New rape laws: scary stuff
Discussion
So a man has to prove that a woman gave consent to sex if a rape claim arises - main reason for this new law is that the number of convictions to claims has dropped in recent years. How can a law like this be brought into play purely on a statistical ground. Scary stuff!
I seriously cannot believe this - how on earth is consent in any way provable unless you keep a tape/video recorder by your bed. Now there's an idea......
The bit you've missed is that they have said that a women who is drunk cannot be assumed to be in a state to give her consent - so technically everytime you make love to your wife when she is not sober, you are raping her.
Go figure that one
Feckin mad world we live in - this Government seem to be determined to overthrough every sensible law that we ever had to please whichever focus group is making the headlines (or the most noise). Personal freedom will be a thing of the past when they are done with us, men will be totally emasculated and afraid to even go out doors for fear of being racist, chauvanist or rapist.
Common sense does NOT prevail where this lot are concerned.
Go figure that one
Feckin mad world we live in - this Government seem to be determined to overthrough every sensible law that we ever had to please whichever focus group is making the headlines (or the most noise). Personal freedom will be a thing of the past when they are done with us, men will be totally emasculated and afraid to even go out doors for fear of being racist, chauvanist or rapist.
Common sense does NOT prevail where this lot are concerned.
Some decent things in the whole act - a bit of clarity
But it does seem very misleading for minister to say "we have not shifted the burden of proof on to the defendent."
Well of course they have - i would like to see someone challenge this in the british courts - on the grounds of a de facto right to innocence until proven guilty. Whether constitionally enshrined or not tthis has been the basis of law in this country for 1000 years, I would like to see a precendant case heard.
Meantime - for the sake of balance - surely men should now be given a right to annonomity until proven guilty ? - or women should be prepared to be named if they lose the case.
I have witnessed first hand the devasting effects of rape on women and itas consequences for the woman afterwards. However the ambiguity is massive
Scenario where - after a few drinks - man goes to womens flat - they Kiss and genrally have sexual contact (but not sex) - women is by then *very* drunk and man proceeds to have sex with her. that man is now guilty of Rape.
Whilst I appreciate he is not a gentleman the reality is that he will have been drinking too and may not fully appreciate consequences. The women has invited him home, allowed intimate contact, etc surely this must be a case where no justice system can get every circumstance right.
I thought the courts were there to ensure a fair hearing - with the change to the law to prove consent - I do not see how that can be fair, IN EVERY CASE
But it does seem very misleading for minister to say "we have not shifted the burden of proof on to the defendent."
Well of course they have - i would like to see someone challenge this in the british courts - on the grounds of a de facto right to innocence until proven guilty. Whether constitionally enshrined or not tthis has been the basis of law in this country for 1000 years, I would like to see a precendant case heard.
Meantime - for the sake of balance - surely men should now be given a right to annonomity until proven guilty ? - or women should be prepared to be named if they lose the case.
I have witnessed first hand the devasting effects of rape on women and itas consequences for the woman afterwards. However the ambiguity is massive
Scenario where - after a few drinks - man goes to womens flat - they Kiss and genrally have sexual contact (but not sex) - women is by then *very* drunk and man proceeds to have sex with her. that man is now guilty of Rape.
Whilst I appreciate he is not a gentleman the reality is that he will have been drinking too and may not fully appreciate consequences. The women has invited him home, allowed intimate contact, etc surely this must be a case where no justice system can get every circumstance right.
I thought the courts were there to ensure a fair hearing - with the change to the law to prove consent - I do not see how that can be fair, IN EVERY CASE
More worrying would be where the woman has had a few drinks, and agrees to sex at the time. If she regrets it the morning after I assume she can claim to have been raped on the grounds that she wasn't really capable of giving her consent at the time?
Gargamel said:
Scenario where - after a few drinks - man goes to womens flat - they Kiss and genrally have sexual contact (but not sex) - women is by then *very* drunk and man proceeds to have sex with her. that man is now guilty of Rape.
Dan
This is very scary indeed - it's exactly what we talked about a couple of weeks back - if this topic interests or worries you, I urge you to read the following thread:
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?f=23&h=&t=21314
It's the effect of feminist politics manipulating the criminal justice system at the expense of everyone.
Edit: And also, this goes once again to Ted's Rules Rules Rules thread - criminalising the law abiding man in a clumsy attempt to convict those actually guilty.. kind of a dragnet approach..
>> Edited by CarZee on Wednesday 20th November 10:41
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?f=23&h=&t=21314
It's the effect of feminist politics manipulating the criminal justice system at the expense of everyone.
Edit: And also, this goes once again to Ted's Rules Rules Rules thread - criminalising the law abiding man in a clumsy attempt to convict those actually guilty.. kind of a dragnet approach..
>> Edited by CarZee on Wednesday 20th November 10:41
It's not actually quite as bleak as everyone is painting.
Basically, in certain circumstances, there is going to be a rebuttable presumption that a drunken woman has not given her consent. It will still be for the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was drunk. It is then for the man to prove (to a lower standard than usual, ie. on a balance of probabilities) that he did have consent.
Obviously, there are other carve outs but the above is basically where the legislation is heading.
On the other side, given that a woman cannot rape a man, they are introducing a new offence of causung another person to perform an indecent act without consent which will cover this.
Basically, in certain circumstances, there is going to be a rebuttable presumption that a drunken woman has not given her consent. It will still be for the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was drunk. It is then for the man to prove (to a lower standard than usual, ie. on a balance of probabilities) that he did have consent.
Obviously, there are other carve outs but the above is basically where the legislation is heading.
On the other side, given that a woman cannot rape a man, they are introducing a new offence of causung another person to perform an indecent act without consent which will cover this.
Dr Jekyll said: So let me get this right. A man and woman go to bed together after meeting in the pub. The next morning they look at each other and realise they would not have done so if they hadn't been drunk.
They are both guilty of raping each other!
Unfortunately not, only the man will be guilty of rape. BTW how does a woman rape a man. To have sex with himhe must be ready and willing or the act is impossible?
kevinday said:
Dr Jekyll said: So let me get this right. A man and woman go to bed together after meeting in the pub. The next morning they look at each other and realise they would not have done so if they hadn't been drunk.
They are both guilty of raping each other!
Unfortunately not, only the man will be guilty of rape. BTW how does a woman rape a man. To have sex with himhe must be ready and willing or the act is impossible?
Not so, she could have a dildo to hand?
kerniki said:
kevinday said:
Dr Jekyll said: So let me get this right. A man and woman go to bed together after meeting in the pub. The next morning they look at each other and realise they would not have done so if they hadn't been drunk.
They are both guilty of raping each other!
Unfortunately not, only the man will be guilty of rape. BTW how does a woman rape a man. To have sex with himhe must be ready and willing or the act is impossible?
Not so, she could have a dildo to hand?
nick d
So what part of that is not shifting the burden of proof to the defendant ?
Will proof constitute a man saying that he had a VERBAL assurance that the bird was up for it ?
Or will independant evidence be required ?
It is then for the man to prove (to a lower standard than usual, ie. on a balance of probabilities) that he did have consent.
So what part of that is not shifting the burden of proof to the defendant ?
Will proof constitute a man saying that he had a VERBAL assurance that the bird was up for it ?
Or will independant evidence be required ?
Gargamel said: nick d
It is then for the man to prove (to a lower standard than usual, ie. on a balance of probabilities) that he did have consent.
So what part of that is not shifting the burden of proof to the defendant ?
Will proof constitute a man saying that he had a VERBAL assurance that the bird was up for it ?
Or will independant evidence be required ?
I agree that an element of the burden has shifted but the fundamental burden of proof still lies with the Crown. However, this is nothing new as there are numerous offences where the defendant has to disprove something (eg. if a driver is prosecuted for speeding having been flashed by a camera, there is a rebuttable presumption that the camera is accurate - it is for the defendant to prove that it was not).
There is very rarely a requirement for any sort of evidence over and above verbal evidence and so it would be sufficient if she had given oral consent. Obviously this then just comes down to a case of who is believed more, the defendant or the alleged victim.
Of course, if you can get written consent for a shag then good luck to you.
This is all ridiculous.
Talking quite frankly, If a woman is drunk, consents by action at the time, gets wet/wide-on and can then still retro-actively retract that consent the following morning 'cos she was drunk, then: There should be no difference to a man getting blind drunk to end up consenting to have sex with a Jade-alike, getting a stiffy then in the morning regretting it and being able to retract his consent.
There is no difference. Only that social attitudes to sex are somehow still fukked up in some Victorian way where women are still subconsciously treated as though sex is something they are only ever a victim of.
Talking quite frankly, If a woman is drunk, consents by action at the time, gets wet/wide-on and can then still retro-actively retract that consent the following morning 'cos she was drunk, then: There should be no difference to a man getting blind drunk to end up consenting to have sex with a Jade-alike, getting a stiffy then in the morning regretting it and being able to retract his consent.
There is no difference. Only that social attitudes to sex are somehow still fukked up in some Victorian way where women are still subconsciously treated as though sex is something they are only ever a victim of.
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff