ChatterBank1 min 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.
"...the accused has to show they had taken sufficient care to ensure their partner was ok with it..."
No, the accused doesn't have to show this, though -- the guidelines are directed at the CPS and Police, whose job should now be expanded to ensure that this point is investigated as fully as possible.
As to the case where two drunk people are having sex and one regrets it afterwards -- it's worth pointing out that recent test cases have established that being drunk itself is not sufficient to mean that consent is not possible. Rather, drunkenness affects capacity to consent only in a specific set of circumstances, based on that particular person's ability to imbibe alcohol safely or not, or indeed how she got drunk in the first place (eg if her drink was spiked that would take away her ability to consent, because she'd drunk more than she'd chosen to.)
If both parties are drunk, then, little changes in this assessment. The specific circumstances of the case will come into play, as they should do, to determine whether or not rape was committed, but the "double drunk" aspect is somewhat of a red herring. Even if one was drunk and the other was not, that does not necessarily mean it was rape either.
No, the accused doesn't have to show this, though -- the guidelines are directed at the CPS and Police, whose job should now be expanded to ensure that this point is investigated as fully as possible.
As to the case where two drunk people are having sex and one regrets it afterwards -- it's worth pointing out that recent test cases have established that being drunk itself is not sufficient to mean that consent is not possible. Rather, drunkenness affects capacity to consent only in a specific set of circumstances, based on that particular person's ability to imbibe alcohol safely or not, or indeed how she got drunk in the first place (eg if her drink was spiked that would take away her ability to consent, because she'd drunk more than she'd chosen to.)
If both parties are drunk, then, little changes in this assessment. The specific circumstances of the case will come into play, as they should do, to determine whether or not rape was committed, but the "double drunk" aspect is somewhat of a red herring. Even if one was drunk and the other was not, that does not necessarily mean it was rape either.
-- answer removed --
divebuddy - "Most reasonable people think that the "victim" is not without some responsibility for their own behaviour."
I think you will find that most 'reasonable' people accept that rape is a crime, and like any other crime, there is a victim (no inverted commas) and happily, in our civilised society, we don't go looking for reasons why the vcictim was contributory in the crime against them.
Your view is abhorrent, and you should be ashamed of it.
I think you will find that most 'reasonable' people accept that rape is a crime, and like any other crime, there is a victim (no inverted commas) and happily, in our civilised society, we don't go looking for reasons why the vcictim was contributory in the crime against them.
Your view is abhorrent, and you should be ashamed of it.
Like I said, db, there are two types of responsibility, and in assessing whether a crime was committed they must be regarded as separate from each other. A woman is responsible for her actions, of course. But a man is therefore equally responsible for his own, including the lamentable decision to have sex with someone who had not consented.
-- answer removed --
I don't think there is anything "quite clearly" about it at all, db. Of course, juries don't explain the reasoning behind their decisions, as they aren't allowed to, so any statement explaining how they think as a whole seems flawed. I expect that many will have relied on lack of evidence to come to a not guilty verdict, rather than sympathy with either complainant or defendant. If that were indeed the main reason behind acquittal it would be an abhorrent one, as the verdict should be based on evidence alone.
divebuddy - "A-H, I put victim in inverted commas because quite clearly juries very often think that the accuser is not one. You make it sound like simply making the accusation should be enough to secure a conviction."
If an individual case decided by an individual jury decides that the accused is not guilty, then that is a matter for individual evidence on the day.
That is a very very long way from the sweeping gnerealisation that 'most reasonable people' start from the premise that the victim is to blame, and they simply have to add up the reasons why she was at fault, in order to apportion the blame there, and not with her attacker.
Either defend the point you made, or retract it - but muddying the point is not going to fly.
If an individual case decided by an individual jury decides that the accused is not guilty, then that is a matter for individual evidence on the day.
That is a very very long way from the sweeping gnerealisation that 'most reasonable people' start from the premise that the victim is to blame, and they simply have to add up the reasons why she was at fault, in order to apportion the blame there, and not with her attacker.
Either defend the point you made, or retract it - but muddying the point is not going to fly.
-- answer removed --
andy-hughes
/// 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 course of our exchanges Andy it would seem that education is your answer to everything, well at least in your utopian world ruled over by yourself on your high throne of self smugness, whilst looking down on the rest of us.
Yes no doubt if your world's pupils were to attend classes 24/7 52 weeks of the year, perhaps in time there would be no wars, no crime, no alcohol or drug abuse, no one night stands etc, etc, and perhaps even no Daily Mail web-site which seems to upset you so much. but funny enough unlike apparently you, I never seem to dwell on the 'toned bodies' and 'long legs'.
I apologise for this rather harsh dig at you, but honestly Andy, when you get on your high horse of pomposity, and seemingly look down on the rest of us, for some of our weaknesses and choice of newspaper web sites, you do tend to wear a little thin.
Pals again tomorrow I hope, meantime I'm off for an early dinner.
/// 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 course of our exchanges Andy it would seem that education is your answer to everything, well at least in your utopian world ruled over by yourself on your high throne of self smugness, whilst looking down on the rest of us.
Yes no doubt if your world's pupils were to attend classes 24/7 52 weeks of the year, perhaps in time there would be no wars, no crime, no alcohol or drug abuse, no one night stands etc, etc, and perhaps even no Daily Mail web-site which seems to upset you so much. but funny enough unlike apparently you, I never seem to dwell on the 'toned bodies' and 'long legs'.
I apologise for this rather harsh dig at you, but honestly Andy, when you get on your high horse of pomposity, and seemingly look down on the rest of us, for some of our weaknesses and choice of newspaper web sites, you do tend to wear a little thin.
Pals again tomorrow I hope, meantime I'm off for an early dinner.
divebuddy - "A-H, //That is a very very long way from the sweeping gnerealisation that 'most reasonable people' start from the premise that the victim is to blame, and they simply have to add up the reasons why she was at fault, in order to apportion the blame there, and not with her attacker. //
I don't remember saying that. If you expect me to take you seriously then you really shouldn't embroider what I did say into some fantasy that suits your right on liberal thinking."
Very well then , let me put it this way - you said - "Most reasonable people think that the "victim" is not without some responsibility for their own behaviour."
The only interpretation I can see from that, is that you appear to speak for the majority of 'reasonable people' in viewing rape victims as in some wayu responsible for their behaviour - which in turn implies that their behaviour has put them in the way of an occurance of rape.
Would you therefore say that everyone burgled put themselves in the way of burglary by owning a property? Ludicrous isn't it - except a crime against property does not have the life-long damage of rape attached to it.
You seem to infer that any rape victim is in some way responsible by dint of 'behaviour' in causing the rape to happen.
The only reason for rape is the need for a man to subjugate a woman - quite how you think that her behaviour contributes in any way baffles me totally.
If you want to be pedantic about it how about saying that there can't be a "victim" until a crime has been proved.
I don't remember saying that. If you expect me to take you seriously then you really shouldn't embroider what I did say into some fantasy that suits your right on liberal thinking."
Very well then , let me put it this way - you said - "Most reasonable people think that the "victim" is not without some responsibility for their own behaviour."
The only interpretation I can see from that, is that you appear to speak for the majority of 'reasonable people' in viewing rape victims as in some wayu responsible for their behaviour - which in turn implies that their behaviour has put them in the way of an occurance of rape.
Would you therefore say that everyone burgled put themselves in the way of burglary by owning a property? Ludicrous isn't it - except a crime against property does not have the life-long damage of rape attached to it.
You seem to infer that any rape victim is in some way responsible by dint of 'behaviour' in causing the rape to happen.
The only reason for rape is the need for a man to subjugate a woman - quite how you think that her behaviour contributes in any way baffles me totally.
If you want to be pedantic about it how about saying that there can't be a "victim" until a crime has been proved.
-- answer removed --
AOG - "In the course of our exchanges Andy it would seem that education is your answer to everything, well at least in your utopian world ruled over by yourself on your high throne of self smugness, whilst looking down on the rest of us."
I would agree that education would go a long way towards curing society of some of its social I, but that is simply a view I hold - I am unsure about the 'high throne of smugness ... looking down on the rest of us.'. I don't look down on anyone - only yourself and your personal acolytes seem to think so, and they are vastly outnumbered by the posters who have agreed with me over the years.
"Yes no doubt if your world's pupils were to attend classes 24/7 52 weeks of the year, perhaps in time there would be no wars, no crime, no alcohol or drug abuse, no one night stands etc, etc, and perhaps even no Daily Mail web-site which seems to upset you so much. but funny enough unlike apparently you, I never seem to dwell on the 'toned bodies' and 'long legs'."
My mention of the Mail's website was purely to highlight the hypocricy of its columnist, I am not obsessed with it at all, promise.
"I apologise for this rather harsh dig at you ..."
Surely you have the courage of your convictions AOG? If you need to apologise in the same thread as you are rude to me, it suggests that your heart is not really in it. Either be rude if you must, or preferably not, but don't be mealy-mouthed, it doesn't suit you.
" ... but honestly Andy, when you get on your high horse of pomposity, and seemingly look down on the rest of us, for some of our weaknesses and choice of newspaper web sites, you do tend to wear a little thin."
If you feel looked down on, then that is a matter for your own self-belief, it's not something I have ever felt in all my years on here.
