Presumption of innocence (Rape)
Discussion
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?
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?
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.
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. 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?There are no new laws. The offence of rape has been pretty much been the same since 1956.
Easy to interpret it how you want it to be.
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. 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.
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.
boyse7en said:
Cheese Mechanic said:
Overall, the entire scenario seems anti men. Frightening.
No, overall the entire scenario seems anti-rape.White, middle class, male. Enemy #1. (In general, just the male bit applies to this story)
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. White, middle class, male. Enemy #1.
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.You only need look at the amount of rapes reported and recorded vs those prosecuted and convicted to see this is the 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?
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. 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?
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'.
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.
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. 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?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff