Dominic Strauss-Kahn released

I think his track record on this specific issue makes his position very weak.

He lied about this actual sexual encounter by claiming it never took place. He has a track record of sexual harassment and another woman saying he attempted to rape her.

If we are going to scrutinise Madame Diallo, surely DSK should be treated in the same way? (Although I won't hold my breath that poor immigrant women of colour will get treated the same as rich powerful white men of privilege.)

One of the reasons for the decision that she would make an unreliable witness on the stand was the fact that she had admitted to lying previously about having been raped, in order to gain entry to the US. She learnt a story off by heart from a cassette that she was given, and cried very convincing tears to back it up. That is rather different thing from someone once having smoked pot - it would be too easy for the opposite side to argue that she had once convinced officials she had been raped, in order to gain personal advantage, and had just done so again for the same reasons.

I'm not saying she did lie this time, and I can quite see why someone might be prepared to do so to leave a country where they thought their life was in danger. But her track record on this specific issue made her too weak a witness to put before the court.

We'll never know what happened. But I am not that old, and my initial reaction when the news broke was to say to DH that if you were writing a novel with even a minor claim to realism you just wouldn't have a Presidential candidate announce his wife's pregnancy in the same week his key opponent was accused of rape. I did wonder how Sarkozy had wangled that little number.

I understand why the case was dropped, based on the system of justice it was being tried under and the culture within which the jury would be drawn.

My fundamental problems with trying rape cases in these conditions are twofold. Firstly, the prosecution must prove a negative i.e. that the victim did not consent. Secondly, that mens (ha!) rea means that the rapist must have intent to commit rape (as opposed to have sex), and the "reasonable belief" of consent is stretched almost to impossibility. That case of the woman who was raped (yes, she was) by the guy who thought she was his girlfriend still leaves me with steam blowing out of ears.

I am all for civil cases being pursued, with the caveat that they can be more traumatic for the victim because of the different process vis a vis evidence giving.

Yes, with oral agreements, it can be a case of one party's word against another. However, it is not automatically assumed that the complainant verbally agreed to the "contract" unless they can prove otherwise.

That IS what happens with rape, however. It starts from the assumption that women (and some men) always consent to sex, until proven otherwise.

HeifferunderConstruction: why is she unreliable?

This was linked higher up in the thread, an provides details of the ways in which she was found unreliable.

These are of course specific to this case only. Other prosecutions, with different features of "unreliability" have, and I expect, will continue to go ahead. It is the number of changes of story, and the time elapsed since the event when the changes occurred, that are clearly the sticking point in this one case.

BTW: CRIKRI - any litigation involving an oral agreement can come down to one party's word against another's. It is far from unusual.

Why is it so shocking to start off with the idea that sex was non consensual in a rape accusation?

Because you see, otherwise one is starting off with the assumption that the victim is lying. This sort of thinking is why rape convictions are so low and why so many women choose not to report rape. The consequence is that most rapists get away with it (and re-offend) - this makes a mockery of the idea that rape is illegal and punished seriously and that women have the right to bodily integrity and justice when their bodily integrity is violated.

Everyone knows that in a rape case the defence is based purely on claiming 'she wanted it'. It shouldn't be up for the victim to prove they didn't want to - it should be up to the defendant to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that consent was obtained.

Yes, I am very serious. What's wrong with that idea? Is sex really SO very different from all the other forms of interaction between humans where active confirmation of agreement is required?

We sign cheques and put our pin numbers into credit card readers to say we DO want to pay our money to someone. We don't do that to confirm that we DON'T want a stranger to take our money.

We sign deed to confirm that we DO want to take out a mortgage. It's not assumed that we do unless we actively tell the bank that we don't.

I mean, can anyone think of any other kind of arrangement where one has to prove that they didn't agree to something or otherwise it is assumed that they did agree?

Especially when most rapists do lie and most victims do not.

I'm not saying that's what we should do, but why is that more shocking than assuming that a woman is lying about the fact that she is raped?

"Why are we not starting from the legally logical assumption that the sex was not consensual and it is up to the defendant to prove that consent was obtained?"

Are you serious?

It has taken me the last 13 years to try and come to terms with it :)

Ooh, can't believe I haven't mentioned this already today. I once met DSK. He was minister at the time. He didn't hit on to me. Should I be offended or relieved ?

I was once unlucky enough to be sat at the next table up from Bernard Manning and his friends in a quiet pub (til they arrived). He made a vile joke and waitress didn' smile. He called her a lesbian. Came across as a joke but I think a lot of men do think like that.

I called him a c**t.

What about the idea of Enthusiastic Consent then?

@ aliceliddell

No I'm frigid - nothing an encounter with the rutting chimpanzee 'The Great Seducer' couldn't sort out no doubt. He has any woman gagging to suck a perfect stranger's penis within seconds doncha know....uncanny.

@ alice

"Cos his story sounds like a crock of shit, while hers has holes that don't seem particularly important."

Exactly slhilly.

OK, your choice Jenny.

For a while, I thought we were getting somewhere - that you were willing to concede that people weren't just simply say "he's guilty, cos they all are" but were saying "I believe he's guilty, because the facts point in that direction". And then you said you'd look at the actual practical solutions that Women Against Rape have proposed to improve justice for raped women. But we seem to have run into the sand on both these points.

The latter is the only one that matters to us all, though: improving the way the system works to defend women better. So I'm going to post the link again. I know there are also many other organisations and individuals out there pushing for change.

www.womenagainstrape.net/campaigns

Agree CRIKRI about consent. In so many rape cases the assumption from the offset is that the sex was consensual and the victim has to prove it was not.

Why are we not starting from the legally logical assumption that the sex was not consensual and it is up to the defendant to prove that consent was obtained?

We are back to this issue of society considering that women are in a perpetual state of consent unless they have categorically said 'no' and have serious injuries to add weight to their word.

Currently we assume two things about women; the first that they are in a perpetual state of consent and the second, that they are liars.