Rape laws could be changed

[k69atie]

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13512448,00.html

What do you think?

 

[Jibster]

It's a very hazy line between rape and regretting it in the morning and i think that it's going to be almost impossible to implement, what are people meant to do to gain consent? When it's 3am and you're gettin in a taxi with a bird pissed out your face it's never exactly gonna be legally watertight but it doesn't make it rape either, what you gonna do? Make her sign a contract?

This money would be better spent educating people about the dangers of drinking to excess and training bar staff to spot when someones had too much and to refuse to serve them, something club owners are guilty of not doing. That's when all these "sexual assaults" are occuring, not when people are sober. Prevention rather than cure i say.

 

[k69atie]

^^ totally agree :thumb: a very good idea :thumb:

 

[Kareem]

It's a very hazy line between rape and regretting it in the morning and i think that it's going to be almost impossible to implement, what are people meant to do to gain consent? When it's 3am and you're gettin in a taxi with a bird pissed out your face it's never exactly gonna be legally watertight but it doesn't make it rape either, what you gonna do? Make her sign a contract?

This money would be better spent educating people about the dangers of drinking to excess and training bar staff to spot when someones had too much and to refuse to serve them, something club owners are guilty of not doing. That's when all these "sexual assaults" are occuring, not when people are sober. Prevention rather than cure i say.

:thumb: Also agreed, time to break out the contracts like on Dave Chappelle! That shits ridiculous in my opinion.

 

[Amara]

It's a very hazy line between rape and regretting it in the morning and i think that it's going to be almost impossible to implement, what are people meant to do to gain consent? When it's 3am and you're gettin in a taxi with a bird pissed out your face it's never exactly gonna be legally watertight but it doesn't make it rape either, what you gonna do? Make her sign a contract?

No it isnt.

This is nothing new at all. The law has always required consent. Basically consent is common sense, something which actually the majority of people seem to have in regard to consent for sex. You dont fuck someone so shit faced that they are virtually incapacitated!

Consent doesnt mean verbal agreement, would you like sex? Well yes thank you, I would. lol. It means a clear indication of willingness. Unless you are pretty bloody stupid, you know the difference between someone wanting to have sex and someone who doesnt and someone who is asleep and someone who is rolling drunk. The last three all being capable of being construed as rape. Like I said, common sense.

 

[Kareem]

No it isnt.

This is nothing new at all. The law has always required consent. Basically consent is common sense, something which actually the majority of people seem to have in regard to consent for sex. You dont fuck someone so shit faced that they are virtually incapacitated!

Consent doesnt mean verbal agreement, would you like sex? Well yes thank you, I would. lol. It means a clear indication of willingness. Unless you are pretty bloody stupid, you know the difference between someone wanting to have sex and someone who doesnt and someone who is asleep and someone who is rolling drunk. The last three all being capable of being construed as rape. Like I said, common sense.

But whats to say that when it happened she was fully aware of what she was consenting to, but come morning regrets her actions an pulls some bullshit flips the script lies an says she didnt consent.Normally a true "rape" is easy to prove there is typically some physical bruising in or around the vaginal area, ect. where as there would be no signs of trauma with consitual sex, there lies the contridiction in the law, any female at any given time could change her mind the next day knowing damn well she wasnt incapacitated an consented willingly, now because she has had a sudden change of heart your a rapist, i am currently in law school we study stuff like this all the time, anyway you see where Jibster is getting at? That law isnt just defining rape as forced sexual intercourse, but leaving a wide open gap for anyone to say "oh i didnt want it", "well wait i did but now im ashamed so im changing my mind". Im all for prosecuting someone who does force themself upon someone else while they are truly incapacitated, but this law to me just appears to loosely defined.

 

[Amara]

But whats to say that when it happened she was fully aware of what she was consenting to, but come morning regrets her actions an pulls some bullshit flips the script lies an says she didnt consent.Normally a true "rape" is easy to prove there is typically some physical bruising in or around the vaginal area, ect. where as there would be no signs of trauma with consitual sex, there lies the contridiction in the law, any female at any given time could change her mind the next day knowing damn well she wasnt incapacitated an consented willingly, now because she has had a sudden change of heart your a rapist, i am currently in law school we study stuff like this all the time, anyway you see where Jibster is getting at? That law isnt just defining rape as forced sexual intercourse, but leaving a wide open gap for anyone to say "oh i didnt want it", "well wait i did but now im ashamed so im changing my mind". Im all for prosecuting someone who does force themself upon someone else while they are truly incapacitated, but this law to me just appears to loosely defined.

I have done criminal law. There are two elements. Physical and fault: physical doesnt require trauma, it just requires intercourse so i dunno what tangent you are on. Change of mind wouldnt sufficiently give recourse to a rape charge because of one important thing, the fault elements. A man, even if the woman didnt consent, has the defence of a reasonable belief in consent. That is subjective yet based on the objective reasonable person. I have to go to a class right now, but I can go into detail later. But I know what Jibster is saying and what I am saying is the law is "smarter" than that. No stupid bitch could get away with it like that.

 

[Kareem]

I have done criminal law. There are two elements. Physical and fault: physical doesnt require trauma, it just requires intercourse so i dunno what tangent you are on. Change of mind wouldnt sufficiently give recourse to a rape charge because of one important thing, the fault elements. A man, even if the woman didnt consent, has the defence of a reasonable belief in consent. That is subjective yet based on the objective reasonable person. I have to go to a class right now, but I can go into detail later. But I know what Jibster is saying and what I am saying is the law is "smarter" than that. No stupid bitch could get away with it like that.

ok ok maybe the U.S. is different from Australia but here there are 2 forms of prosecutable rape, statatory (sp) an forced, statitory being sex with a minor depending on what state law says the age of consent is an the other being what i described, a good solid rape case, when the woman comes forward immedately saying she has been raped, she is then taken to a hospital where a rape kit is used, seman samples, pubic hair samples, and linear notes of all trauma caused to the spot down below is all recorded, maybe i took it the wrong way but i felt like you were insulting me, if im wrong i apologize we come from 2 different countries, im speaking of what i know here, anyway a weak rape case is when the woman fails to come forth right away an waits days even weeks before saying anything, by that time all the physical evidense is gone an the case is hard to prove, its a he say she say, not to say its not impossible but its much harder. from cases we have studied 90% of the time a true rape a woman will suffer bruising or vaginal tearing, sorry my spelling sucks, rape isnt about sex, its about power, belittling someone, anyway im rambling, im just saying here Intercourse alone doesnt prove that she was violated, it can an still we be treated like such but im just saying its harder to prove, ok im done ranting.

 

[Amara]

ok ok maybe the U.S. is different from Australia but here there are 2 forms of prosecutable rape, statatory (sp) an forced, statitory being sex with a minor depending on what state law says the age of consent is an the other being what i described, a good solid rape case, when the woman comes forward immedately saying she has been raped, she is then taken to a hospital where a rape kit is used, seman samples, pubic hair samples, and linear notes of all trauma caused to the spot down below is all recorded, maybe i took it the wrong way but i felt like you were insulting me, if im wrong i apologize we come from 2 different countries, im speaking of what i know here, anyway a weak rape case is when the woman fails to come forth right away an waits days even weeks before saying anything, by that time all the physical evidense is gone an the case is hard to prove, its a he say she say, not to say its not impossible but its much harder. from cases we have studied 90% of the time a true rape a woman will suffer bruising or vaginal tearing, sorry my spelling sucks, rape isnt about sex, its about power, belittling someone, anyway im rambling, im just saying here Intercourse alone doesnt prove that she was violated, it can an still we be treated like such but im just saying its harder to prove, ok im done ranting.

The law here requires intercourse (which is evidenced in entirely the same way but evidence of trauma is not necessary despite the fact that it many be present in majority of cases). In any case my point being the mens rea (guilty mind, fault elements) of the accused would not exist where in the suggestion a girl changes her mind the next day .... I've seen law and order enough to know mens rea exists in the US (in regard to rape, I would imagine so), lol. So an accused wont be convicted of rape where they lacked the intent or rather lacked the knowledge of the victims having not given consent by reason of the fact that the victim did consent! Therefore, in the scenario given, regardless of what the victim can conjure up, all the accused needs to pursuade a jury is that a reasonable person in their situation would, having regard to the totality of the circumstances, have believed consent to have been given. It's criticised here sometimes because genuine rape can go unpunnished but it makes sense in that it would go against criminal jurisprudence to convict persons who didnt possess the requisite mens rea which are needed to establish a crime.

 

[Jibster]

Amara,t he "haziness" comes from the consent, what constitutes consent and what doesn't? Does flirting in a club all night insinuate you want sex thus giving you consent or does it need to be more explicit than that. The fact of the matter is that it isn't black and white what constitutes consent, and it becomes even more blurred when both parties are drunk (hence the education of drinking to excess part) and flirting can be confused to be consent to sex. The fact that it's not as straight forward as needing verbal consent makes it more complex.

 

[Amara]

Amara,t he "haziness" comes from the consent, what constitutes consent and what doesn't? Does flirting in a club all night insinuate you want sex thus giving you consent or does it need to be more explicit than that. The fact of the matter is that it isn't black and white what constitutes consent, and it becomes even more blurred when both parties are drunk (hence the education of drinking to excess part) and flirting can be confused to be consent to sex. The fact that it's not as straight forward as needing verbal consent makes it more complex.

That is where the jury comes in. One thing to remember on that point is that the jury has to consider it from the standpoint of the accused. So say for instance the girl was flirting, putting her arse all up in his face, teasing him and he was drunk. The question for the jury is whether a reasonable person as drunk as the accused would have taken arse up in his face as consent to intercourse? So you can see that does counter against a female lying afterwards saying she didnt give consent when the jury can infer consent from her actions/words etc. It can never be black and white because you cannot presume to define what is reasonable in all circumstances and having regard to varying cultural/religious/social standards which change over time. That's why I think this reasonable person in the position of the accused is sufficiently objective yet allows for the specific circumstances of the accused to be taken into account.