Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
At Last Someone Daring To Instil A Little Common Sense In This 'date-Rape' Debate, And A Female At That.
67 Answers
http://
Now a man has to prove that he has gained consent for sexual intercourse to take place, so how will they do this? Record the consent on his mobile phone, but perhaps that would not stand as evidence in a court of law, well what about getting the other party to sign a declaration of willingness on a piece of paper?
Now a man has to prove that he has gained consent for sexual intercourse to take place, so how will they do this? Record the consent on his mobile phone, but perhaps that would not stand as evidence in a court of law, well what about getting the other party to sign a declaration of willingness on a piece of paper?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
bednobs
/// wow - females can spout common sense? you mean they don't have cotton wool between their ears after all? ///
It was not meant in the sarcastic way that you interpreted it.
I was merely pointing out that this article was written by a female, and it was not coming from a male's point of view.
/// wow - females can spout common sense? you mean they don't have cotton wool between their ears after all? ///
It was not meant in the sarcastic way that you interpreted it.
I was merely pointing out that this article was written by a female, and it was not coming from a male's point of view.
I don't think this is what the guidelines actually say. There remains no requirement for the defendant to "prove" anything, and the guidelines are instead directed at the CPS and Police force, who together should do more to investigate the circumstances surrounding consent.
To successfully prosecute a case of rape, three things are needed. The first two are fairly obvious, namely that the complainant must have not consented (1) to penetrative sex (2). The third, lack of reasonable belief of consent, is more subtle. It's entirely possible for people to say "yes" but think no to themselves; they might, for example, be just a bit too shy and nervous/ intimidated by the whole situation, and therefore feel unable to refuse even if they had appeared to give consent. It's not unreasonable to expect people to try to make sure that it's OK -- "Are you sure?" will do, for example.
It is this point that the guidance is trying to address. Rightly or wrongly, it's believed that some cases are dropped or not pursued properly because the complainant didn't actually say "no". This is wrong; there is more to rape than the victim voicing her refusal to sex, or being otherwise incapable of consent, and the guidance and investigation should take this into account.
Anyway, the point is that the onus is on the police to investigate more fully what steps were taken to establish consent; on the other hand, this absolutely does not mean that the accused has to answer those questions, or prove that he had obtained proper consent, and if the case reached court it would remain the job of the police and CPS to prove their case, rather than the other way round.
To successfully prosecute a case of rape, three things are needed. The first two are fairly obvious, namely that the complainant must have not consented (1) to penetrative sex (2). The third, lack of reasonable belief of consent, is more subtle. It's entirely possible for people to say "yes" but think no to themselves; they might, for example, be just a bit too shy and nervous/ intimidated by the whole situation, and therefore feel unable to refuse even if they had appeared to give consent. It's not unreasonable to expect people to try to make sure that it's OK -- "Are you sure?" will do, for example.
It is this point that the guidance is trying to address. Rightly or wrongly, it's believed that some cases are dropped or not pursued properly because the complainant didn't actually say "no". This is wrong; there is more to rape than the victim voicing her refusal to sex, or being otherwise incapable of consent, and the guidance and investigation should take this into account.
Anyway, the point is that the onus is on the police to investigate more fully what steps were taken to establish consent; on the other hand, this absolutely does not mean that the accused has to answer those questions, or prove that he had obtained proper consent, and if the case reached court it would remain the job of the police and CPS to prove their case, rather than the other way round.
It would depend greatly on the circumstances. A timid "yes" ought to be immediately picked up on as showing uncertainty, and I would fully expect everyone with a bit of sense to press the issue at least once more before continuing. What fun is there in sex when the other person is evidently an unwilling participant? On the other hand someone who changed their mind halfway through and said nothing might well have been engaging willingly until that point, in which case the accused would have had reasonable belief of consent.
More important is the point that, regardless of the circumstances leading up to the incident, the legal responsibility for an act of rape must lie entirely on the accused; the complainant may well have made a series of bad decisions in the build-up, but that should have no effect on assessing the guilt of the defendant. It might affect the severity of the sentence, though -- in a case where consent was clearly never sought, I would expect a much lengthier sentence than one in which it was not reasonably established. Both people are equally guilty of rape, though.
More important is the point that, regardless of the circumstances leading up to the incident, the legal responsibility for an act of rape must lie entirely on the accused; the complainant may well have made a series of bad decisions in the build-up, but that should have no effect on assessing the guilt of the defendant. It might affect the severity of the sentence, though -- in a case where consent was clearly never sought, I would expect a much lengthier sentence than one in which it was not reasonably established. Both people are equally guilty of rape, though.
"Let’s face it, we’ve all done it at one time or another. Shared a cab home with someone we shouldn’t have; invited the wrong guy in for coffee.
Unless you’re a saint, the chances of getting through life without making at least one disastrous sexual choice are very small."
i think this woman should stop trying to assume that we are all like her. i certainly havent made a disastrous sexual choice and none of my friends have either. We arent saints, just normal adults.
Unless you’re a saint, the chances of getting through life without making at least one disastrous sexual choice are very small."
i think this woman should stop trying to assume that we are all like her. i certainly havent made a disastrous sexual choice and none of my friends have either. We arent saints, just normal adults.
Here here woofgang!
Ms. Vine's notion that all gels get into a pickle and give themselves a 'talking to' is grossly insulting to her gender.
The strapline for Ms Vine's column is 'Are You Thinking What She's Thinking?', and as I have opined before, my standard response is "I hope not!"
Ms Vine must of course appeal to her readership which is The Mail, and he thoughts and 'no nonsense' approach appeals to her demographic, but that is a ling way from agreeing that she is instilling 'a little common sense'.
We need to educate young people about the notion of respect for themselves, and each other - which would allow them to ditch the notion that alcohol poisoning equals a good night out, and that casual drunken sex with strangers is a good way to end an evening.
In the mean time, to cast further aspertions on young women who have been preyed upon by young meno act less because of the influence of hardcore pornography (another Mail hobbyhorse) than they do when fed 'toned bodies' and 'long legs' by the sexist pap that is the Mail online.
If young men are taught that simple empathy and courtesy indicates if a woman is a willing sexual partner or not, then the so-called 'consent' area will disappear. Yes, if w woman is flirting up to and including coffee at home, that does not give the right of assumption that sex is on offer.
So no, Ms Vine is not instilling 'common sense', she is appealing to her readership who tut over their breakfast tables and understand little of the lives of younger people, not helped by antiquated views about 'learning lessons', and 'giving themselves a talking to ...' it's not 1955 any more.
Ms. Vine's notion that all gels get into a pickle and give themselves a 'talking to' is grossly insulting to her gender.
The strapline for Ms Vine's column is 'Are You Thinking What She's Thinking?', and as I have opined before, my standard response is "I hope not!"
Ms Vine must of course appeal to her readership which is The Mail, and he thoughts and 'no nonsense' approach appeals to her demographic, but that is a ling way from agreeing that she is instilling 'a little common sense'.
We need to educate young people about the notion of respect for themselves, and each other - which would allow them to ditch the notion that alcohol poisoning equals a good night out, and that casual drunken sex with strangers is a good way to end an evening.
In the mean time, to cast further aspertions on young women who have been preyed upon by young meno act less because of the influence of hardcore pornography (another Mail hobbyhorse) than they do when fed 'toned bodies' and 'long legs' by the sexist pap that is the Mail online.
If young men are taught that simple empathy and courtesy indicates if a woman is a willing sexual partner or not, then the so-called 'consent' area will disappear. Yes, if w woman is flirting up to and including coffee at home, that does not give the right of assumption that sex is on offer.
So no, Ms Vine is not instilling 'common sense', she is appealing to her readership who tut over their breakfast tables and understand little of the lives of younger people, not helped by antiquated views about 'learning lessons', and 'giving themselves a talking to ...' it's not 1955 any more.
//We need to educate young people about the notion of respect for themselves, and each other - which would allow them to ditch the notion that alcohol poisoning equals a good night out, and that casual drunken sex with strangers is a good way to end an evening//
I somehow think many clubbers would lamp you one for that comment.
I somehow think many clubbers would lamp you one for that comment.
youngmafbog - "//We need to educate young people about the notion of respect for themselves, and each other - which would allow them to ditch the notion that alcohol poisoning equals a good night out, and that casual drunken sex with strangers is a good way to end an evening//
I somehow think many clubbers would lamp you one for that comment."
Oh - and please add - random drunken violence with complete strangers is really not a good way to encourage respect among the population.
I somehow think many clubbers would lamp you one for that comment."
Oh - and please add - random drunken violence with complete strangers is really not a good way to encourage respect among the population.
There will be huge difficulties with this.
As has been mentioned, there is no change to the law. The DPP’s guidance is aimed at police investigating allegations and CPS lawyers making charging decisions. The main area of concern seems to be around drunken women who, because of their inebriation, may be deemed as incapable of consenting to sex. This may well be so. But the difficulty that men face is that the drunken consent they believe they had received may well seem perfectly in order at the time (remembering that both parties are likely to have had a few). In the cold light of day (in reality a few weeks later) they will then face accusations that the “quality” of that consent was impaired by drink to such a degree that it was void.
Whilst it will not be the case that defendants will have to prove their innocence, it seems that the prosecution will only have to prove that the “victim” was so drunk as to be legally incapable of consent that the case will be proved. It perhaps will not matter that consent was freely and clearly given. That consent will be invalid in just the same way as that given by a girl under thirteen years of age is. In those cases it’s usually quite reasonable to suggest that the defendant should have made enquiries into the victim’s age. In the case of a drunken victim (and probably a drunken assailant) it is not so straightforward and Ms Vine’s article makes some very salient points. In particular she makes the point that in the past the blame for such encounters was usually shared and the woman (though probably not the man) leaned a valuable lesson. Now it seems the man may be held solely responsible as there seems no mention that the woman may be held even partly responsible for the poor quality of her consent.
