Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the living legend)
    did you know that one in two people actually enjoy rape!! i thnk they should make it only a fine or something, after all it cant b that bad. can it?
    are you stupid??... its hte 'fantasy' of it.. of a male being forceful you know like when they like being tied up and stuff... and i can imagine it hurts like mad and be the most awful think to happen to you if you get raped!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tom//)
    talking specifically about how a drunk man can get charged with rape if he has sex with a drunk woman when she agrees to it...

    to me that just doesnt make sense, how can a man be held accountable for his actions, but because the woman is drunk she cannot agree to sex?
    This isn't true, drunken consent is consent, rape requires 3 elements

    Lack of consent

    Penetration

    Reasonable person test

    If a drunk girl, even if off her face says do me its still consent

    From sexual offences act 2003

    75
    Evidential presumptions about consent

    (1)If in proceedings for an offence to which this section applies it is proved—

    (a)that the defendant did the relevant act,

    (b)that any of the circumstances specified in subsection (2) existed, and

    (c)that the defendant knew that those circumstances existed,
    the complainant is to be taken not to have consented to the relevant act unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he consented, and the defendant is to be taken not to have reasonably believed that the complainant consented unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he reasonably believed it.
    (2)The circumstances are that—

    (a) any person was, at the time of the relevant act or immediately before it began, using violence against the complainant or causing the complainant to fear that immediate violence would be used against him;

    (b) any person was, at the time of the relevant act or immediately before it began, causing the complainant to fear that violence was being used, or that immediate violence would be used, against another person;

    (c) the complainant was, and the defendant was not, unlawfully detained at the time of the relevant act;

    (d) the complainant was asleep or otherwise unconscious at the time of the relevant act;

    (e) because of the complainant’s physical disability, the complainant would not have been able at the time of the relevant act to communicate to the defendant whether the complainant consented;

    (f) any person had administered to or caused to be taken by the complainant, without the complainant’s consent, a substance which, having regard to when it was administered or taken, was capable of causing or enabling the complainant to be stupefied or overpowered at the time of the relevant act.






    If one of (2) a to f are present then its just rape, if not then its just a case of who the jury believe more
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tom//)
    i believe its been passed, ill try and find a definate one, but in the mean time
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1942904.ece
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...soon-rape.html
    Erm, these articles talk about establishing whether the woman was too drunk to give consent. If she is not drunk enough that she can't give consent, it's not rape.

    It's not just 'if you have sex with someone who's drunk, it's rape.' It's 'if you have sex with someone who does not/cannot consent it is rape.' Not unreasonable.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    However, ultimately rape is a man's crime. One friend said to me once that men get raped "just as much as women do" and that is completely false. It is also officially a war crime. The Japanese soldiers raped approximately 80,000 women during the six weeks of the Nanking Massacre. In World War II, approximately 200,000 Korean and Chinese women were forced into prostitution in Japanese military brothels. Also, the Red Army were guilty of raping over 2,000,000 German women and young girls.
    And in 2006, a UN statistical report showed that over 250,000 cases of female rape had been recorded that year.

    No wonder the rape laws lean in favour of women.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nolongerhearthemusic)
    Erm, these articles talk about establishing whether the woman was too drunk to give consent. If she is not drunk enough that she can't give consent, it's not rape.

    It's not just 'if you have sex with someone who's drunk, it's rape.' It's 'if you have sex with someone who does not/cannot consent it is rape.' Not unreasonable.
    how do you define cannot give consent though? "If she was deemed so drunk she was incapable, the man would be far more likely to be convicted of rape." thats very broad
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tom//)
    well, the fact that a man cannot be raped says it all to be honest. because rape is classed only as vaginal it cant be :|
    Wrong, rape can be classed as vaginal, anal and/or oral sex. Also, a man can be raped....but only by another man haha. And I agree, it's ridiculous that rape laws specifies the words 'HE' and 'PENIS'.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    If she consents than that's ridiculous. If she has a problem with it then she shouldn't be getting drunk. I mean I don't agree with it morally, but it shouldn't be a crime.

    And can men be bumraped?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lisa.22)
    are you stupid??... its hte 'fantasy' of it.. of a male being forceful you know like when they like being tied up and stuff... and i can imagine it hurts like mad and be the most awful think to happen to you if you get raped!
    Something tells me he wasn't being entirely sincere.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rummang)
    Wrong, rape can be classed as vaginal, anal and/or oral sex. Also, a man can be raped....but only by another man haha. And I agree, it's ridiculous that rape laws specifies the words 'HE' and 'PENIS'.
    hmm, im sure i read somewhere that it was only vaginal, im probably wrong though :p:
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tom//)
    how do you define cannot give consent though? "If she was deemed so drunk she was incapable, the man would be far more likely to be convicted of rape." thats very broad
    The proposals will leave far more discretion to judges and juries to determine the amount of alcohol a woman can consume before she is deemed incapable...

    "Where the complainant has voluntarily consumed even substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remains capable of choosing whether or not to have intercourse, and in drink agrees to do so, this would not be rape."...

    Earlier this year the Council of Circuit Judges said it should be left to juries to decide whether a woman is capable of consenting to sex.


    It's decided in court. Like every other crime.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tom//)
    how do you define cannot give consent though? "If she was deemed so drunk she was incapable, the man would be far more likely to be convicted of rape." thats very broad
    Its near impossible to prove, the majority of women talk things over with friends and family before going to the police, so blood alcohol tests are useless, there is often no violence in these cases either

    At the end of the the day it comes down to consent and who the jury believes

    Thats why successful rape convictions are something like 5% of all those reported

    Particularly with judges allowing women to be questioned about sexual history etc despite legislation against this, and there are always prejudices such as if she wears a short skirt etc she's sort of asking for it, things like these are used to cast doubt on the women's character

    You rightly need a strong burden of proof for a conviction and the woman always has to testify, of course this always leaves the system prone to miscarriages of justice
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Isn't rape to do with penetration? So a man penetrating a woman/ another man is rape, and a woman penetrating another woman/ man with an object, all without consent, is rape.

    Is that right? I'd like to know.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nolongerhearthemusic)
    You cannot be serious. A crime committed mainly by men, and the laws against it are weighted against men? Shocking.

    Your knowledge of legal philosophy is appalling, so don't try and take the sarcastic 'you're-so-stupid' tone against him.

    Proportional to population, more gun crime is committed by blacks than any other race. Should our gun laws be unfairly weighted against black people?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DisgruntledMoth)
    Isn't rape to do with penetration? So a man penetrating a woman/ another man is rape, and a woman penetrating another woman/ man with an object, all without consent, is rape.

    Is that right? I'd like to know.
    1 Rape

    (1) A person (A) commits an offence if—

    (a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,

    (b) B does not consent to the penetration, and

    (c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
    2 Assault by penetration

    (1) A person (A) commits an offence if—

    (a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina or anus of another person (B) with a part of his body or anything else,

    (b) the penetration is sexual,

    (c) B does not consent to the penetration, and

    (d) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
    According to this, only a male can be charged for such acts as you have described.

    Source
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FyreFight)
    Your knowledge of legal philosophy is appalling, so don't try and take the sarcastic 'you're-so-stupid' tone against him.

    Proportional to population, more gun crime is committed by blacks than any other race. Should our gun laws be unfairly weighted against black people?
    Black people and white people commit gun crime in the same way. It is the same crime, so of course the laws should be the same. Males and females do not commit sexual assault in the same way. If there are more laws about male-on-female sexual assault, thus making sexual assault laws in general weighted against males, it has nothing to do with prejudice. It's just practicality.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nolongerhearthemusic)
    Black people and white people commit gun crime in the same way. It is the same crime, so of course the laws should be the same. Males and females do not commit sexual assault in the same way. If there are more laws about male-on-female sexual assault, thus making sexual assault laws in general weighted against males, it has nothing to do with prejudice. It's just practicality.

    It's not down to practicality at all, it's down to a prejudice.


    A girl can deliberately get a guy drunk and 'rape' him in the same way that a man can do it to a girl. Except that, as the law refers specifically to 'he' and 'penis', it's only rape when a guy does it to a girl. There's no way that this can be argued to be either equal, or unequal due to practicality.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    To be honest, I find quibbling over what's 'rape' and what's 'assault by penetration' pretty irrelevant, since a lot of cases never get as far as court, let alone to the point where a jury is able to decide on a person's ability to consent. Before anything's done about rape law, attitudes and ways of dealing with rape- particularly concerning the police, the NHS and so on- need to change.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FyreFight)
    However, a girl can get a guy drunk and 'rape' him in exactly the same way that a man can do the same to a girl.
    Firstly, she cannot do it in exactly the same way. It is a different act and a different crime. I believe this would be sexual assault (as is rape), which in this case should carry the same penalties as the equivalent act of rape. If it doesn't (but I imagine it does) then on the surface yes it does seem unfair.

    The term 'rape' referring to a crime committed by males is a historical use of the word. Perhaps the word should not be written in laws at all. But that's just what the word means.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nolongerhearthemusic)
    Firstly, she cannot do it in exactly the same way. It is a different act and a different crime.
    But is it? I mean, if a man gets a girl drunk and bangs her, is he morally any more in the wrong than if a girl gets a guy drunk and does the same to him? This is assuming there's no genuine physical damage. Is there a moral difference? Is one any more a danger to others than the other?

    Obviously a woman would struggle to knock a guy out in an alley and rape him, but purely the fact that she doesn't put her penis inside him doesn't mean it's a different crime.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanGrover)
    But is it? I mean, if a man gets a girl drunk and bangs her, is he morally any more in the wrong than if a girl gets a guy drunk and does the same to him? This is assuming there's no genuine physical damage. Is there a moral difference? Is one any more a danger to others than the other?

    Obviously a woman would struggle to knock a guy out in an alley and rape him, but purely the fact that she doesn't put her penis inside him doesn't mean it's a different crime.
    I don't believe it's morally more or less wrong, but I do believe it's a different act. It affects the person's body differently, and raping a women is potentially more invasive and damaging - the equivalent of a male raping a male, or a female actually penetrating the male they are raping.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
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.