Presumption of innocence (Rape)
Discussion
Dr Jekyll said:
How do you propose I prove that any woman I sleep with has consented? Or that any woman I slept with 10-20 years ago consented?
You don't need to prove anything. You merely need to adduce some evidence (an evidental burden) to make the issue of consent a 'live' one, which once done, means the prosecution need to prove the matter beyond reasonable doubt. Practically, this takes little to do.
Dr Jekyll said:
There is a change to the guidance in the hope of increasing conviction rates. Saying 'oh but that isn't part of what I consider the "system"' is splitting non existent hairs.
Let's be more critical, then. Dr Jekyll said:
Lot's of crimes have low conviction rates. You don't change the system to 'solve' this 'problem', you recognise that not everyone accused is necessarily guilty and it's up to the prosecution to prove their case.
How do you propose I prove that any woman I sleep with has consented? Or that any woman I slept with 10-20 years ago consented?
Let's say this is a change 'to the system'.How do you propose I prove that any woman I sleep with has consented? Or that any woman I slept with 10-20 years ago consented?
Why are you assuming convictions rates have driven this guidance? A causal link.
What's your experience to say it shouldn't be changed to 'solve the problem'? Lots of 'systems' get changed to problem solve. See scrap metal theft as an example.
Have you considered this is an area of development, legitimately recognised as requiring 'best practice' which needs to be shared across the country to ensure a consistent approach for victims and suspects?
If you actually read the article closely, you'll see the conclusion of, "police and prosecutors must now put a greater onus on rape suspects to demonstrate how the complainant had consented", is from the Telegraph - there is no greater legal onus on the accused than previously as the law is the same as it was before. It's not a quote from the DPP who says, "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?"
It seems odd to me since that is actually what is done.
ChemicalChaos said:
Go on then, what "evidence" can one possibly offer to substantiate a consensual one night stand? 
"He / she agreed to having sex with me because they told me they wanted to". Have I missed some major male-conspiracy that's seeing lots of men in prison over this past 12 years? Or are we being melodramatic over some DPP guidance.
I'm sorry to make you do the roll eyes smiley for trying to explain something you clearly know little about.
La Liga said:
ChemicalChaos said:
Go on then, what "evidence" can one possibly offer to substantiate a consensual one night stand?
"He / she agreed to having sex with me because they told me they wanted to". Have I missed some major male-conspiracy that's seeing lots of men in prison over this past 12 years? Or are we being melodramatic over some DPP guidance.
I'm sorry to make you do the roll eyes smiley for trying to explain something you clearly know little about.
And yes, there have been numerous examples highlighted in newspapers about women falsely accusing men due out of spite, after cheating on their partners, or because they wanted the attention
Oakey said:
Too many PH'ers seem far too occupied worrying about falsely being accused of rape. It makes me question how they go about picking up women, and I mean that metaphorically, not literally picking them out of a gutter whilst laying unconscious in their own vomit.
And lots of vocal feminist types would have you believe that all men are oppressive beasts, constantly looking to rape every woman they see with their oppressive rapey penises. The bias runs deep with some people on PH (I'm not implying that is necessarily anyone on this topic). You only need look at the historic sexual offence topics where there have been convictions. Rather than accept the matter has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, people will say things like "the CPS are out to get them", or, "she only wants compensation". Some of the worst stereotypes of sexual-offence victims that are devoid for nearly all the realities of the real world.
La Liga said:
Consent is quite clearly defined in law.
The Ched Evans case has taught me that this is not the case.Apparently she gave verbal consent to CE, yet even this was not enough as she was too drunk to give consent. How is a bloke on a drunken night out supposed to measure this?
So basically, not only do you need a video camera, you need an alcohol and drugs testing kit too.
La Liga said:
Why are you assuming convictions rates have driven this guidance? A causal link.
What's your experience to say it shouldn't be changed to 'solve the problem'? Lots of 'systems' get changed to problem solve. See scrap metal theft as an example.
The point is that while scrap metal theft is a problem. Defendants sometimes being acquitted isn't, sometimes they might actually be innocent. What's your experience to say it shouldn't be changed to 'solve the problem'? Lots of 'systems' get changed to problem solve. See scrap metal theft as an example.
ChemicalChaos said:
Right, and that testimony is going to wash under the new guidelines of presumed male guilt, you reckon?
I can only explain so many times why the article is misleading. Feel free to tell me where these guidelines (the ones the Telegraph is talking about) "presumes male guilt": http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/equality/vaw/to...
