New Rape Laws

[McPhee]

It's strange that our judicial system is built upon the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty', but with and exception for rape. With rape, you're guilty unless you can prove your innocence. That's my personal peeve here. If it's one person's word against another, how can the accused party ever be convicted?

 

[D.P.]

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

This isn't a change in the law though, the laws are exactly the same. This is just guidance for the police to help clarify when rape may have occurred. It is up to the courts to make the conviction based on the evidence, exactly the same as before.

 

[D.P.]

It's strange that our judicial system is built upon the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty', but with and exception for rape. With rape, you're guilty unless you can prove your innocence. That's my personal peeve here. If it's one person's word against another, how can the accused party ever be convicted?

While that might be the Daily Mail headline the inverse is true. It is actually very hard to pin a rape conviction because the evidence is hard to derive. Rapists walk free all the time because it ultimately comes down a her word against his and the courts will throw the case out.

 

[Burnsy2023]

While that might be the Daily Mail headline the inverse is true. It is actually very hard to pin a rape conviction because the evidence is hard to derive. Rapists walk free all the time because it ultimately comes down a her word against his and the courts will throw the case out.

Indeed. Getting rape convictions is notoriously difficult. It comes down to how consistent each of the parties stories is and ultimately if the jury believe the victims version of events and whether there is any reasonable doubt that the defendants account is true.

 

[dowie]

This isn't a change in the law though, the laws are exactly the same. This is just guidance for the police to help clarify when rape may have occurred. It is up to the courts to make the conviction based on the evidence, exactly the same as before.

I know, I'm talking about charging suspects etc.. It doesn't require a change in the law for things to actually change in terms of what gets classed as an offence, just a change in public attitudes.* It could be worrying if more drunken hookups become rape, then again on the other hand how we deal with rape cases does need improvement as they are hard to prosecute.


*an example would be things like using 'reasonable force' in self defence - what is considered 'reasonable force' has changed over time

 

[wildman]

this will just end up with people seeing hookers when they want some slap and tickle. All we need now is some legalised brothels or a nice little district like in Amsterdam that the government can tax and their plans to tax all of our life pleasures is complete.............

 

[D.P.]

I know, I'm talking about charging suspects etc.. It doesn't require a change in the law for things to actually change in terms of what gets classed as an offence, just a change in public attitudes.* It could be worrying if more drunken hookups become rape, then again on the other hand how we deal with rape cases does need improvement as they are hard to prosecute.


*an example would be things like using 'reasonable force' in self defence - what is considered 'reasonable force' has changed over time

But you talked about the law, not charging suspects.

I don't see it as a big deal, this is just a clarification that if the victim was completely wrecked in drugs and alcohol and the suspect was sober then consent likely won't have been given and the suspect can be charged and the courts can then decide on a verdict. The guidance is designed to catch date-rape perpetrators. When I was a student living in halls a girl in the same block was date raped. She never ever drank alcohol or took drugs but one night when out with a big group of friends to celebrate the end of the exams someone drugged her orange juice, took her back to her room, raped her and ran off. This is not too uncommon apparently. These guidelines just make it explicit that intoxication likely removed consent and the police can quickly make this decision without a quick dismissal of drunk student shenanigans.

 

[dowie]

She never ever drank alcohol or took drugs but one night when out with a big group of friends to celebrate the end of the exams someone drugged her orange juice, took her back to her room, raped her and ran off. This is not too uncommon apparently. These guidelines just make it explicit that intoxication likely removed consent and the police can quickly make this decision without a quick dismissal of drunk student shenanigans.

it is actually - in fact it is extremely rare to the point of it basically being an urban myth, (not rape of drunk people in general per say but the drink spiking & rape) the vast majority of people who think they had their drinks spiked haven't

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6440589/Date-rape-drink-spiking-an-urban-legend.html

Nick Ross, chair of the Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science, commented: "There is no evidence of widespread use of hypnotics in sexual assault, let alone Rohypnol, despite many attempts to prove the contrary.

"During thousands of blood and alcohol tests lots of judgement-impairing compounds were discovered, but they were mostly street drugs or prescription pharmaceuticals taken by the victims themselves, and above all alcohol was the common theme.

http://freakonomics.com/2009/11/24/the-spiked-drink-myth/

For instance, one Australian study of 97 men and women who’d been admitted to an emergency room and claimed their drinks had been spiked found only 9 “plausible” cases. Forensic evidence supported none of those claims; for the most part, the complainants were simply drunk.

 

[Haggisman]

But you talked about the law, not charging suspects.

I don't see it as a big deal, this is just a clarification that if the victim was completely wrecked in drugs and alcohol and the suspect was sober then consent likely won't have been given and the suspect can be charged and the courts can then decide on a verdict. The guidance is designed to catch date-rape perpetrators. When I was a student living in halls a girl in the same block was date raped. She never ever drank alcohol or took drugs but one night when out with a big group of friends to celebrate the end of the exams someone drugged her orange juice, took her back to her room, raped her and ran off. This is not too uncommon apparently. These guidelines just make it explicit that intoxication likely removed consent and the police can quickly make this decision without a quick dismissal of drunk student shenanigans.

