Jokes0 min ago
Previous Sexual Encounters - Relevance To New Charges?
I am starting another thread rather than tack onto the Ched Evans thread.
That is an example of the complainant's previous behaviour being taken into account by a jury (after being allowed in following legal argument) in case of sexual assault and/or rape.
My knee jerk reaction was that to allow a complainant's sexual history in is to take us back to the time when a man accused of raping a woman with what might have been considered to be low morals was unlikely to be convicted. This is my view is wrong on every single level.
However, one has to place this in a contextual situation. Take for instance the following examples:-
Bob Jones is accused of raping Ann Smith. Ann is said to have been extremely intoxicated and has no memory of events that night.
a) During the alleged offence, Bob says that Ann suggested to Bob that he might like to try the position of "thunder and lightening" which is an unusual sexual position which involves some level of contortionism on behalf of both parties (I have just made this up by the way, so dont go googling it), during the act, Bob alleges that Ann shouts a particular phrase "Thunderbolts and lightening, very very frightening". Under cross examination, Ann denies this. However, previous partners could give evidence that "thunder and lightening" was her favoured sexual position and they are able to repeat the phrase. Should the previous partners be allowed to give evidence?
b) Nothing remarkable happens during the alleged offence. Ann says she cant remember, Bob says she consented. A number of previous partners could give evidence to say that Ann had had sex with them on previous occasions when she was drunk. Should the previous partners be allowed to give evidence?
c) Ann was walking home, stumbling and disorientated. Bob sees her and picks her up. Therafter they have sex, Ann has no memory of it. A number of previous partners could give evidence to state that 10 years previously Ann worked as a prostitute and would often go out looking for business drunk. Should the previous partners be allowed to give evidence?
Put to one side the issue of informed consent. Put to side the Ched Evans case (which although this case raises this issue, I am talking generally).
What do you think?
That is an example of the complainant's previous behaviour being taken into account by a jury (after being allowed in following legal argument) in case of sexual assault and/or rape.
My knee jerk reaction was that to allow a complainant's sexual history in is to take us back to the time when a man accused of raping a woman with what might have been considered to be low morals was unlikely to be convicted. This is my view is wrong on every single level.
However, one has to place this in a contextual situation. Take for instance the following examples:-
Bob Jones is accused of raping Ann Smith. Ann is said to have been extremely intoxicated and has no memory of events that night.
a) During the alleged offence, Bob says that Ann suggested to Bob that he might like to try the position of "thunder and lightening" which is an unusual sexual position which involves some level of contortionism on behalf of both parties (I have just made this up by the way, so dont go googling it), during the act, Bob alleges that Ann shouts a particular phrase "Thunderbolts and lightening, very very frightening". Under cross examination, Ann denies this. However, previous partners could give evidence that "thunder and lightening" was her favoured sexual position and they are able to repeat the phrase. Should the previous partners be allowed to give evidence?
b) Nothing remarkable happens during the alleged offence. Ann says she cant remember, Bob says she consented. A number of previous partners could give evidence to say that Ann had had sex with them on previous occasions when she was drunk. Should the previous partners be allowed to give evidence?
c) Ann was walking home, stumbling and disorientated. Bob sees her and picks her up. Therafter they have sex, Ann has no memory of it. A number of previous partners could give evidence to state that 10 years previously Ann worked as a prostitute and would often go out looking for business drunk. Should the previous partners be allowed to give evidence?
Put to one side the issue of informed consent. Put to side the Ched Evans case (which although this case raises this issue, I am talking generally).
What do you think?
Answers
I don't think you can put aside the issue of consent, because I believe that it must be shown that the "victim" did not/could not give consent AND that the accused did not reasonably believe that she was consenting. In the thunder and lightening example (A), if the witnesses can show that she behaved like that with them (when, I presume she was enjoying herself)...
17:20 Tue 18th Oct 2016
This is a fascinating thread resulting from a brilliantly constructed OP.
What I think is demonstrated by the differing views on here - and I think that has a parallel in all rape cases - is the effect of human nature, and how quickly it starts to inform viewpoints.
There are those AB'ers - and I am clearly one of them - who believe that a woman has the right to say no to sex at any time in any situation, and that should be something that forms the education of every child in the country so they can grow into adults with an appropriate level of respect for themselves and others.
There are also those AB'ers who work on the principle that a woman 'invites' unwarranted sexual attention. This can be because she dresses in what is seen as a provocative style, she becomes pliable through excess alcohol, or she puts herself in a potential situation where a man is allowed reasonably to expect that sex is tacitly on offer - such as returning to his hotel room late at night.
Obviously, I regard not one or any of these scenarios as a reasonable defence of rape for reasons I have already outlined.
But - and this is the crux of the scenario Barmaid has so cleverly constructed - there are a large number of variables, not only in the case circumstances, which are of course unique, but in the mind-sets of the protagonists, and the people involved in dealing with the case.
That means police, counsel, witnesses, protagonists, everyone, bringing their own personal views to the table, and acting accordingly.
So I would come down on the side of the woman - she has a right to say no, and that is an inviolable right no matter what the circumstances.
Others on here would come down on the side of the defendant, because the woman has 'form' - as one AB'er delicately put it, pinning down his own view of a woman in this scenario, by comparing her to a racehorse.
The scenario as constructed, and the questions raised, invites all views, but importantly, all views are informed by personal prejudices, both positive and negative, and that is an important aspect to consider.
What I think is demonstrated by the differing views on here - and I think that has a parallel in all rape cases - is the effect of human nature, and how quickly it starts to inform viewpoints.
There are those AB'ers - and I am clearly one of them - who believe that a woman has the right to say no to sex at any time in any situation, and that should be something that forms the education of every child in the country so they can grow into adults with an appropriate level of respect for themselves and others.
There are also those AB'ers who work on the principle that a woman 'invites' unwarranted sexual attention. This can be because she dresses in what is seen as a provocative style, she becomes pliable through excess alcohol, or she puts herself in a potential situation where a man is allowed reasonably to expect that sex is tacitly on offer - such as returning to his hotel room late at night.
Obviously, I regard not one or any of these scenarios as a reasonable defence of rape for reasons I have already outlined.
But - and this is the crux of the scenario Barmaid has so cleverly constructed - there are a large number of variables, not only in the case circumstances, which are of course unique, but in the mind-sets of the protagonists, and the people involved in dealing with the case.
That means police, counsel, witnesses, protagonists, everyone, bringing their own personal views to the table, and acting accordingly.
So I would come down on the side of the woman - she has a right to say no, and that is an inviolable right no matter what the circumstances.
Others on here would come down on the side of the defendant, because the woman has 'form' - as one AB'er delicately put it, pinning down his own view of a woman in this scenario, by comparing her to a racehorse.
The scenario as constructed, and the questions raised, invites all views, but importantly, all views are informed by personal prejudices, both positive and negative, and that is an important aspect to consider.
-- answer removed --
My friends on occasion have been drunk, and whilst drunk have had drunken sexual encounters sometimes with undesirable guys which they cringe about and other times they can remember little snippets of the occasion and others cannot remember the occasion at all.
Did the CCTV show the woman in question hardly being able to walk and out of her head completely? Was she sober during the sexual encounters then went on to drink much more at the "Crime scene"?
Too many variables here and on many of similar cases and experiences i know about.
Each one should be taken on it's own merit.
Women have to generally be responsible when taking drugs or alcohol knowing full well that sexual predators come in all guises from the rapist that will carry you off and attack you to the nice guy who will ply you with drinks until you're semi unconscious or unconscious full stop.
I'm not saying that being drunk or high is a reason to be attacked, just that we're more likely to be attacked when in these states.
Did the CCTV show the woman in question hardly being able to walk and out of her head completely? Was she sober during the sexual encounters then went on to drink much more at the "Crime scene"?
Too many variables here and on many of similar cases and experiences i know about.
Each one should be taken on it's own merit.
Women have to generally be responsible when taking drugs or alcohol knowing full well that sexual predators come in all guises from the rapist that will carry you off and attack you to the nice guy who will ply you with drinks until you're semi unconscious or unconscious full stop.
I'm not saying that being drunk or high is a reason to be attacked, just that we're more likely to be attacked when in these states.
-- answer removed --
Lunol - //Women have to generally be responsible when taking drugs or alcohol knowing full well that sexual predators come in all guises from the rapist that will carry you off and attack you to the nice guy who will ply you with drinks until you're semi unconscious or unconscious full stop. //
There is no doubt that your point has merit - but it is to society's shame that it does.
Women should not have to be responsible for their behaviour on the basis that men will take advantage of them.
Men should be equally responsible for their behaviour, and have the common humanity not to abuse a woman simply because she is pliant and does not offer resistance.
As long as we persist in this notion that women are somehow responsible for their safety because men are incapable of resisting an opportunity for sex at the slightest provocation, then we denigrate both genders, and it needs to stop.
Women are not sexual receptacles to be used and discarded simply because some men are unable to control their urges.
And men are not animals who simply succumb to the urge to copulate because an opportunity can be made to present itself by manipulation.
Both genders should be educated into an appropriate level of respect for themselves, and each other - and then this kind of tragedy will simply not occur.
There is no doubt that your point has merit - but it is to society's shame that it does.
Women should not have to be responsible for their behaviour on the basis that men will take advantage of them.
Men should be equally responsible for their behaviour, and have the common humanity not to abuse a woman simply because she is pliant and does not offer resistance.
As long as we persist in this notion that women are somehow responsible for their safety because men are incapable of resisting an opportunity for sex at the slightest provocation, then we denigrate both genders, and it needs to stop.
Women are not sexual receptacles to be used and discarded simply because some men are unable to control their urges.
And men are not animals who simply succumb to the urge to copulate because an opportunity can be made to present itself by manipulation.
Both genders should be educated into an appropriate level of respect for themselves, and each other - and then this kind of tragedy will simply not occur.
Lunol - //andy-hughes no doubt you deserve the best answer for that reply but the bottom line is "it is what it is" Women should be more careful as like it or not when we're out and drunk we have eyes on us and not always in the best way. //
Thank you for your compliment.
But my contention is, we have the power to change this attitude.
Cultural attitudes change all the time, and amen for that - this is simply one more attitude that needs to be addressed. As long as we accept that this is how things are, this will be how things are.
Thank you for your compliment.
But my contention is, we have the power to change this attitude.
Cultural attitudes change all the time, and amen for that - this is simply one more attitude that needs to be addressed. As long as we accept that this is how things are, this will be how things are.
I think we're all guilty of that ummmm.
Andy Hughes, you're absolutely correct. If we carry on doing the same thing we're going to carry on getting the same scenarios.
Secondary school and in border control or immigration centers would cover all bases imo also hard hitting advertisements using all media platforms and i'd even go as far as having placards on off licenses, bustops, buses and outside clubs,pubs and even giving out flyers to those leaving those establishments.
Andy Hughes, you're absolutely correct. If we carry on doing the same thing we're going to carry on getting the same scenarios.
Secondary school and in border control or immigration centers would cover all bases imo also hard hitting advertisements using all media platforms and i'd even go as far as having placards on off licenses, bustops, buses and outside clubs,pubs and even giving out flyers to those leaving those establishments.
Lunol - //Secondary school and in border control or immigration centers would cover all bases imo also hard hitting advertisements using all media platforms and i'd even go as far as having placards on off licenses, bustops, buses and outside clubs,pubs and even giving out flyers to those leaving those establishments. //
I would start far earlier than that.
With a third generation raising children with little of no parenting skills, it falls to nursery and primary education to instil in children a core system of values that include respect for self and others. Those values should be in place before children reach secondary school, and adulthood.
I would start far earlier than that.
With a third generation raising children with little of no parenting skills, it falls to nursery and primary education to instil in children a core system of values that include respect for self and others. Those values should be in place before children reach secondary school, and adulthood.
Naomi - //ummmm, //I've made some dodgy decisions while half cut. //
I think some men are guilty of that too. //
I'd go further than that.
Since men are usually the instigators of sexual activity with strangers, the addition of excess alcohol can only add to the ingredients for an unpleasant outcome to the evening.
I think some men are guilty of that too. //
I'd go further than that.
Since men are usually the instigators of sexual activity with strangers, the addition of excess alcohol can only add to the ingredients for an unpleasant outcome to the evening.
-- answer removed --
divebuddy - //The one thing that history should teach us is that human nature doesn't change. We've all got a responsibility to look after ourselves by remembering that we live in the real world not some fluffy bunny it's all peace love and harmony utopia.
That's not to excuse those who take advantage of others, it's just plain commonsense. //
I would not argue about the fact that human nature remains constant.
But I would argue that, in a civilised society - we should be able to over-ride base instincts and urges, because that is part of being civilised.
Society evolves, as it should - and part of that evolution is examining what is and what is not acceptable - and the notion that women need to 'protect' themselves from rampant men is not acceptable - for either side.
That's not to excuse those who take advantage of others, it's just plain commonsense. //
I would not argue about the fact that human nature remains constant.
But I would argue that, in a civilised society - we should be able to over-ride base instincts and urges, because that is part of being civilised.
Society evolves, as it should - and part of that evolution is examining what is and what is not acceptable - and the notion that women need to 'protect' themselves from rampant men is not acceptable - for either side.
How very odd! Again, a poster agrees wholeheartedly with an AB'er and even writes in the same style, affords them plenty of platitudes and has only joined this week! That's twice in 10 days and the plaudits are expressed to the same AB'er as in the previous thread.
I'm getting very suspicious now....
I'm getting very suspicious now....
Latest Posts
Crosswords1 min ago
ChatterBank16 mins ago
What Sort Of Government Papers / Secrets...
News18 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.