Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)

New laws on Consent are deeply-flawed

  • 28-07-2022 6:18am
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 81 ✭✭ spontindeed


    Proposed laws requiring the accused to prove consent are deeply flawed and a breach of the EU Rule of Law and the EU Treaties.

    How is an accused supposed to know the wider knowledge of the accuser of all potential criminal engagement attributable to any particular aspect of their relationship? It seems that the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' is also under attack by this proposed law.

    Since 2017, the accused can no longer cross-examine the accuser in a Court of Law and soon the accused will no longer have the right to examine the accusers psychiatric and/or counselling records. How come the European Union isn't raising the red flag about this?

    Will it lead to a rise in false accusations and is there even a deterrent against the wrongful accuser due to a fall-off in prosecutions?

    P. S. I'm not trying to offend anyone, I will add: read also the rules of the site. This is no place for political battles and personal insults.

    Post edited by Beasty on
    Tagged:


«13

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,421 ✭✭✭ Shoog


    It enshrines a simple principle, ask before engaging in sex. If the person cannot answer then don't have sex.

    Rape is common and hard to prove because people get off by claiming incapacity or assumed consent. If you have sex whilst drunk then you should be justiably concerned that you could fall fowl of this law



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,613 ✭✭✭✭ drunkmonkey


    Is there any examples of where these new type of consent laws have been tested in court, Sweden has them in a few years and last year Denmark, Australia only introduced them last month.

    It appears consent has to be given, how do you prove it wasn't without a contract recorded in some way? We're still in a he said / she said scenario in court, no?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,927 ✭✭✭ Gregor Samsa


    Preposterous take.

    The Church was legislating against actions between consenting adults, and in fact endorsed "the right type" of non-consensual sex in marriage.

    "Matrimonial consent is an act of the will by which each party gives and accepts a perpetual and exclusive right over the body, for acts which are of themselves suitable for the generation of children." Code of Canon Law 1081.2, 1917

    This is tidying up legislation against actions where there is no consent.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,367 ✭✭✭ Jequ0n


    “This of course is given as the excuse all the time, but how may false accusations have we had in the last 20 years compared to the amount of people who didn't report because they got treated like the criminal?”

    You know very well that nobody will be able to answer this question, so why ask it in the first place?



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,927 ✭✭✭ Gregor Samsa


    Just the same as the "question" in the op asking if it will cause a rise in false accusations.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,367 ✭✭✭ Jequ0n




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,261 ✭✭✭ Gant21


    Helen will get on the case and make new laws.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,242 ✭✭✭ brokenangel


    You missed the number that we do know about, 66% of rapes are not reported by people. Do you not think we should be looking to reduce that number massively?



  • Posts: 8,856 ✭✭✭ Kaysen Freezing Fur


    A law Protecting those who are drunk or incapacitated so that they cannot consent is to be supported - and if that’s all this law is doing then great. Determining consent in a drunken night out situation is I’m sure particularly difficult - it does sound though with this law introduced, that any content given if either or both parties are intoxicated, is in serious doubt?

    If it makes people more cautious about sexual encounters where drugs or alcohol are taken, it’s probably a good thing -reduced sexual assaults, reduced unwanted pregnancies reduced morning after regrets; but the litmus test of the success of this law should be a reduction in rapes where there was intoxication by one or both parties- let’s see what happens there.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,344 ✭✭✭ Nuts102


    Who cares about examples over the last 20 years.

    Would you not agree that one man being arrested or losing his job and reputation would be enough?



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,367 ✭✭✭ Jequ0n


    I think that case was a farce and he was made an example of, but I think this thread is not specifically aiming at discussing that case.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,699 ✭✭✭ hynesie08


    How about we start with proper sentences for sexual assault and work from there?



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 45,268 CMod ✭✭✭✭ magicbastarder


    Proposed laws requiring the accused to prove consent are deeply flawed and a breach of the EU Rule of Law and the EU Treaties.

    source?



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,613 ✭✭✭✭ drunkmonkey


    Where are you getting those figures and have you a breakdown by gender?

    Also "The laws are to protect women and no surprise some people are upset about that"

    From reading the Australian law it makes no reference to the sex of the victim.

    If women are underreporting men must be multiples time that.

    I don't think it's going to do anything to the 66% figure, if anything people could be more inclined to lie about who they are, that's also covered under the Australian law as non consent when you do that.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 8,856 ✭✭✭ Kaysen Freezing Fur


    I’m giving the law a guarded welcome because I’m in favour of protecting those who cannot give consent but it has to work in reality - if two people who are both intoxicated, meet up and have sex and neither feels bad the following day, then great- intoxication was not a factor that impinged on the ability of either party to consent.

    But if one person feels they were taken advantage of because they were drunk, can’t remember what happened and are appalled to find themselves in bed naked with someone else, then mission control, we have a problem.

    To what degree this law will enable more prosecutions than previously remains to be seen - the intoxicated state of either of both parties limits investigators to determine exactly what happened and to what degree any laws were broken



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,367 ✭✭✭ Jequ0n


    “But if one person feels they were taken advantage of because they were drunk, can’t remember what happened and are appalled to find themselves in bed naked with someone else, then mission control, we have a problem.”

    But this in itself is hugely problematic. Where do we draw the line with regards to personal responsibility, particularly if both parties were intoxicated?

    Like many others I have wollen up next to people and wondered what on earth I had been thinking the night before, but it never occurred to me to insist that I had been taken advantage of.



  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 8,854 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Jim2007


    Well if it is there is nothing to worry about because the law will not stand for very long. Mind you I’m not sure who you’d get the ECJ to rule on a criminal matter…. Perhaps you should make yourself available to advise barristers on the matter because obviously the ones involved in drafting the legislation need help.

    You need a better approach for trolling, at least I hope that is what this is.



  • Registered Users Posts: 36,558 ✭✭✭✭ Boggles


    The bill also includes the provision that self-induced intoxication would not be a defence to a charge of rape in relation to an accused's capacity to understand if he did have consent

    But when was that ever a defence? Have we precedent where someone raped someone but was acquitted because they were píssed?

    The bill would also provide for anonymity for victims and the accused in all trials for sexual offences and not just in rape trials.

    I imagine the above will be largely welcomed?



  • Registered Users Posts: 24,673 ✭✭✭✭ Mrs OBumble


    And in particular

    Determining consent in a drunken night out situation is I’m sure particularly difficult 

    No, it's not.

    If you aren't 100% sure that the person is saying Yes, and in a state where they are reasonably able to do so and will remember it later, then assume that they are saying No.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 969 ✭✭✭ PGE1970




This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement