Presumption of innocence (Rape)
Discussion
Breitbart sums it up perfectly.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/29/the-new...
"Wallet, phone and, if you hope to get lucky later on, maybe a packet of condoms and, of course, a legal consent form, an alcohol breath test kit, two independent witnesses, preferably female, and a lawyer to verify that the lady in question has indeed consented to sex and also that she was in a condition to give that consent knowingly and soberly."
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/29/the-new...
"Wallet, phone and, if you hope to get lucky later on, maybe a packet of condoms and, of course, a legal consent form, an alcohol breath test kit, two independent witnesses, preferably female, and a lawyer to verify that the lady in question has indeed consented to sex and also that she was in a condition to give that consent knowingly and soberly."
La Liga said:
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.
I actually don't know - which makes the whole situation all the more frustrating and mainly due to society's presumption of guilt based on an accusation. Just musing out loud, really.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.
jogon said:
Breitbart sums it up perfectly.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/29/the-new...
"Wallet, phone and, if you hope to get lucky later on, maybe a packet of condoms and, of course, a legal consent form, an alcohol breath test kit, two independent witnesses, preferably female, and a lawyer to verify that the lady in question has indeed consented to sex and also that she was in a condition to give that consent knowingly and soberly."
Breitbart certainly continues its usual right-wing messaging. If you like their normal stuff, then you'll agree that they've summed it up perfectly.http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/29/the-new...
"Wallet, phone and, if you hope to get lucky later on, maybe a packet of condoms and, of course, a legal consent form, an alcohol breath test kit, two independent witnesses, preferably female, and a lawyer to verify that the lady in question has indeed consented to sex and also that she was in a condition to give that consent knowingly and soberly."
Many other people will think they're scaremongering.
Impasse said:
I actually don't know - which makes the whole situation all the more frustrating and mainly due to society's presumption of guilt based on an accusation. Just musing out loud, really.
Which is why I support the accused's right to be anonymous. A sexual offence investigation / prosecution carries too much stigma. markcoznottz said:
She's a man hating common purpose drone, if it quacks etc.
The same DPP who supported the decision for the CPS to take on the private prosecution against a Eleanor de Freitas (the lady who killed herself when she was facing a perverting the course of justice charge), and spoke to the parents personally as to why she supported it? That doesn't sound like 'man-hating' behaviour to me: http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/eleanor_de_...The same "drone" who gave up a highly profitable career in other areas of law to prosecute criminals, finally managed to help get Stephen Lawrence's killers convicted and was commended for her work around bringing the rioters in London to justice?
I mean, she doesn't have a website with broken picture links and absent apostrophes, but she's at least trying to make the world a better place
jogon said:
Except for all the inaccurate and completely wrong parts. The witnesses to my wife consenting to 'honour' me are many. That's why you should save sex til after the wedding. Plenty of witnesses.
Not that being married is actually taken as consent these days. Oh for the dark ages hey ?
Seriously though, perhaps avoiding sex until say after the 5th date, and only when both parties are sober, would be a safer bet than a random one night stand with a mentalist.
Not that being married is actually taken as consent these days. Oh for the dark ages hey ?
Seriously though, perhaps avoiding sex until say after the 5th date, and only when both parties are sober, would be a safer bet than a random one night stand with a mentalist.
longblackcoat said:
jogon said:
Breitbart sums it up perfectly.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/29/the-new...
"Wallet, phone and, if you hope to get lucky later on, maybe a packet of condoms and, of course, a legal consent form, an alcohol breath test kit, two independent witnesses, preferably female, and a lawyer to verify that the lady in question has indeed consented to sex and also that she was in a condition to give that consent knowingly and soberly."
Breitbart certainly continues its usual right-wing messaging. If you like their normal stuff, then you'll agree that they've summed it up perfectly.http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/29/the-new...
"Wallet, phone and, if you hope to get lucky later on, maybe a packet of condoms and, of course, a legal consent form, an alcohol breath test kit, two independent witnesses, preferably female, and a lawyer to verify that the lady in question has indeed consented to sex and also that she was in a condition to give that consent knowingly and soberly."
