A list of seemingly unbelievable not-rapes (according to the CPS and juries)

[AdamRyan]

Inspired by this news where someone who reported a rape and was told they might have sexsomnia

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63116989

So these are other notable cases I can think of:

The man who tripped and penetrated someone
www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/millionaire-ehsan-abdulaziz-who-said-he-accidentally-tripped-and-penetrated-teen-is-cleared-of-rape-a6774946.html%3famp

The man who got the hotel room muddled up
www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1360801/amp/Haydor-Khan-cleared-rape-climbing-wrong-bed.html

The man who thought a girl who was moments before having sex with his friend must also want it with him, even though he was so tired he had to go to bed while his friend was getting viagra
www.irishmirror.ie/news/world-news/black-student-cleared-night-time-7951757

The man who thinks asking a friend "can I have a go [on her]?" is enough consent www.google.com/amp/s/thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/14/10-myths-busted-about-the-ched-evans-case/amp/

I'm so tired of it.

But in each of these cases, if the man says "I asked at the time and she consented to having sex with me" (maybe not 1)

The victim/survivor will say that no consent was given

Where do you go from there to prove beyond reasonable doubt?

Yes but the men didn't say that. So that's a moot point.
In 2, there is no doubt the man had sex with the woman, a stranger who was asleep. But because it was an "accident" because he was drunk, he got off. That woman was raped, no question. He just can't be called a rapist because he didn't mean to, apparently. Ridiculous state of affairs.

Did they get off at court following the trial for these?

Yes. That's why I linked them. (Apart from sexsomnia where cps declined to prosecute)
The fact the sex happened isn't in doubt, the fact the woman didn't want it/wasn't in a state to want it isn't in doubt but the men got off due to the bar to being found guilty of rape. And there's nothing in between "rapist"/"not a rapist". I think we need more grey in the law so the victims experience is validated.

So this is a failure at court level - not with the CPS or police who have managed to bring the case to court

The problem is - if you go down the route of showing that the person was reckless, then is there a need for the male to prove that consent was given?

Is it a problem for a male to have to detail how they actively sought consent?
I mean, even just going "I asked her and she said yes" is an improvement on what we have now.

The cases the CPS decline to prosecute won't make the news as often as the not guilty cases. The only time it's really newsworthy is if the complainant waives anonymity (like the sex somnia story). So not sure of your point there?

That was enough to cause reasonable doubt, despite text evidence of him admitted it and apologising to me (he had been a friend before this).

So an actual confession of guilt by a man can be dismissed if there's a chance the female victim may have had an intrusive thought four years before the admitted attack, which may have possibly led her to hallucinate (though she has no history of hallucinations) ...

I wonder if that would work the other way round, if it was a woman accused of attacking a man? No, not a chance.

I'm so sorry that happened to you, Newusernameaug. No chance of justice, but I hope your mutual friends all showed their contempt for him.

@Felix125
We see what you're saying - you think women should be flattered men want to fuck them.
Presumably we only object later because we don't want to be thought of as sluts?
Your 'arguments' simply do not apply in any other are of criminal, or civil, law.
MRA or incel?

I'm not saying that at all

I am saying that in law to prove 'beyond reasonable doubt' - you will always have the problem of proving consent was given or not if it's one word against another.

So if in the trial the male is asked 'how did you gain consent'
If he replies 'I asked and she said yes' - would this be acceptable and case closed?

Or should he have to prove beyond this that he was given consent - and if so, what would that be?

And she reserves the right to withdraw that consent at any time.
link below to the Cup of Tea analogy

Absolutely she can

But the argument will still stand as to whether consent was given and continued

I think the problem with the false accusation narrative is that when a rape case doesn't result in a prosecution, an overwhelming number of people interpret that as innocence on the alleged rapist's part, and therefore come to the conclusion that it's a false accusation even though a not guilty verdict isn't always the same as a confirmation of innocence.

Furthermore, this fans the flame of the narrative that women are often gold-diggers or attention seekers who would cry rape at the drop of a hat for personal benefit.

Yes, false accusations do happen. But more often than not, these cases of false accusations are highlighted and put on blast over and over again in bad faith to demonise women.

the ‘ tripped and penetrated ‘ case is probably explained by the next word : ‘millionaire.’

Rape is illegal mostly in name only.
The way the system is set up and highly stacked against victims the stats are a foregone conclusion.

Rape is illegal - and always will be

The problem you have to address is 'proving beyond reasonable doubt' in rape cases if you want the conviction rate to increase. There are also a host of other reasons such as victims/survivors not wanting to go to court over the incident.

The problem you have to address is 'proving beyond reasonable doubt' in rape cases if you want the conviction rate to increase.
No. The problem you have to address is the juries understanding of "reasonable belief the complainant was consenting"

If a man is so drunk he doesn't recognise what room he has gone into, is his belief the woman is consenting reasonable? I don't think so but the jury disagreed

The juries are members of the public. So, is it the public you need to educate rather than the police & CPS?

they took 4 days to come out and pick up my knickers,then they arrested him-he denied we had sex (even though his dna was in my pants and he admitted it to a mutual friend who made a statement) and the cps dropped the case

Similar experience. Police took all my clothes for testing, cps dropped the case. Months later policed called and said we can't return your clothes as they are mouldy...

Years later I became friends with someone who happened to be a copper. She told me that means the clothes were just left in a bag and never tested... and happens far too often...

I think the "reasonable belief" clause should be changed because it is failing victims.
It's pretty clear you are happy with the status quo so I'm not sure why you are posting

I've never said I'm happy with it.
I'm asking what are the solutions to resolve it

I’m feeling unbelievably lucky now that not only did my case go to course but that he was found guilty! And I really can’t fault the police, the office who dealt with my case was great.

ChaosDemon
They might not have needed to send the clothes away for forensics - so, if the suspect admitted to having sex but denied it was not consensual, then forensic examination will not provide any evidence.

The clothing should have been dried - we have access to forensic drying cabinets for such events - unless they were in use at the time.

They should have compensated you though for the loss of clothing. If they were sent away for forensics then often you can't get them back due to the chemicals used on them and cut samples taken from them.

Felix what you apparently fail to see (no matter how often it is being pointed out to you) is that even in cases where it is not an issue about ‚ he said, she said‘ an excuse will be found to not convict the rapist.

Like that case of that girl in the US - Rehtaeh Was her first name (Heather backwards). She was so drunk, she couldn’t mumble a word, the assault was on video, the guy bragged about it. But the case couldn’t be prosecuted, because she didn’t say no and was obviously too drunk to remember (as evidenced on the vid), and at the same time, her face was not clearly identifiable on the vid (only her hair and limp body and the perpetrator were).
She changed school (perp was a class mate), couldn’t take it and ultimately killed herself and only afterwards there was this ‚heureka‘- moment of ,actually, maybe the police could have prosecuted, considering the video evidence…

As long as even the most obvious cases get dismissed for self-contradictory reasons, the question about written consent is academic, because OBVIOUSLY even when you have video evidence of a guy violently penetrating an unconscious woman, it will get dismissed. So, what would anyone need a written consent form for?

I think Felix is ably illustrating that the system is not fit for purpose and weighs heavily in favour of aggressors- generally men.

Felix hasn't yet addressed the point of THIS thread, which is that even obvious non consensual sex can apparently be excused if it's at all in any way possible to consider it accidental.

If this was a driving offence, accidentally hitting someone with your car while- driving intoxicated/thinking they were someone else/driving across a car park while a bit tired and confused in the dark- WOULD be criminal.

Why are offences overwhelming committed against women by men who want sex so so easy to understand and excuse as accidental?