Disturbing trend in sexual assault allegations against men

v638sg7k1a92bx

It appears that in Ireland and UK, an allegation of sexual assault against men is enough to secure a conviction. This article in today's indo is a case in point. How exactly is the DPP able to secure a conviction based on witness testimony alone, especially when it is proven to be so unreliable?

Is there any recourse for the two brothers who spent three years in prison?

Liam McPoyle

Id be hopeful that they bring a civil case against all concerned, the guards, their accuser, the guy that testified on behalf of the prosecution and the legal system.

paddy1990

I know a few lads going through this. The girls have retracted their false claims but once the claim is made the damage has already been done.

No punishment for the girls im afraid.

Pat Mustard

Christopher Scrawny Weather wrote: »

It appears that in Ireland and UK, an allegation of sexual assault against men is enough to secure a conviction. This article in today's indo is a case in point.

In the story that you linked, it seems that there were at least two prosecution witnesses, one to allege that the men were standing at the door of the hotel in question, and presumably the complainant herself.

Christopher Scrawny Weather wrote: »

How exactly is the DPP able to secure a conviction based on witness testimony alone, especially when it is proven to be so unreliable?

You are confusing ordinary witness evidence with eyewitness identification evidence.

What has been proved to be unreliable is eyewitness identification evidence. There is nothing to suggest that these men had to be identified out of a lineup or that any issue was made regarding the identity of the attacker(s).

Ordinary evidence of witnesses has not been shown to be unreliable, and it is the evidence that courts tend to rely upon.

Christopher Scrawny Weather wrote: »

Is there any recourse for the two brothers who spent three years in prison?

If they can bring that witness to give evidence that Gardai pressurised him into making a false statement, then they might very well sue the State.

v638sg7k1a92bx

The Mustard wrote: »

In the story that you linked, it seems that there were at least two prosecution witnesses, one to allege that the men were standing at the door of the hotel in question, and presumably the complainant herself.


You are confusing ordinary witness evidence with eyewitness identification evidence.

What has been proved to be unreliable is eyewitness identification evidence. There is nothing to suggest that these men had to be identified out of a lineup or that any issue was made regarding the identity of the attacker(s).

Ordinary evidence of witnesses has not been shown to be unreliable, and it is the evidence that courts tend to rely upon.


If they can bring that witness to give evidence that Gardai pressurised him into making a false statement, then they might very well sue the State.

I understand all the above, and I'm not suggesting that it was a case of mistaken identity but I don't accept your point that ordinary witness evidence has not been proven to be unreliable, there are numerous cases of people giving false or inaccurate accounts of events that have led to convictions.

The point I was trying to make is that say for arguments sake the evidence was accurate and the two men were standing at the door, what does that prove? Two men standing at a door and next thing they're doing 3 years in prison. If that was the basis to secure the conviction that means all the other evidence was even more unreliable which also means that two men were convicted for rape because one person made a false allegation and another witness confirmed that they were standing outside someone's hotel room!

The overall point is that when you look at these cases in general, it appears that an allegation of rape or sexual assault only has to be made and the DPP/CPS are pursuing convictions on witness testimony alone, and in some of the cases in the UK it's witness testimony based on events that happened 40 years ago!

Pat Mustard

Christopher Scrawny Weather wrote: »

I understand all the above, and I'm not suggesting that it was a case of mistaken identity but I don't accept your point that ordinary witness evidence has not been proven to be unreliable, there are numerous cases of people giving false or inaccurate accounts of events that have led to convictions.

Almost all evidence is given by witnesses. It isn't treated as inherently unsound, at all.

If a pathologist gets into the witness box to give his medical evidence, he will speak about what he saw when he examined a body. It's witness evidence.

If a Garda gets into the witness box to say that he stopped somebody in traffic, that's witness evidence.

If a barman gets into the witness box to say that a he saw a man slip on some wet tiles in the bar, that's witness evidence.

If you say that you have caselaw to show that witness evidence is unreliable, then fire ahead and put it up.