Many other people will think they're scaremongering.
Zod said:
Cheese Mechanic said:
ChemicalChaos said:
It just isnt worth the risk of having my life permanently ruined by someone who fancies changing their mind afterwards for whatever reason. Under these new laws, how on earth else is a man supposed to prove beyond doubt that a woman said yes, when it's one word against another with an instant stacked bias?
RI'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.
Overall, the entire scenario seems anti men. Frightening.
Randy Winkman said:
longblackcoat said:
jogon said:
Breitbart sums it up perfectly.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/29/the-new...
"Wallet, phone and, if you hope to get lucky later on, maybe a packet of condoms and, of course, a legal consent form, an alcohol breath test kit, two independent witnesses, preferably female, and a lawyer to verify that the lady in question has indeed consented to sex and also that she was in a condition to give that consent knowingly and soberly."
Breitbart certainly continues its usual right-wing messaging. If you like their normal stuff, then you'll agree that they've summed it up perfectly.http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/29/the-new...
"Wallet, phone and, if you hope to get lucky later on, maybe a packet of condoms and, of course, a legal consent form, an alcohol breath test kit, two independent witnesses, preferably female, and a lawyer to verify that the lady in question has indeed consented to sex and also that she was in a condition to give that consent knowingly and soberly."
Many other people will think they're scaremongering.
Cheese Mechanic said:
ChemicalChaos said:
It just isnt worth the risk of having my life permanently ruined by someone who fancies changing their mind afterwards for whatever reason. Under these new laws, how on earth else is a man supposed to prove beyond doubt that a woman said yes, when it's one word against another with an instant stacked bias?
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. Overall, the entire scenario seems anti men. Frightening.
"I was drunk."
otolith said:
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.
Brilliant post IMHOCampaigners 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.
Dr Jekyll said:
Randy Winkman said:
longblackcoat said:
jogon said:
Breitbart sums it up perfectly.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/29/the-new...
"Wallet, phone and, if you hope to get lucky later on, maybe a packet of condoms and, of course, a legal consent form, an alcohol breath test kit, two independent witnesses, preferably female, and a lawyer to verify that the lady in question has indeed consented to sex and also that she was in a condition to give that consent knowingly and soberly."
Breitbart certainly continues its usual right-wing messaging. If you like their normal stuff, then you'll agree that they've summed it up perfectly.http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/29/the-new...
"Wallet, phone and, if you hope to get lucky later on, maybe a packet of condoms and, of course, a legal consent form, an alcohol breath test kit, two independent witnesses, preferably female, and a lawyer to verify that the lady in question has indeed consented to sex and also that she was in a condition to give that consent knowingly and soberly."
Many other people will think they're scaremongering.
Randy Winkman said:
You had me a bit worried there as I suddenly thought I'd fallen for a spoof article. But I had another look and saw that all I hadn't taken into account ..... is that it was written by a woman. Why does that matter? Does one woman speak on an official basis for all other women? Are all women "the same"? It's what we often hear about women, black people, gays, Jews - they are all "the same". Anyway, there was some sense in that article, so I'm glad I read it all. But the bit at the end about millions of men ending up behind bars because they didn't get written consent. Do you agree that "sums it perfectly"?
It matters because it wipes out your argument that anyone who objects to this change is simply having a go at women.bit at the end ACTUALLY said:
If we’re going to start jailing drunk men for having drunken sex with drunk women, then we will soon see millions of men behind bars who have made the foolish mistake of not getting consent in writing and in triplicate before the first kiss.
Yes I do. There are indeed millions of men who have had sex, while drunk, with equally drunk women.What a complete load of s
te. If Judges had not been so lenient in the past, there wouldnt be this problem today. In 1990 Judge Raymond Dean used these words when closing a case “As the gentlemen on the jury will understand, when a woman says no she doesn’t always mean it.” In the same trial, he claimed: “Men can’t turn their emotions on and off like a tap like some women can.” The jury acquitted the property consultant of rape.
