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

I'm not saying it's easy. But surely "reasonable" doubt should not mean any lame cock and bull story a man makes up to get himself off the hook. Like many of the ones which have worked in the past. "Oops I tripped and my penis went into her". "Oops it was a case of mistaken identity". "She cut her own thighs to fit me up"

Yes, but the point about rapists, is that they lie.
They do. Blatantly most times. I didn't think that was in question. But how do we prove it?

Brilliantmistake you are quite right, you did not say defence teams routinely use these defences (victim self-inflicts their own injuries) - but you did imply this. See below:

Sustaining an injury during sex and strict liability (correct term) would not be practical I don't think. There would have to be some sort of grade of injury or injury count. That said, a normal 'injury' during sex would not lead a woman to allege rape, she'd put it down to being a bit overactive, so a man wouldn't have to be too concerned over a small bruise during active consenting sex. But, if she alleges rape, then yes, it's really going to matter (and rightly so). A defence team would easily suggest a wound was self-inflicted. That is NOT apologist, it's just what a defence team would do.

You say " A defence team would easily suggest a wound was self-inflicted... its just what a defence team would do." So this suggests it is a commonplace reality.

That's why I asked the basis of this assertion... whether you see this in practice or not...

metro.co.uk/2017/08/24/woman-jailed-for-false-rape-claims-against-nine-men-in-four-separate-encounters-6875002/
In this case, the defence team argued precisely that. That injuries were carefully inflicted.
The wouldn't argue it for the sake of it, only if they believed it was called realistic possibility, but it does get argued.

I'm finding it difficult to follow the thread because I can't differentiate between speculation/deduction/the law in theory/in practice etc. I can appreciate any of these - but it's confusing not to know.

If he says only oral sex took place and she is exhibiting bruising to her inner thighs, a defence is going to challenge her assertion that he caused them, and they are going to look for other ways they could have occurred.

Yes, but the point about rapists, is that they lie.

People do get accused of self infliction, however hard to believe.

That case is awful. It horrified me.

I don't believe I said they were routinely used. I thought I'd said a defence team would look to that as a possibility if the accused denies sex had taken place at all, or if the account of the type of sex was not consistent with the injury. If he says only oral sex took place and she is exhibiting bruising to her inner thighs, a defence is going to challenge her assertion that he caused them, and they are going to look for other ways they could have occurred.

If I had my ludicrous way, every room would be recorded and encrypted in manner that could not viewed by anybody unless a specific court order was made to view the contents.
Unrealistic I know, but that is just about the best solution I can imagine.

brilliant mistake how do you know these arguments about medical evidence being self inflicted by victims are routinely used by defence teams in rape cases?
A respectful question.

Surely with this defence, a man could simply argue (if he did concede there was sex) that it was "such and such.. (rough) type of sex" and therefore will always be acquitted even in the face of quite serious injury?
They'd try to claim it, absolutely. Back to the sliding scale of plausibility. A bruise is totally believable. A black eye is not. But where would 2 bruises and a small anal fissure fit on that scale? Juror A might think it's obviously a result of rape, juror B might still say it's vigorous sex.

We've had medical experts convince a jury that a baby was shaken to death. A few years later, that same evidence was disputed by other experts and a conviction overturned.

Definitely think there is a link between porn and BDSM attempts where men are thinking more extreme acts = better sex.
It's becoming less sensual and far more physical, not for all, but for enough to see a rise in certain types of sexual acts. That isn't to say group sex, anal sex, BDSM are wrong, but some of the associated thought processes involved in them are very damaging. It's not just men either, young women are getting caught up in believing this is de facto and expected of them.
I don't want to list all terms, but 'forced', 'filled', 'hard' are commonplace. You'll be hard pressed to find sensual, intimate or passionate. Coincidence? No.

www.theguardian.com/law/2011/aug/12/layla-jailed-after-reporting-sexual-assault

People do get accused of self infliction, however hard to believe.

There are two mutually exclusive assertions in this thread.

1. That the law is as clear as day about what rape is.
2. That judges and juries just aren't understanding it which is resulting in low conviction rates even amongst those cases that make it to court.

The law is not as clear as it looks at first glance and that is largely down to the reasonable belief clause.
Judges and juries struggle to reach a guilty verdict because of this clause, and because of the particularly stringent standards of evidence required.
That is notwithstanding the difficulties in gathering convincing evidence or some of the prejudices or assumptions jurors may make.
Somewhat surprisingly some academic research has found that female jurors are less likely to find guilty than male ones. I have no idea what to make of that.

Brilliantmistake The idea of female self inflicted injuries (especially intimate injuries) in order to make a false allegation of rape is outlandish to the point of being almost unbelievable.

This is only one case- have you seen this defence frequently run in practice?

Surely with this defence, a man could simply argue (if he did concede there was sex) that it was "such and such.. (rough) type of sex" and therefore will always be acquitted even in the face of quite serious injury?

