Presumption of innocence (Rape)

Presumption of innocence (Rape)

Author
Discussion

Stevanos

Original Poster:

700 posts

136 months

Thursday 29th January 2015
quotequote all
Just saw this article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-ord...

It seems to suggest that a man can be found guilty of rape without proof, or in other words he is not presumed innocent. Surely this is against our justice system?

Grumfutock

5,274 posts

164 months

Thursday 29th January 2015
quotequote all
From my understanding it is only the courts that presume innocence and not the police. I suspect they have always made up their own minds about guilt.

anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 29th January 2015
quotequote all
It's a non-article. The law hasn't changed.

I believe every force has dedicated rape teams now. I expect the investigators may have some idea over the issue of consent and capacity, given it's the fundamental issue to what they spend all their time doing.

The Telegraph said:
Men accused of date rape will need to convince police that a woman consented to sex as part of a major change in the way sex offences are investigated.
Major change? What rubbish.



menousername

2,106 posts

141 months

Thursday 29th January 2015
quotequote all
La Liga said:
ajor change? What rubbish.
a lot of assumptions, and a blurry line, though

ChemicalChaos

10,360 posts

159 months

Thursday 29th January 2015
quotequote all
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

55palfers

5,893 posts

163 months

Thursday 29th January 2015
quotequote all
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
...and they say romance is dead.

hornetrider

63,161 posts

204 months

Thursday 29th January 2015
quotequote all
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.

ChemicalChaos

10,360 posts

159 months

Thursday 29th January 2015
quotequote all
55palfers said:
...and they say romance is dead.
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?

anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 29th January 2015
quotequote all
There are no new laws. The offence of rape has been pretty much been the same since 1956.

ChemicalChaos said:
Cue a sudden rise in false rape claims from morning-after regret.
Or greater confidence that victims will be taken seriously by the criminal justice system.

Easy to interpret it how you want it to be.

menousername said:
a lot of assumptions, and a blurry line, though
In which respect? Consent is quite clearly defined in law.

Cheese Mechanic

3,157 posts

168 months

Thursday 29th January 2015
quotequote all
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.

bridgdav

4,805 posts

247 months

Thursday 29th January 2015
quotequote all
You could always Video the whole thing...

boyse7en

6,671 posts

164 months

Thursday 29th January 2015
quotequote all
Cheese Mechanic said:
Overall, the entire scenario seems anti men. Frightening.
No, overall the entire scenario seems anti-rape.


anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 29th January 2015
quotequote all
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.



Snozzwangler

12,230 posts

193 months

Thursday 29th January 2015
quotequote all
boyse7en said:
Cheese Mechanic said:
Overall, the entire scenario seems anti men. Frightening.
No, overall the entire scenario seems anti-rape.
However all the news stories seem to be presenting the male as the accused.

White, middle class, male. Enemy #1. (In general, just the male bit applies to this story)

Cheese Mechanic

3,157 posts

168 months

Thursday 29th January 2015
quotequote all
Snozzwangler said:
However all the news stories seem to be presenting the male as the accused.
White, middle class, male. Enemy #1.
Also the accuser has the benefit of anonimity , the accused does not, something which should be balanced . At least give the accused the same benefit, untill proven guilty.

Dr Jekyll

23,820 posts

260 months

Thursday 29th January 2015
quotequote all
La Liga said:
here 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.


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?

FredClogs

14,041 posts

160 months

Thursday 29th January 2015
quotequote all
I can't believe it only took a few posts before someone used the phrase "blurred lines".

anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 29th January 2015
quotequote all
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?
The 'system' hasn't been changed. It's guidance around a specific issue.

My point about low conviction rates (although the data is all over the place), was to support the point there are many occasions where there is no hope of establishing a lack of consent, specific to a poster who suggested consent was some flimsy concept that one had no hope of proving. It was nothing to do with a 'system change'.


Zod

35,295 posts

257 months

Thursday 29th January 2015
quotequote all
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.
This is a bit silly. How would you prove that you hadn't threatened her in order to get her to consent on video?

Dr Jekyll

23,820 posts

260 months

Thursday 29th January 2015
quotequote all
La Liga said:
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?
The 'system' hasn't been changed. It's guidance around a specific issue.


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.