Here's the DPP herself explaining what the guidance is about and the context: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31037876
Listen to her at 01:35: "This is not about changing the burden of proof, the prosecution still have to prove their case. But it should mean we are able to take more and stronger case before the court."
Feel free to keep making-up what you want to be the case, though.
ChemicalChaos said:
And yes, there have been numerous examples highlighted in newspapers about women falsely accusing men due out of spite, after cheating on their partners, or because they wanted the attention.
Every crime has false accusations within it. There have been some false accusations. But I wasn't talking about statistical extremes, I spoke of a 'major-male conspiracy' that you would have thought had / is occurring the way people are reacting. ChemicalChaos said:
And lots of vocal feminist types would have you believe that all men are oppressive beasts, constantly looking to rape every woman they see with their oppressive rapey penises.
And most women aren't that. Like the above, you're using extreme examples to make a point. Dr Jekyll said:
The point is that while scrap metal theft is a problem. Defendants sometimes being acquitted isn't, sometimes they might actually be innocent.
And opportunities to present strong, evidentially sound rape cases to a court being missed is a problem. Who said innocent people being acquitted is a problem?
ReallyReallyGood said:
La Liga said:
Consent is quite clearly defined in law.
The Ched Evans case has taught me that this is not the case.La Liga said:
Well it is. What may not be clear is the understanding people have of it. That's where the complexities arise: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual...
In which, case, perhaps you could explain to me how in the Evans case, a drunk woman was able to give consent to one party (Evans' mate McDonald), but at the same time deemed too drunk to consent to the other (Evans). Clear as mud!
ReallyReallyGood said:
In which, case, perhaps you could explain to me how in the Evans case, a drunk woman was able to give consent to one party (Evans' mate McDonald), but at the same time deemed too drunk to consent to the other (Evans).
Clear as mud!
Understandable. Clear as mud!
Here's the Court of Appeal's summary when they denied the appeal: https://www.crimeline.info/uploads/cases/2012ewcac...
(Apologies for de-railing this thread slightly)
Reading that, from what I can tell, they could be tried separately purely based on the fact the two men met and left her in different circumstances - I cannot see how that is in any way related to consent, either she gave it or she didn't, or is there such a thing as 'implied consent'? I didn't think there was, in the eyes of the law. Like I say, for me at least, it's far from clear.
Reading that, from what I can tell, they could be tried separately purely based on the fact the two men met and left her in different circumstances - I cannot see how that is in any way related to consent, either she gave it or she didn't, or is there such a thing as 'implied consent'? I didn't think there was, in the eyes of the law. Like I say, for me at least, it's far from clear.
Some may find this of interest. It was on lastnight, but will be repeated this week I think:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0507pmp
They mentioned how in the US false rape allegations are a felony, rather than misdemeanour office whereas in the UK law women that are proven to have made false accusations of rape can be done for wasting police time.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0507pmp
They mentioned how in the US false rape allegations are a felony, rather than misdemeanour office whereas in the UK law women that are proven to have made false accusations of rape can be done for wasting police time.
carinaman said:
They mentioned how in the US false rape allegations are a felony, rather than misdemeanour office whereas in the UK law women that are proven to have made false accusations of rape can be done for wasting police time.
I'm not sure of your point here. Felonies and misdemeanours in this country were abolished as legal terms to describe offences long before I joined the police in 1975.Carrying housebreaking implements by night?
The law is straightforward. The reality of the issue is far from it. It's immensely politicised, with a small 'p'. It deals with an area of human behaviour which is private and complex, and in which the attitudes many of the public - men and women - have and those which academics and campaigners think they should have are often quite different. The idea that everyone is hooking up while making sober, mature and respectful decisions about their sexual agency in which they treat each other as equals and expect to be treated the same way is unrealistic. There are lots of women who don't have enlightened feminist ideas about how they want men to behave towards them, and lots of men happy to oblige, which is fine for them until things go bad and we start judging their behaviour in a context it didn't happen in. Likewise, they end up in front of a jury which may have all sorts of preconceived ideas, between "she was asking for it" and "all men are rapists". We ask them to leave their preconceptions behind, but... I do wonder how much of the Evans case outcome was to do with the jury's disgust at what was going on.
