New Rape Laws

Mynight said:
You know that's not a bad idea for an app lol.

...

I wonder how long before that gets taken off the store though.

"Consext" winner! I'll make it now.
Click to expand...

Already been done, I'm afraid:


It lasted a couple of weeks before Apple pulled it.
 
True. Also, some critics noted that Good2Go only asks for consent once. One party may change their mind after sex has been initiated. Perhaps your app should require running consent updates - an alarm could go off every 30 seconds which you could only stop with a finger-print scan/breathalyzer test from both parties.
 
Fulax said:
True. Also, some critics noted that Good2Go only asks for consent once. One party may change their mind after sex has been initiated. Perhaps your app should require running consent updates - an alarm could go off every 30 seconds which you could only stop with a finger-print scan/breathalyzer test from both parties.
Click to expand...

Brilliant lol. 10% commission?

As always a minority ruining it for the majority :(.
 
Fulax said:
True. Also, some critics noted that Good2Go only asks for consent once. One party may change their mind after sex has been initiated. Perhaps your app should require running consent updates - an alarm could go off every 30 seconds which you could only stop with a finger-print scan/breathalyzer test from both parties.
Click to expand...

It sort of puts a whole new spin on the woman shouting "Yes! Yes! Yes!" throughout the event.
 
And now this...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31027549

When asked why female offenders should be treated differently to men Mr Hughes said: "Women are a special case for very good, evidenced reasons. Firstly, many more women who go to prison have themselves been victims. They've often been abused or in violent partnerships.

"Secondly, many more women have caring responsibilities than men do."

I don't even...
 
These changes aren't a change in the law and the Telegraph has done a really bad job of reporting them.

You'll notice it talks about "convincing police" - the police don't convict or sentence. The courts will still operate under the current rules, but the approach to the initial investigation changes.

This could be good because it starts to give some clarity as to what is meant by consent. Or it could end up bad because stuff reaches the court that shouldn't because the CPS and police are using different rules to the court and there is a lot of pressure to increase rape prosecution figures.

The key bit is:
For the first time, toolkits will spell out situations where a potential victim may have been unable to consent due to incapacity through drink or drugs, for example, or where consent could not reasonably be considered to have been given freely due to the unequal relationship of the parties involved. For example, if the suspect held a position of power over the potential victim - as a teacher, an employer, a doctor or a fellow gang member.
Click to expand...
 
Voice recorder

Or we will need to ask her permission to use one of these



Or

"Ahh before we do, do you mind just signing this declaration form, this is just to cover my back, you know, just in case in 12 years time you decide you are low on funds and turn this whole scenario here in to a rape scene"
 
This just appears to be an actual clarification to what already occurs. However, one has to consider the inequality in the cases where drink or drugs are involved. Would it not be the case where a man could correctly claim he was too incapacitated from drink to actually be in a position to gain consent and therefore accept the charges with mitigating circumstances on the grounds he therefore receives medical help for his "addiction" rather than prison time for the act. Moreover, rape and sexual assault need to be merged into a single category and the stigma removed over the whole allegations so both genders can pursue claims. If I get drunk and some heffer takes advantage of that situation how come there is an inequality in how the criminal justice system weighs the perceived wrong.
 
For a crude way of putting it if you can get it up you're deemed to have consented. I have yet to experience an issue there regardless of how intoxicated I am.

Were the 'heffer'(:D) to insert something into you whilst you were intoxicated then that could be rape.
 
DJMK4 said:
Voice recorder

Or we will need to ask her permission to use one of these
Click to expand...

"Hi, please could you sign this form saying that I'm allowed to use this voice recorder to record you giving consent to allow me to use this video recorder to record you giving consent to have sex, I've also invited 2 witness to watch and make sure you don't change your mind half way through."

Xordium said:
If I get drunk and some heffer takes advantage of that situation how come there is an inequality in how the criminal justice system weighs the perceived wrong.
Click to expand...