As has been mentioned, there is no change to the law. The DPP’s guidance is aimed at police investigating allegations and CPS lawyers making charging decisions. The main area of concern seems to be around drunken women who, because of their inebriation, may be deemed as incapable of consenting to sex. This may well be so. But the difficulty that men face is that the drunken consent they believe they had received may well seem perfectly in order at the time (remembering that both parties are likely to have had a few). In the cold light of day (in reality a few weeks later) they will then face accusations that the “quality” of that consent was impaired by drink to such a degree that it was void.
Whilst it will not be the case that defendants will have to prove their innocence, it seems that the prosecution will only have to prove that the “victim” was so drunk as to be legally incapable of consent that the case will be proved. It perhaps will not matter that consent was freely and clearly given. That consent will be invalid in just the same way as that given by a girl under thirteen years of age is. In those cases it’s usually quite reasonable to suggest that the defendant should have made enquiries into the victim’s age. In the case of a drunken victim (and probably a drunken assailant) it is not so straightforward and Ms Vine’s article makes some very salient points. In particular she makes the point that in the past the blame for such encounters was usually shared and the woman (though probably not the man) leaned a valuable lesson. Now it seems the man may be held solely responsible as there seems no mention that the woman may be held even partly responsible for the poor quality of her consent.
Jim 360 can clearly add two and two together
He is right to say that this is the DPP's guideline
and if she wishes to alter the standard of proof ( the burden is still on the prosecution) then she has to do so by legislation
What is predicted is that the number of cases brought iwill go up and that the conviction rate will go down ....
She has already said more prosecutions should be brought ( 'the second divison') and I pointed out to the lady that therefore the conviction rate would go down ( more cases before the juries but they would be crappier being second division ) . She told me ( over paid Mandarin told me ) that the system was meant to "work" like that
He is right to say that this is the DPP's guideline
and if she wishes to alter the standard of proof ( the burden is still on the prosecution) then she has to do so by legislation
What is predicted is that the number of cases brought iwill go up and that the conviction rate will go down ....
She has already said more prosecutions should be brought ( 'the second divison') and I pointed out to the lady that therefore the conviction rate would go down ( more cases before the juries but they would be crappier being second division ) . She told me ( over paid Mandarin told me ) that the system was meant to "work" like that
Thanks too to NJ for his analysis.
I would say in reply that there are two different aspects of responsibility at play here, and they are often confused particularly in situations like this. But at the heart of any case before the law is the issue of who is criminally responsible, and there can be no doubt that, however questionable some decisions may be, there can be no criminal responsibility involved if you find yourself the victim of a crime. This is true in rape, it is true if your house is burgled, etc etc. Example:
One night, when I was younger, Dad accidentally left the kitchen door open for whatever reason, and someone managed to come in and steal a few things in the hall including my PE kit for the following day. Obviously, it was Dad's mistake to leave the door open. But that doesn't take any responsibility for committing the crime of burglary away from the burglar at all. Whoever it was was never caught, as understandably there was basically no evidence at all. He/ she came into the house and left ten seconds later without being seen.
Responsibility for leaving the door open, then, is certainly Dad's, in part; had the case ever come to court, that would have had not a bit of bearing on the legal crime. The same should be true in cases of rape, in that regardless of any errors in judgement on the part of the victim, they should have no bearing on assessing whether a crime took place or not.
Obviously when it comes to sentencing I'd expect the guidelines to treat more seriously the cases where the woman had consciously refused as opposed to those who'd 'consented' without really being able to, but both crimes are, and should be, prosecuted as rape, and the man in both cases would and should bear the sole legal responsibility for his actions.
I would say in reply that there are two different aspects of responsibility at play here, and they are often confused particularly in situations like this. But at the heart of any case before the law is the issue of who is criminally responsible, and there can be no doubt that, however questionable some decisions may be, there can be no criminal responsibility involved if you find yourself the victim of a crime. This is true in rape, it is true if your house is burgled, etc etc. Example:
One night, when I was younger, Dad accidentally left the kitchen door open for whatever reason, and someone managed to come in and steal a few things in the hall including my PE kit for the following day. Obviously, it was Dad's mistake to leave the door open. But that doesn't take any responsibility for committing the crime of burglary away from the burglar at all. Whoever it was was never caught, as understandably there was basically no evidence at all. He/ she came into the house and left ten seconds later without being seen.
Responsibility for leaving the door open, then, is certainly Dad's, in part; had the case ever come to court, that would have had not a bit of bearing on the legal crime. The same should be true in cases of rape, in that regardless of any errors in judgement on the part of the victim, they should have no bearing on assessing whether a crime took place or not.
Obviously when it comes to sentencing I'd expect the guidelines to treat more seriously the cases where the woman had consciously refused as opposed to those who'd 'consented' without really being able to, but both crimes are, and should be, prosecuted as rape, and the man in both cases would and should bear the sole legal responsibility for his actions.
So, if two drunk people opt to have sex, and in the morning one wishes they hadn't and opts to say that they were incapable of consenting due to intoxication; then the other person is automatically the evil criminal type ? And at the same time the accused has to show they had taken sufficient care to ensure their partner was ok with it, even though they don't have to prove their innocence; which seems contradictory. It sounds like a can of worms to me, whether it is guidelines or law itself.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles9 mins ago
Food & Drink17 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles45 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles128 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.