What do you think of new cps rules

[Poorest scrub]

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

Hmm sounds like guilty until proven innocent to me

[SilverSpeed]

So, the basic idea is that we'll go into these situations with the mindset of "This man raped the female/male/whatever and must now prove to us how that isn't the case."

I don't study law and I don't claim to know all the ins and outs of law but that does sound like guilty until proven innocent, which is not how the law system should work in any society.

 

I'm going to hope this is complete article bias, but I noticed no mention of how the situation would be handled if a woman was accused of raping a man, though I'd hope that if these laws are to be put in place it would be the same for both genders and not preferential treatment. (Although guilty until proven innocent can be preferential treatment in it of itself.)

 

There are many vindictive people in the world, what's to stop someone from sleeping with someone, regretting it later and calling rape? Under these laws wouldn't that make this person a rapist now because the other decided after the intercourse that they did not enjoy the experience? How could you prove your innocence then unless they expect everyone to sign forms or make videos of themselves agreeing to sex in the first place?

 

I'm going to wake up tomorrow and regret I wrote any of this.

 

Anyone out there who is actually intelligent please correct me on my stupidities.

[Senpai Absol~]

Such

Bullshit

Guilty till proven innocence like you said, how the fuck can this be a real law?

[♠Derpeh♤]

So, the basic idea is that we'll go into these situations with the mindset of "This man raped the female/male/whatever and must now prove to us how that isn't the case."

 

There are many vindictive people in the world, what's to stop someone from sleeping with someone, regretting it later and calling rape? Under these laws wouldn't that make this person a rapist now because the other decided after the intercourse that they did not enjoy the experience? How could you prove your innocence then unless they expect everyone to sign forms or make videos of themselves agreeing to sex in the first place?

 

The thing is rape cases are actually incredibly hard to prove for women atm. If you are raped you legitimately need to go to the hospital/doctor before cleaning up to fill out a rape kit and get swabbed...etc. If this doesn't happen its very rarely that you will be convicted of rape which is understandable.

 

In the many popularised cases where a woman has sex with a man and then months/years later look back on it and feel that they didn't want it and hence "rape" the man is rarely convicted.

 

I'm not sure if this is a thing around the world but my uni diary actually start having rip out cards which are suposedd to be signed by the 2 people basically saying I'm not drunk at the time of signing and I consent to have sex.

[3.50]

Feminism: Not Even Once.

Hue hue

 

I'm not a "victim-blamer", so don't take this the wrong way; I just feel like throwing this out there...

 

I've known multiple girls who told tales of a "rape experience" (One of them used those exact words; each used phrase(s) involving the word "rape"). In each case, the girl was apparently more terrified of reporting the incident than of the incident itself. I found this odd (though perhaps only out of ignorance), and pursued more details in each case. In each case, the girl in question was a close enough friend of mine that I'm reasonably certain that I eventually got the real story out of them.

 

In each case, it turned out that the girl was in a situation that might easily be expected to involve sex, but she for some reason apparently had NO IDEA that boys like to put their peenors in girls, and often will attempt to do so at the slightest provocation, particularly when alcohol is involved and/or the girl is in bed and/or undressed. In one case, the girl was literally in bed with one boy and another girl, with no clothes involved, before she suddenly realized that 'oh shit, they want the secks!' and decided that, because she didn't also want the secks, that rape was happening.

 

In each case, the girl eventually made it clear that she wanted things to proceed no further; and in each case, things then proceeded no further. And in each case, the girl nevertheless afterwards referred to the incident with the word "rape".

 

You can't force men to prove their innocence when you have women who will refer to a situation as 'rape' where they begin with implied consent, and when it is respected when they afterwards indicate otherwise. You can't assume the woman is right until proven otherwise. Although, if you're married that actually might be the best strategy

 

And has this done anything beyond turning it into a "he said, she said" pile of nonsense? Will it actually help any of the victims, or will it just create more victims of unjust accusations, while doing nothing to help the victims who won't speak up? (Most if not nearly all of them still won't)

 

The bottom line is, forcing a person to prove their innocence just isn't a reasonable option. Addressing the issues here is great, but they've just made a mess of it, made fools of themselves, and given some explosive ammunition to woman-haters.

[3.50]

I'm not sure if this is a thing around the world but my uni diary actually start having rip out cards which are suposedd to be signed by the 2 people basically saying I'm not drunk at the time of signing and I consent to have sex.

How romantic.

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

That's nearly a year old ya know...

 

If you read the actual document it's mostly just about situations where informed consent cannot be given. It's not a change to the law, it's a clarification for police in how to properly investigate the law as it already stands.

 

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/cps_and_police_focus_on_consent_at_first_joint_national_rape_conference/

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/equality/vaw/index.html

 

Innocent until proven guilty means you're not getting punished for a crime until you're convicted. It doesn't mean you don't have to answer questions or defend yourself at all. If there's a whole buttload of circumstantial evidence that you murdered someone, you're innocent until proven guilty but you still have to defend your actions in court and explain why the evidence is pointing to you. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor but you still have a defense attorney. This isn't any different?

[Poorest scrub]

That's nearly a year old ya know...

 

If you read the actual document it's mostly just about situations where informed consent cannot be given. It's not a change to the law, it's a clarification for police in how to properly investigate the law as it already stands.

 

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/cps_and_police_focus_on_consent_at_first_joint_national_rape_conference/

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/equality/vaw/index.html

 

Innocent until proven guilty means you're not getting punished for a crime until you're convicted. It doesn't mean you don't have to answer questions or defend yourself at all. If there's a whole buttload of circumstantial evidence that you murdered someone, you're innocent until proven guilty but you still have to defend your actions in court and explain why the evidence is pointing to you. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor but you still have a defense attorney. This isn't any different?

Uhm just a small correction on that. It does mean you can go through a court case without saying anything in your defense. Unless if they can prove it you should be given not guilty. also i never said it was a law but i don't think that was directed towards me?