I would imagine that this is the main issue most men have with the situation.

If a woman gets hammered, consents, wakes up next to a cave troll, and cries "rape" then the man gets dragged through court.

If a woman gets hammered, consents, wakes up next to a cave troll, and cries "rape" then he'd probably be laughed at when he got to the front desk of the police station...

Mynight said:
For a crude way of putting it if you can get it up you're deemed to have consented. I have yet to experience an issue there regardless of how intoxicated I am.
Click to expand...

That's hardly a conclusive measure though, after all it's not something you have an exact control over, or can "do" (or not) on demand... Also you could argue that if a woman was to become "moist" (i.e. the equivalent) then clearly she was aroused and thus consenting...

What about where you go to bed together, nothing happens, you wake up in the morning with... the normal morning "wood" and she decides to take advantage of the situation against your wishes?
 
Last edited:
I guess the solution then, is only to have sex with women you trust? This is good advice for a number of other reasons too.
 
Judgeneo said:
I guess the solution then, is only to have sex with women you trust? This is good advice for a number of other reasons too.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately there's no such thing... :p

(Whilst I agree with the sentiment, what's to stop your "trusted" GF to claim you "raped" her in 6 months after you have a nasty breakup?)
 
Haggisman said:
Unfortunately there's no such thing... :p

(Whilst I agree with the sentiment, what's to stop your "trusted" GF to claim you "raped" her in 6 months after you have a nasty breakup?)
Click to expand...

Very true. One of my closest girl mates at the time told her possessive and jealous boyfriend that I raped her, and that's the only reason we spoke, because she was afraid I would do it again. Thus saving her relationship...

Fortunately it went no where as her parents sorted it out as they knew it was all lies. (We were close family friends).

I found out about this about a year after the fact...

Police didn't even contact me to tell me...
 
grumpysculler said:
These changes aren't a change in the law and the Telegraph has done a really bad job of reporting them.

You'll notice it talks about "convincing police" - the police don't convict or sentence. The courts will still operate under the current rules, but the approach to the initial investigation changes.
Click to expand...

Correct, which is where it was a misleading. However I still don't think these changes are acceptable. The police and CPS should require the same quantum of evidence to charge someone as they courts would require. There should be no requirement for the suspect to prove anything, it should all be upon the accuser.

Being charged with something is itself very damaging and can result in your name being dragged through the mud. The CPS should only be charging when they are convinced based upon the accusers testimony and evidence alone.
 
what if both parties claim they were too drunk to consent - do they both get charged with raping each other?

I mean I've certainly woken up a few times in bed with a girl neither of us having much recollection of the night before, happens every night at universities across the UK - most of the time it is chalked up as a drunken one night stand but this law seems to indicate that you're now able to claim rape if you can't remember what happened and were drunk - presumably it somehow becomes 'rape' if one of the parties has some regret about the act after the event.

granted someone who knows what they're doing how sleeps with someone else who is completely wasted and unable to give any indication of consent should be strung up - but there is a lot of potential here for fairly normal drunken hookups between a couple of people who'd met on a night out to suddenly turn into 'rape' because of the feelings of one or other party after the event
 
dowie said:
what if both parties claim they were too drunk to consent - do they both get charged with raping each other?

I mean I've certainly woken up a few times in bed with a girl neither of us having much recollection of the night before, happens every night at universities across the UK - most of the time it is chalked up as a drunken one night stand but this law seems to indicate that you're now able to claim rape if you are female and can't remember what happened and were drunk - presumably it somehow becomes 'rape' if the girl has some regret about the act after the event.

granted a man who knows what they're doing how sleeps with a girl who is completely wasted and unable to give any indication of consent should be strung up - but there is a lot of potential here for fairly normal drunken hookups between a couple of people who'd met on a night out to suddenly turn into 'rape' because of the feelings of the girl after the event
Click to expand...

Fixed!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom