Men have done such a number on us that even women don't even know what rape is

[cailindana]

Now I know Judy Finnegan is not a paragon of intellectual prowess.

But still, I would never have thought such stupidity could fall from her lips: www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-29598732

She said the rape was "not violent." So what was it then? Friendly? Enjoyable? Just a little game?

How how how how how do we live in a world where a woman can't recognise the extreme violence of having your body used by another person?

I am just saying I think the law is as it should be.

I guess there is no decent way of proving beyond reasonable doubt what someone did or did not believe - which obviously must cause a lot of distress.

Brighton you are the only one discussing putting people on trial.
For quite some time, everyone else has been discussing how to try and dispel harmful attitudes in society in order that less sexual violence is perpetrated.

HTH

As the law stands lots of women are being raped but rapists are not being convicted in the same numbers.

Brighton

I guess there is no decent way of proving beyond reasonable doubt what someone did or did not believe - which obviously must cause a lot of distress.

That's the job of the jury - they have to decide whether what he says he believed was a reasonable belief.

Hi S7S - I knew there were a few crossed purposes, but all still relevant to each other in a way! Thanks

"I guess there is no decent way of proving beyond reasonable doubt what someone did or did not believe - which obviously must cause a lot of distress."

Well what it causes is hardly anyone bothering to report it because they know they'll put themselves through a ton of shit for likely fuck-all.

Hence the posters on feminism thinking around other ways of reducing sexual violence. Because the law is not the answer. Maybe it will be after some stuff in society has changed first, but right now, not.

The law in not adequate as it stands - it would be if men realised that the only time they should have sex with a woman is when she tells him (verbally or with body language) that she wants sex with him. I'm not sure that is the case. There are reams of evidence that too many men feel entitled to override women's wishes and boundaries to get their end way.

Buffy - how would you feel that suggestion squares with the idea of guilt being for the prosecution to prove, not the defence to disprove?

Again, huh?

His defence has already had to move from "she didn't say no" to "I thought she said yes" and then would move further to "I know she said yes and meant it".

The process that follows will then be the same as it is at the moment with one side saying he is telling the truth and she is lying, and the other side vice versa, possibly with other evidence and witnesses thrown in.

Although TBF my knowledge of the process comes mainly from the television.

I really don't understand how you get from what Buffy says to "ZOMG you want to change the system to guilty until proven innocent"?

Maybe I need to tap you on the shoulder and helpfully point out that your agenda may be showing slightly.

Hi S7S - That isn't what I said, so not sure why it's in quotes! I just asked how she felt the two ideas matched, I didn't presume to know her opinion.

Not sure what your point is about agendas though.

how would you feel that suggestion squares with the idea of guilt being for the prosecution to prove, not the defence to disprove?

If it's his defence case, it is up to him to prove what he thought was reasonable. He cant just ruck up and say 'this is what I thought, accept it' - he has to explain why it was he believed it - and it has to stand up to scrutiny. sounds fair to me.

Cando -

I thought it was up to the prosecution to introduce reasonable doubt to what a defendant says, not for them to prove it true!

Sorry - I got that totally wrong! Whoops.

I admire everyone's attempts to engage with Brighton but it should be pretty clear by now it's a waste of time. Still I hope the responses help lurkers.

I think, cadno, what broghton's getting at is that under uk criminal law, it is not for his defence to prove anything at all. It is the prosecution which must prove it's case, prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was no consent, and that there was no objective reasonable belief as to consent. Given the difference between rape and consented to sex lies purely in the mindsets of the two people involved, you can see why it's such a difficult conviction to get without changing long held uk principles. I agree changing mind sets may be the best way of reducing rape rather than relying on the law.

As MEOD says, its the defendant hoping he can introduces enough doubt in the prosecution case. And it is for the prosecution to prove its case against the defendant. Occasionally, there are times he has to prove something - such as how he his reasonable belief in consent.

That's long held uk criminal legal principles I meant, not uk principles generally.

Thank you FoolishLady - you got my point exactly and explained it in a much better way.

I agree changing mindset is the correct way - not changing the law.