In June 1993 – Judge Ian Starforth Hill, describing the eight-year-old victim of an attempted rape, said he was led to believe “she was not entirely an angel herself”. Her attacker received two years’ probation for attempted unlawful intercourse at Winchester Crown Court.
Furthremore In December 1988 – Judge Sir Harold Cassel QC refused to jail an ex-policeman for indecently assaulting his 12-year-old stepdaughter, who had learning difficulties. He said the man was driven to assault the girl because his wife’s pregnancy had dimmed her sexual appetite, causing “considerable problems for a healthy young husband”
Meannwhile its good to see things have changed now we are in January 2015.... A Barrister and judge are subject to separate inquiries after it emerged a 13-year-old sex attack victim was labelled “predatory” and “sexually experienced”. Robert Colover made the comments as prosecutor in the case of paedophile Neil Wilson, 41 – who ultimately walked from court with an eight-month suspended sentence after admitting he had engaged in sexual activity with the girl at his home. Judge Nigel Peters, QC, said he took into account that the girl looked and behaved older than she was when he decided Wilson’s punishment.
Some of the comments here really are shameful.
te. If Judges had not been so lenient in the past, there wouldnt be this problem today. In 1990 Judge Raymond Dean used these words when closing a case “As the gentlemen on the jury will understand, when a woman says no she doesn’t always mean it.” In the same trial, he claimed: “Men can’t turn their emotions on and off like a tap like some women can.” The jury acquitted the property consultant of rape.In June 1993 – Judge Ian Starforth Hill, describing the eight-year-old victim of an attempted rape, said he was led to believe “she was not entirely an angel herself”. Her attacker received two years’ probation for attempted unlawful intercourse at Winchester Crown Court.
Furthremore In December 1988 – Judge Sir Harold Cassel QC refused to jail an ex-policeman for indecently assaulting his 12-year-old stepdaughter, who had learning difficulties. He said the man was driven to assault the girl because his wife’s pregnancy had dimmed her sexual appetite, causing “considerable problems for a healthy young husband”
Meannwhile its good to see things have changed now we are in January 2015.... A Barrister and judge are subject to separate inquiries after it emerged a 13-year-old sex attack victim was labelled “predatory” and “sexually experienced”. Robert Colover made the comments as prosecutor in the case of paedophile Neil Wilson, 41 – who ultimately walked from court with an eight-month suspended sentence after admitting he had engaged in sexual activity with the girl at his home. Judge Nigel Peters, QC, said he took into account that the girl looked and behaved older than she was when he decided Wilson’s punishment.
Some of the comments here really are shameful.
Oakey said:
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?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.
She 'has no memory' of the incident, but that wasn't seen as 'incapable of making a decision through intoxication' as the first guy was found not guilty.
If she has 'no memory', what was the evidence against the second accused? How does she know what she said?
I feel the jury were perhaps swayed by the casualness of the sex (mates filming outside, mate invited in for a 'poke' etc) in this case.
andy_s said:
Even if she consents? (which is what the defence said happened...)
She 'has no memory' of the incident, but that wasn't seen as 'incapable of making a decision through intoxication' as the first guy was found not guilty.
If she has 'no memory', what was the evidence against the second accused? How does she know what she said?
I feel the jury were perhaps swayed by the casualness of the sex (mates filming outside, mate invited in for a 'poke' etc) in this case.
Perhaps these questions were answered in the evidence given in the case. She 'has no memory' of the incident, but that wasn't seen as 'incapable of making a decision through intoxication' as the first guy was found not guilty.
If she has 'no memory', what was the evidence against the second accused? How does she know what she said?
I feel the jury were perhaps swayed by the casualness of the sex (mates filming outside, mate invited in for a 'poke' etc) in this case.
Twelve people sat through the whole trial and came to their decision after a discussion. They were all convinced.
I'm not suggesting that juries are never wrong. However, I would point out that historically they have been reluctant to convict in rape cases, especially in two circumstances: when the victim is sexually active and had been drinking.
The papers have an agenda. They often only print material which they think will sell papers or pushes their view on matters. It is not for nothing that political parties pick their spin doctors from the press.
Whilst I'm willing to accept that the jury might have been wrong, the idea that we can discover where they went wrong from the media has little support from me.
drivin_me_nuts said:
Zod said:
Cheese Mechanic said:
ChemicalChaos said:
It just isnt worth the risk of having my life permanently ruined by someone who fancies changing their mind afterwards for whatever reason. Under these new laws, how on earth else is a man supposed to prove beyond doubt that a woman said yes, when it's one word against another with an instant stacked bias?
RI'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.
Overall, the entire scenario seems anti men. Frightening.
So ideas about videoing a verbal consent before getting going wouldn't really help you. You'd have to video the whole thing.
Now I've been married for some considerable time, and the whole dating game is a rather distant memory. But tell me, how does it go these days when a dashing young man enquires of his newly acquired lady friend whether, for the purposes of evidencing her consent to a continuum of varied (and at that stage undisclosed) acts of sexual congress, she wouldn't mind if he videotaped the whole thing?
Unfamiliar with current "rules of engagement" as I am, I find it hard to believe that this wouldn't cause a hiccup of sorts in young man's progress...
Derek Smith said:
andy_s said:
Even if she consents? (which is what the defence said happened...)
She 'has no memory' of the incident, but that wasn't seen as 'incapable of making a decision through intoxication' as the first guy was found not guilty.
If she has 'no memory', what was the evidence against the second accused? How does she know what she said?
I feel the jury were perhaps swayed by the casualness of the sex (mates filming outside, mate invited in for a 'poke' etc) in this case.
Perhaps these questions were answered in the evidence given in the case. She 'has no memory' of the incident, but that wasn't seen as 'incapable of making a decision through intoxication' as the first guy was found not guilty.
If she has 'no memory', what was the evidence against the second accused? How does she know what she said?
I feel the jury were perhaps swayed by the casualness of the sex (mates filming outside, mate invited in for a 'poke' etc) in this case.
Twelve people sat through the whole trial and came to their decision after a discussion. They were all convinced.
I'm not suggesting that juries are never wrong. However, I would point out that historically they have been reluctant to convict in rape cases, especially in two circumstances: when the victim is sexually active and had been drinking.
The papers have an agenda. They often only print material which they think will sell papers or pushes their view on matters. It is not for nothing that political parties pick their spin doctors from the press.
Whilst I'm willing to accept that the jury might have been wrong, the idea that we can discover where they went wrong from the media has little support from me.
The caveat of 'not being on the jury' so not having ALL the evidence is true, but these were just my impressions from reading what I did.
There is no change to the law. There is merely new guidance being issued to the Police and CPS. The law as it's written deals with occasions where the victim is incapacitated or improperly coerced.
What I suspect the change is aimed at, is Police investigations/CPS charging decisions not to prosecute where the issue of consent is messy due to a dispute over capacity. The new guidance sounds as if it wants the Police and CPS to be more robust in favour of prosecutions in these instances.
That is not a change in the law.
What I suspect the change is aimed at, is Police investigations/CPS charging decisions not to prosecute where the issue of consent is messy due to a dispute over capacity. The new guidance sounds as if it wants the Police and CPS to be more robust in favour of prosecutions in these instances.
That is not a change in the law.
andy_s said:
I took it from the appeal papers, not the media.
The caveat of 'not being on the jury' so not having ALL the evidence is true, but these were just my impressions from reading what I did.
With the acquitted man, the woman's conduct prior to and after arrival at the hotel was sufficient for him to infer consent. Ched Evans wasn't present at those times so the jury could properly infer that he couldn't rely on the same behaviour as his co-accused to establish reasonable belief (that consent had been given).The caveat of 'not being on the jury' so not having ALL the evidence is true, but these were just my impressions from reading what I did.
Dr Jekyll said:
It matters because it wipes out your argument that anyone who objects to this change is simply having a go at women.
Are women not capable of having a go at women then? Have you seen the Daily Mail?And I am amazed by those quotes from court cases (Pablo post, I think) - and not that old either.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff