Changes in how rape will be investigated- about time!

Buffy I'm not a criminal lawyer so I don't have an informed view. I think the low rate of conviction for rape cases indicate they tend not to believe the woman in those cases. In cases that are not about rape, I don't think juries are more disposed to believe men than women, but that's just my gut feeling.

Sorry cross-post with Nosy. Don't bother answering Wilts.

Once a principle has been broken

What are you talking about?

I can foresee all manner of unintended consequences with this, as with other changes to legal conventions that have lasted for centuries (i.e. the double jeopardy scenario, right to silence, detention without trial, private/undisclosed evidence etc.).

All changed for 'good reasons' and with 'decent intentions' but, with each one, turning the ratchet one tooth further away from individual rights and granting ever more power to the State.

Once a principle has been broken, precedent is set and others will go the same way. For centuries the onus was always on the State proving their case against someone; increasingly the burden is shifting the other way and I don't like the direction of travel.

Realistically, I think it is difficult to prosecute any crime if it comes down to one person's word against another. I can't see this new guidance leading to prosecutions in the absence of circumstantial or witness evidence.

It depends on the other circumstances, the evidence given by each of them and the jury's evaluation of credibility. If the jury believes one person and doesn't believe another, they can convict. Not everyone is good at giving evidence or being cross-examined. It's not just a question of making up a story and the court shrugging and saying "oh well that's alright then".

Ah it's our little goady namechanger from the thread about Katie price isn't it? Welcome to FWR

Guilty before proven innocent.

First, it is impossible to prove someone said 'yes'. If a woman says 'yes' and then make a complaint it is still one person's word against another.

Realistically, I think it is difficult to prosecute any crime if it comes down to one person's word against another. I can't see this new guidance leading to prosecutions in the absence of circumstantial or witness evidence.

Maybe I'm being thick today. I thought the guidelines were moving the burden of proof onto the man having been given clear & valid consent. I guess I'm questioning the definition of valid consent. I can't consent to a medical procedure while drunk, I can commit a crime, can I consent to sex?

Honest question Selby: What does 'technically rape' mean?

Shelby, I guess the questions would be around the steps taken to ascertain capacity to consent as well as to get consent?

Because I wanted to know how drunken consent would be affected by the guidelines. With the new guidelines it's clear that if a woman is eg unconscious drunk then she can't give consent. As is right and proper, so no point for further discussion, I assumed that would be taken as read by the vast majority.

And it was less about whether she alleges it, than is it technically rape if she wouldn't have agreed when sober. Which would be pretty stupid really.

I swear to god, if I had drunken sex with a co-worker, I would so much rather just tell DH (or not tell him, I suppose) than put myself, him and the co-worker through a rape trial.

Preetttttyyyy sure most women would do the same.

Selby it's worth remembering that rape is massively underreported and it's common for women not to even realise they've been raped until someone identifies it as such. It is not the case that police will be stepping into a standard one night stand, both having great drunken sex, in order to arrest the man. It is still up to women to report and to then face the ordeal that goes with that. It is very unlikely that many women will do that just for kicks and I would imagine if they do the fact that they're lying will become clear.