Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Make sure you've got consent, lads...

13468911

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote:
    No, it simply means that they can't proove simply based upon something she can't remember. Which is how it should be.

    But that isn't what is happening.

    The assumption is made that because she can't remember saying no, it means she said yes. That assumption is completely wrong.

    When a woman says she can't remember anything, she says she passed out and woke up with a man inside her, having sex with her, do you think its right that her entire case is thrown out?

    I don't.

    I don't think we should assume guilt before innocence. But I do think we should get out of the mindset that unless she screamed no she wanted it.

    The biggest reform we should have is having specialist rape prosecutors, in order to ensure that the woman is treated well at all times, and that novice mistakes are not met. As it is, the prosecutors in rape trials are rarely as experienced as the severity of the crime warrants, and they simply do not know what they are doing. On the other hand, the defence knows exactly what it's doing.

    Too many rapists are getting away with horrible crimes simply because the woman can't remember explicitly saying no. She "may" have said yes, so it gets thrown out. That's wrong.
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,282 Skive's The Limit
    Kermit wrote:
    The assumption is made that because she can't remember saying no, it means she said yes. That assumption is completely wrong.

    Well she eithger said yes or no - there is no middle ground.
    Kermit wrote:
    When a woman says she can't remember anything, she says she passed out and woke up with a man inside her, having sex with her, do you think its right that her entire case is thrown out?

    If she says she can't remember - he says she consented - and there is no other evidence to proove that he is lying - then yes the case should be thrown out.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Haha this is funny, typical politically correct attitude.

    What does "politically correct" mean?
    First off, i'm a womanizer

    You're a woman-hating nob-end, and not because of this either.

    Do I have to drag up every woman-hating thread you've ever made? There are a lot of them.

    EDIT: I will, just to prove ity isn't a hyperbolic insult.

    This.
    This.
    This too.

    You get the idea.

    This is a poster who thinks "part of you must have been turned on" if you didn't successfully fight off a rapist.
    I didn't say she was gagging for it and I didn't say conciously looking for attention form other men.

    Yeah, you did, actually.
    It makes her feel good when she dresses up attractively, she doesn't DECIDE that it make sher feel good, it is a natural feeling.

    Well done. Clever you.

    What does that have to do with the price of fish?

    I like to dress up well, it doesn't mean I want female attention.

    What's your point?
    Don't ever compare me to a rapist

    I didn't.

    I said outdated, misogynistic and bigoted views like yours allow rapists to get away with it, time and time again.
    I have to say thugh, i've encountered women totally drunk, didn't even look at my face sticking their hands down my pants

    Go team you.

    What's your point?

    That- SHOCK!- women like sex, and might want a one-night stand.

    Terrible.
    it happens that a alot of men who don't get laid that often jump at such a chance

    Ah, those poor defenceless men can't keep their cock in their pants and the thought of a girl flirting with them, and maybe even- SHOCK! HORROR!- feeling them up or even giving oral sex, well, they can't cope with it.

    What century is this?

    The only person responsible for a rape is the man. That's the long and the short of it. A short skirt is not a come-on, to still be claiming so now is nothing short of disgusting.

    Go crawl back under the rock you came out of.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote:
    Well she eithger said yes or no - there is no middle ground.

    Or maybe she passed out and said nothing, and did nothing to encourage the man?

    Nah, she can't have. If she didn't scream no she wanted it.
    If she says she can't remember - he says she consented - and there is no other evidence to proove that he is lying - then yes the case should be thrown out.

    The cases are being thrown out long before the stage of the man giving his evidence.

    The girl said she was passed out, and can't remember anything. Sorry love, you weren't raped. Even if it was someone you'd met four seconds ago.
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,282 Skive's The Limit
    Kermit wrote:
    Nah, she can't have. If she didn't scream no she wanted it.

    You impy that people say things they quite clearly havn't. I'm sure I'm not the only one that gets fucked off with it. Sort it out.
    Kermit wrote:
    The cases are being thrown out long before the stage of the man giving his evidence.

    The girl said she was passed out, and can't remember anything. Sorry love, you weren't raped. Even if it was someone you'd met four seconds ago.

    With the lack of any other evidence then there really is no case and it should be thrown out.
    Weekender Offender 
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,282 Skive's The Limit
    Kermit wrote:
    Or maybe she passed out and said nothing, and did nothing to encourage the man?

    Nah, she can't have. If she didn't scream no she wanted it.

    There's still no middle ground, she either consented or she didn't.
    If she passed out before than she obviously didn't consent but if she can't remember anything at all than there's still a good chance she may have consented.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote:
    You impy that people say things they quite clearly havn't.

    I didn't say you personally had.

    I said that is the attitude that the courts seem to take too many times. IN MY OPINION.
    With the lack of any other evidence then there really is no case and it should be thrown out.

    Perhaps.

    But it concerns me that the evidence that she was passed out- and in no position to give any sort of consent- is completely overlooked too many times.

    If the defendant says she wasn't passed out at all then that's his story. It should be for a jury to decide.
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,282 Skive's The Limit
    If she says she can't remember and he says he can - lackign any other evidence his version of events has to be believed.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I agree that the balance of proof should be on the prosecution.

    But if we believe in a jury system, then matters of fact like that should be left to the jury to decide.

    Rape is a big problem because no other crime has the problem of consent. I don't consent to be mugged or assaulted, for instance.

    I think specialist police and specialist prosecutors will really help catch these sick fucks who do this. It will help raise what is an appalling conviction rate.

    Letting rapists out is better than convicting innocent men, but too many rapists are getting let out, and its bad for every single person in this country, man or woman.
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,282 Skive's The Limit
    I agree with that.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    briggi wrote:
    In terms of the Security Guard "rape" case, reading about that actually staggered me. If I remember rightly, the jury was told "drunken consent is still consent” to which the judge agreed. He then instructed the jury to return a "not guilty" verdict, even if they did not agree. Obviously I was incorrect in my thinking that a jury was there make a decision based on the full details of the case, the testimony of witnesses and their own judgement.

    It's up to the judge in all cases to decide the case on the facts of law as they exist, in this case there was clearly not enough evidence to secure a prosecution and so the judge had no alternative but to give a directed aquittal. This can work the other way however, if there is no shred of evidence of consent then the judge must direct the jury to convict.

    What puzzles me about this case, which I haven't read so I don't know the full legal facts, is that how it got to trial in the first place without being dropped by the CPS. Presumably the complainant will have given her statement to the police but couldn't have mentioned that she didn't remember consenting otherwise the CPS wouldn't have prosecuted it, rightly or wrongly.

    I think the idea of specialist prosecutors is a really good idea, in any field of sexual abuse or attack, being cross-examined on the stand is a highly stressful experience for both complainant and defendant, even with the inadmissability of a woman's sexual history these days, she still has to go into detail in open court about what she remembers about the penetration etc and this has to be a horrific experience that i seriously doubt anyone would choose to undertake falsely. It's therefore unlikely that the false accusation rate in rape will ever rise much above the 2% already quoted my Kermit.

    To take a long view, special rape courts, of the type used in family proceedings at the moment would be a great assest in attempting to gain greater conviction rates, using court orders more often to restrain the press or people in the gallery from disclosing details of the case and to preserve the anonimity of the parties. Video taped and live-link procedures for witnesses in rape cases are being used now as for child sex abuse but it is the nature of our adversarial system the unfortunately, rightly or wrongly (terribly politically correct here) gives the accused his day in court to face the accuser and to examine that person under oath.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    But if we believe in a jury system, then matters of fact like that should be left to the jury to decide.

    Rape is a big problem because no other crime has the problem of consent. I don't consent to be mugged or assaulted, for instance.QUOTE]

    The problem was that there was no real factual evidence to decide on and the juge would therefore have had no choice but to direct an aquittal. The idea of copnsent is a huge problem throughout throughout the law of offences against the person, whether it be as an offence's mens rea element or as a possible defence to assault etc.

    Labelling all rapists as "Sick fucks" helps no-one and does your very cogent previous arguments a disservice Kermit. The whole problem of this very difficult area of the law is that on the facts, the man may have been as drunk as the woman, and not really know what he was doing and the woman makes an allegation of rape against a man who genuinely believes that he was having consensual sex. This is why so much money and time is expended by the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords in attempting to clarify the minutiae of detail in consent, intent and other such terms and ensuring that judge's directions can be "appeal proof" on such points of law.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Damn Right wrote:
    The problem was that there was no real factual evidence to decide on and the juge would therefore have had no choice but to direct an aquittal.

    There was factual evidence.

    The woman said she had passed out- she didn't even know she'd had full sex. How she can then be said to have consented ("drunken consent is still consent") is beyond me.

    But in that case it was a serious error by the prosecution counsel. A sepcialist rape prosecutor would not have done that.
    The idea of copnsent is a huge problem throughout throughout the law of offences against the person, whether it be as an offence's mens rea element or as a possible defence to assault etc.

    It isn't, though.

    You cannot consent to being assaulted. Saying the bloke let me is not a defence to violent assault. The only defence to it is if you had a legitimate reason, e.g. he was about to knock seven bells out of you.
    Labelling all rapists as "Sick fucks" helps no-one and does your very cogent previous arguments a disservice Kermit.

    They are sick fucks, there isn't another way of describing them.
    The whole problem of this very difficult area of the law is that on the facts, the man may have been as drunk as the woman, and not really know what he was doing and the woman makes an allegation of rape against a man who genuinely believes that he was having consensual sex.

    Except that's wrong too.

    The reasonable man test is applied.

    Mistake is only defence if a reasonable person would assume that consent was still there. For instance, if the woman initially wanted sex, and then did not say no when she wanted the man to withdraw.

    I would also ask you not to lecture me on the law.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    There was factual evidence.

    The woman said she had passed out- she didn't even know she'd had full sex. How she can then be said to have consented ("drunken consent is still consent") is beyond me.


    simple fact though is, it would be impossible to prove she gave no consent, and as the case rests upon the prosecution to prove guilt, it would have to be chucked out

    how else could you see it proceeding?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,282 Skive's The Limit
    You are more likely to be raped if you're out your fucking head. Women should pay attention to that fact if they want to lessen the risk - of course they shoudln't have to - but this is not a perfect world.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote:
    You are more likely to be raped if you're out your fucking head. Women should pay attention to that fact if they want to lessen the risk - of course they shoudln't have to - but this is not a perfect world.

    Yeah i agree. Obviously there are some nutters that choose anyone, but i agree if your half cut it's more likely.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Even if it did affect things, does it change anything about the fact that some sick bloke has raped someone?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The difference between rape and sex is consent. A man is guilty of rape if the person he has sex with his not consent and he knows this or is reckless to the fact (ie doesn't bother finding out). A man sleeping with someone (woman or man) who is extremely drunk is reckless to whether or not they consent if they don't get some sort of positive signal saying they are. The government in their proposed reform are talking about instances where someone wakes up to find someone shagging them. How can someone give consent if they are asleep? Or if someone is so drunk they can barely speak how can they decide whether or not they consent?

    A lot of people assume that a drunk person does consent and that women frequently cry rape when they regret sex the next day. Obviously this happens but it is not so prevalent that it should be treated as the norm. I read someone that the false accusations of rape are on the same level as other serious crimes. I wish I could find where I read this, I am looking.

    Also, people are saying that rape is a one person's word against anothers so can't be proved etc, of course it is one person's word against anothers, how often do you see people being raped in the street. Statistics show that people have more to fear from men they know than strangers on the street (the guardian, july 1st 1999).

    My point is that there are so many myths surrounding rape and a lot of the time when you start reading about the subject you see that common opinions are just based on these.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    About the criticism that this thread should be in P&D instead of the Sex forum. I don't accept that. Rape should not be a political issue, which is why I didn't put it in there.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    \
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    rubbish. rape is about as political an act as you can get.
    What?! What the hell does that mean?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    How is it???

    And don't talk that shit about the white man raping africa and all that nonsense coz its crap.

    How is rape political?????

    Rape as in the brutal crime of rape, is a bout power, not sex.

    I would say that taking advantage of somone under the influnce is more about sex then the other kind of rape, although there is a power element involved for sure.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    \
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But when some is raped, they are hardly reciting the 5th Amendmant are they???

    (No Iraq jokes please)

    Politics is more then just power.

    Rape involves some1 excercising power over another because of a want, a divance, a compulsion, a twisted need.

    Politic is voluntary and power comes with the job. The person ahs to excericse their power or not do their job properly, or even then people often don't use their power.

    Rape and politics are not the same.

    just because they both involve power doesn't make them the same.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    \
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why don't you try getting down from your high horse and relaise other people have knowledge aswell??


    Rape is not a political act.

    Its an act.

    An act of violation.

    It is nothing do do with being political.

    you did make it lieteral by saying politics has people using power over others, and rape is about power so rape must be political.

    its not.

    rape is rape.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Walkindude wrote:
    Rape and politics are not the same.

    :confused:

    Rape may not be seen as all to be a political issue (to me, it is) however this topic's place in the sex forum doesn't sit well with me.

    If not "political" by the most stringent definition; it is definitely an issue over which debate will continue to occur.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well I think I will doom scarletleeds by association by agreeing with her.

    Rape is a crime which is about power over others. Usually violent domination but often psychological as well.

    Politics is about power over others. Usually violent domination but often psychological as well.

    There are definite parallels.
Sign In or Register to comment.