Accused rapist Ched Evans to be released from prison

[BigTom]

But this is the predominant view, for the past few years we've had more and more of it, spearheaded by the whole campus rape thing led by US universities, the phone apps designed to ensure that nobody takes you to court the morning after etc.
I've had a proper almost shouty argument about this recently with my very feminist sort of boyfriend, because I really don't get it: The idea that if say two equally drunk people have sex the woman is basically a victim and the man a criminal. But I can't comment on the case this thread is about because I know nothing about what actually happened.

The law does not state this, and the Ched Evans case shows that it is not applied in that way. I can't remember the name of the other guy* who was acquitted but his acquittal shows that what you've said here is totally false, and would not happen in any case (not just this one, any case, the law is not framed as you are suggesting, not at all). There are two conditions that must be met: 1) the raped person must have been too drunk to be able to give consent. 2) It must be reasonable to believe that the accused would know that the raped person was not in a condition to give consent.

Two equally drunk people, neither will be considered to be in a state to know the other was not in a state to be able to give consent.

*e2a: Clayton McDonald, Belboid thinking the same as me but with a better memory

 

[Sasaferrato]

God, the scum really are back out in force today. Fucking rape apologists, that is what they are pure and simple. Deliberately trying to muddy waters, let an abuser of the hook and blaming the victim.

Really is a case in point. You (and Sasaferrato ) pretend to have followed the case 'closely' and yet you still come out with shite like this? If you had actually followed the case, you would remember how and why Clayton McDonald got off. It's pretty fucking clear.

Without knowing what the new evidence is, there is absolutely no reason to think Evans has a 'good' chance, or a 'vague' chance or a remote chance of getting off, it's all bullshit. And those of you pretending otherwise are talking reactionary shite. And doing so while/because you are ignoring the massive, fucking humungous, barriers facing women attempting to get a bit of justice after being raped. Only 5.7% of reported rapes end in a conviction, and only 15% are even reported. But let's have most sympathy for the tiny number of blokes (especially famous ones!) who abuse women, but possibly not quite badly enough for it to count as rape.

Fuck them, and fuck their apologists.

Try a cogent argument, rather than 'ad hom' abuse, then I will listen, rather than as now regarding you as being a bit of a tit.

 

[Sasaferrato]

That's a question for the jury, on all the evidence.

Yep. I wouldn't like to be on that jury.

 

[bimble]

I take your point. However, as it is the man who owns the invading organ, it is up to the man to ensure that before he pokes it in, he has consent to do so.

Ok. So the man is the active part of sex and the woman just a passive receptacle. Leaving that to one side... What if (and this is not about the case this thread is about just a general theoretical query) - what if the woman is drunk and in her drunkenness is enthusiastically consenting?

 

[Spymaster]

That's a question for the jury, on all the evidence.

Well exactly. The point being that it's sometimes going to be very, very, difficult.

 

[Athos]

Ok. So the man is the active part of sex and the woman just a passive receptacle. Leaving that to one side... What if (and this is not about the case this thread is about just a general theoretical query) - what if the woman is drunk and in her drunkenness is enthusiastically consenting?

If she's consenting it's not rape. This really isn't that difficult, unless you allow other agendas to deliberately muddy the waters.

 

[Spymaster]

It doesn't really matter, since the point at which someone can be convicted is that at which a jury are sure he knew she hadn't consented. It's a very, very high bar for the prosecution.

So change the standard of proof?

How would you address that?

 

[belboid]

Try a cogent argument, rather than 'ad hom' abuse, then I will listen, rather than as now regarding you as being a bit of a tit.

I dont give a shit if you 'listen' or not. You're arguments are shit and incoherent

Because it is. Someone who is so drunk that they urinate on themselves is probably not in a condition to give consent for sexual intercourse. It comes down to whether the second jury feel that consent could be given. It is a fine line in law, by any standards of decency, it is a no brainer, the woman is not in a state where consent can be given.

Is rape apologism, no more no less. You can attempt to make as much fudge as you like, but that is what it is.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Adam Johnson sister 'applauds' Ched Evans rape conviction decision

The sister of former Middlesbrough FC footballer Adam Johnson has 'applauded' news that Ched Evans' rape conviction has been quashed by the Court of Appeal.

Tidy.

 

[BigTom]

Ok. So the man is the active part of sex and the woman just a passive receptacle. Leaving that to one side... What if (and this is not about the case this thread is about just a general theoretical query) - what if the woman is drunk and in her drunkenness is enthusiastically consenting?

Is she too drunk to be able to give consent? If she is then you say no, I've done it before and I know others here have, don't care how enthusiastic she is, if she's in a proper state I'm not going to sleep with her... and I was thanked in the morning afterwards too.

 

[bluescreen]

Well that's what I mean. It's not a strawman at all. At what point is someone too drunk to consent? Is there a test and if so what is it?

Big difference here in how we might convict someone on incontrovertible evidence, and how we might conduct our own lives. Some victims of non-consensual sex fall into that gap.

 

[Athos]

Well exactly. The point being that it's sometimes going to be very, very, difficult.

No more so than establishing the mens rea in lots of other cases; something juries do all the time. It's a red herring. The law in this area is stacked heavily in favour of defendants, and attempts to suggest that blokes are now walking some impossibly fine line are disingenuous.

 

[Athos]

So change the standard of proof?

How would you address that?

No. Just stop pretending that the law is too unclear/marginal for men to abide by.

 

[Spymaster]

... attempts to suggest that blokes are now walking some impossibly fine line are disingenuous.

That's not what I'm suggesting at all. I'm suggesting the jury will be in some cases where drink or drugs are involved. .

 

[Spymaster]

No. Just stop pretending that the law is too unclear/marginal for men to abide by.

You've misunderstood. See above.

 

[bimble]

There are two conditions that must be met: 1) the raped person must have been too drunk to be able to give consent. 2) It must be reasonable to believe that the accused would know that the raped person was not in a condition to give consent.
Two equally drunk people, neither will be considered to be in a state to know the other was not in a state to be able to give consent.

You make it sound all quite clear and easy to determine. I would like to think that you're right. So.. are there authorised drunkenness scales which juries use to determine where the two parties were at during the disputed event?
It's probably not as simple as you are suggesting really, is it? I mean, "I'd had 4 pints so I can't be held responsible for taking her drunken enthusiasm at face value", would that stand up as a defence?
I think this stuff is important, not for the sake of famous footballers but in relation to ordinary young people, a significant proportion of whom have their first sexual encounters whilst not completely sober?

 

[Athos]

That's not what I'm suggesting at all. I'm suggesting the jury will be in some cases where drink or drugs are involved. .

Not that fine; they must be sure beyond reasonable doubt!

 

[belboid]

That's not what I'm suggesting at all. I'm suggesting the jury will be in some cases where drink or drugs are involved. .

And? Should we just drop cases where d&d are involved then? Or should judges give absolutely clear instruction as to how and when such issues are relevant? As a close follower of the case (and rape cases in general, no doubt), you will be well aware of how judges directions are often so appalling as to stress how a victim danced with the defendant, or accepted a drink off him, or wore risque clothing, or some other such bullshit. have one drink and you will often blow any chance of conviction, and THAT is the real fucking tragedy.

 

[bluescreen]

And? Should we just drop cases where d&d are involved then? Or should judges give absolutely clear instruction as to how and when such issues are relevant? As a close follower of the case (and rape cases in general, no doubt), you will be well aware of how judges directions are often so appalling as to stress how a victim danced with the defendant, or accepted a drink off him, or wore risque clothing, or some other such bullshit. have one drink and you will often blow any chance of conviction, and THAT is the real fucking tragedy.

Do you reckon the problem is more with the judges than the law itself, or is the problem with both? I'm assuming there is a problem - it seems bloody obvious tbh.

 

[belboid]

You make it sound all quite clear and easy to determine, and I would like to think that you're right. So.. are there authorised drunkenness scales which juries use to determine where the two parties were at during the disputed event?
It's probably not as simple as you are suggesting really, is it? I mean, "I'd had 4 pints so I can't be held responsible for taking her drunken enthusiasm at face value", would that stand up as a defence?
I think this stuff is important, not in terms of famous footballers but ordinary young people, a significant proportion of whom have their first sexual encounters whilst not completely sober?

