Presumption of innocence (Rape)
Discussion
allergictocheese said:
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.
Indeed, but some crap website says there's a fundamental change to the justice system, and this is unlike any other law. It must be true... 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.
The 'toolkit' (a coincidentally partly accurate name for most commenting on the matter), is wider guidance on a range of issues, including DV, forced marriage, honor-based violence, FGM, trafficking and other serious matters.
Somehow, thick people and those with an agenda (often mutually inclusive), have compressed the Violence against Women and Girls Strategy and twisted into a simplistic attack on the burden of proof in rape trials. I question why this is the case, since it's hardly ambiguous to anyone who can read, that this is completely untrue.
Pablo's quotes are perhaps a representation of some of society's attitudes towards sexual offence victims. Some that not doubt still exist. Indeed, look at the attitudes towards some of the Rotherham victims by the authorities. What are the sort of things we could do to prevent that occurring again? Perhaps develop some sort of specific strategy to ensure a higher standard of evidence from vulnerable female victims...
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.
Quite right. I've never given it a moments thought. It's a complete non issue. I'd be far more concerned about the women in my life (friends and family) being raped. TwigtheWonderkid said:
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.
Quite right. I've never given it a moments thought. It's a complete non issue. I'd be far more concerned about the women in my life (friends and family) being raped. 
TTwiggy said:
Sadly, I feel that if PH were a person, he wouldn't have much respect for women. Unless they're wearing a Burka, in which case he quickly turns into Emily Pankhurst
It is perfectly possible to have respect for women and still be curious as to how exactly I'm supposed to prove consent. A question that is still being conspicuously evaded.Dr Jekyll said:
TTwiggy said:
Sadly, I feel that if PH were a person, he wouldn't have much respect for women. Unless they're wearing a Burka, in which case he quickly turns into Emily Pankhurst
It is perfectly possible to have respect for women and still be curious as to how exactly I'm supposed to prove consent. A question that is still being conspicuously evaded.TTwiggy said:
Then I'd argue that if you have respect for women, and find yourself in a situation where you might question whether she'd be quite so amorous were it not for alcohol etc, maybe wait until the next morning. I'd call this having a moral compass.
Obviously in those circumstances I would wait until the next morning. But what about the next day when she is stone cold sober, making her intentions perfectly clear? Unless you want to outlaw sex entirely there comes a point when such a thing as consent is given. My question is how do you prove consent after the event?
Dr Jekyll said:
It is perfectly possible to have respect for women and still be curious as to how exactly I'm supposed to prove consent. A question that is still being conspicuously evaded.
I've not followed the thread, but perhaps the reason you've not found the answer you're looking for is that it's not necessary for a defendant to prove that the complainant consented. So maybe your question is not being evaded, it's just that it's founded on a misunderstanding.Dr Jekyll said:
TTwiggy said:
Then I'd argue that if you have respect for women, and find yourself in a situation where you might question whether she'd be quite so amorous were it not for alcohol etc, maybe wait until the next morning. I'd call this having a moral compass.
Obviously in those circumstances I would wait until the next morning. But what about the next day when she is stone cold sober, making her intentions perfectly clear? Unless you want to outlaw sex entirely there comes a point when such a thing as consent is given. My question is how do you prove consent after the event?
SamHH said:
Dr Jekyll said:
It is perfectly possible to have respect for women and still be curious as to how exactly I'm supposed to prove consent. A question that is still being conspicuously evaded.
I've not followed the thread, but perhaps the reason you've not found the answer you're looking for is that it's not necessary for a defendant to prove that the complainant consented. So maybe your question is not being evaded, it's just that it's founded on a misunderstanding.Dr Jekyll said:
Then enlighten me, what is your understanding of the change?
The law is unchanged. My understanding is that the DPP is proposing to (or has, it's not quite clear) issue updated guidance to police and prosecutors to ensure that they better understand consent, and more consistently investigate allegations. But the issue of who must prove what is the same as always: the prosecution must prove non-consent and no reasonable belief in consent beyond reasonable doubt.Dr Jekyll said:
And how is it supposed to solve the problem of 'her word against his'?
I'm not sure that it is.Edited by SamHH on Friday 30th January 15:30
Dr Jekyll said:
So what is it supposed to achieve?
To ensure that police and prosecutors better understand consent, and more consistently investigate allegations.Dr Jekyll said:
Why is it such a wonderful idea?
I don't think that I have said that it is (although if it achieves the objectives I described, I think that would be good, don't you?).My initial response was simply to suggest that your question about how a defendant can prove consent was misplaced.
TTwiggy said:
Sadly, I feel that if PH were a person, he wouldn't have much respect for women. Unless they're wearing a Burka, in which case he quickly turns into Emily Pankhurst
It's not even that. It's the way men are all lumped into the "He's male, therefore he's capable of rape" bracket by society which grates somewhat. It's not particularly nice to be held in suspicion simply because of gender. It takes a lot more to qualify as a rapist than the mere presence of specific genitalia, yet this is often overlooked in the rush to point the finger of suspicion.The much vaunted scenario of walking behind a girl late at night simply because you're both going in the same direction is an awful position for both parties to be in. The woman may have concerns for her well being, the male may have concerns about potentially causing alarm to the woman solely because of his existence. It's the generic and widely accepted assumption of "Man=attack" which causes this anxiety for both. Yet even though they are both doing the same innocent activity it's the man who is being considered the only one who may cause harm to another.
To accentuate this presumption in the interview room makes me uncomfortable.
Oh and as for your collective summation of PH's respect for women, well, life experience has left me with 100% respect for women but zero trust.
TTwiggy said:
Sadly, I feel that if PH were a person, he wouldn't have much respect for women. Unless they're wearing a Burka, in which case he quickly turns into Emily Pankhurst
It is a rather odd juxtaposition isn't it? And there was a rather odd thread here on misogyny a few weeks ago where some people got very pedantic about exactly what the word meant. SamHH said:
Dr Jekyll said:
So what is it supposed to achieve?
To ensure that police and prosecutors better understand consent, and more consistently investigate allegations.Impasse said:
Oh and as for your collective summation of PH's respect for women, well, life experience has left me with 100% respect for women but zero trust.
It was a little tongue in cheek, hence the smiley, but I've been on here quite a while and I think it's fair to say that when it comes to women, it's possible to split this site largely (though certainly not wholly) into three different groups who don't seem too keen on the opposite sex, namely: The middle-aged divorced dad who feels that the cards are stacked against those with a penis; the 'powerfully built company director' who thinks they're all 'snakes with tits' after his money and the (younger one presumes) posters who revel in phrases like 'kick her back doors in.'In answer to your earlier point, I agree that it's sometimes not comfortable to be a man in that 'oh god, does she think I'm following her?' scenario, but on balance I'd rather feel (erroneously) like a potential perpetrator than a potential victim.
Dr Jekyll said:
Consent is a perfectly simple concept, yes means yes and no means no. The actual aim is not to improve understanding but to muddy the water, 'to go beyond no means no'. In other words to ensure that 'yes' can be interpreted as 'no'.
I think the law rightly recognises that consent is more nuanced than the phrase "yes means yes and no means no" can capture. It recognises that consent is not merely a superficial formality, but requires capacity and freedom. So a "yes" obtained by coercion or deception might not be true consent. In so far as the guidance attempts to ensure that police and prosecutors are alive to those nuances, that is surely a good thing, no?Randy Winkman said:
TTwiggy said:
Sadly, I feel that if PH were a person, he wouldn't have much respect for women. Unless they're wearing a Burka, in which case he quickly turns into Emily Pankhurst
It is a rather odd juxtaposition isn't it? SamHH said:
I think the law rightly recognises that consent is more nuanced than the phrase "yes means yes and no means no" can capture. It recognises that consent is not merely a superficial formality, but requires capacity and freedom. So a "yes" obtained by coercion or deception might not be true consent. In so far as the guidance attempts to ensure that police and prosecutors are alive to those nuances, that is surely a good thing, no?
That isn't what's happening though.“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?”
Nothing about 'police and prosecutors should be alive to nuances'.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff