Changes in how rape will be investigated- about time!

[AWholeLottaNosy]

I just read this and I was really pleased. It's about time rape was investigated and prosecuted differently considering the appalling rape conviction rate we have in this country. Imagine there will be an outcry from all the MRAs, but, I think it's very good news...

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11375667/Men-must-prove-a-woman-said-Yes-under-tough-new-rape-rules.html

Yes, you're right House.

Do you honestly think, MoreBeta, that a woman who regrets having consensual sex with someone will merrily throw a grenade into her own life by embroiling herself in the legal system for years on end? Again, what is the reason for you thinking that any person would do that?

"However, if I changed my mind in the morning how do you prove I'd said it was ok the night before? Say I woke up in the morning and thought I wouldn't have looked at him twice in a saner moment? Or I was married and thought "oh my god what do I do now - oh I'll say he raped me".

In real life, he doesn't have to prove you said it was ok the night before. In real life, what would happen is the man would say 'she consented' and it would probably just about stop there unless you were sporting some obvious horrendous injuries to prove what a 'bad' rape it was.

In real life, hopefully, you wouldn't ever consider bringing a rape charge to cover up cheating on your husband.

In real life, hopefully, you wouldn't ever consider bringing a rape charge because you had consensual sex with someone you might not've in other circumstances.

In real life, hopefully, if you DID bring this rape charge, the police would ask the man why he felt you consented, and he would give examples of you initiating and/or happily engaging in sexual activity.

Whether or not you are married or regret sex is NOTHING to do with rape. It astounds me how many people seem confused by this point, and all I can think is that it's a wilful misunderstanding, honestly. Because I am no genius, and it has never, ever, seemed confusing to me.

MoreBeta, is it the case that you honestly believe that rape is just sex that went a bit wrong? Is it that you're just naive?

I'm sure it happens, or has happened, echoes of our past worth as unspoilt goods and the double standard that only adult male humans are sexual for fun although we must try and look the part, but only up to some ever shifting point

but anyone who seriously thinks it happens even a hundredth of the time for every rape that's alleged is fucking delusional and a creep or a woman indulging in a bit of magical thinking about her own safety from sexual violence

It's been said over and over and over again on this thread. The whole "drunk (possibly married) woman has morning-after regret and cries rape" scenario is a straw man. It really is. It is not something that happens to an even remotely significant degree. As such it is utterly insignificant to this discussion that men should seek enthusiastic consent and that if a rape is reported it is up to the police to ask the man if they did in fact seek enthusiastic consent before penetrating a woman.

If you get drunk and cheat, you go home and shut the fuck up about it. Why on earth would any woman report it as rape and drag herself through the horror of what comes after as an alternative to just not saying anything.

I don't think the problem is that people think that rape is just "sex gone wrong". Well I do sort of.

It's more a different starting point isn't it and I'm only just coming to understand that. That many people think that "feminists" are trying to get perfectly standard and fine sexual encounters classified as rape in law. They see sexual situations where one person has sex with another who doesn't want it, but doesn't leave obvious injuries or smash up rooms, as simply some kind of regrettable misunderstanding that may leave one party upset but hey life isn't fair is it and no need to over-react. And so to "criminalise" that (although it is already criminal) seems outrageous.

Additionally it shows up the nature of women of reproductive age as in a permanent state of consent. No-one looks at the type of situations trotted out (they were dressed X, they were walking in such a place, they took their clothes off) as meaning consent to unfettered sexual access to their body if the person is a child, or an elderly woman, or a man, do they. If DH got pissed with one of his mates and his mate took all his clothes off and got into bed DH wouldn't take that as a green light to fuck him. It's just women and girls between about 14 and 50 to whom those rules apply.

I am having a lot of these sorts of revelations lately - like really getting it rather than just understanding in an abstract way - and it's horrible.

"I am having a lot of these sorts of revelations lately - like really getting it rather than just understanding in an abstract way - and it's horrible."

Me too. In a big way.

Offering to PM women about 'other people' defending guidance that's been shown to let rapists off the hook is creepy.

I'm not optimistic about Alison Saunders, although if there's a lot of pressure from the public she might improve. She said the other day on the radio that she won't accept there's a problem with how the CPS handle rape.

Also, she defended the decision to prosecute a woman for 'perverting the course of justice' when this led to the woman had taking her own life, and when it was clearly unnecessary.

I so hate the 'rape is sex women regret' myth. Ugh.

cailindana -"....is it the case that you honestly believe that rape is just sex that went a bit wrong?"

No. My issue is that this change in quidelines without proper debate opens the door to 'sex that went a bit wrong?" suddenly becoming defined as rape.

Sorry but these guidelines are a change in the way the legal process operates. The onus will be on the man to explain himself in the police station well before it gets to court and a refusal to do so which he is perfectly entitled to is very likely to lead to a charge because he has not been wiling to explain how he got a positive 'yes' consent.

MoreBeta

Let's run a thought experiment.

Someone dies.
Someone else is present.

The police take the person who was present to the police station and ask how the dead person died.

They say 'they attacked me and I killed them in self defence'.

They then refuse to answer any other questions about it.

Do you think this would look quite suspicious?

Do you think that affects the 'innocent until proven guilty' part of the law?

Police love it when people 'try and explain themselves'. That is what a lot of people on here are saying a man accused of rape should be forced ot do in the police station.

A police officer wrote a blog post about nice middle class people being just the easiest people to convict because they think being reasonable and explaining what happened will make the police drop a case. It doesn't. It all just gets written down and used in evidence.

His advice is say nothing. Don't explain anything. That's advice from a police officer and this constant chipping away at the right to silence is very insidious.

So, the man can go ahead and say nothing. That is his right. That hasn't changed.

I'm still not sure what the problem is?

Why would an innocent man refuse to explain how he got consent? That's like someone who has a strong alibi refusing to tell the police where the were when the murder happened. Yes, you have a right to silence- but why exercise that right when you can easily clear yourself?

The onus should already be on a man to explain why he believes he had consent to stick his dick into another person.

Those questions should already have been being asked.

The complainant already gets asked how they indicated they didn't consent, why shouldn't the respondent be asked what gave him the idea that they had permission? Why on earth wouldn't a man faced with a potential rape charge willingly describe how he knew he had consent? Unless he was a rapey twat?

It isn't a change, it's a clarification for the police and the CPS to do their bloody jobs properly.

If there had been no change these guidelines would not have been issued.

There has been a change in process. How a case is investigated, how the CPS decide which cases come to court, the emphasis on the man explaining how and what 'yes' consent he sought. These are all small changes that cumulatively could in certain cases have a crucial impact. In many cases they will be right in some cases they will be wrong.

There are none so blind as those who want to believe that women are lying, eh?

MoreBeta, it's a change in the process to bring what police and prosecutors are doing in line with the law. The law already states that: 'Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.'
How are police supposed to determine that without questioning all parties involved?

Are you advocating that men accused of rape not be questioned at all?

You sound like you have issues. I suggest that rather than implying that all women have the problems you do, you seek a therapist and avoid what the films call adult situations until you're ready. But leave the rest of us out of this.

I don't have problems (not ishoos) - I've never been in the situation where I've regretted sex and I didn't make any such implications. Don't make offensive assumptions because you can hide behind an anonymous name.

A very similar situation DID occur when a law student accused someone wrongly of rape. She was later found out and won't now ever be able to follow a legal career. So don't please pretend this never happens because it does! Admittedly it was also reported in the Daily Heil: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2006373/Female-law-student-jailed-making-rape-allegation-ashamed-failing-university.html but I'm pretty sure I remember reading about it in the Times. So yes there are women out there who are happy to do this. Fortunately not many and it makes the news when they do. But don't behave as if people are being made to suggest it happens.