.
    • PS Helper
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    Study Helper
    (Original post by unprinted)
    How do you accidentally stick your penis in someone?



    Ah, you mean 'bad rape' and 'good rape'.


    :lolwut: Bad and good? No.


    I think the Ched Evans one would be a pretty prolific example of an accident; girl takes cocaine and gets drunk, goes to a hotel room and horny men she goes there with have sex. She wakes up full of regret and decides sober her wouldnt have given consent to what intoxicated her did; Rape.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
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.