I think medical evidence of injuries really need to be given greater weight. The courts should not entertain any misogynist tropes by defence teams that somehow injuries were desired or inflicted by the women themselves (except in very exceptional circumstances). Injury should not be normalised or dismissed - otherwise the courts are replicating the tropes of porn culture that have contributed to sexual assault and rape.

I feel like I'm wandering around in the Republic of Gilead now.

Brilliant, again, sorry if I've missed it, but are you posting lots of lengthy scenarios based on professional experience or other knowledge? I'm genuinely interested in knowing how injuries typically affect the outcome.

This is what I typed earlier:

A bruise on your calf might be thought of as pretty normal, a black eye would definitely not.
That is where I am saying a bruise is unlikely to be interpreted as convincing evidence, a black eye certainly would be. Next to nobody sustains a black eye during sex, lots sustain a bruise.

The examples you have given for physical injuries are for other parts of the body and I accept that these could or could not be indicative of forced sex. (eg bruise on calf/ black eye). Though I fail to see from your example how a black eye could be self-inflicted??
I used the example of a black eye in direct contrast to a bruise. Where a bruise would carry little weight, and most could easily envisage that being a result of vigorous sex. A black eye however is far from easily envisaged or expkained. Of course a far fetched story to explain a black eye could be invented, but not many would find it credible.

That the woman had sex and afterwards went on to bruise or lacerate her own genitalia in an attempt to frame the defendant?

www.thefword.org.uk/2010/03/rape_victim_jai_1/

With injuries, it's going to depend on the nature, severity and circumstances.
If the defendant admits sex took place, there would then be a question of whether the injuries were consistent with the type of sex they had... Bondage, against a wall, vigorous penetration etc, plus the severity. A bruise on a leg would probably not hold much sway, a bruising around the neck would.
If the defendant denies sex even took place, then depending on the nature of the injuries, a defence team would be looking to explain how they appeared, and self infliction would be one possibility.
Scratches on a man might suggest a struggle, but they might also suggest heated consentual sex if they are down his back.
How many bruises would it take for a jury to be convinced? Where would the bruises need to be?
If there were no injuries at all, what would that suggest? (Not all rapes incur injury).
So injuries add some weight to a rape allegation, it's by no means proof positive.

brilliantmistake The examples you have given for physical injuries are for other parts of the body and I accept that these could or could not be indicative of forced sex. (eg bruise on calf/ black eye). Though I fail to see from your example how a black eye could be self-inflicted??

For the avoidance of doubt- I was referring to internal intimate injuries, revealed through a medical examination.

How could a defence team argue these injuries be self-inflicted?

Thx for the Julie Bindel link Quentin

She's saying the same thing as me - have no juries and replace by "expert" Judge and 2 lay experts. My assumption is these proceedings would be open, not closed. The lay experts can still be a problem dependent upon who they are, but assuming the qualification is understanding the complex psychological dynamics of grooming, threat, coercion and appeasement then it's better odds than a jury.

The law isn't the major issue imo - it's the lack of understanding in juries as described earlier where a gay guy, by explaining to the male jurors about the dynamics, was able to change some minds and hence secure a conviction. Its the men that are the problem - who protect other men by default and have rape myths imprinted in their minds. They only listen to other men, not women.

Sorry for repeating what some others have said. Using phone so only had partial view of all posts.

Chaosandchocolate, no need to apologise, it's a very emotive subject and as a man every word I type is going to get scrutinised. I make mistakes and I word things badly sometimes, partly in haste to respond. We all want the same thing though - a better way forward. I do fear that porn and BDSM are only making it even more complicated.

My point - and I am trying to be pithy - is how can a defendant successfully argue he has a reasonable belief that a woman consents to activity which results in pain, bruising, bleeding or other medical trauma or injuries? Especially if he doesn't know her?

He is going to argue (and this is precisely what they do argue) that the sex was extremely intense and that brushing occurred as a result. The more significant the injuries, the less credible that becomes, but you're right back at a sliding scale of likelihood.
A bruise on your calf might be thought of as pretty normal, a black eye would definitely not. Marks on the wrist might not look very good, but if they were into BDSM it might be more credible.

Whatever situation is presented by the woman, the defence will have some explanation for. How believable that explanation is, is another matter.

I would think any sensible man would run away from anything remotely kinky or groups sex related on a one night stand precisely because it was so risky even for a man with no I'll intentions, but without sounding too prejudiced I would also imagine a man who is looking for sex within hours of meeting is probably so sex mad his perspective of women is already twisted. For a famous man wanting quick sex it's even more distorted because they really do think most women can't wait to have sex with them.

In some of their my minds, they think getting in a cab with them = up for anything, mates included.

Still these aren't typical rapes. These are exceptions. Most are between two people who at some point were getting along OK then the man became preoccupied with sex.

Re-reading back through the posts, my hypothetical scenario I can see this would be possible under 'consent withdrawn' but I also agree that even if the CPS allowed it to get to court, getting a jury to convict is another matter.