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

You'd be surprised slice. Look at the case of Ched Evans. He never denied having sex with the victim. In fact I think in his police interviews he was quite open and unapologetic about it - he felt he had done nothing wrong.

If a man is picked up for rape and he says "yeah we had sex" then the next questions revolve around the circumstances of that.

In the past everything focused on the victim - what did she do, what was she wearing, was she drunk.

Now, the focus should shift to the accused - did you see that she was drunk, did she talk coherently to you, did she participate in the sex.

It's a fairly subtle change but it sends the strong message that it's not up to women to "keep themselves safe," it's up to men to know what real consent looks like and obtain that before getting into any sexual encounter.

It's unclear whether it'll lead to more rape convictions but it changes the entire character of rape as a crime, and that can only be a good thing.

Xposts. Thanks for that post cailindana. That makes sense.

I suppose not every case will be helped by this sadly. But if some are then thats a good thing.

I really hope that this will also open up discussion in general, and perhaps be talked about more in PSHE in secondary schools. I think there is a huge need for (some) young people to consider their attitude to sex. Stop thinking of it as something that men need and women grudgingly allow. Start thinking of it as something that both people actively enjoy and share together.

It's a massively positive step forward in a societal sense. It says that women have every right to control who penetrates them and actually it's not ok for men to "accidentally" stick their penis in people - they absolutely must be sure that that person wants it before doing anything.

When you think about it, it really is so incredibly basic. I know I bring this analogy up a lot but I think it's relevant. Cake is lovely but I don't wait till someone's too drunk to stop me and then stick cake in someone's mouth. It's rude, awful behaviour and could amount to assault.

Yet men go around sticking penises into the vaginas of women who are too drunk to stop them. And they get away with it, precisely because the woman was drunk. It makes absolutely no sense.

I'm really hopeful about Alison Saunders :)

I'm not readjng the comments. Last time I read the comments under a Jessica valenti article I was low for a week.

I think this is great news. I like the point that if a woman is drinks it's no longer assumed it's ok to have sex with her. Great step forward.

This is great news. I actually braved the comments on the Guardian site and although there was the same old BS there was a lot of very thoughtful positive counter argument. The overall feel was of dinosaurs clinging onto obviously outdated ridiculous 'rights' and being gently led into a brighter future.

I'm an ex-feminist so please feel free to ignore my comments if you want to. I only came to this thread because it was flagged on 'discussions of the day'.

I'm not against this proposed legislation but I'm not convinced it is going to really do anything major to help women, in practical terms. I feel very cautious about it and I worry that it's going to create a false sense of security for some women.

Firstly I think the premise that rapists don't believe they have to obtain consent is a false one in many cases. To use an example of a poster further up this thread I think they know full well that it's not OK to have sex with a drunk women. I think they enjoy knowing what they are doing is wrong and will do it anyway. So I don't think that this group of people will be changed or deterred in this sense.

Secondly I don't see how it helps people who were raped when drugs or alcohol were not involved. How on earth do you prove that you didn't say yes in that situation? It's still a he said/she said type situation.

Also where is the line in the sand regarding intoxication on alcohol? How drunk is too drunk? Who decides that, is it on a case by case basis? Does it depend on how much a person usually drinks. It's unlikely a women/man will be able to prove how drunk they were at the time of their attack unless they get a blood test straight away.

What happens in a case where the rapist is equally as drunk as the victim? Will courts begin to argue that if a victim can be too drunk to consent a rapist can be too drunk to know what they were doing?

It would be interesting to know if there will be a sort of amnesty in the legislation for women who abuse drugs and illegal substances. A lot of very vulnerable women use drugs regularly and are more likely to be raped while unable to give their consent because of their drug use, but will they be able to admit that without risking prosecution for their drug use?

I'd feel more positive about it if there was something being done about the roll of pubs and clubs in all of this. It's them that are supplying already drunk women with enough alcohol to make them incapacitated in many cases. What happened to landlords being responsible for their patrons?

"Will courts begin to argue that if a victim can be too drunk to consent a rapist can be too drunk to know what they were doing? "

I don't think so - I think drunkenness doesn't count as an excuse for a crime. Possibly it might mitigate the sentence, in some circumstances?

Also, being too drunk to know you're committing a rape, makes me doubt you'd be able to commit said rape.

This is positive news. Sure it's not going to change everything overnight. But I can't see a downside.

I also fail to see how pub landlords can be responsible for rapists raping

What I'm pleased about is that this is the DPP saying this - it has a direct influence (slower to materialise than I might like, but still) on how the justice system handles rape cases and shifts the focus from the behaviour of the victim to that of the defendant. And hopefully this will start to shift things at a societal level too, as it starts to dawn on people that women are not in a permanent state of consent unless they are screaming "no" and physically trying to get away

This isn't a change in the law, though, is it? I thought that establishing the reasonable belief in consent was already part of the process. Or should have been.

What on earth is an ex feminist?

But I digress. Definietly a step in the right direction.

definitely

That was me typing faster than my brain tbh (re change in law)

No, it's not a change in the law, it's a change in the guidance of how the law should be applied. In theory, establishing consent should have been part of the process but what was really happening was that police and prosecutors focused on the way in which the woman denied consent, rather than how the man obtained consent. It shifts the focus in a really positive way.

I too wondered what an "ex feminist" is.

Perhaps someone who used to believe in gender equality but now thinks women should be subservient to men?

I think in this case it means someone who used to post in feminism and doesn't any more....

I don't think all the points are ill thought out....

This probably doesn't affect intentionally deliberate rapers that much directly, but it does shift the conversation in a way that will isolate them further from what is considered reasonable behaviour.

Firstly I think the premise that rapists don't believe they have to obtain consent is a false one in many cases. To use an example of a poster further up this thread I think they know full well that it's not OK to have sex with a drunk women. I think they enjoy knowing what they are doing is wrong and will do it anyway. So I don't think that this group of people will be changed or deterred in this sense.

I think the Ched Evans case indicates differently - there was certainly a sense in the comments made by many men and women about the case that the fact that the victim was drunk was not only seen as not being a problem, but as a justification for what Evans did- as in, she was drunk, what did she expect? I think underlining the fact that being drunk isn't a crime but rape is is important. I do believe there are plenty of opportunistic rapists out there (my own rapist being one of them) who will rape because they know that society won't blame them for it. If it's made clear that drunkenness will cause suspicion to fall on the man not the woman then I think that will reduce opportunistic rape. If one rape is prevented, it's worth it.

Secondly I don't see how it helps people who were raped when drugs or alcohol were not involved. How on earth do you prove that you didn't say yes in that situation? It's still a he said/she said type situation.

Witnesses, or CCTV, as in the Ched Evans case.

Also where is the line in the sand regarding intoxication on alcohol? How drunk is too drunk? Who decides that, is it on a case by case basis? Does it depend on how much a person usually drinks. It's unlikely a women/man will be able to prove how drunk they were at the time of their attack unless they get a blood test straight away.

Again, witnesses can say if a woman was incoherent, or stumbling. That would make a good case for severe intoxication. The line would have to be determined by the jury.

What happens in a case where the rapist is equally as drunk as the victim? Will courts begin to argue that if a victim can be too drunk to consent a rapist can be too drunk to know what they were doing?

Being drunk, or "not knowing what you were doing" is not a defence, except in cases where there is a medical condition (such as sleepwalking) that the person can't control.

It would be interesting to know if there will be a sort of amnesty in the legislation for women who abuse drugs and illegal substances. A lot of very vulnerable women use drugs regularly and are more likely to be raped while unable to give their consent because of their drug use, but will they be able to admit that without risking prosecution for their drug use? Being high on drugs isn't a crime - possession is.

I'd feel more positive about it if there was something being done about the roll of pubs and clubs in all of this. It's them that are supplying already drunk women with enough alcohol to make them incapacitated in many cases. What happened to landlords being responsible for their patrons?

It is not the duty of publicans to prevent rape.

I didn't even address the "false sense of security" thing as I have absolutely no idea how this guidance will do that.