If you cant stand up, if you are passing out pissed, and if the other person can see that is happening, then that person can see you are in no position to consent. If the othe person (as McDonald did) got pissed with you, and you agreed then to have sex earlier, then they might think they still had an agreement to have sex, and not be guilty of rape. Astoundingly. The real question here should be how McDonald didn't get found guilty, not how Evans might have been harshly treated.

 

[Pickman's model]

Well exactly. The point being that it's sometimes going to be very, very, difficult.

yeh it's going to be beyond the wit of the person at the time and will clearly have to be delegated to a jury after tears all round

 

[DotCommunist]

Adam Johnson sister 'applauds' Ched Evans rape conviction decision



Tidy.

is that enough people now to qualify as a 'ring'?

 

[ViolentPanda]

I did.

I wanted him flogged to within an inch of his life and then castrated and fed to pigs.

It seems as though I could have been wrong.

Which is why people ridicule your lust for the death penalty.

 

[belboid]

Do you reckon the problem is more with the judges than the law itself, or is the problem with both? I'm assuming there is a problem - it seems bloody obvious tbh.

What's 0.057*0.15...not very much is it. Which means there surely is a pretty bloody significant problem.

The law has got better over the last twenty/thirty years, as has law enforcement. The latter are probably a bigger problem still now, imo. And 'wider society in general' - I dont like using the phrase 'rape culture', but it isn't a million miles from the truth - is probably an even bigger problem still.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Ah come on. By that standard every woman who has had sex whilst drunk is a rape victim!

There's a massive distinction between "inebriated" and "so drunk you lose consciousness and continence".

 

[Spymaster]

If the othe person (as McDonald did) got pissed with you, and you agreed then to have sex earlier, then they might think they still had an agreement to have sex, and not be guilty of rape.

McDonald did not get drunk with her.

He knew her, they were friends, but she was already well pissed when they met that evening.

 

[ViolentPanda]

It is not a question of who is standing with whom. It is a question of justice.

I have been following this case quite closely, and I agree with Spymaster. I would consider that there is a more than fair chance that he will be found not guilty.

The odds are roughly evens. The CPS won't bring (or re-bring) charges if they reckon there isn't at least a 50% chance of winning, and the Court of Appeals won't find for a re-trial unless they see the defendant as having at least a 50% chance of winning.

That's on law. Factor in the jury, and the legal odds can fly out of the window.

 

[butchersapron]

I don't formulate the law, I suggest you address your concerns to the Attorney General.

Who doesn't formulate law.

 

[peterkro]

i never pissed the bed. what was i doing wrong?

Neither have I and I'm guessing it's because we haven't actually blacked out as opposed to passed out.I have done rehab however and as you can imagine a certain amount of boasting goes on,them "have you ever pissed the bed" me "no" them "well you are not a real alcoholic then,me "??? I don't have wet brain either but I do have an alcohol problem".This page has a section on blacking out (don't know how legit just a page at random):
Alcohol in the Body - liver - brain - fetal alcohol syndrome - hangover
also the PDF on alcohol blackouts and crime linked underneath is worth a read.
One thing I'm pretty certain about is that you can't have consensual sex in that state.
The pissing in drawers,wardrobes and on the floor thing is quite common and is more to do with sleepwalking rather than blacking out.

 

[butchersapron]

You make it sound all quite clear and easy to determine. I would like to think that you're right. So.. are there authorised drunkenness scales which juries use to determine where the two parties were at during the disputed event?
It's probably not as simple as you are suggesting really, is it? I mean, "I'd had 4 pints so I can't be held responsible for taking her drunken enthusiasm at face value", would that stand up as a defence?
I think this stuff is important, not for the sake of famous footballers but in relation to ordinary young people, a significant proportion of whom have their first sexual encounters whilst not completely sober?

It's almost as if this thread and the patient explanation of what constitutes rape and ability to consent never happened. Talking theoretically at least.