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

I used to train volunteers for Victim support to support female and male victims of rape so I learnt a lot about sexual violence during that time. As we already know, rape is about power and control and just as female victims often have little injuries after their assault ( often because intimidation and the threat if violence is enough to force a woman to submit), with male victims, not only is the act ( anal penetration ) more violent, it takes more physical violence to subdue a male victim. The evidence of physical violence may also partly account for the higher rate of conviction with male victims. All rape is an act of violence though.

In this country, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. This law change seems to say that the man is guilty until proven innocent.

No, it really doesn't.

Unless you think that men not knowing if they have consent or not is ok?

Is that what you're saying, machair?

House,sorry I don't have any stats on that to give you and I don't do that job any more.

This law change seems to say that the man is guilty until proven innocent.

Good old seems, convenient go-to when you don't want to bother reading stuff but still feel a bit hostile. There's no reason why a man shouldn't be asked which words or actions led him to the conclusion that he had consent. The idea that women are in a perpetual state of consent to sex unless otherwise stated is risible.

it's not a change in the law

am sure this has been pointed out already but the law has required 'reasonable belief in consent' since whenever (2005?)

this is an important and overdue shift in guidance from the CPS to the police

and really if people can't grasp such basic things they should fuck off and be thick somewhere else

The guidelines in no way mean 'guilty until proven innocent'.

The question they're planning on asking is so basic, so obvious, and (for anyone who respects their sexual partners) so simple-

How did you know that she consented to have sex with you?

Innocent men will have nothing to fear because they'll immediately answer 'I knew she consented because she said (or did) x, y,z.' And if they're telling the truth, their story will stand up under cross examination.

Not that they'd be likely to face accusations of rape anyway, because women who have fully consensual and (hopefully) enjoyable sex very rarely accuse their partners of rape.

The only men who need to worry are those who don't bother to find out whether a woman really wants sex before penetrating her. Oh and those who rape women who are incapacitated and can't consent.

Thank you MrsKCastle.

I don't think writing off as annoying nonsense, the questions about false accusations etc, is really sensible.

Although such accusations are very very rare, don't we test how well the criminal justice system protects fundamental rights such as 'innocent until proven guilty' by concocting extreme hypothetical examples? Doing so does not undermine victims IMO

So you don't think the police should ask men how they knew their partner was consenting to sex, if there is an accusation of rape.

Really?

I can't see what the big deal is. Seems like a perfectly reasonable question to me.

IRL if I met a man who argued that he didn't see why men accused of sex crimes should have to answer questions like that I'd be giving him a swerve on the being by ourselves front TBH.

Yes, because the tiny number of 'false accusations' must be beaten with a stick, while the enormous number of men who get away with serially raping women should be able to carry on.

I can't even...

Saying that it's 'guilty until proven innocent' is exactly like saying people who claim a murder is self defence should not be questioned as to why exactly they believed their life was threatened.

As with that defence, there is something that is not in question: someone died / people had sex. The question is what motives and methods were behind that action.

And yeah, puffins I find the speed at which false rape claims are always brought up horrendously depressing.

And ditto the 'oh so now men have to have a signed piece of paper from a woman in order to shag her'.

Er no, fuckwits. If you honestly can't tell the difference between 'up for it' and 'not up for it' then I feel sad for you, but there is always time to learn.

Er no, fuckwits. If you honestly can't tell the difference between 'up for it' and 'not up for it' then I feel sad for you, but there is always time to learn.

Oh god no, don't encourage them. If you honestly can't tell whether someone wants the ride off you, best just leave women alone.

I don't know if any of you have ever been cross-examined. I have, quite recently for about 12 hours over the course of two days. It is not about telling your side of the story. You are not allowed to. You are only allowed to answer the questions put to you and a barrister is trained to 'control' the person being cross-examined so they know the answer the witness has to give. This is not about finding out the truth it is about achieving a conviction. That is the job of the barrister.

There will have to be a lot of new case law established here. The problem is the new guidance works very well in date rape cases but not so well for other cases.

I really dont think 'non verbal' signals can be relied on as a defence if you read the new guidance in a strict sense. I don't know how judges will guide juries - there are a lot of uncertainties as to how this wlll be applied in practice. Without a clearly verbalised 'yes' I am not sure how any other defence would be interpreted.