Maybe. But the problem with the current laws is that, what, 10% or less of reported rapes are successfully prosecuted.
I'm simply not believing that more than a fraction of those reports which don't end in conviction are false.
You don't need to be
convicted for an accusation of rape to ruin your life. If you work in a school for example, and your colleagues/boss, or even worse one of the parents, were to find out you'd been
accused of rape, do you think they would wait and see if you were actually convicted before you lost your job?
Even if it wasn't somewhere as sensitive as a school, how many employers do you actually think would continue to employ a rapist*
* After all, there's no smoke without fire, and as evidence by many previous threads on here, most people believe that even a not-guilty result means you did it, there just wasn't enough evidence to prove it.
A more robust consent law should help this, and should be clearer guidance for men who are in a potentially rapey situation.
The problem is, other than having independent witnesses, it's impossible to a) prove consent, and b) prove that the person was mentally fit to give consent
The only foolproof solution I can really see is designated "sex booths" where you both have to sign in, and sign out (witnessed by someone), after being breathalised.
Laws might not stop some rapists, it's true, but they can help to provide justice when those rapes happen
It can also act as guidance for situations where attitude may cause some to not realise the rights and wrongs of their actions.
That's great, except those laws are heavily weighted against men - hardly justice.
Sober man and drunk woman have sex, she regrets it, cries rape - man = guilty (this I agree with).
Drunk man and drunk woman have sex, she regrets it, cries rape - man = guilty (why does the man maintain responsibility whilst drunk, whereas the woman doesn't?)
Drunk man and sober woman have sex, she regrets it, cries rape - man = guilty (see above).