Ched Evans submits 'fresh evidence' in attempt to overturn rape conviction

You seem to be heading down the path of suggesting that many so-called rapes are actually sexual assaults of the man by the woman. This seems unlikely to me.

You may not have sufficient (or any) corroborative evidence in any given situation. In the Evans case, I believe that CCTV and witnesses support the contention that she was incapable of making decisions.

How is it like saying that?

If you cannot tell the difference, don't get so drunk.

I'm making that point to show that once you start involving alcohol in to the situation it can get complicated especially when you create a system whereby rape is a crime of basic intent (thus holding drunk men responsible) but says to women 'you aren't responsible for what you do when you're drunk'

It still hasn't penetrated, has it? Intoxication of the perpetrator is no defence to the perpetrator for any crime. Rape is no different to anything else.

The only difference is that it is also (as a separate issue) an act that isn't a crime if the woman has given valid consent. She cannot given such valid consent if she is coerced, threatened, too drunk or drugged up. This has nothing to do with the drunkenness of the perpetrator (except that a drunk man may find it more difficult to spot that the woman is too drunk to consent).

It is a wonder your victim blaming doesn't extend to banning short skirts and make-up.

Victims of robbery also make themselves more vulnerable and likely to be mugged if they are intoxicated or ill. However, the law holds the perpetrator fully responsible for the crime, just as with rape. The obligation is on the potential perpetrator not to take advantage of an easy target. It really isn't difficult.

The best advice for all young men who need alcohol in order to pull is, don't. Find a more normal way of meeting people and socialising.

You seem to missing my point, particularly when you go on about robbery, so I'll make it as blunt as possible. Why are you only deemed to be responsible for the bad things you do drunk?

I'm not missing anything. You are responsible for your crimes whether you are drunk or not. Drunkenness is not a defence to rape, robbery, fraud, or anything else. The only real defences are that you didn't do it or whatever you did wasn't a crime or was perpetrated by someone else.

If a man takes advantage of someone who is incapable of making decisions then he should have the full force of the law visited on him, no matter what the crime (including theft, in your example).

You seem to want someone else to take responsibility for your actions, even if they are criminal. No sensible society will agree to that. You have a duty to protect those that are incapable of looking after themselves, not take advantage of them, which is what you seem to want to do.

Evidently you're not a law student otherwise you'd know intoxication is valid defence for crimes of specific intent.

I'm advocating that the law be changed, if you're talking about changing the law you can't look at it from its current legal perspective.

The thing that most men who support current rape law don't understand is that under that law they are likely rapists

Rape is a crime of basic intent of course. If you think that intoxication is a good defence for crimes of specific intent you'd be well advised to read R v O'Hare:

http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/cases/R-v-O-Hare.php

Further, all judges seem to use the phrase "A drunken intent is nevertheless an intent" in such cases and very few people seem to get off, if any.

I see. I disagree then. People need to be protected from predatory males who get their victim incapably drunk and then falsely claim they consented.

That simply isn't true. The fact is that most men are capable of pulling when sober and are cautious about their interactions with drunk women. Most men are also protective of vulnerable people. Only the reckless and inadequate are likely to be drawn into criminal behaviour while drunk, and women need to be protected against them. As I said earlier, sex with strangers and drinks are a bad idea.

The sensible thing to do is avoid sex with women who have taken too much alcohol (i.e. anything more than a moderate amount), and to avoid sex, especially with strangers, while too drunk yourself to reliably spot whether consent has been given. To do otherwise is madness.

It still hasn't penetrated, has it? Intoxication of the perpetrator is no defence to the perpetrator for any crime. Rape is no different to anything else.

The only difference is that it is also (as a separate issue) an act that isn't a crime if the woman has given valid consent. She cannot given such valid consent if she is coerced, threatened, too drunk or drugged up. This has nothing to do with the drunkenness of the perpetrator (except that a drunk man may find it more difficult to spot that the woman is too drunk to consent).

It is a wonder your victim blaming doesn't extend to banning short skirts and make-up.

Victims of robbery also make themselves more vulnerable and likely to be mugged if they are intoxicated or ill. However, the law holds the perpetrator fully responsible for the crime, just as with rape. The obligation is on the potential perpetrator not to take advantage of an easy target. It really isn't difficult.

The best advice for all young men who need alcohol in order to pull is, don't. Find a more normal way of meeting people and socialising.

Just FYI to be convicted of rape you must reasonably believe that the "victim" does not consent.

The question of capacity to consent is particularly relevant when a complainant is intoxicated by alcohol or affected by drugs.

In R v Bree [2007] EWCA 256, the Court of Appeal explored the issue of capacity and consent, stating that, if, through drink, or for any other reason, a complainant had temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have sexual intercourse, she was not consenting, and subject to the defendant's state of mind, if intercourse took place, that would be rape. However, where a complainant had voluntarily consumed substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remained capable of choosing whether to have intercourse, and agreed to do so, that would not be rape. Further, they identified that capacity to consent may evaporate well before a complainant becomes unconscious. Whether this is so or not, however, depends on the facts of the case.

In cases similar to Bree, prosecutors should carefully consider whether the complainant has the capacity to consent, and ensure that the instructed advocate presents the Crown's case on this basis and, if necessary, reminds the trial judge of the need to assist the jury with the meaning of capacity.

Prosecutors and investigators should consider whether supporting evidence is available to demonstrate that the complainant was so intoxicated that he/she had lost their capacity to consent. For example, evidence from friends, taxi drivers and forensic physicians describing the complainant's intoxicated state may support the prosecution case. In addition, it may be possible to obtain expert evidence in respect of the effects of alcohol/drugs and the effects if they are taken together. Consideration should be given to obtaining an expert's back calculation or the opinion of an expert in human pharmacology in relation to the complainant's level of alcohol/ drugs at the time of the incident.

See Rook and Ward On Sexual offences Law & Practice 4th Edition for a comprehensive discussion on the meaning of consent.

So you think that most men get actually stop before every step of sexual activity and ask permission? I can't imagine how awkward it would be to stop before every time you move your hand and say 'is it okay if I put my hand here?' or before the moment of actually penetrating having to say 'are you sure you want me to put my penis in you?'.

It is a whole lot more awkward to be convicted of an offence because you didn't get clear permission.

I am aware of that though, actually, the perpetrator must "not reasonably believe that consent is given" (which is significantly different from "reasonably believe that the victim does not consent", which is more passive on his part and less onerous on him).

I am also aware that a reasonable man, presented with an inebriated woman who is so drunk she cannot walk straight, does not trust her supposed consent and does not have sex with her. If the man is himself so inebriated that he cannot tell if someone he intends to have sex with is too drunk to consent then he is a fool, and his actions may make him a criminal fool.

The CPS guidance on the matters says:

However, please explain to my why when two people are drunk, all responsibility lies on the man?

Why is it, as you just said, that if two people are equally as drunk, that the man is the one who must make the decisions and the woman, no matter how much she's gagging for it, is incapable of making such decisions?

reasonably believe that the "victim" does not consent

reasonably believe that consent is given

And no, his actions would not necessarily be criminal.