Lawyers this way! What realistic reforms could we make to rape laws?

I think other crimes take place in places or through systems where evidence is less refutible.
I also didn't say it was coincidence, I said I didn't think the law was specifically making it difficult because of your sex.
I then added that yes, other social factors (such as sexism) take their toll too.

Honestly can't see how that read as coincidence.

Just as a bit of a back up Northern Ireland has a history of being quite forward thinking with campaigns such as drink driving & speeding-some TV ads couldn't be shown before the watershed as they are so shocking. Recently a new ad is on TV about the different forms of domestic violence which I wouldn't have Imagined even 5 years ago.

I agree that rape myths need debunking & seeing how some intelligent people I know have reacted to the Ulster rugby trial is so shocking & there is judgement such as 'she shouldn't have gone there' etc that levies at least a portion of blame on the victim. This is more widespread than I would have thought, (IRL these discussions don't normally come up without a trial in the press)

The change needs to happen from within the culture of the skewed perception surely? I was thinking of similar to brilliant of the. CCTV in every room. I know it's equally as unlikely but a media campaign to get male celebrities & sports icons to come out with sound bites like 'porn isn't a reality of sex', 'check you partner is enjoying themselves and if you're unsure, stop', 'don't have sex with someone who is too drunk to be able to have a sensible conversation' etc would be good.

Basic things like this which seem to be common sense have gone out the window. The stigma rightly attached to being a rapist means that there is a lack of reformed characters preaching about having seen the light the way there is with assault, burglary, terrorism.

Since there are so many women here, who will be far more aware of the unreported instances of rape, would you say most occured in a ONS or very short term relationship, or is it happening when longer-term partners are doing it, either overtly, or because they are just assuming and women are being emotionally bullied into it (e.g I really don't want sex, but will suffer it )?
Since so many are going unreported, how is a reasonably accurate picture formed about it?

I'm thinking out aloud, but it's been easy for me to visualise as some of the higher profile cases, but these are possibly exceptions. But if most women are suffering because a boyfriend wont take no for an answer and a woman gives up the fight, then surely it would be better to try and improve laws for those cases rather than the more high profile ones?

Yes, ideally a law should improve the situation for all women, but if it's a step by step process, where would the biggest impact be?

Basically, the state negates the right of a woman to say no by permitting legal procedure in which her no only has meaning if that no is witnessed by someone credible. So it basically takes two voices on behalf of a woman to overrule one man's voice.
That's fairly accurate, but I don't believe it's because she is a woman. It's because she is the accusor, and the law places the onus on the accusor to prove guilt, not for the accused to prove innocence.
She is up against it from the start not because of her sex, but because proving what happened behind a closed door is so difficult.
On top of that, she faces the potential prejudices against her sex, but I think that is more social than legal.

Sorry if this has already been mentioned. Anecdotally.....ime the legal profession are confident that juries generally reach the right decision. Backed up I think by 2010 research, Are Juries Fair. Too tired to reread but it's easily found online and it's used a lot when stats are quoted.
Suggests perhaps it's not simply juries struggling with reasonable doubt as an idea (which they undoubtedly do).

But it's not just a logic problem. They could stop letting defence teams admit sexual history evidence unless it was completely relevant to the specific circumstances. They could not pass women's underwear around the courtroom. They could try to educate the public on rape myths. They could look at other ideas like expert panels. The rates of reported rape to rape conviction are shocking.

I hate the situation because simple logic says guilty people are getting off.
But if 10 accused are stood before us, and one is innocent, what should we do?
If you wanted to be logical, you might say lock them all up, and save 9 or more women from future rape, and pay that price via one innocent man. Makes some sense to some people, but it's a dangerous path to go down.

YY. I don't find it particularly satisfactory that people just throw their hands up and say it's totally impossible, he said she said you can't prove it etc. Meaning rape might as well be legal. It is partly about how important women's lives are considered to be.

The question is how the hell we could change public attitudes, or whether there would be scope for an alternative to jury trials in this instance.

I definitely think the rape myth/believing women problem should be acknowledged fully and other options explored.

Cross post

I agree Erishkigal, but some of the recent high profile cases don't give the public much confidence do they?

I know. The two lame and cock bull stories I gave were real examples. I just think that's not "reasonable" doubt.

I cannot explain how 'my penis entered her by accident through falling' could ever be credible.

I definitely didn't mean to imply all medical injuries are put down to self inflicted. I was saying that some will be put down to vigorous sex, some down to other causes with are nothing to do with the allegation, but yes, if it is a realistic and plausible option they will argue self inflicted and they have done so. But again a lot of rapes are not laden with injuries, and many that are, the injuries will often have multiple possible explanations. A bruise could have 100 explanations, a tear in the vagina a few (trauma from rape, trauma from extreme vigour, a cut from a fingernail.
One side is trying to argue an injury proves rape took place, the other side is trying to demonstrate that it does not, and to do that, they need to explain other ways it could happen. This is just how it works.

I agree Erishkigal, but some of the recent high profile cases don't give the public much confidence do they?
It would seem that you can agree to sex under the influence of alcohol (and argue about the amount needed to losectge capacity). You can invite a mate or two over to join in, and you can video it too and still leave enough doubt that maybe she was ok with all of that.

My gut says if that's not rape, it really should be some other crime of gross wankerism and still serve a sentence for it.
If you want group sex, you better find a girl who wants it enough to put it in writing.

You're right I ought to have said could rather than would. Apologies.

Brilliantmistake- thanks for the apology if that was directed at me.

Are you now stepping back from your position then, that defence teams say medical injuries are self-inflicted?

To be clear - is this actually very unusual and you are simply positing this as a possible argument?

Good grief.

but how do we prove it?

We prove it with medical evidence which corroborates the victim's account, where that medical evidence is available.
Otherwise defendants who are guilty benefit from their own lies?

You're right I ought to have said could rather than would. Apologies.