Christopher Scrawny Weather wrote: »

The point I was trying to make is that say for arguments sake the evidence was accurate and the two men were standing at the door, what does that prove? Two men standing at a door and next thing they're doing 3 years in prison. If that was the basis to secure the conviction that means all the other evidence was even more unreliable which also means that two men were convicted for rape because one person made a false allegation and another witness confirmed that they were standing outside someone's hotel room!

Nobody said it was a case of 'somebody said that two men were standing outside a door and next thing they were in prison'. That makes no sense.

If a witness says that somebody was standing outside a hotel, then that's what that evidence shows. This may be useful in trying to show somebody's whereabouts or to contradict other evidence.

Also, we don't know what other evidence had been given in that case. It's just a newspaper report. For instance, did the men deny having sex with the woman? It's not clear from the report whether they admitted it. It's not clear if there was DNA evidence regarding sexual intercourse.

I don't know how you can say that the conviction was on the basis of an allegation, because it is far from clear that this is what happened.

Christopher Scrawny Weather wrote: »

The overall point is that when you look at these cases in general, it appears that an allegation of rape or sexual assault only has to be made and the DPP/CPS are pursuing convictions on witness testimony alone, and in some of the cases in the UK it's witness testimony based on events that happened 40 years ago!

I don't see that this case supports your point, because we don't know what other evidence there was.

iptba

The Mustard wrote: »

It's not clear if there was DNA evidence regarding sexual intercourse.

It says:

No DNA from the brothers was found on the woman.

Pat Mustard

Fair enough: I missed that, but my point is still that the newspaper report does not show all of the evidence against the two brothers.

Lemming

The Mustard wrote: »

Fair enough: I missed that, but my point is still that the newspaper report does not show all of the evidence against the two brothers.

Well clearly people more versed than us deemed the conviction not just "unsafe" but quashed it. Doesn't bode well for whatever evidence was presented.

v638sg7k1a92bx

The Mustard wrote: »

Fair enough: I missed that, but my point is still that the newspaper report does not show all of the evidence against the two brothers.

That's the whole issue, either the reportage on these matters lacks significant detail or allegations of sexual abuse or rape are being prosecuted by the DPP/CPS based on very shaky evidence.

What we do know from the case that I linked to is that:

1. There was no DNA or physical evidence to suggest the allegations took place

2. The evidence which was considered to be so significant to securing a conviction amounted to a witness testifying that he saw the two men outside a hotel room. On that basis any other evidence would have to have been so inconsequential if the prosecutions case rested on the whereabouts of the two brothers in a hotel corridor!!!

Michael le Vell's trial is an example of where every detail was reported in the media and the only thing that was missing was the evidence. The entire case was based on allegations and witness testimony of an event which took place 20 years ago! Michael Le Vell was acquitted but other high profile personalities in the UK have been convicted based on very little evidence relating to events that took place in the 1960's!

FactCheck

Christopher Scrawny Weather wrote: »

Michael le Vell's trial is an example of where every detail was reported in the media and the only thing that was missing was the evidence. The entire case was based on allegations and witness testimony of an event which took place 20 years ago! Michael Le Vell was acquitted but other high profile personalities in the UK have been convicted based on very little evidence relating to events that took place in the 1960's!

Is this a joke? Because given the topic, it's not very funny.

Michael le Vell's trial is pretty much the best example in recent years of a trial in which hugely significant evidence could not be reported by the media, to avoid identifying the alleged victim.

You cannot assess a trial's outcome on the basis of a few paragraphs in the Irish Times, written by a reporter with a deadline to meet and probably two or three other stories ongoing in his or her mind.

A team of Gardai, a judge and jury all found the case against the brothers compelling. Three more judges decided that was not the case when their friend claimed to have lied after being intimidated.

All those people know far more about the case than random people on boards, reading a few hundred words in the paper.

FactCheck

Lemming wrote: »

Well clearly people more versed than us deemed the conviction not just "unsafe" but quashed it.

Quashed and found unsafe are the same thing.

Lemming wrote: »

Doesn't bode well for whatever evidence was presented.

The Court of Criminal Appeal will publish their judgement and then we will know far more than a couple of brief newspaper articles.

This could be very seriously bad news for the Gardai.

Or it could be a fairly unsupported allegation which nevertheless undermined the conviction just enough.

Pat Mustard

Lemming wrote: »

Well clearly people more versed than us deemed the conviction not just "unsafe" but quashed it. Doesn't bode well for whatever evidence was presented.

That's not the point. The point is about a trend of false allegations, which is not supported by one newspaper report where all of the facts are not available.

Christopher Scrawny Weather wrote: »

1. There was no DNA or physical evidence to suggest the allegations took place

You don't know that. It says that no DNA evidence from the brothers was found on the woman. It does not say that there was no physical evidence.

Christopher Scrawny Weather wrote: »

2. The evidence which was considered to be so significant to securing a conviction amounted to a witness testifying that he saw the two men outside a hotel room. On that basis any other evidence would have to have been so inconsequential if the prosecutions case rested on the whereabouts of the two brothers in a hotel corridor!!!!

My point is that the newspaper report may not contain all of the facts. Newspaper reports often don't.

You are trying to say that there is a trend of false sexual assault allegations against men. You haven't shown any evidence of such a trend.

All you have shown is one case where two brothers had their conviction overturned on appeal.

Henry9

FactCheck wrote: »

Is this a joke? Because given the topic, it's not very funny.

Michael le Vell's trial is pretty much the best example in recent years of a trial in which hugely significant evidence could not be reported by the media, to avoid identifying the alleged victim.

That's a very one eyed way of looking at it.

You could equally say, Michael le Vell's trial was an example of a man being dragged through the mud and having his reputation destroyed on the front page of tabloid newspapers.
They achieved this by publishing testimony of what he was supposed to have done, and covered themselves by putting quotation marks around it.

v638sg7k1a92bx

FactCheck wrote: »

Is this a joke? Because given the topic, it's not very funny.

Michael le Vell's trial is pretty much the best example in recent years of a trial in which hugely significant evidence could not be reported by the media, to avoid identifying the alleged victim.

I don't think that was the case, there were plenty of details leaked from the trial as the post above outlines.

FactCheck wrote: »

You cannot assess a trial's outcome on the basis of a few paragraphs in the Irish Times, written by a reporter with a deadline to meet and probably two or three other stories ongoing in his or her mind.

A team of Gardai, a judge and jury all found the case against the brothers compelling. Three more judges decided that was not the case when their friend claimed to have lied after being intimidated.

All those people know far more about the case than random people on boards, reading a few hundred words in the paper.

It is also uninformed to imply that people whose opinion is different to yours is based upon ignorance, as unless we are employed by the courts service or law enforcement, we can only base our opinions upon what the courts actually decide. The actual means of reportage are irrelevant.

FactCheck

The headline above was not "leaked"; that testimony was allowed to be reported on.

Other aspects of other testimony were not permitted to be reported on. That makes an amateur observer, going only on what was printed in the papers, totally unfit to comment meaningfully on the outcome of the trial.

It is also uninformed to imply that people whose opinion is different to yours is based upon ignorance,

I haven't shared an opinion on either of these trials. My opinion, such as it is, would be much the same as yours. My point is that EVERYBODY'S opinion in this case is uninformed.

The actual means of reportage are irrelevant.

No, I can guarantee you that when the CCA publishes its actual judgement, it will be considerably more informative than the tabloid crapola linked above.

Henry9, you seem to want to discuss an entirely different aspect of these trials, which is defendant anonymity until conviction. Your contribution wasn't particularly relevant to this discussion, which is about a case which secured a conviction; pretty much everybody agrees that names should be published following conviction so it doesn't have much relevance to this case.

v638sg7k1a92bx

FactCheck wrote: »

Other aspects of other testimony were not permitted to be reported on. That makes an amateur observer, going only on what was printed in the papers, totally unfit to comment meaningfully on the outcome of the trial.

Again, unless we are employed by the courts service or law enforcement, we can only base our opinions upon what the courts actually decide.

It was also you who stated:

FactCheck wrote: »

Michael le Vell's trial is pretty much the best example in recent years of a trial in which hugely significant evidence could not be reported by the media, to avoid identifying the alleged victim.

@Henry9 outlines how this was incorrect by posting a headline reporting details of the trial which you said was

the best example in recent years of a trial in which hugely significant evidence could not be reported by the media.

and then you seem to suggest that he’s pushing an agenda defendant anonymity for highlighting you own inaccuracies, and how are you able to determine what evidence is considered hugely significant if it wasn’t reported on?

FactCheck

It was not incorrect or inaccurate. You both need to read more carefully. I said it was "a trial in which hugely significant evidence could not be reported by the media."

That does not mean "a trial in which all evidence could not be reported by the media."

It means that significant chunks of evidence were deliberately excluded from the press coverage to protect the identity of the alleged victim. We know this because the press reports referred repeatedly to the strict reporting restrictions the judge insisted they operate under, and because at least one person was charged and convicted with leaking the evidence on Twitter (a good reason why we should be very careful here on Boards what we write about this trial, and why I have no desire whatsoever to go into any more detail about the nature of the other evidence).

Without having heard all the evidence (which an outside observer simply could not possibly have done) it is impossible to comment on what the verdict "ought" to have been.

If you want to base your opinions on tabloid headlines, go ahead. But they will not be informed opinions and you will get nowhere convincing people that any sort of legal or media reform is needed. Personally, I'll be waiting to read the actual CCA judgement.

If you have never read one before, I would urge you to seek it out. They are actually usually quite accessible to the layman.

v638sg7k1a92bx

FactCheck wrote: »

It was not incorrect or inaccurate. You both need to read more carefully. I said it was "a trial in which hugely significant evidence could not be reported by the media."

That does not mean "a trial in which all evidence could not be reported by the media."

It means that significant chunks of evidence were deliberately excluded from the press coverage to protect the identity of the alleged victim. We know this because the press reports referred repeatedly to the strict reporting restrictions the judge insisted they operate under, and because at least one person was charged and convicted with leaking the evidence on Twitter (a good reason why we should be very careful here on Boards what we write about this trial, and why I have no desire whatsoever to go into any more detail about the nature of the other evidence).

Without having heard all the evidence (which an outside observer simply could not possibly have done) it is impossible to comment on what the verdict "ought" to have been.

If you want to base your opinions on tabloid headlines, go ahead. But they will not be informed opinions and you will get nowhere convincing people that any sort of legal or media reform is needed. Personally, I'll be waiting to read the actual CCA judgement.

If you have never read one before, I would urge you to seek it out. They are actually usually quite accessible to the layman.

Hey, they're your posts I just quoted them back to you, incorrect or inaccurate take your pick.

I don't know where you're going with this thread, you've mentioned media reform, anonymity for the accused and then state that others are push that particular agenda when the only poster that has mentioned those issues it is you???

FactCheck

Christopher Scrawny Weather wrote: »

I don't know where you're going with this thread,

I've said pretty much the exact same thing over and over every time I've posted, so I'm not exactly wild to hammer it all out again, but briefly - my point is that media reporting on trials is brief and sensationalised. Sometimes the media isn't even allowed to tell us what all the evidence is. Actual trials involve days of information. Yes, ordinary people therefore cannot have truly informed opinions - that is why they have no power over trials, we delegate it to judges and juries to take the time to examine evidence on our behalf.

If you want to criticise the legal system, get intimately acquainted with actual statements and judgements, not the tabloid rubbish.

You can't tell if justice was done based on a Daily Mail sadface.

Rubberchikken

I have never agreed with the law allowing a man's name to be publish in a case where his adult accuser's name is withheld.

Even if he is found not guilty, his reputation has to be damaged, at least in the eyes of some.

Also why is there not a limit on the length of time that has passed as to when a complaint can be made.
It's beyond silly to have people dredging up complaints of being fondled 20/30 + years ago in some cases.

I often wonder at the readon for these decisions that are made by the people responsible for such decisions - who's deciding the agenda in fact?

iptba

Rubberchikken wrote: »

I have never agreed with the law allowing a man's name to be publish in a case where his adult accuser's name is withheld.

Even if he is found not guilty, his reputation has to be damaged, at least in the eyes of some.

Also why is there not a limit on the length of time that has passed as to when a complaint can be made.
It's beyond silly to have people dredging up complaints of being fondled 20/30 + years ago in some cases.

I often wonder at the readon for these decisions that are made by the people responsible for such decisions - who's deciding the agenda in fact?

Here's a recent case from 25 years ago from Ireland:
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/gp-cleared-of-indecently-assaulting-girl-13-who-claimed-she-was-fondled-during-flu-examination-30629961.html

DoYouEvenLift

False rape allegations should be met with the prison sentence that the accused would have received if they were actually found to be guilty. It's really sad that some people are capable of abusing any bit of power they have for whatever reason, in a lot of these cases it's some women falsely claiming rape either because they're too ashamed to admit they made drunken mistakes and think this will save them from looking like sluts or psychopaths using such serious allegations in an attempt to destroy a mans reputation and life. The worst thing is, rape is a very serious offence and people making false allegations that end up being found out and prosecuted ultimately deter legitimate rape victims from wanting to report the crime and press charges to the point they sometimes don't report it quick enough for evidence to be most effectively gathered.

I agree about media completely tarnishing peoples reputation to the public before they're actually convicted and sentenced. A good example is Gable Tostee who was recently arrested and is currently being trialled for murder in Australia. Before he was even arrested the Australian media had completely destroyed his reputation by plastering his face all over their sites and newspapers for days straight so even if he was proven innocent those kunts have already made it so that he'll be seen in the public eye as if he had.

v638sg7k1a92bx

FactCheck wrote: »

I've said pretty much the exact same thing over and over every time I've posted, so I'm not exactly wild to hammer it all out again, but briefly - my point is that media reporting on trials is brief and sensationalised. Sometimes the media isn't even allowed to tell us what all the evidence is. Actual trials involve days of information. Yes, ordinary people therefore cannot have truly informed opinions - that is why they have no power over trials, we delegate it to judges and juries to take the time to examine evidence on our behalf.

If you want to criticise the legal system, get intimately acquainted with actual statements and judgements, not the tabloid rubbish.

You can't tell if justice was done based on a Daily Mail sadface.

What is it with these long rambling repetitive posts. You're talking about reforming the media, criticising the legal system and defendant anonymity and the only person to raise these topics is you!

The opinions in this thread are based on the actual outcomes of trials which we have provided links to. I'll say it again, the outcomes. The means of reportage is irrelevant as the opinions are based on the outcomes.

*** cue another rambling post about CCA report, media, blah blah, victim anonymity, red top tabloid, something something.

cookie24

In some court cases the media is not allowed to report on the case for fear of prejudicing the jury. Surly the same should apply to these cases. Everyone remains anonymous until a verdict is given.
If the alleged rapist is found guilty name them. On the flip side, if it is a false allegation name that person with appropriate repercussions.

There was a thread in AH a while ago, where many people were saying a women if drunk (thats the grey area) is legally unable to consent to sex, and therefore, in the eyes of the law, the male has committed rape.

So much for equality.

Pat Mustard

cookie24 wrote: »

There was a thread in AH a while ago, where many people were saying a women if drunk (thats the grey area) is legally unable to consent to sex, and therefore, in the eyes of the law, the male has committed rape.

So much for equality.

That's not correct.

In order to be guilty of rape, he'd have either
(a) known that she did not consent, or,
(b) he'd have to know that there was a substantial and unjustifiable risk* that she was not consenting,
and go ahead anyway.

Link

2.—(1) A man commits rape if—
(a) he has unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman who at the time of the intercourse does not consent to it, and
(b) at that time he knows that she does not consent to the intercourse or he is reckless as to whether she does or does not consent to it

Some lad who has sex with a drunk woman is not committing rape by the mere fact that she has taken alcohol or is drunk. That's not correct.

It's a different story if some guy preys on a drunk woman who is semi-conscious.



*The People (DPP) v. Murray (1977) IR 360 defines recklessness.

cookie24

The Mustard wrote: »

That's not correct.

In order to be guilty of rape, he'd have either
(a) know that she did not consent, or,
(b) he'd have to know that there was a substantial and unjustifiable risk* that she was not consenting,
and go ahead anyway.

Link


Some lad who has sex with a drunk woman is not committing rape by the mere fact that she has taken alcohol or is drunk. That's not correct.

It's a different story if some guy preys on a drunk woman who is semi-conscious.



*The People (DPP) v. Murray (1977) IR 360 defines recklessness.

The point is if a girl is drunk she cannot consent even is she is the one pushing the sex.

I maybe wrong but the peeps in AH were very adamant about that point.

Pat Mustard

cookie24 wrote: »

The point is if a girl is drunk she cannot consent even is she is the one pushing the sex.

I maybe wrong but the peeps in AH were very adamant about that point.

People on AH can say whatever they want. Doesn't make it correct.

And even if it was correct, it wouldn't matter because it wouldn't amount to rape unless it was behaviour described in the legislation.

Wompa1

The Mustard wrote: »

People on AH can say whatever they want. Doesn't make it correct.

And even if it was correct, it wouldn't matter because it wouldn't amount to rape unless it was behaviour described in the legislation.

I assume then, if the guy can prove he was drunk too. It's not rape since his own judgement was messed up and he legally also could not consent.

I might be wrong here but there's been cases in which guys have been brought to trial for rape of girls who did consent and both were drunk...

Also, in cases of statutory rape. If both the male and the female are underage. The male is guilty, not the female....

for some reason, males are seen as the aggressors when it comes to sex crimes...

Pat Mustard

Wompa1 wrote: »

I might be wrong here but there's been cases in which guys have been brought to trial for rape of girls who did consent and both were drunk...

Trial is one thing. A guilty verdict is another.

Wompa1 wrote: »

I assume then, if the guy can prove he was drunk too. It's not rape since his own judgement was messed up and he legally also could not consent.

You suppose that alleged rapists could not consent to rape somebody if they were drunk. That's possibly the biggest load of nonsense that I've ever heard.

v638sg7k1a92bx

The Mustard wrote: »

Trial is one thing. A guilty verdict is another.

You suppose that alleged rapists could not consent to rape somebody if they were drunk. That's possibly the biggest load of nonsense that I've ever heard.

It's not murder because I was drunk...

I think what he's saying is that if a woman cannot consent to sex because she is drunk then a man having sex with a woman while he is drunk would also not be giving his consent, so a man and a woman having sex while drunk would effectively be raping each other?

tritium

The Mustard wrote: »

Trial is one thing. A guilty verdict is another.


You suppose that alleged rapists could not consent to rape somebody if they were drunk. That's possibly the biggest load of nonsense that I've ever heard.

I think its more a case of that since both were too drunk to consent then either they both committed rape or neither committed rape

Pat Mustard

tritium wrote: »

I think its more a case of that since both were too drunk to consent then either they both committed rape or neither committed rape

The idea doesn't make any sense.

If a man is alleged to have committed rape, either he had sex without consent or he didn't. I'm not suggesting that the woman had a few drinks and somehow couldn't consent, because that is a silly notion.

Secondly, the man either had to be aware that he was having sex without consent or he was reckless as to whether consent was given, meaning that he knew that there was a significant risk but went ahead with his actions anyway.

Drunkenness is not a defence to rape.

For someone to suggest that a what would otherwise be rape was not actually rape, purely because of alcohol, is the same as saying that a rapist had to give his consent to rape a woman.

It's not a well conceived concept. It's childish and ill conceived.

Seriously?

The Mustard wrote: »

The idea doesn't make any sense.

It only doesn't make sense if the assumption is that a male is never so drunk as to not being able to give consent.

Pat Mustard

Seriously? wrote: »

It only doesn't make sense if the assumption is that a male is never so drunk as to not being able to give consent.

That is COMPLETELY irrelevant.

Seriously?

The Mustard wrote: »

That is COMPLETELY irrelevant.

Actually its not, their question is if both parties are so drunk that neither can give consent who is the rapist in that case?

I think its more a case of that since both were too drunk to consent then either they both committed rape or neither committed rape

What is your view in that particular case, because it reads as if the male always is at fault while the female isn't.

Lux23

It is much more common for rapists to get away with rape than for innocent men to be accused, its just the latter can be written about in the media because of court cases. There are probably several men posting on this very forum who have raped and walked away. Personally, I know the men that raped me sauntered out of the police station laughing and joking.

Pat Mustard

Seriously? wrote: »

Actually its not, their question is if both parties are so drunk that neither can give consent who is the rapist in that case?

Actually it is irrelevant.

-If a man has sex with a woman without her consent,
and,
-if he knows that she is not consenting or if he is reckless as to whether she is not consenting,
-then he commits rape.

If the above elements are in place, then the man is guilty of rape, no matter how much alcohol is involved.

His own consent is not relevant to whether he commits rape or not. If you don't like that, then look at the definition of rape as set out in the legislation, which has already been posted.

To say that a an alleged rapist's consent is relevant is a particularly nonsensical line of argument.

I have no wish to engage in a circular argument with you, so I'm out.

Seriously?

The Mustard wrote: »

Actually it is irrelevant.

-If a man has sex with a woman without her consent,
and,
-if he knows that she is not consenting or if he is reckless as to whether she is not consenting,
-then he commits rape.

I think that's a fine illustration of the issue at hand, the fact that the female didn't get consent is ignored and the assumption is that it's the males responsiblity solely to ensure consent.

There's no circular argument since you're simply ignoring the question and repeating the usual feminist dogma.

tritium

The Mustard wrote: »

The idea doesn't make any sense.

If a man is alleged to have committed rape, either he had sex without consent or he didn't. I'm not suggesting that the woman had a few drinks and somehow couldn't consent, because that is a silly notion.

Secondly, the man either had to be aware that he was having sex without consent or he was reckless as to whether consent was given, meaning that he knew that there was a significant risk but went ahead with his actions anyway.

Drunkenness is not a defence to rape.

For someone to suggest that a what would otherwise be rape was not actually rape, purely because of alcohol, is the same as saying that a rapist had to give his consent to rape a woman.

It's not a well conceived concept. It's childish and ill conceived.

I think the point has gone somewhat over your head

In simple analogy so. If two people are both drunk to the point if being incapable of consent then if they have sex neither are capable of consent. There's no reasonable or logical reason why the onus is on a man to affirm consent but not a woman. Therefore if a woman has sex with a drunk man she has by the definition of capable to consent, raped him (the legal distinction of rape in irish law specifically is another matter).

As you rightly point out, (her) drunkeness is no defence to having committed a rape

Clearer now?

[To put it more obviously, if a sober woman has sex with a drunk (to incapacity to consent) male, who do you think has committed a crime here?]

Pawwed Rig

Lux23 wrote: »

It is much more common for rapists to get away with rape than for innocent men to be accused, its just the latter can be written about in the media because of court cases. There are probably several men posting on this very forum who have raped and walked away.

Mod note - I doubt it is even possible to quantify any of these things. Please do not throw around accusations. thx