All current rape and sexual assault cases to be reviewed - BBC

Quentin

So because I can't solve the entire problem of sexual violence in a snappy mumsnet post, that means I'm wrong about everything? Right....🤨

Noone is saying they are acceptable collateral damage, just pointing out the complexities as there are often no evidence either way

One thing I wouldn't do is try to get justice for one group by making it easier to be unjust to another.
Ok. How do we get justice for women then? Or are they acceptable collateral damage?

Quentin, I cannot answer your question and I am not sure anyone can.

Obviously you should not have sex if you do not believe you have consent, but that is when the victim is not conscious/asleep no? How would you otherwise judge ? I know lots of people who get so drunk they suffer blackouts the next day and cannot remember what they did, but actually they were dancing, drinking.....Its not an exact science is it?

It seems to be your trial would a bit like this;

Victim: i was raped while we were alone together
Judge/jury: #webelieveyou

Locks up and throws away the key

Or how would you eatablish if consent was given!

If someone is barely conscious, the reasonable person (in the legal sense of the phrase reasonable person) would know that consent cannot be given. Therefore any belief of consent from the man cannot be an honest belief.

Brownelephant*

Intent (mens rea) is a fundamental part of all crimes except those classed as strict liability. Drink driving is the usual example given of a strict liability offence. Intent is irrelevant in that instance.

Quentin

How would I get justice for women? It's a tricky question and one that doesn't have an easy answer. One thing I wouldn't do is try to get justice for one group by making it easier to be unjust to another.

Any system of default presumed guilt for men based on (usually) one person's word against another simply replaces one injustice for another.

Of course if someone is barely conscious, they cannot five consent, but how would you decide?
Personally, if I had any doubt at all as to whether the other party consented, I just wouldn't have sex.
Anyway you still haven't answered my question about how you would go about getting justice for the large number of women who have been raped.
What say you?

How do you judge if someone os too drunk to give consent, particularly if you are very drunk yourself. Of course if someone is barely conscious, they cannot five consent, but how would you decide?

You cannot compare rape to any other crime. Its mostly one persons word/ belief against anothers unfortunately.

but then with some crimes, taxes for example, intent doesn't play a part. even if you don't intent to break the law, or your accountant breaks the law on your behalf. you will still be liable.

Quentin

The requirement to establish intent is a fundamental part of a huge number of crimes. It's certainly not limited to rape.

A man having an honest belief that he received consent is the method they use in rape cases to prove he had no intention and therefore did not commit a crime. (Clearly the key part of that is that it has to be an honest belief.)

If you have a problem with that then I really don't know where else to go with this. Your objecting to a legal principle that underpins virtually the entire justice system. I'd be interested to see how the justice system would work in your ideal world if you got rid of the requirement for mens rea in crimes?

I had a reasonable belief that he wouldn't mind me stealing his car, your honor. That makes it OK, right?

I actually have a big issue with the "reasonable belief" clause. There is nothing like it in any other crime and it provides a huge get out of jail card. How does the court prove a belief?
It works against lack of capacity due to drink/drugs, as the defendant can just say he believed the victim wasn't that drunk.
Why can't the requirement be that men need to exercise some due care and attention before penetrating someone?

You have completely excluded the category of men who had an honest belief that they had consent.
So from the perspective of the victim, the man's honest belief is not relevant. She has still been raped.
It's a bit like manslaughter vs murder. Victim is still dead regardless of the intent of the killer.

What would you do to help the tens of thousands of women a year who are rape victims get justice?

Women.

If you are raped, don't report.

Because women always lie.
Because you even thinking of accusing your rapist of that crime will destroy his life forever.
Because you probably brought it on yourself anyway.
Because you were wearing a short skirt.
Because you've had sex before.
Because you have had a trauma reaction that means you don't act in ways society deems ok for victims of rape.
Because you led him on by being female in public space.
Because even if you do think of destroying your life by reporting, your rapist will, on balance of probabilities, get away with it and do it do another woman anyway.

Just put up and shut up women, always.

Men.

Feel free to rape, you're almost certain to get away with it, even if you do it for years and women report.

Yay justice!

Quentin

Firstly, it's possible to care about more than one thing at once.

Secondly you have broken the allegations down in a binary way again: true or malicious. You have completely excluded the category of men who had an honest belief that they had consent.

Now clearly that belief has to be honest, but in those circumstances, no crime has been commited.

