Ched Evans

[eFestivals]

 if two people shack up when drunk, then I don't think either can blame the other more than themselves.

 

yep, exactly this.

[zahidf]

So no woman has ever lied about her sexual encounters?

And Ched Evans is one of the (claimed) realities, which proves your take wrong.

I'm in no way trying to defend Evans, but I'm pointing out the inconsistencies of the law. The woman in that case claims to have no memory of the incident, and from that claim of no memory it's deemed that she couldn't have consented.

The two things do not necessarily follow, and if the male/female roles were reversed there's no way the woman would be convicted as Evans has been.

I'm not saying there's any easy answers to these situations, but inconsistent application of law is not an answer either.

But its not inconsistent.

Firstly if it was reversed and it was a woman raping a man, on what basis are you saying she wouldnt be convicted?

And the basis of the majority of date rape type convictions is a he said/she said scenario. Its up to the courts and jury yo decide based on the evidence and testimony of victim and accused to decide on a verdict.

In this case, they did not believe evans and he was convicted. To look at a 4% conviction rate and say the law is tilted against men in our current system is more than a little one sided

Edited October 12, 2015 by zahidf

[pink_triangle]

But its not inconsistent.

Firstly if it was reversed and it was a woman raping a man, on what basis are you saying she wouldnt be convicted?

And the basis of the majority of date rape type convictions is a he said/she said scenario. Its up to the courts and jury yo decide based on the evidence and testimony of victim and accused to decide on a verdict.

In this case, they did not believe evans and he was convicted. To look at a 4% conviction rate and say the law is tilted against men in our current system is more than a little one sided

 

My view has always been that the people best placed to make a decision were the jury, we don't want trial by media either working for or against the defendant. However anyone found guilty should have a right to appeal, the legal system must be allowed to work this one through.

[mungo57]

sorry to all but I agree with Neil.

She didn't even complain to police about rape. The police charged him based on his admission that he had sex with her. She went to the police to complain that her handbag was stolen (she had left it at the club/kebab shop can't remember which).

 

Not saying that he shouldn't have been convicted I just like to see facts rather than hearsay lead to convictions.

[eFestivals]

But its not inconsistent.

In law a bloke is now held responsible for a woman's actions when drunk.

 

In law there is no gender-revered version of that.,

 

Care to tell me again it's not inconsistent?

[zahidf]

In law a bloke is now held responsible for a woman's actions when drunk.

 

In law there is no gender-revered version of that.,

 

Care to tell me again it's not inconsistent?

 

Does it say 'Man' in the law? or is the law gender neutral?

[zahidf]

So no woman has ever lied about her sexual encounters?

 

 

Also, what has that got to do with Rape? i think the 4% conviction rate means that a lot of people on the Juries very much assume that. Especially ( god forbid) if she is drunk or wears revelaing clothing

[eFestivals]

Does it say 'Man' in the law? or is the law gender neutral?

 

do women get arrested for having sex with a drunk man?

[bunique]

Or is anything less than a Virgin.

[eFestivals]

Also, what has that got to do with Rape? i think the 4% conviction rate means that a lot of people on the Juries very much assume that. Especially ( god forbid) if she is drunk or wears revelaing clothing

 

so convictions are good convictions if the conviction is made via assumptions?

 

The 4% conviction rate is fuck all to do with anything. Just because the cponviction rate is 4% doesn't mean that we should convict people on low evidence to try and get the convictionb rate up.

 

The UK's system of law is based on the idea that a million people should go free rather than one person being wrongly convicted.

 

You seem to be operating on the idea that if the conviction rate isn't high enough we should lower the evidential standards until they're higher. That's stupidity at it's strongest.

[zahidf]

do women get arrested for having sex with a drunk man?

 

Again, that 's nothing to do with how the law is drawn up. A woman could be arrested in those circumstances

[lost]

Does it say 'Man' in the law? or is the law gender neutral?

I think rape is defined by penetration so the other way around it would be sexual assault

[eFestivals]

Again, that 's nothing to do with how the law is drawn up. A woman could be arrested in those circumstances

 

it would never ever EVER happen.

 

For a start UK law says that a man cannot be raped by a woman.

[zahidf]

My view has always been that the people best placed to make a decision were the jury, we don't want trial by media either working for or against the defendant. However anyone found guilty should have a right to appeal, the legal system must be allowed to work this one through.

Yup absolutely. All i will say is the vast majority of comment (elsewhere) is victim blaiming and people incorrectly whinging that they cant have drunk sex anymore

[eFestivals]

people incorrectly whinging that they cant have drunk sex anymore

 

and yet without a bloke having written permission he's playing with fire and risking a rape charge, whether it's rape or not.

 

That fact can't be got away from.

 

Personally I'm surprised that women are supporting these laws that say they're mindless saps being controlled by men. It's the very opposite to women exorcising power over their own lives.

[zahidf]

and yet without a bloke having written permission he's playing with fire and risking a rape charge, whether it's rape or not.

That fact can't be got away from.

Personally I'm surprised that women are supporting these laws that say they're mindless saps being controlled by men. It's the very opposite to women exorcising power over their own lives.

No he doesnt. Its not happening three years after his conviction, and isnt happening now.

Yeah, silly women, not wanting strong rape laws

[eFestivals]

No he doesnt. Its not happening three years after his conviction, and isnt happening now.

