Presumption of innocence (Rape)

[Impasse]

I have been sexually active for over thirty years and not once have I asked for permission to commence a sexual act, yet not once do I feel I have raped anyone.
On that note, is there a legal definition of consent? An accepted phrase or action which proves beyond reasonable doubt that consent was given? Will a signed and witnessed affirmative answer to "Please may I put my penis into your vagina/mouth/anus?" be the only defence a male can have?

Kinda glad I'm not so fussed about girls/relationships any more.

[Dr Jekyll]

jimbobsimmonds said:

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? .

Especially as some women drink specifically to reduce their inhibitions. Also of course, some men drink because they wouldn't be prepared to do what they want to do if they stayed sober.

[carinaman]

Derek Smith said:

I'm not sure of your point here.

Hi Derek, I hope you're feeling better after your sick end to 2014.

I wasn't making a point.

It was an interesting aside to come from the discussion on that programme. I think Alison Saunders was on there, they also discussed this 'helping, but not coaching' that defendants could be given.

One of the men just pointed out the difference between how false allegations were dealt with here and in the US.

I think Clive James said that making a false allegation of rape against a man was quite a serious matter and not something to be dismissed lightly.

I'll be listening to the programme again as I think there's probably stuff in there I missed.

[anonymous-user]

Impasse said:

On that note, is there a legal definition of consent?

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/consent/#a03

[Oakey]

ReallyReallyGood said:

(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.

A woman can consent to having sex with a man, if his mate then rocks up that doesn't mean he's also free to stick his cock in her. Get it?

[jimbobsimmonds]

Dr Jekyll said:

jimbobsimmonds said:

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? .

Especially as some women drink specifically to reduce their inhibitions. Also of course, some men drink because they wouldn't be prepared to do what they want to do if they stayed sober.

Unfortunately true.

Again, just last year a friend and had the good fortune to get chatting with 2 nice Irish girls. Spent a good part of the evening with them, all was going well back back at ours, but mine has doubts (recently broke-up, not ready for it, etc etc... that and I'm fking ugly ). 30 minutes later she's all over me. Again, no means no except when it means yes. My friend had the opposite problem; she was straight into it within 5 minutes of getting back (she even told both our mates minding their own business on the sofa to "get the fk out and stop being cockblocks!". Truely hilarious with her accent. The next morning, I don't really know what happened but my friend has had a tiff with this girl. She's in tears and starts claiming that, and I quote, "I'm a good Catholic girl and you made me". Luckily her friend set her straight but; it goes to show, something that is black and white at 4am can turn a nasty shade of grey then next morning.

[Rick101]

Bloody women. No wonder the gays are on the up.

[Impasse]

La Liga said:

ttp://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/consent/#a03

So, not really then. Just a load of "ifs and buts" open to interpretation. The only definitive is a "no" but that doesn't help when the question pondered was whether there's a definitive "yes".

Rick101 said:

Bloody women. No wonder the gays are on the up.

I realise you're just joshing, but unfortunately it is possible for a male to be raped too, however it's only a male who can rape. The act is described as a penis being inserted without consent into vagina, mouth or anus and men (whether gay or straight) posses more than one of those items.

[DocJock]

hornetrider said:

ChemicalChaos said:

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

I don't think you need to worry about that eventuality.

Harsh but fair.

[FredClogs]

Impasse said:

I realise you're just joshing, but unfortunately it is possible for a male to be raped too, however it's only a male who can rape. The act is described as a penis being inserted without consent into vagina, mouth or anus and men (whether gay or straight) posses more than one of those items.

There was a women convicted of raping a man in Norway, she basically jumped on his morning sunrise whilst he was asleep.

[jimbobsimmonds]

FredClogs said:

Impasse said:

I realise you're just joshing, but unfortunately it is possible for a male to be raped too, however it's only a male who can rape. The act is described as a penis being inserted without consent into vagina, mouth or anus and men (whether gay or straight) posses more than one of those items.

There was a women convicted of raping a man in Norway, she basically jumped on his morning sunrise whilst he was asleep.

I don't think being woken up to a girl on top of me has ever been a bad thing; let alone something I'd prosecute! (BMI over 40 or HIV+ are special cases).

[9mm]

La Liga said:

Cheese Mechanic said:

I'd agree with this, it certainly sounds very scary to me. Truly bizarre, the only way I can see if consent can be proved , is by getting such on video, or in writing.

There are many, many rape investigations in which no further action is taken because it's fundamentally one word against the other in terms of consent.

