Now Feminism has infiltrated our judiciary

Scroll to see replies

It's not illegal to take advantage of someone. There has to be physical force and coercion for it to be rape.

There does not have to been physical force. For example say if a woman is passed out and a man rapes her, it's still rape, but he hasn't used any force to carry it out.

Under section 1(1) SOA 2003 a defendant, A, is guilty of rape if:

_ A intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of B (the complainant) with his penis;

_ B does not consent to the penetration; and,

_ A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

"a major change in the law and the Act abolishes the Morgan defence of a genuine though unreasonably mistaken belief as to the consent of the complainant. It means that the defendant (A) has the responsibility to ensure that (B) consents to the sexual activity at the time in question. It will be important for the police to ask the offender in interview what steps he took to satisfy him that the complainant consented."

According to Law he needed to have taken steps to ensure she agreed to it, otherwise he is guilty of rape.

http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/Definitionofrape2.php

Thank you for clearing that up.

An issue is how easy it is for a woman to use the word "rape". Seriously, the number of times it's been used for blackmail is officially uncool (understatement).

I think the title of the OP is at fault...there ain't no feminism to be found in this case, just the ****ing annoying and, unfortunately, very real double standard that exists in our society. (Also officially uncool :dry:

)

Reply 61

Chumbaniya

Original post by ms1024

I mean for **** sake, how many men have never had sex with a drunk girl before?

Ah, the classic appeal to what is the case in order to try to persuade people what should be the case.

The 18th century example:

"I mean for **** sake, how many men have never mistreated a black person before?"

Now I'm not suggesting that if sex occurs when one of the participants has been drinking that it makes it rape. But I am suggesting that if a man deliberately sets out to find himself a woman too drunk to realistically consent to sex, and then has sex with her, then it's rape no matter what cretins might tell you about it being permissible to treat a drunk woman as toy rather than a person. Sexual violence is far too prevalent in the modern world and it's the attitudes of men like you that make this the case. Getting robbed while drunk still means you've been robbed. Getting raped while drunk still means you've been raped.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 62

Sheikh {/} Nykaa

Original post by mindlessvandalism

If she willingly gave consent under the influence of alcohol, she may have regretted it in the morning, however a man shouldn't have to spend up to 5 years in jail because she made a mistake. This is assuming that she consented under no duress, impaired or not. Yes it could of been avoided, but unless he forced himself upon her then surely it shouldn't be labled 'rape'. This is in general, not the specifics of this certain incident.

Regarding this, does anyone else think that the fact he was a famous footballer played a role in the womans decision to claim rape... Not my opinion, just wondering.

someone else mentioned that final point to me actually...but i reckon if it was simply because he is famous...she would have tried to extort some cash instead of getting him sent to prison for 5years.

Reply 63

KJane

Original post by ms1024

Jesus H Christ, you want to sign a ****ing contract every time you have sex?

Well it'd be a pretty good thing for a guy to have if he's gonna sleep with a drunk girl. Although even then he might not get away with it if she reports it as rape.

Well that's the definition of rape, in place to protect people. Perhaps she shouldn't have gotten drunk, but he shouldn't have slept with her. She must have been in a pretty bad state if she couldn't remember the night before, I've seen girls in that condition and it's clear that they're not with it and can easily be taken advantage of.

Reply 64

mindlessvandalism

Original post by Sheikh {/} Nykaa

Yeah you're probably right.
Although assuming that she was claiming rape because he was a famous footballer in this theorectial situation, maybe she thought she would receive damages of some sort. Also if she had tried to extort him with the threat of rape and he didn't pay, then she went to the police, they would investigate why she didn't come forward straight away and he would have evidence of her trying to blackmail him.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 65

Logi

Under pretty much every other law you're held responsible for your actions regardless of any intoxication so I'm not sure why a person is suddenly considered unable to make a decision when it comes to sex.

Reply 66

betsbug

Original post by ninth2

I really don't understand why one man was found guilty and the other found innocent; they were both 'equally' accused of wrongdoing, no? Both admitted to having sex with the intoxicated girl, yet only one is convicted? I just don't understand.

Unless of course they judge and jury felt that somebody had to be punished, and shuddered at the inevitable massive outcry that would have ensued if the black man had got the sole blame and custodial sentence.

I think it would have been difficult to convict McDonald considering the girl had gone to the hotel with him - although I believe that she was too intoxicated to give her consent, that might complicate the 'beyond reasonable doubt' argument. However, with Evans, she hadn't agreed to go to the hotel with him, he'd entered the hotel room and asked to take part.. I think that takes it beyond reasonable doubt that she was too intoxicated to give her consent, as there is nothing to suggest that she had been interested in doing anything with Evans prior to her going to the hotel.

Reply 67

Tommyjw

Original post by Logi

But that's just wrong? Many laws have intoxication as a defense which can lower a sentence, change what you are being charged for or just have the case dropped all together. That doesn't even look at the fact they may or may not be defenses to crimes YOU have committed, not crimes committed against yourself such as rape.

Reply 68

buchanan700

The man has been convicted of rape in a court of law. It's not feminism. It's the law. In this case, the court found that the defendant had taken advantage of an extremely intoxicated women who could not have consented. To do that, they need sufficient evidence. I cannot believe people are getting angry toward the victim and not the CONVICTED attacker.

This is why we NEED feminism. Because of posts like this.

Reply 69

mindlessvandalism

Original post by Logi

I'm out of ratings, I agree totally. If i assaulted someone under the influence of alcohol, I'm not automatically cleared of the assault because i was intoxicated.

Reply 70

iamyourspiritfrombeyondth

God I hate being part of the male gender sometimes.

Reply 71

TurboCretin

Original post by ms1024

It's not a man's duty to stop girls from making bad decisions...take some ****ing responsiblity for yourself.

It wasn't a bad decision. From the sounds of things, it wasn't a decision at all. That is kind of the point.

Reply 72

Tommyjw

Original post by mindlessvandalism

I'm out of ratings, I agree totally. If i assaulted someone under the influence of alcohol, I'm not automatically cleared of the assault because i was intoxicated.

Please explain to me how being raped and assaulting someone is comparable in any single way whatsoever, in both the legal and normal sense. Being one is committing a crime the other is being the victim of a crime.

I look forward to this.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 73

TurboCretin

Original post by mindlessvandalism

I'm out of ratings, I agree totally. If i assaulted someone under the influence of alcohol, I'm not automatically cleared of the assault because i was intoxicated.

We are talking in rape cases such as this about a scenario where an individual is so inebriated as to not be able either to put up resistance or to form a cogent thought. Someone who is capable of drunkenly assaulting someone else, whilst obviously suffering from impaired judgment, is nevertheless demonstrably capable both of exercising that judgment and acting upon it. That's the difference.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 74

Logi

Original post by Tommyjw

For the majority of offences it really doesn't offer much of a defence. If you're intoxicated you may not have intentionally committed the crime but it's considered reckless to get intoxicated and so it's still likely to lead to a conviction. If that's the case for those offences why is it not reckless to get drunk enough to not know whether you've consented to sex or not?

I'm not sure either way on this issue as like you say it would be unfair to blame the victim. However, it also seems wrong to place all the blame on someone who may believe there was consent at the time, and the current situation where it basically seems like it's rape if the woman says so (regardless of what she said at the time) seems even more unfair.

Reply 75

mindlessvandalism

Original post by Tommyjw

I was generalising on decisions taken while under the influence of alcohol and how much responsibility you take for your actions.

Regarding this specific case, I'm not aware of the circumstances, was simply arguing against generalisations made by other people.

My argument was, if a girl agrees to have sex while intoxicated, does she not have to take responsibility for her actions in the same way someone would have if the chose to assault someone while under the influence.

Reply 76

TurboCretin

Original post by Tommyjw

It is natural to question why it is that drunkenness absolves you of responsibility for your actions in one case and not the other. Unfortunately for that poster, his actual argument from that point onwards is totally sucks ass.

Reply 77

mindlessvandalism

Original post by TurboCretin

We are talking in rape cases such as this about a scenario where an individual is so inebriated as to not be able either to put up resistance or to formulate a cogent decision. Someone who is capable of drunkenly assaulting another, whilst obviously suffering from impaired judgment, is nevertheless demonstrably capable of both exercising that judgment and acting upon it. That's the difference.

I was just arguing the case of if she consented under no duress, not in the case where she was so intoxicated that she could no longer speak or think coherently

Reply 78

Tommyjw

Original post by Logi

Key word: Offences.
Being raped is not an offence
It's not reckless because there is no choice. Reckless implies you still make a choice once intoxicated. Being raped is having choice taken away from you.

Current situation isn't like that at all. It can be very hard to convict for rape thus making it a very harrowing event for the victim. It would not be easy for a woman to completely lie about it and win the case.

Reply 79

g_star_raw_1989

This whole episode teaches us that women should take more care with how much they drink. For the unfortunate reason that if they drink too much they could be at risk of sexual assault or rape. It is not right or just but that is how it is. If a highly intoxicated women is out and about then many males will prey on her as an easy target, that is not 'right' but it does exist.

Unfortunately, it is a reality of modern society that if if a woman "is out of it" she is "fair game", which personally I find abhorrent but it is a wide held belief among many males.

It is a sad reality but that is honestly how it| I would advise girls to have their wits about them at all time. They shouldn't have to, but that is the world we live in.