A lot of the confusion and need for these new anti male legal niceties would vanish if failure to report a rape was made a crime.
New Rape Laws
- Thread starter Schlong&Stable
- Start date
A lot of the confusion and need for these new anti male legal niceties would vanish if failure to report a rape was made a crime.
LOLWUT
How do they know this if they aren't reported? You have a source as it seems mightily high...
Terrible of me I know but the opportunity was there, it is Friday and to be frank I couldn't resist.
Mainly based on the British Crime Survey. However, it's likely that even this under-estimates.
Edit: excepting murder, the reporting rate for most crimes is well under 50%.
Straight form the HM crown prospectors.
http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmic/media/without-consent-20061231.pdf
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
1. A woman cannot legally give consent if intoxicated yet the man, who is equally intoxicated, not only has the responsibility to get consent but also deem if the woman is able to give it. How can this double standard operate?
Intoxicated covers a rather large spectrum of (in)capacity - there is nothing in the law to say that you cannot have a drink or indeed that your partner cannot have a drink but you should still be able to give informed consent. That might well feel like a higher standard than before but really if you've got doubts about whether your partner is in a fit state to consent then you've probably got to be asking yourself if you should be doing anything together.
It's not entirely fair and it is unfortunate that an accusation of rape (even if found innocent or not proven) can linger - however it's a question of which option is the least damaging on balance. Rape victims are often reluctant to come forward for obvious reasons including the fear that they won't be believed - having the accused named can be enough to persuade them to come forwards and support the claim (and indeed make a claim of their own if necessary). It's not perfect but the other option of anonymity is likely to leave more rape victims not choosing to come forward.
The option of anonymity for accused unless they are found guilty?
Why would this make less victims come forward?
And what if neither party is in a fit state, which I can only imagine is incredibly common of a weekend, but only one subsequently sees a problem with it the next day?
I suspect that "I was so drunk I don't remember what happened" isn't going to be an equally satisfactory defence for a guy as it is an accusation from a female.
If intoxication results in a lack of ability to give informed consent then as I highlighted earlier it also results in the lack of ability to recognise consent should be obtained, the lack of ability to gain it, and the lack of ability to assess it has been given or not given sufficiently.
Alternatively, rather than branding people guilty via lynch mob irrespective of a weighing of evidence the criminal justice system could recognise the part it plays in people not coming forward, health bodies and charities could recognise their part in creating a climate of rape acceptance historically and in the present, and the actual trial process could be made less harrowing for all concerned. Surely, punishment should be handed out to the guilty not the victim and the accused (who is innocent until proven guilty) during the trial. Evidence can be gained without brinksmanship and aggressive cross-examination.
You have painted a very false dichotomy there.
Last edited:
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Don't shag drunk women.
Job done.
Job done.
"I was so drunk I don't remember getting in the car" isn't a excuse for drink driving...
To be honest the best way is not to get so drunk that you are insensible.
but you don't have to be insensible, they could seem quite sober but decide the next day they were too drunk.
also a lot of the stats posted before come from an old phone survey which deemed something like over a quarter of all women have been raped, even if they didnt think they had based on questions such as "has a partner ever asked more than once for sex" if they answered yes and that they then had sex thats rape according to the survey.
because they were pressured into it.
Nobody knows. How could they? The only thing that can be quantified is the proportion of rape allegations that are admitted by the accuser to be false. Which, of course, has nothing to do with how many actually are false. It's assumed that they're very rare not because of evidence but because that fits the prevailing attitudes.
You got a reference to back that up?
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119364/cdcs-report-one-five-women-raped-other-statistics-disagree
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf
yes showing your unhappy because someone doesn't want sex makes you a rapist if they change their mind.
nope she cant rape him at worse she can be charged with sexual assault.
Exactly, it's not deemed remotely sufficient as a defence against doing something but it's sufficient as an accusation of rape against a man.
If a woman is deemed to have diminished responsibility due to excessive drunkenness, the same ought to apply to the man but seemingly doesn't, he has increased responsibility.