Changes in how rape will be investigated- about time!

That was me typing faster than my brain tbh (re change in law)

definitely

But I digress. Definietly a step in the right direction.

What on earth is an ex feminist?

This isn't a change in the law, though, is it? I thought that establishing the reasonable belief in consent was already part of the process. Or should have been.

I also fail to see how pub landlords can be responsible for rapists raping

What I'm pleased about is that this is the DPP saying this - it has a direct influence (slower to materialise than I might like, but still) on how the justice system handles rape cases and shifts the focus from the behaviour of the victim to that of the defendant. And hopefully this will start to shift things at a societal level too, as it starts to dawn on people that women are not in a permanent state of consent unless they are screaming "no" and physically trying to get away

"Will courts begin to argue that if a victim can be too drunk to consent a rapist can be too drunk to know what they were doing? "

I don't think so - I think drunkenness doesn't count as an excuse for a crime. Possibly it might mitigate the sentence, in some circumstances?

Also, being too drunk to know you're committing a rape, makes me doubt you'd be able to commit said rape.

This is positive news. Sure it's not going to change everything overnight. But I can't see a downside.

I'm an ex-feminist so please feel free to ignore my comments if you want to. I only came to this thread because it was flagged on 'discussions of the day'.

I'm not against this proposed legislation but I'm not convinced it is going to really do anything major to help women, in practical terms. I feel very cautious about it and I worry that it's going to create a false sense of security for some women.

Firstly I think the premise that rapists don't believe they have to obtain consent is a false one in many cases. To use an example of a poster further up this thread I think they know full well that it's not OK to have sex with a drunk women. I think they enjoy knowing what they are doing is wrong and will do it anyway. So I don't think that this group of people will be changed or deterred in this sense.

Secondly I don't see how it helps people who were raped when drugs or alcohol were not involved. How on earth do you prove that you didn't say yes in that situation? It's still a he said/she said type situation.

Also where is the line in the sand regarding intoxication on alcohol? How drunk is too drunk? Who decides that, is it on a case by case basis? Does it depend on how much a person usually drinks. It's unlikely a women/man will be able to prove how drunk they were at the time of their attack unless they get a blood test straight away.

What happens in a case where the rapist is equally as drunk as the victim? Will courts begin to argue that if a victim can be too drunk to consent a rapist can be too drunk to know what they were doing?

It would be interesting to know if there will be a sort of amnesty in the legislation for women who abuse drugs and illegal substances. A lot of very vulnerable women use drugs regularly and are more likely to be raped while unable to give their consent because of their drug use, but will they be able to admit that without risking prosecution for their drug use?

I'd feel more positive about it if there was something being done about the roll of pubs and clubs in all of this. It's them that are supplying already drunk women with enough alcohol to make them incapacitated in many cases. What happened to landlords being responsible for their patrons?

This is great news. I actually braved the comments on the Guardian site and although there was the same old BS there was a lot of very thoughtful positive counter argument. The overall feel was of dinosaurs clinging onto obviously outdated ridiculous 'rights' and being gently led into a brighter future.

I think this is great news. I like the point that if a woman is drinks it's no longer assumed it's ok to have sex with her. Great step forward.

I'm really hopeful about Alison Saunders :)

I'm not readjng the comments. Last time I read the comments under a Jessica valenti article I was low for a week.

It's a massively positive step forward in a societal sense. It says that women have every right to control who penetrates them and actually it's not ok for men to "accidentally" stick their penis in people - they absolutely must be sure that that person wants it before doing anything.

When you think about it, it really is so incredibly basic. I know I bring this analogy up a lot but I think it's relevant. Cake is lovely but I don't wait till someone's too drunk to stop me and then stick cake in someone's mouth. It's rude, awful behaviour and could amount to assault.

Yet men go around sticking penises into the vaginas of women who are too drunk to stop them. And they get away with it, precisely because the woman was drunk. It makes absolutely no sense.

I really hope that this will also open up discussion in general, and perhaps be talked about more in PSHE in secondary schools. I think there is a huge need for (some) young people to consider their attitude to sex. Stop thinking of it as something that men need and women grudgingly allow. Start thinking of it as something that both people actively enjoy and share together.

Xposts. Thanks for that post cailindana. That makes sense.

I suppose not every case will be helped by this sadly. But if some are then thats a good thing.

You'd be surprised slice. Look at the case of Ched Evans. He never denied having sex with the victim. In fact I think in his police interviews he was quite open and unapologetic about it - he felt he had done nothing wrong.

If a man is picked up for rape and he says "yeah we had sex" then the next questions revolve around the circumstances of that.

In the past everything focused on the victim - what did she do, what was she wearing, was she drunk.

Now, the focus should shift to the accused - did you see that she was drunk, did she talk coherently to you, did she participate in the sex.

It's a fairly subtle change but it sends the strong message that it's not up to women to "keep themselves safe," it's up to men to know what real consent looks like and obtain that before getting into any sexual encounter.

It's unclear whether it'll lead to more rape convictions but it changes the entire character of rape as a crime, and that can only be a good thing.

As Buffy has said, nothing has changed as it's currently usually a case of her word vs his word anyway. But wouldn't it be far better for the onus to be on the man to ensure that he did obtain consent rather then for the woman to have to go to extreme lengths to show she didn't? For example, can a women who is drugged or drunk say no? She can't. So currently a man can just claim "but she didn't say no or stop me!". As it stands, men are entitled to penetrate a women unless she actively tells him not to. How can that be right? Surely the assumption should be that a man has absolutely no right to penetrate a women unless she expressly gives him permission.

DrDre you can prove it if both parties give evidence and one is credible and the other is not. That's what juries are for. This rule makes it more likely the accused's full account of what happened will be put before the jury.

Flora - thanks. That does help

Nimpy- first, how likely do you think it is that a woman will consent freely and enthusiastically and then 'cry rape'?

But if they did, you're right that it would come down to who was lying. As it does now in some cases. The difference as I see it is a shift in expectations, that the onus is now on the man to check that consent is given.

(Obviously, this should equally apply to women- everyone should be checking for consent, but we're talking specifically about rape here).

Nimpy the headline is not correct. Men don't have to prove they got consent, the onus is still on the prosecution to prove it. However police and prosecutors are asked to question the man and ask for his explanation of why he believed the woman consented. We've talked about that on here before, it is a great step forward.

MrsKCastle's example of how it would work is a good one. I reckon most people probably think that is currently what happens. We often hear "well it's a case of he said / she said" but it's often not as the man doesn't need to give any explanation of why he thought she consented. If you think about it, it is more shocking that this has not been the case before.

I am glad they are doing something about this.

But I still don't see how it changes anything.

In most situations, its still his word against hers. He can no more prove that she said yes than she can prove she said no/didn't consent.

In the past it was extremely common for prosecutors to say "she was drunk" as a way of implying that she "asked for it." Under the new guidance, "she was drunk" actually goes against the defendant because if it can be shown, as in the case of Ched Evans, that she was so drunk she didn't know what she was doing, then that is strong evidence of rape. It basically turns the situation around from the fucked up situation we have now where women are expected to stay sober in order to prevent rape, to a situation where men are expected to keep away from drunk women and not rape them.

If it's one persons word against anothers then you can't prove it. That's one of the reasons why the conviction rate is horrendously low.

No of course not Nimpy. There still has to be a trial.

The point is, that we remove all this bullshit around cases like that of the rapist Ched Evans. He was rightly convicted because his victim was too drunk to consent. The onus was on him in that situation to see that even if she was lying there not objecting there was no way someone in that state could genuinely consent. The normal, human thing to do would be to say "Nah love you're too drunk, let's get you home," rather than to just hop on and have a go anyway.

Yet there are people including the rapist himself, who claim that he did nothing wrong.

Under the new guidance the message going out there will be that in any sexual encounter both people will need to be fully on board. It will help to dismantle this fucked-up situation where, if a man doesn't actually physically force his victim, then all other methods - drink, threats, bullying - are fair game. It sends the strong message that it is not ok for anyone to simply extract sex from another person - both people must be freely consenting, with no strings.