You only need look at the amount of rapes reported and recorded vs those prosecuted and convicted to see this is the case.

The problem is the popular presumption that there is something wrong about a low conviction rate; that too many rapists are getting away with it.

This seems to have led to a moving of the goalposts in an effort to obtain more convictions.

Makes me uneasy. Maybe conviction rates are low because too many cases should never be brought to court and juries see right through the prosecution.

[Derek Smith]

FredClogs said:

There was a women convicted of raping a man in Norway, she basically jumped on his morning sunrise whilst he was asleep.

A woman has been found guilty of rape in this country. In fact, I think more than one case.

[Impasse]

FredClogs said:

There was a women convicted of raping a man in Norway, she basically jumped on his morning sunrise whilst he was asleep.

Norway has different laws to us over many aspects of life. Here, a woman cannot be convicted of rape due to its technical interpretation. They can, of course, be convicted of other sex crimes which carry similar sentencing guidelines.

[Rick101]

Impasse said:

however it's only a male who can rape.

I had understood this too but a friend who had done some legal studies said this had now changed. No idea what the reality is.

9mm said:

The problem is the popular presumption that there is something wrong about a low conviction rate; that too many rapists are getting away with it.

This seems to have led to a moving of the goalposts in an effort to obtain more convictions.

Makes me uneasy. Maybe conviction rates are low because too many cases should never be brought to court and juries see right through the prosecution.

Completely agree. Real rape is an awful awful thing and those who commit it should be tried accordingly. Too many wishy washy cases where drink and subsequent regret is involved.

[Derek Smith]

Rick101 said:

Impasse said:

however it's only a male who can rape.

I had understood this too but a friend who had done some legal studies said this had now changed. No idea what the reality is.

There was a new act in 2003. This included the 'old' definition of rape and added another, assault by penetration. Male and female can be guilty of AbP.

Same penalty for both offences: max life.

[FredClogs]

If I got a friend really drunk, or indeed I just happened to find him/her really drunk, and I managed to persuade him/her (by a variety of persuasive means, emotional blackmail, physical or the threat of physical violence) to hand over the keys to his/her car - which I then spent a few hours Ferris Beullering - would this be

a) Ok, because they'd said I could.

or

b) Not okay, because I'd been a bit of a tt.

?

[otolith]

Derek Smith said:

A woman has been found guilty of rape in this country. In fact, I think more than one case.

There have been cases where a woman has been tried and convicted of rape as part of a gang, even though she didn't do the actual penetrating.

[anonymous-user]

Women can assist, conspire, aid, abet, council, procure, assist etc.

That's different from what people imagine when they talk of women raping i.e. the sexual element, which they can't do.

Impasse said:

La Liga said:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual...

So, not really then. Just a load of "ifs and buts" open to interpretation. The only definitive is a "no" but that doesn't help when the question pondered was whether there's a definitive "yes".

That's the statutory legal definition.

What were you expecting? A definitive, absolute and exhaustive list? The variables and subtleties mean every set of circumstances are unique and need to be applied to the definition.

9mm said:

The problem is the popular presumption that there is something wrong about a low conviction rate; that too many rapists are getting away with it.

This seems to have led to a moving of the goalposts in an effort to obtain more convictions.

Makes me uneasy. Maybe conviction rates are low because too many cases should never be brought to court and juries see right through the prosecution.

It's an over-simplification on the 'pro' side, for certain. Many don't make it to court because the prosecution would have no hope of proving a lack of consent, which somewhat contradicts some of the views expressed on this thread.

I don't believe they get punted to court without a realistic prospect of a conviction or there would be ample grounds to halt the trial.

The fundamental issue the DPP has raised here, is actually raising the quality of evidence. This is no bad thing and has been totally misrepresented by some media.

One thing I do agree with is anonymity for the accused. The argument against is more victims may come forward against a serial offender (see the 'celeb' sexual offence cases). This may be the case, but I don't think this offsets the negatives against an innocent accused.

[The Vambo]

FredClogs said:

If I got a friend really drunk, or indeed I just happened to find him/her really drunk, and I managed to persuade him/her (by a variety of persuasive means, emotional blackmail, physical or the threat of physical violence) to hand over the keys to his/her car - which I then spent a few hours Ferris Beullering - would this be

a) Ok, because they'd said I could.

or

b) Not okay, because I'd been a bit of a tt.

?

Yes, that little hypothetical situation has summed the whole issue up without any bias or agenda and has in no way belittled the nuances of a difficult problem.