Campaigners appear to be largely partisan, rather than concerned with justice per se; contrast their attitude to the Evans case "he was found guilty, he should accept that, apologise and disappear from public life" with that towards the Brooker case "we still support her innocence, and don't think it was helpful to prosecute in the first place". Brooker was caught bang to rights, pants on fire, with a false accusation. They essentially seem to take the view that false accusations are collateral damage worth tolerating in the cause of preventing rapists going unpunished.
You're dealing with difficult judgements of capacity. There is essentially an unequal distribution of responsibility, which feels a bit as if it is a hangover from a less equal time when sex was seen as something men did to women or women did for men. There is a physiological definition of rape which creates an inequality to begin with, and in terms of other sexual offences a popular assumption that a man's capacity to consent is directly related to the blood flow to his penis. There is a disparity in the potential consequences of having sex, but in our more equal society with more enlightened views on promiscuity and the value of virginity, the availability of the morning after pill and safe, legal abortion and a greater legal responsibility for fathers, it's a smaller disparity than it used to be. Both parties are at risk of STDs. Both parties may consent to something they would not have done had their judgement not been impaired, and while drunken consent is consent, the point at which a woman's judgement is sufficiently impaired that she cannot be treated as competent to make decisions for herself is a matter of the opinion of a jury. A man is considered to remain competent to choose and live with the choice.
Women *are* raped in these situations, and often these events go unreported. I know of three women to whom this has happened, none of whom went to the police. There is a problem with rapists getting away with it, and it's probably a considerably bigger problem than that of men having their lives ruined by false accusations. That statistic probably doesn't offer much comfort if you are the man on the sharp end of it. It's ironic that the kind of people who are most vocal about the acceptability of locking up some innocent men for rape are often also people who would be most opposed to the general principle of trading miscarriages of justice for higher conviction rates.
Whatever else it is, the prosecution of rape isn't a simple issue.
Campaigners appear to be largely partisan, rather than concerned with justice per se; contrast their attitude to the Evans case "he was found guilty, he should accept that, apologise and disappear from public life" with that towards the Brooker case "we still support her innocence, and don't think it was helpful to prosecute in the first place". Brooker was caught bang to rights, pants on fire, with a false accusation. They essentially seem to take the view that false accusations are collateral damage worth tolerating in the cause of preventing rapists going unpunished.
You're dealing with difficult judgements of capacity. There is essentially an unequal distribution of responsibility, which feels a bit as if it is a hangover from a less equal time when sex was seen as something men did to women or women did for men. There is a physiological definition of rape which creates an inequality to begin with, and in terms of other sexual offences a popular assumption that a man's capacity to consent is directly related to the blood flow to his penis. There is a disparity in the potential consequences of having sex, but in our more equal society with more enlightened views on promiscuity and the value of virginity, the availability of the morning after pill and safe, legal abortion and a greater legal responsibility for fathers, it's a smaller disparity than it used to be. Both parties are at risk of STDs. Both parties may consent to something they would not have done had their judgement not been impaired, and while drunken consent is consent, the point at which a woman's judgement is sufficiently impaired that she cannot be treated as competent to make decisions for herself is a matter of the opinion of a jury. A man is considered to remain competent to choose and live with the choice.
Women *are* raped in these situations, and often these events go unreported. I know of three women to whom this has happened, none of whom went to the police. There is a problem with rapists getting away with it, and it's probably a considerably bigger problem than that of men having their lives ruined by false accusations. That statistic probably doesn't offer much comfort if you are the man on the sharp end of it. It's ironic that the kind of people who are most vocal about the acceptability of locking up some innocent men for rape are often also people who would be most opposed to the general principle of trading miscarriages of justice for higher conviction rates.
Whatever else it is, the prosecution of rape isn't a simple issue.
ChemicalChaos said:
Cue a sudden rise in false rape claims from morning-after regret.
It is now at the point where, if I was to ever bring back a woman from a bar or club, I'd make sure to video her consent on my phone first
Was talking about this with a friend at work earlier. We are both in out early 20s (actually, harsh realisation, mid-20s It is now at the point where, if I was to ever bring back a woman from a bar or club, I'd make sure to video her consent on my phone first
) and were jokingly saying we were going to carry round contracts for girls to sign in the highly unlikely event that we pull.The fact that, as a girl you are not deemed capable of being in a fit state to consent if you have had a drink; yet as a man, after a drink; you are deemed of sound enough mind to not only control yourself but realise that the girl (who is "game" at the time) has had a drink and may not be making a wise choice. Double standards? I'm not talking about men dragging unconcious girls home then sleeping with them, those b
ds do exist and deserve everything they get that's coming to them.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff