Men must prove a woman said 'Yes' under tough new rape rules in the UK

RobYourBuilder

Men accused of date rape will need to convince police that a woman consented to sex as part of a major change in the way sex offences are investigated.

The Director of Public Prosecutions said it was time for the legal system to move beyond the concept of “no means no” to recognise situations where women may have been unable to give consent.

Alison Saunders said rape victims should no longer be “blamed” by society if they are too drunk to consent to sex, or if they simply freeze and say nothing because they are terrified of their attacker.

Instead, police and prosecutors must now put a greater onus on rape suspects to demonstrate how the complainant had consented “with full capacity and freedom to do so”.

Campaigners described the move as “a huge step forward” in ensuring fewer rapists escape justice.

The burden of prove should always rest with the prosecution, not the accused: that's a fundamental part of the legal system.

“Consent to sexual activity is not a grey area - in law it is clearly defined and must be given fully and freely.

“It is not a crime to drink, but it is a crime for a rapist to target someone who is no longer capable of consenting to sex though drink.

“These tools take us well beyond the old saying 'no means no' - it is now well established that many rape victims freeze rather than fight as a protective and coping mechanism.

“We want police and prosecutors to make sure they ask in every case where consent is the issue - how did the suspect know the complainant was saying yes and doing so freely and knowingly?”

"Here, could you stop that for a minute and fetch a pen. Just need you to fill out some forms before we proceed."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11375667/Men-must-prove-a-woman-said-Yes-under-tough-new-rape-rules.html

Aphex

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

The burden of prove should always rest with the prosecution, not the accused: that's a fundamental part of the legal system.



"Here, could you stop that for a minute and fetch a pen. Just need you to fill out some forms before we proceed."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11375667/Men-must-prove-a-woman-said-Yes-under-tough-new-rape-rules.html

I just upload all my encounters to xhamster. Saves all that "taken advantage of" hassle.

pablomakaveli

Sounds like guilty till proven innocent.

Will woman have to do the same ?

conorh91

Most misleading headline in ages.

No new legislation is planned. The DPP for England and Wales is simply circulating new guidance for prosecutors, asking these lawyers to try to prove lack of consent in a more rigorous way.

Neither the English nor Irish DPP has the authority to enact new laws or to flip the burden of proof to an accused person. The golden thread remains intact: the Prosecution must prove everything, the Defence need prove nothing.

It's just the Telegraph exaggerating its stories to give its readers the only bit of excitement many of them ever get.

TL;DR: no changes to the law, no changes to the presumption of innocence, just the DPP asking lawyers to work harder to prove that the alleged victim did not consent.

josip

conorh91 wrote: »

Most misleading headline in ages.

No new legislation is planned. The DPP for England and Wales is simply circulating new guidance for prosecutors, asking these lawyers to try to prove lack of consent in a more rigorous way.

Neither the English nor Irish DPP has the authority to enact new laws or to flip the burden of proof to an accused person. The golden thread remains intact: the Prosecution must prove everything, the Defence need prove nothing.

It's just the Telegraph exaggerating its stories to give its readers the only bit of excitement many of them ever get.

TL;DR: no changes to the law, no changes to the presumption of innocence, just the DPP asking lawyers to work harder to prove that the alleged victim did not consent.

That's a thread stopper

Harry Palmr

Well this is why we have camera phones. "Okay love - face me and speak clearly!"

The_Valeyard

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Well this is why we have camera phones. "Okay love - face me and speak clearly!"

While sitting on a black leather sofa........

smoking_kills

The_Valeyard wrote: »

While sitting on a black leather sofa........

Its rude to talk with your mouth full..............

AudreyHepburn

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

The burden of prove should always rest with the prosecution, not the accused: that's a fundamental part of the legal system.



"Here, could you stop that for a minute and fetch a pen. Just need you to fill out some forms before we proceed."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11375667/Men-must-prove-a-woman-said-Yes-under-tough-new-rape-rules.html

Whether actual legislation or simple guidelines I don't like the sound of this.

What happened to Innocent Until Proven Guilty?

MrPudding

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Whether actual legislation or simple guidelines I don't like the sound of this.

What happened to Innocent Until Proven Guilty?

Nothing. Read conorh91's post.

MrP

FluffyAngel

this will not end well ....

2 stroke

At last. Justification for secretly filming every encounter. Smile ladies.

Lyaiera

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Well this is why we have camera phones. "Okay love - face me and speak clearly!"

Consent can be withdrawn.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

What happened to Innocent Until Proven Guilty?

You do realise it's the prosecutions role to prove them guilty. That's the whole point of the prosecution.

2 stroke wrote: »

At last. Justification for secretly filming every encounter. Smile ladies.

Or maybe just ensure she wants to have sex?

irelandrover

Lyaiera wrote: »

Or maybe just ensure she wants to have sex?

How do you prove that if she says she doesn't remember, or said she didnt give consent?

Irishcrx

Mad isn't it...You'll often here the following sentences

' I was too drunk to remember if I consented your honour'

'I was too drunk to know what happened your honour'

'I was too drunk your honour'

Makes sense , girl was too drunk clearly he's a rapist.

But rarely ever hear this..

'I was too stoned to remember if I consented your honour'

What jury would believe the one above?

Lyaiera

irelandrover wrote: »

How do you prove that if she says she doesn't remember, or said she didnt give consent?

Do you know how hard it is to get a conviction for rape? You don't have to prove anything. The prosecution has to prove you committed rape. It seems like no-one has a clue of the law.

Lyaiera

Irishcrx wrote: »

Mad isn't it...You'll often here the following sentences

' I was too drunk to remember if I consented your honour'

'I was too drunk to know what happened your honour'

'I was too drunk your honour'

Makes sense , girl was too drunk clearly he's a rapist.

But rarely ever hear this..

'I was too stoned to remember if I consented your honour'

What jury would believe the one above?

I've literally never heard that.

strobe

I dont see anything wrong with the cops asking "How did you know they were consenting?".
As long as someone enthusiastically engaging in sex is considered them consenting and is considered a fine way to know they were consenting.

Lyaiera

strobe wrote: »

I dont see anything wrong with the cops asking "How did you know she was consenting?".
As long as a girl enthusiastically engaging in sex is considered a fine way to know she was consenting.

Yeah, "enthusiastic consent." It's a thing.

PopePalpatine

conorh91 wrote: »

Most misleading headline in ages.

No new legislation is planned. The DPP for England and Wales is simply circulating new guidance for prosecutors, asking these lawyers to try to prove lack of consent in a more rigorous way.

Neither the English nor Irish DPP has the authority to enact new laws or to flip the burden of proof to an accused person. The golden thread remains intact: the Prosecution must prove everything, the Defence need prove nothing.

It's just the Telegraph exaggerating its stories to give its readers the only bit of excitement many of them ever get.

TL;DR: no changes to the law, no changes to the presumption of innocence, just the DPP asking lawyers to work harder to prove that the alleged victim did not consent.

That won't stop outraged MRAs from spewing out their Mountain Dew in fury.

Potatoeman

If we want equality we need equality in responsibility.

kjl

reminds me of this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jo4568PIRnk

jayo26

Thank god I've a family and I'm gone past the stage of going out on the pulll ect ect but the thing I have a problem with is this is all coming from the ched Evans case in the UK and as much as I deplore everything to do with rape and taking advantage of a drunken woman how the hell do you prove that she said yes? So for instance if a guy is drunk he meets a girl out who is drunk too they go back to his or her place and do the business then the next day he wakes up and thinks ohh god shouldn't of done that she ain't so hot looking when I'm sober so he says he don't want anything to do with her so she gets all upset and says he raped her... Where do u draw the line? How do u prove that she said yes or no? I'm using a female as an example I understand it can work both ways.

Lyaiera

It wouldn't be prosecuted due to lack of sufficient evidence.

It's hard to get a rape conviction.

inforfun

Breathalyzer.

Never leave home without it.

jayo26

Lyaiera wrote: »

It wouldn't be prosecuted due to lack of sufficient evidence.

It's hard to get a rape conviction.

But in the case of ched Evans in the UK he was convicted of rape and his mate who brought the girl back to the hotel was acquitted of rape even tho the cctv showed her walking to the hotel room and walking away from the hotel room. It all seemed to hinge on a text from one mate to the other saying I've got a bird..

jackofalltrades

From the CPS document on the topic.

In investigating the suspect, it must be established what steps, if any, the suspect took to obtain the complainant’s consent and the prosecution must prove
that the suspect did not have a reasonable belief that the complainant was consenting.

Yeah so they're going to ask you if you looked for consent.
Which depending on the circumstances could be difficult to provide irrefutable proof.

Lyaiera wrote: »

Yeah, "enthusiastic consent." It's a thing.

Would you not consider "someone enthusiastically engaging in sex" to be consenting?

jayo26

jackofalltrades wrote: »

From the CPS document on the topic.

Yeah so they're going to ask you if you looked for consent.
Which depending on the circumstances could be difficult to provide irrefutable proof.


Would you not consider "someone enthusiastically engaging in sex" to be consenting?

"Sorry judge she was on top I could of swore she was up for it"

blastman

I sat on a jury for a rape case and to be honest, you end up feeling like a referee in a debating competition. There's no way to establish a "true" version of events.

bucketybuck

Lyaiera wrote: »

It wouldn't be prosecuted due to lack of sufficient evidence.

It's hard to get a rape conviction.

Wonder what Ched Evans thinks of that?

A Dub in Glasgo

bucketybuck wrote: »

Wonder what Ched Evans thinks of that?

Who cares what he thinks? the jury heard the evidence

Roquentin

blastman wrote: »

I sat on a jury for a rape case and to be honest, you end up feeling like a referee in a debating competition. There's no way to establish a "true" version of events.

this is the thing. the jury must decide over one interpretation or the other in some cases (not all).

There was a case in the uk recently wherein a woman said she was raped and the case was dismissed through lack of evidence. the man who was accused of it then took it upon himself to try to bring the woman to court claiming that she had made a false allegation. But the woman killed herself before it went to court. she said it was rape, he said it was consensual.

there are cases where its obvious that rape took place like larry murphy. what im saying doesnt apply to cases like that. im talking about cases where a man and a woman are enjoying the weekend and have one too many drinks and then wake up the next morning. if there is drink involved you are better off not doing anything IMO

MrPudding

jackofalltrades wrote: »

From the CPS document on the topic.

Yeah so they're going to ask you if you looked for consent.
Which depending on the circumstances could be difficult to provide irrefutable proof.


Would you not consider "someone enthusiastically engaging in sex" to be consenting?

I think it all hinges on this "reasonably believed" component. If the woman is so drunk that she can't speak, for example, it seem unlikely one could reasonably beleive they were consenting to sex. There is a line to be drawn between drunken consent and being too drunk to consent. It is a really tricky area, particularly when you consider both parties might be extremely drunk...

Having sex wih a drunk person is risky. Best err on the side of caution.

MrP

ScumLord

conorh91 wrote: »

Most misleading headline in ages.

This is why I don't read newspapers or watch TV news. They've become little better than small town gossips. It's like they take the news story and play a game of chinese whispers around the office and go with whatever comes out the other end.

NachoBusiness

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Who cares what he thinks? the jury heard the evidence

miscarriagesofjustice.org

Bruthal

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Who cares what he thinks? the jury heard the evidence

If you happened to be wrongly convicted by a jury, would you just accept it based on the belief in your post there? Or is it only when its someone else that you believe that?

A Dub in Glasgo

Bruthal wrote: »

If you happened to be wrongly convicted by a jury, would you just accept it based on the belief in your post there? Or is it only when its someone else that you believe that?

Irrelevant, the amount of shite I have seen posted in threads with regards to Evans is unreal... The 'Someone think of Ched Evans' whinge as shown in post 31

A Dub in Glasgo

NachoBusiness wrote: »

miscarriagesofjustice.org

I don't see Evans on that site, can you provide a direct link?

Bruthal

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Irrelevant, the amount of shite I have seen posted in threads with regards to Evans is unreal...

I mentioned nothing about evans or his case.

You mention the jury hearing the evidence, as if that means their decision is incapable of being incorrect.

So I asked the question, unrelated to the evans case.

A Dub in Glasgo

Bruthal wrote: »

I mentioned nothing about evans or his case.

You mention the jury hearing the evidence, as if that means their decision is incapable of being incorrect.

So I asked the question, unrelated to the evans case.

I was responding to a poster on the Evans case

Bruthal

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I was responding to a poster on the Evans case

You state

Who cares what he thinks? the jury heard the evidence

That suggests you believe jury`s cant be wrong.

Do you believe that? (Forget its the evans case, Im asking in general)

gozunda

Roquentin wrote: »

this is the thing. the jury must decide over one interpretation or the other in some cases (not all).

There was a case in the uk recently wherein a woman said she was raped and the case was dismissed through lack of evidence. the man who was accused of it then took it upon himself to try to bring the woman to court claiming that she had made a false allegation. But the woman killed herself before it went to court. she said it was rape, he said it was consensual.

there are cases where its obvious that rape took place like larry murphy. what im saying doesnt apply to cases like that. im talking about cases where a man and a woman are enjoying the weekend and have one too many drinks and then wake up the next morning. if there is drink involved you are better off not doing anything IMO

And that happens in ALL jury based court cases - attempted murder, murder, rape et etc

If you wish to get rid of the Jury system altogether I would suggest lobbying for changes in how the present legal system works :rolleyes:

A Dub in Glasgo

Bruthal wrote: »

You state


That suggests you believe jury`s cant be wrong.

Do you believe that?

I said that the jury heard the evans case and convicted him, from what I have seen on the evans case, I agree with the jury. Do you?

Ken.

I went on a stag do to Prague about 10 years ago and at the reception desk of the hotel was a stack of forms and a box of small(like bookie) pens. They were consent forms written in English and Czech. There were so many false claims of rape from girls that men were encouraged to get consent before having sex.

Maybe something similar might be needed here.

Roquentin

ken wrote: »

I went on a stag do to Prague about 10 years ago and at the reception desk of the hotel was a stack of forms and a box of small(like bookie) pens. They were consent forms written in English and Czech. There were so many false claims of rape from girls that men were encouraged to get consent before having sex.

Maybe something similar might be needed here.

i think its heading that way

Bruthal

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I said that the jury heard the evans case and convicted him,

No, you said who cares what he thinks, the jury heard the evidence, which suggested to me that you believe a jury is infallible.

from what I have seen on the evans case, I agree with the jury.

So you also heard the evidence?

Do you?

I dont know much about the case.

A Dub in Glasgo

Bruthal wrote: »

No, you said who cares what he thinks, the jury heard the evidence.

So you also heard the evidence?

I dont know much about the case.

Yes, no and maybe you should look it up

Bruthal

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Yes, no and maybe you should look it up

Why should I look it up, since my question was not related to it. It was related to your statement on a particular case, but would be a valid question for any such case and jury. As in, once a jury hears the evidence, do you believe then that it does not matter what the accused thinks?

I simply asked you do you believe a jury is infallible.

conorh91

ken wrote: »

I went on a stag do to Prague about 10 years ago and at the reception desk of the hotel was a stack of forms and a box of small(like bookie) pens. They were consent forms written in English and Czech. There were so many false claims of rape from girls that men were encouraged to get consent before having sex.

Maybe something similar might be needed here.

Why do people need to make this so complicated?

A woman who has been drugged can be capable of undressing herself or signing her name in a zombie-like state, and still be incapable of consenting to sex.

Those little forms are probably intended to subsequently demonstrate to police that the man had no concept that he was about to rape. However,they clearly demonstrate that the man had some doubts about the woman's mental state before intercourse, and therefore the idea that this might constitute rape had of course flashed across his mind.

Nothing screams rape like a man trying to get a drunk girl to sign a waiver.

The surest way to avoid accidentally raping a girl is to sleep with her when she is lucid and alert. It really isn't as complicated as people are making it.

A Dub in Glasgo

Bruthal wrote: »

Why should I look it up, since my question was not related to it.

I simply asked you do you believe a jury is infallible.

Oh no, here we go again - why are you replying to a post of mine about evans and then say you are not interested in evans

Of course juries are not infallible although I do believe juries get it right in the vast majority of cases or do you go around in life not believing jury decisions? If you do, how do you keep up with the campaigning? are you down at the court telling the juries they got it wrong each day?

I do believe there are miscarriages and the other poster put the website up that details some cases, putting evans into the same ccategory is ludicrous

Maybe you should read up on the case you are responding to