Confused at the sentence handed for this "Rape"
- Thread starter ColdAsIce
- Start date
.
Soldato
Soldato
Is a case of 'boy who cried wolf'.
Dirty **** says her teacher touched her. Turns out he didn't.
Some time later teacher touches her. Nobody believes her because the first time she was a lying ****.
Soldato
Oh look, another silly Jay794 post!
Oh look, another.....
Oh I can't even be bothered to start this again.
Rapists should just be castrated or killed. End.
Soldato
I was also totally confused by this story. McDonald seems to have plied the girl with champagne, brought her back to hotel, had sex, invited his mate around to join in. The sentencing doesn't make sense based on the way the facts have been presented in the story.
Don
That seems to boil down to that despite someone drinking they can give consent, but if they have lost capacity she can't give consent. As I said it's upto the courts to decide if that's the case.
Due to the suspect nature of many of the convictions, you just can't do that. "End."
Soldato
Then it's such a ridiculously vague and impossible to prove law, what is even the point in having it. By that statement vast amounts of girls who go clubbing get "raped" each night and if they wanted to could claim that in court with no one to prove otherwise.
I agree, it's a crazy law but it does mean that men can still be raped. But only by another man. To do so with any other object (or body part!) makes it a section 2 offence of assault by penetration.
Moses is right though, seems they may have gone with the R v Bree case in which it was found drunken consent can still be consent, but the capacity to consent may well evaporate well before the victim becomes unconscious. So she was probably ok at the point at which McDonald took her too the hotel (although the CCTV bit confuses me, they make it sound like because she was really drunk when she stumbled into McDonald, Evans should have known when he went to the hotel that she wasn't in any fit state. But by that same standard, surely McDonald should have realised as well based on that same evidence that taking her back to the hotel was a bad idea) but maybe she lost the ability to really say yes to Evans when he turned up.
Moses is right though, seems they may have gone with the R v Bree case in which it was found drunken consent can still be consent, but the capacity to consent may well evaporate well before the victim becomes unconscious. So she was probably ok at the point at which McDonald took her too the hotel (although the CCTV bit confuses me, they make it sound like because she was really drunk when she stumbled into McDonald, Evans should have known when he went to the hotel that she wasn't in any fit state. But by that same standard, surely McDonald should have realised as well based on that same evidence that taking her back to the hotel was a bad idea) but maybe she lost the ability to really say yes to Evans when he turned up.
Soldato
Suspect nature as in girls "claiming" to be raped you mean? yeah ok, so there is a little more to it than that, but what I mean is like video evidence etc... e.g. I read in the news this morning a gang has been jailed for giving alcohol to 15 and 16 year old girls and then raping them over a weekend , would cutting their junk off not be a fitting punishment as well as life in prison
yet apparently most court cases to do with rape apparently get thrown out. I suspect this is because of R v Dougal where the victim said she "couldn't remember" consenting, and the prosecution apparently couldn't do anything because they were under an obligation to prove a lack of consent.
Case law is weeeeeeird.
Case law is weeeeeeird.
I suspect even more are thrown out because it's his word versus hers.
You can;t just start convicting people based purely on somoens word.
Yeah quite possibly, but I think that may have been what Dougal was partly about. She said it was because she couldn't remember consenting, he said it wasn't because she consented.
And how do you know that happened?
Oh, you was there was you? Thanks for your eye witness statement.
That article is very misleading. We are giving limited information and due to that incomplete information the sentencing seems unreasonable.
Of course given that info we will all say sentence is silly bit it's hard to have an intellectual debate on the subject when we are presented biased hand picked info.
Of course given that info we will all say sentence is silly bit it's hard to have an intellectual debate on the subject when we are presented biased hand picked info.