Margaret Atwood

I am talking about prejudice in the system but I'm not talking about Mens Rea, not in the strict sense of the term (unless you mean that essentially the system assumes no bad intent on the part of the man and always assumes bad intent on the part of the woman, in which case I am talking about that).

You're muddling about five different things up together Croissant

Hell, there was video evidence to support the case against Ched Evans. But because the victim had had sex in the past, that was it, she deserved it and his conviction was overturned.

I don't know why anyone is concerned about men not getting a fair shout. Currently they just get away with it pretty much all the time.

Croissant you're taking about Strict liability and Mens Rea (and general prejudice in the system).

Currently what happens is that woman has to prove her 'innocence.' If she isn't absolutely perfect in any way she's considered a liar and that's the end of it.

I haven't seen anyone calling for that Deadly.

How about everyone saying that the men need to prove their innocence rather than a court prove their guilt?

If it is shown that Dave took my wallet and I say it was theft (even if Dave says I told him to take it) he'll likely be convicted of theft.

If it show that Dave and I had sex I say it was rape and Dave say it wasn't it is likely he will be acquitted.

Except that if it can be proven that the accused, say, did take the wallet, then the assumption is that the owner of the wallet didn't want that and therefore that is theft. But if it is proved that sex took place, it is never assumed, no matter what the woman says, that she didn't want it.

There isn't currently a presumption of innocence in rape trials Battleax, there is a presumption that the woman is lying and she has to prove she isn't - her word carries no weight essentially. The man has to prove nothing.

ALL criminal defendants are presumed innocent until proved otherwise. That's the cornerstone of the system. That is the "presumption of innocence".

Not quite. At the time Atwood was worried that radical feminist arguments against porn were the same as those of the new right. She was worried that together they would become powerful enough to thwart the liberals - and thus usher in a theocracy (because the right would then overcome the radical feminists).

There isn't currently a presumption of innocence in rape trials Battleax, there is a presumption that the woman is lying and she has to prove she isn't - her word carries no weight essentially. The man has to prove nothing.

I think the attitude Spartacus is talking about is built around the idea that male violence is inevitable and women have to be careful how they 'manage' it (because it is our duty to manage it, rather than men's duty to stop engaging in it). So therefore if men don't have an outlet for their violence they will turn it more forcefully on women. Therefore we have to 'allow' them to engage in the violence of porn and prostitution, in essence sacrifice 'lesser' women as human shields, to prevent them from unleashing violence on us, the more worthy women.

This makes no sense. Due process is a meaningless term if the execution is biased and unfair. Then it is just a biased and unfair process, nothing 'due' about it.

It makes perfect sense. OP wants to do away with the principle of due process. It's not a good idea to do so (to put it mildly).

It's a nonsense to junk the presumption of innocence because of problems with rape investigations and trials.

I think that people misunderstand Atwood and the Handmaid's Tale. I was a second-waver when this was released and Atwood was adamant that it was written to caution radical feminists who were speaking out against pornography (and to a lesser extent BDSM). Feminists were still somewhat silent on prostitution at the time. Her argument was that unless 'free speech' prevailed then we'd end up in a theocracy because the right would win. People read it now as a radical feminist text. It was never this. Her stance in relation to 'me too' echoes this. She is an old-school liberal feminist.

I am perfectly ok, however, with having a situation where if a woman accuses a man of rape then her word carries weight so that if sex can be shown to have taken place then a conviction is likely (barring other mitigating evidence).

I would like men to worry that they may be accused and convicted of rape unless they're absolutely sure that the woman they're with is 100% happy. If that stops them having sex, who cares? Not me. I'd rather 10,000 men decide not to have sex than 85,000 women get raped.

I haven't seen anyone calling for that Deadly.

Of course not, and that's not how it works. If I say I was robbed and say Sarah in accounts did it, I'll be believed but there will be a process of finding out whether Sarah did it or not (even if I say I saw her do it). But why would anyone not believe me? The only reason is if they thought I was untrustworthy in some way.

So we totally agree.
We don’t just say Le accused Sarah so therefore she’s guilty.
Which is exactly what some people on this thread are calling for.

Go and watch and rape trial and then come back and tell us all how fair it is.

I think more people should go and watch criminal trials to see what happens there - if you've got a free afternoon coming up, pop down to your local crown court and maybe you'll be lucky to find one on.

'Due process is a principle distinct from the quality of the execution.'

This makes no sense. Due process is a meaningless term if the execution is biased and unfair. Then it is just a biased and unfair process, nothing 'due' about it.

I’ve seen rape trials thank you very much I know how horrendous they are.
We need a massive and complete overhaul of our culture surrounding and execution of rape trials and actually just women in general.

I don’t see how getting rid of innocent until proven guilty will help.

'I have no problem with the ‘I believe you’ thing, but that doesn’t mean that the man accused is automatically guilty.'

Of course not, and that's not how it works. If I say I was robbed and say Sarah in accounts did it, I'll be believed but there will be a process of finding out whether Sarah did it or not (even if I say I saw her do it). But why would anyone not believe me? The only reason is if they thought I was untrustworthy in some way. And it seems that when it comes to rape, women are seen as untrustworthy. Why?

Oh and anyone who thinks due process is in any way fair is really really naive.

Due process is a principle distinct from the quality of the execution.

Oh and anyone who thinks due process is in any way fair is really really naive.

Go and watch and rape trial and then come back and tell us all how fair it is.

Our 'due process' is built on a system that for practically the entirety of history viewed women as essentially non-human. Up to 1991, if a man raped a woman he could openly admit that and get away with it, as long as that woman was his wife. No crime committed, off you go son and use her as much as you want - she's just meat anyway.

Yeah, totally fair. Why do women believe such horseshit? Is to guard against realising the truth?

I have no problem with the ‘I believe you’ thing, but that doesn’t mean that the man accused is automatically guilty.

Isn’t The Handmaids Tale literally about this?
There’s a theme in the book that women like Offred looked the other way when the erosions of rights started happening right at the beginning because it didn’t affect them. The Handmaids Tale is a critique of feminism as well as everything else.
That rights are there to protect you and it’s very easy for those to start slipping and something dangerous take its place.