Jack Tweed found not guilty of rape

[Ponders]

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/8644486.stm

hmm. Did he just get the benefit of the doubt do you think - his word against hers?

Or "she knew what he's like when she chose to go back to his house"?hmm

Will she now be named?

These cases are horrible - really hard to determine who's guilty - maybe we should adopt the Scottish Not Proven verdict.

(put this in sleb twaddle before & then realised hardly anybody reads that!)

"If someone made it clear they found me sexually attractive, to the extent they were kissing me, agreed to come back to my house, got into bed with me etc, etc, I would not at that stage be thinking I needed to ask them explicity if they consented to me having sex with them and I would be shocked and horrified if after the event they accused me of acting against their wishes."

Spero, take a minute to imagine this scenario or remember a scenario like this from your own life. Men are perfectly capable of noticing the difference between a woman (drunk or not) who wants sex and a woman who (drunk or not) does not want sex. Men are perfectly capable of noticing a change in a woman's demeanour and body language which says 'actually, no, I don't want to go any further'. They can read this signals as well as your or I can.

Furthermore, women do not report rape to the police lightly. Women are far more likely to give the man the benefit of the doubt and blame themselves for getting into that situation in the first place, an attitude encouraged by all the rape myths that abound in our society.

Er, on what planat does a stranger happen upon a drunken girl collapsed in a corridor and think that it's perfectly normal to 'have sex' with her?

Of course that was rape- any barometer of natural justice would indicate that. Sounds like he got off on a technicality to me. I bet the poor woman was gutted.

Molesworth, I just don't agree.

Men and women are often sadly miles apart when it comes to understanding what we are sexually receptive to. I have had my own experiences of men who thought they were doing a wonderful job and who were shocked and upset when I pointed out that er, not they weren't.

Why do you think the problem pages are full of this kind of stuff? People tend not to communicate well about sex. If you are young and not very sexually experienced how on earth are you supposed to know what is usual or not?

So you are telling me the full force of the criminal law should be unleashed upon men in the circs I describe??? Sorry, just don't buy that.

"If someone made it clear they found me sexually attractive, to the extent they were kissing me, agreed to come back to my house, got into bed with me etc, etc, I would not at that stage be thinking I needed to ask them explicity if they consented to me having sex with them and I would be shocked and horrified if after the event they accused me of acting against their wishes"

People have the right to withdraw consent at any time and to consent to some acts or not, i.e in the situation you give above, you may consent to vaginal sex but not anal sex....so why not be asked explicitly? How would you know was was being consented to?

Communication between consenting partners about sex might be problematic, but we are not talking about that: we are talking about the basic issue of consent. I don't buy that men find it so difficult to work out whether or not a woman wants sex with them at any point in the encounter.

BitOfFun - it's not a technicality. Its called the burden and standard of proof and it exists in criminal cases for a very good reason. If you are convicted, you lose your liberty and your reputation.

The Security Guard in that case said - she fancied me. She wanted to have sex. I genuinely believed she was consenting.

She said: I was too drunk to remember if I said yes or not.

So he has to go to prison for that?? Why???
How does that make our lives any better? How does that stop rapists?

By the way it is not ridiculous to suggest that women have reported rapes because they have been embarrassed to have slept with a particular man.

Just ask poor Austen Donnellan.

date-rape-acquittal-stokes-row-a-person-who-is-drunk-and-because-she-is-drunk-consents-to-an-act-whi ch-she-would-not-when-sober-still-consents-1511857

This witness made it clear in the box that she may have consented or may not have consented....she is unrealiable as a witness because she could not remember what was said.
That is why there was no conviction

Re: the security guard case, it says that he was a stranger to the woman. How he could know that a woman so blind drunk that she was collapsed on the floor in a corridor 'fancied him' I really don't know.

Scurryfunge, not getting your point. Are you agreeing with me?

If he'd just taken her wallet and then claimed she had said "Go on mate, it's all yours", and she couldn't recall saying any such thing or not, would he be viewed as innocent of robbery? I doubt it. Why is it any better a reason to let off a rapist?

Molesworth - if she had passed out, that would have been rape, as she was in no position to consent or not. She had NOT passed out. She was simply so drunk she couldn't remember if she said 'yes' or not.

So I repeat: are you saying that man should have a conviction for rape and a custodial sentence?

I'm agreeing that in that case there could not have been a safe conviction. I don't think lying was the issue though, the lack of remembering what happened was the issue.

BitOfFun. Er, if you consent to someone taking your wallet it can't be robbery. Robbery is the forceful taking of something against your will.

We are back to the issue of consent again.

I am not saying any of these women are cold, blackhearted liars, just trying to get some innocent man locked up.

What I am saying is that their confusion about whether or not in retrospect they offered their whole hearted consent to sexual intercouse is not and should not be a basis on which you put someone in prison.

But would you believe that had happened though? Sounds pretty fucking unlikely to me- as does agreeing to have sex in a corridor with a stranger when bladdered. What kind of a monster would take somebody up on that offer anyway?

This is really the issue isn't it. That you think the security guard's behaviour was 'monstrous'. But according to the law, it couldn't be rape because the jury believed that he believed she was consenting.

Isn't the answer that we need a different kind of sexual offence, other than rape. Having sex being careless about consent??

And what kind of custodial sentence do you think that should merit?

"I find the notion that women make up allegations of rape becasue if embarrassment about a sexual encounter laughable. So you're ashamed of a one-night stand"

I'm not sure if that's what people on this thread are saying i.e. that it's an outright fabrication.
I think what is being described is cases when there has certainly been a sexual encounter but the subjective perceptions of both parties on the issue of consent is being debated. That is when it becomes very hard to say with any certainty what happened.

"Well false accusations of rape run at 2-4% Mayor Quimby, so you can do the sums."
you've said before that this is the same as for most other crimes, but surely those are only the percentage which have been found to be outright fabrications as with other crimes. Do you think that everyone who is found not guilty in all other cases is in generally a guilty liar in the same way you do rape?

o and it doesn't matter what you or I believe about the Security Guard. Its what the jury - who heard the evidence, saw the witnesses etc - believed.

If the victim is confused about whether consent was given, then there will never be a conviction, quite rightly. In that particular case it sounds as if victim's account was never questioned properly in her intial account. I can't believe she surprised everyone in court with, "actually I can't remember what happened that night"

mayor quimby, you hit the nail on the head.

Its about perceptions, not fabrications.

The kind of dogmatic assertions on this thread are, in my view, one of the reasons why rape is so difficult to prosecute. You don't allow for any shades of grey with that kind of thinking.

Yes, in theory you should be able to withdraw your consent to having sex at any time and the man should respect this. But really, are some people on this thread saying that if a man has inserted half his penis and the woman says no! that man has to withdraw immediately or be prosecuted for rape? Get real.

and in the scenario above, what I mean is that up unto that point, both man and woman had been willing partners.