Graphista, what do I say exactly which means I do not have sympathy/ empathy for rape victims? Don't put words into my mouth.

Now I fully accept that the majority of rape allegations are true, however I struggle to believe it's 96%.
Even if 20% of allegations are false (the CPS estimate at 4% by the way, in line with other crimes) that means in around 75% of reported rapes, there was a crime and the criminal got away with it.
I think (can't remember the exact figs) there were something like 88,000 rapes reported last year. So 66,000 rapes where the rapist is still out there, probably raping other women.
I think that's a bigger problem than the anecdotal man with a "ruined life".

Clearly most people agree change is needed, but some people realise the system is broken and others want to blame women.

On another thread I have categorically said I believe those convicted of rape should serve full life sentence. It's so hard to get a conviction that for someone to be convicted it's highly likely

They are repeat offenders - even if they haven't been caught before

That the nature of the offence is particularly vile, eg involving a high level of violence, premeditation etc

Princess - you talk of people being narrow minded yet seem to show no empathy or sympathy for victims.

It's actually not uncommon for victims to be mistaken on dates/times - it's a traumatic event, doesn't necessarily mean the offence didn't occur.

I've personally been on the periphery of three false rape allegations in my life. Thankfully none of them affected me directly. One was definitely malicious (the woman was prosecuted) and the other two were possibly 'misunderstandings' (I'm being generous). In the case of the malicious allegation, the man in question, a friend of mine was suspended from work, lost out on his dream assignment and a promotion and his wife left him. (Thankfully they got back together afterwards)

What is the point of that anecdote? I've heard it said, even by people on this site that false allegations are so rare that they effectively never happen and I've been accused of thread derailment for even bringing them up. The point is that there are three categories of rape accusations: actual rapes (the majority), misunderstandings (i.e man had an honest belief there was consent) and malicious allegations. Now I fully accept that the majority of rape allegations are true, however I struggle to believe it's 96%. (I think that's the figure most often used).

One of the reasons why the police and the CPS may have felt motivated to pervert the course of justice by suppressing evidence might be because of the constant narrative that all men are rapists and by not prosecuting every single allegation they are complicit in this because of, you know, patriarchy and stuff.

Rape and sexual assault are incredibly serious crimes, nobody denies that, but carrying on as if all men are rapists, that every allegation is automatically true and that any man accused should just get over it because a false allegation isn't as bad as being raped actually minimises the seriousness of the crime.

Here are my ideas: (this is often a thread killer, if so I apologise)

The man would have to explain what he did to actively get consent, rather than the victim defend why she didnt consent.
We could get rid of the "reasonable belief of consent" clause as it actively works against the lack of capacity clause (e.g through drink or drugs).
We could introduce a crime like "reckless penetration" or "penetrating without due care and attention" for cases where it seems the man did very little to get consent but rape can't be proved.
The court case could be heard by a panel of expert judges rather than a jury. The trial could be inquisitorial rather than adversarial (so more like an inquest or enquiry). This would also allow a wider range of verdicts.
We could use more sexual offence prevention orders where offenders are assessed as posing a risk to women, even if found not guilty.
We could change bail guidelines so men aren't hanging round for ages waiting for a charging decision and so the impact on innocent men is minimised.

I might also add definition of a mandatory minimum sentence for sexual assault/rape (so people found guilty cant get a suspended sentence) and getting rid of sentences running concurrently. (So someone like warboys doesnt end up serving the sentence for just one rape).

princess ok then, what do you think should be done about the rape victims who don't see justice and the majority of rapists who get away with It?

You can also choose to think its not that bad for an innocent man to be accused of rape.
Do you think it's "not that bad" for a woman to be raped then watch her rapist get away with It? And left with the feeling she's not believed/people think she's lying?
96% of reported rapes don't result in conviction. I'm sure you don't think 96% of rapes are reported by liars? There are an awful lot of rapists walking free.

Quentin, its not that people are not able to think about nothing but the impact on the man. It means people are able to think more than one thought.

I obviously cannot go into much details about the cases I deal with,but as an example I recently dealt with a case where the accused had been on honeymoon in Hawaii at the time of the alleged assault. So sometimes there are very straight forward evidence available.

You can choose not to believe that false accusations happens. You can also choose to think its not that bad for an innocent man to be accused of rape. Let's just hope it does not happen to a man close to you, you may change your mind when your DH is suspended from work pending investgation into sexual misconduct. Few recovers from this in my experience. And also don't think it cannot happen to your loved on.