Clear cut examples like that aren't really the issue here though, if you go out at the weekend, meet a girl in a bar, both have a couple of drinks, and at the time both agree go back to your place and have some fun, what protection do you have if in the morning she decides to accuse you of rape?

You say "she wanted to"
She says "I didn't"

and the onus is in you to prove that she didn't not want to.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Clear cut examples like that aren't really the issue here though, if you go out at the weekend, meet a girl in a bar, both have a couple of drinks, and at the time both agree go back to your place and have some fun, what protection do you have if in the morning she decides to accuse you of rape?

You say "she wanted to"
She says "I didn't"

and the onus is in you to prove that she didn't not want to.

No, you only have to give reasonable doubt, not prove categorically that you're innocent - in most cases, just having a reliable and plausible story would be enough for an acquittal. In the case that you've described, without any further facts, it's dubious to whether you'd get a charge, but a conviction would be extremely unlikely.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

No, you only have to give reasonable doubt, not prove categorically that you're innocent - in most cases, just having a reliable and plausible story would be enough for an acquittal. In the case that you've described, without any further facts, it's dubious to whether you'd get a charge, but a conviction would be extremely unlikely.

Don't you think being charged is damaging enough though? It can often have drastic implications for those people, especially if it then ends up in a protracted court case.

Are there any other crimes where the Police and CPS would expect the accused to give evidence of their innocence, without serious evidence that the accused was guilty? I mean, do police regularly charge people based exclusively on the say of someone else?

 

[Burnsy2023]

Are there any other crimes where the Police and CPS would expect the accused to give evidence of their innocence, without serious evidence that the accused was guilty? I mean, do police regularly charge people based exclusively on the say of someone else?

CPS would be charging here, not Police, but regardless, the charge is based on the weight of the evidence presented at the time in accordance with the full code test: http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/code_for_crown_prosecutors/codetest.html

We can oversimplify for the purposes of debate, but the reality is that the decision to charge is a process that looks at the individual facts of each case and whether there is a realistic chance of a successful prosecution. Those individual facts of the case matter and so it's difficult to debate this without the same specific facts.

 

[Tefal]

From reading the press release it seems they're going to be asking how the defendant knew the consent was valid and freely given - provided in the circumstances it would be reasonable to assume that there was valid consent then it shouldn't be an issue. I'm almost certain it isn't a perfect solution but given we're dealing with people I don't expect a perfect solution to exist and it is hopefully a step forward, it doesn't appear to change the presumptions or the case law - it's more of a reminder to check during any investigation and/or trial.

so presumably the guy just goes well she was saying; "that's it **** me harder, harder, yes give it to me"

consent proved?

 

[Tefal]

While that might be the Daily Mail headline the inverse is true. It is actually very hard to pin a rape conviction because the evidence is hard to derive. Rapists walk free all the time because it ultimately comes down a her word against his and the courts will throw the case out.

except when they "walk free" its back to a place where everyone has been told their a rapist by the local paper, their property is vandalized and the "there's no smoke without fire" label will be with them for ever.

 

[Tefal]

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...

thats very similar to America where the official stance is, a man is a criminal because he has a criminal mindset and tendencies, a woman becomes a criminal because she has been forced or coerced into crime by circumstances or others.


basically or legal systems say women are little children who cant take responsibility for their own actions.

 

[QlimaxUK]

You idiots arent using a legal document as part of your foreplay, just me then?

What if they claim that they were 'too drunk to understand what they were signing'

Whats your lawyer say that then?

 

[Abraxaz1]

how about a mobile app that takes a video of them reading a statement of consent, analyses the speech for slurring and says yay or nay?

 

[Zethor]

thats very similar to America where the official stance is, a man is a criminal because he has a criminal mindset and tendencies, a woman becomes a criminal because she has been forced or coerced into crime by circumstances or others.


basically or legal systems say women are little children who cant take responsibility for their own actions.

Men are stronger, more aggressive and more likely to be mentally instable than women (psychopatic males outnumber psychopathic females 4 to 1). What do you expect?

The new guidance seems perfectly reasonable to me, men shouldn't lay a finger on women unless they clearly consent the act.

 

[D.P.]

except when they "walk free" its back to a place where everyone has been told their a rapist by the local paper, their property is vandalized and the "there's no smoke without fire" label will be with them for ever.

And if they are a rapist they deserve much worse!

 

[Tefal]

And if they are a rapist they deserve much worse!

but they're not a rapist :/

maybe your a rapist D.P? or a peado, or a child murder best smash your **** up on the off chance eh?


after all if you are you deserve much worse.