You can choose to argue with my viewpoint, but to accuse me of pomposity is unkind and uncalled for - you are the first to cry foul when you feel people denigrate you - so you should practise what you preach I think.
"Pals again tomorrow I hope ..."
So do you wish me to brush off your insults and pretend they don't matter?
Since they don't, that is not a problem, but beware your approach to other AB'ers who may not be able to dismiss harsh comments and criticism as easily as do I ... such as your good self?
Food for thought when your dinner has gone down.
I would agree that education would go a long way towards curing society of some of its social I, but that is simply a view I hold - I am unsure about the 'high throne of smugness ... looking down on the rest of us.'. I don't look down on anyone - only yourself and your personal acolytes seem to think so, and they are vastly outnumbered by the posters who have agreed with me over the years.
"Yes no doubt if your world's pupils were to attend classes 24/7 52 weeks of the year, perhaps in time there would be no wars, no crime, no alcohol or drug abuse, no one night stands etc, etc, and perhaps even no Daily Mail web-site which seems to upset you so much. but funny enough unlike apparently you, I never seem to dwell on the 'toned bodies' and 'long legs'."
My mention of the Mail's website was purely to highlight the hypocricy of its columnist, I am not obsessed with it at all, promise.
"I apologise for this rather harsh dig at you ..."
Surely you have the courage of your convictions AOG? If you need to apologise in the same thread as you are rude to me, it suggests that your heart is not really in it. Either be rude if you must, or preferably not, but don't be mealy-mouthed, it doesn't suit you.
" ... but honestly Andy, when you get on your high horse of pomposity, and seemingly look down on the rest of us, for some of our weaknesses and choice of newspaper web sites, you do tend to wear a little thin."
If you feel looked down on, then that is a matter for your own self-belief, it's not something I have ever felt in all my years on here.
You can choose to argue with my viewpoint, but to accuse me of pomposity is unkind and uncalled for - you are the first to cry foul when you feel people denigrate you - so you should practise what you preach I think.
"Pals again tomorrow I hope ..."
So do you wish me to brush off your insults and pretend they don't matter?
Since they don't, that is not a problem, but beware your approach to other AB'ers who may not be able to dismiss harsh comments and criticism as easily as do I ... such as your good self?
Food for thought when your dinner has gone down.
divebuddy - "Why don't you have a careful read of AOG's post (above), try and absorb some of the useful advice he has given you and try again."
The day I am in need of advice from a man who thinks that rape victims re at least partly responsible for their situation because of their 'behaviour' will be a cold day in Hell.
The day I am in need of advice from a man who thinks that rape victims re at least partly responsible for their situation because of their 'behaviour' will be a cold day in Hell.
-- answer removed --
"The reason so many rape cases (DATE RAPE TYPES) end in acquittal is that juries are loathe to utterly ruin a man's life WHEN THE EVIDENCE IS IFFY TO SAY THE LEAST. Most reasonable people think that the "victim" is not without some responsibility for their own behaviour.".
Given the important qualifications made in the post (and capitalised by me), AH's description "sweeping generalisation" seems (to this reader at least) a perverse distortion of of what the poster meant by "most reasonable people".
Gamma minus for comprehension.
Given the important qualifications made in the post (and capitalised by me), AH's description "sweeping generalisation" seems (to this reader at least) a perverse distortion of of what the poster meant by "most reasonable people".
Gamma minus for comprehension.
Leave the courts to decide whether it is rape or not, you can't codify this as there's too much 'variation' and that's what the scales of justice are therefore.
Anyway, usually the police and the the DPP who have the first call on whether to prosecute on a case and it's there that the education is needed, in deciding whether there's a case even to answer.
I would have thought that most young men and women are fully aware of this raging debate, though I would accept that there's a role for education in schools, and the teaching of ethics (inc respect for others).......
As to alcohol, and bonking while pished out of one's skull in your late teens /early 20 something, that's always happened and will continue to do so. Perhaps, the messages on contraception pre and post sex are not getting through - that's another thing that could possibly do with looking at. The concept of a pre-bonkial along the lines of a prenup is the funniest thing that I have read today.
Anyway, usually the police and the the DPP who have the first call on whether to prosecute on a case and it's there that the education is needed, in deciding whether there's a case even to answer.
I would have thought that most young men and women are fully aware of this raging debate, though I would accept that there's a role for education in schools, and the teaching of ethics (inc respect for others).......
As to alcohol, and bonking while pished out of one's skull in your late teens /early 20 something, that's always happened and will continue to do so. Perhaps, the messages on contraception pre and post sex are not getting through - that's another thing that could possibly do with looking at. The concept of a pre-bonkial along the lines of a prenup is the funniest thing that I have read today.
-- answer removed --
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.