Yeah, silly women, not wanting strong rape laws

 

Silly women, agreeing with laws that say they can't be responsible for themselves when drunk

 

Is that what you meant? Cos that's what the law says, and implements.

[pink_triangle]

In my view if females are sexually assaulting males (unsure how big a problem is) they should be treated the same as a male abuser, rather than the male punishment be pushed down to be consistent with the females.

In terms of sex crimes the only comparison ithat comes to mind is teacher/pupil consensual sex where the male teacher almost always gets punished more than the female. Society probably has a lot to blame as many people seem to think a boy bedding his teacher is something he should take pride in.

[zahidf]

You miss the point Neil. The point of the law is that the person is too drunk to give informed consent.

 

There are many reasons why they are that drunk. Roofies, losing count about how much they've drunk or eaten, or , yes, their own stupidity. 'By taking responsibility' doesn't mean they should keep quiet if they've been raped. ( in a general sense rather than a Evans specific one)

 

So if this lady was  a 'good girl' and onyl had one drink, there is no evdience of a roofie but evidnece that the guy knew she wasn't in her right mind but had sex with her anyway , under your new amended law he should get off i guess. Or should he go to jail because she was a 'good girl' and didn't sleep around or drink too much, so she deserves more protection?

[eFestivals]

You miss the point Neil. The point of the law is that the person is too drunk to give informed consent.

that might be the point of the law.

But in its effect its saying that a woman has ceased to be responsible for her own actions.

I don't think that gets us to any better place, I think that firmly put things and keeps things in exactly the wrong place, where women are lesser than men and so subject to male dominance.

If the same principle is applied all-round then you end up with stuff like blokes who've been drunk being able to absolve themselves of a crime because another has talked them into doing that silly thing. They'd have given consent when drunk, but wouldn't have done if sober. There is absolutely no way on earth that would be accepted in any court for a bloke, when it's nothing different.

 

'By taking responsibility' doesn't mean they should keep quiet if they've been raped.

who suggested that should happen? Stop it with this bollocks, it's weak.

If someone has been raped then it makes absolutely no difference whether they were drunk or not.

 

So if this lady was  a 'good girl' and onyl had one drink, there is no evdience of a roofie but evidnece that the guy knew she wasn't in her right mind but had sex with her anyway , under your new amended law he should get off i guess. Or should he go to jail because she was a 'good girl' and didn't sleep around or drink too much, so she deserves more protection?

If she's been raped then she's been raped, and if she hasn't she hasn't. All the rest of that is meaningless bollocks.

 

The guilt (or not) is in the actions, not in whether someone has drunk something or not, or whether they can remember anything about it or not in the morning.

[pink_triangle]

I guess the evidence will always be challenging. With a drunk male and female proving he was taking advantage must be exceedingly tough. That's why I think you have to trust a jury ahead of a newspaper or website.

[zahidf]

I guess the evidence will always be challenging. With a drunk male and female proving he was taking advantage must be exceedingly tough. That's why I think you have to trust a jury ahead of a newspaper or website.

Yes i agree.

[eFestivals]

I guess the evidence will always be challenging. With a drunk male and female proving he was taking advantage must be exceedingly tough. That's why I think you have to trust a jury ahead of a newspaper or website.

 

yep, by the nature of the crime the evidence is usually going to be limited.

 

I don't think anything about that is improved by lowering the evidence thresholds tho, which is what 'lack of proven consent' really is. At the time of a not-crime the accused isn't going to be thinking he'll be in need of written/recorded consent as he knows he's not doing anything wrong.

 

I'm all in favour of looking for ways for how the conviction rate might be improved, because everything about the current conviction rate suggests plenty of the guilty are getting away with it, but lower levels of evidence which pretty much make it a "guilty unless you can prove yourself innocent" situation aren't it.

 

Particularly when the way they've done it puts men 'above' women, the idea of which is supposedly one of the drivers for rape in the first place.

[zahidf]

that might be the point of the law.

But in its effect its saying that a woman has ceased to be responsible for her own actions.

I don't think that gets us to any better place, I think that firmly put things and keeps things in exactly the wrong place, where women are lesser than men and so subject to male dominance.

If the same principle is applied all-round then you end up with stuff like blokes who've been drunk being able to absolve themselves of a crime because another has talked them into doing that silly thing. They'd have given consent when drunk, but wouldn't have done if sober. There is absolutely no way on earth that would be accepted in any court for a bloke, when it's nothing different.

who suggested that should happen? Stop it with this bollocks, it's weak.

If someone has been raped then it makes absolutely no difference whether they were drunk or not.

If she's been raped then she's been raped, and if she hasn't she hasn't. All the rest of that is meaningless bollocks.

The guilt (or not) is in the actions, not in whether someone has drunk something or not, or whether they can remember anything about it or not in the morning.

Wrong analogy at the top. The guy isnt a victim in it like the drunk girl.

A better analogy is if a guy is too drunk to give informed consent as to giving his car to a stranger. If he is clearly too drunk to give informed permission in that condition, is the person taking the car guilty of theft under law?

[eFestivals]

PS: juries have to work by what the law says - and if the law says (as it does) that a bloke has to be able to prove consent if he has sex with a drunk woman and gets accused of rape afterwards, then that jury *HAS* *TO* convict.
 

I'm not willing to work our justice system on the basis of keeping my fingers crossed that the jury will over-ride bad law.