Accused rapist Ched Evans to be released from prison

[Athos]

So someone who is heavily under the influence of a powerful psychoactive drug like alcohol is meant to be aware of such a finely tuned element of judgement?

It's really not that fine a line between sometime who wants to have sex with you and someone who doesn't, however drunk you are. And, if you can't tell the difference, such that your liable to rape someone when you've been drinking, don't drink.

 

[toggle]

But we are talking about a "sliver of doubt"

and my point still stands. if you are unable to work out if your partner is consenting, then y7ou should refrain from having sex.

tbh, i certainly don't think i'd want to be alone with someone who felt they were unable to tell the difference between consensual and non consensual sex.

 

[toggle]

So someone who is heavily under the influence of a powerful psychoactive drug like alcohol is meant to be aware of such a finely tuned element of judgement?

if someone believes they are unable to refrain from rape while drunk, then they should aviod drinking.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Righto. That's an easy banner to get behind. But.. did you see the abuse recently heaped upon Chrissie Hynde by well-meaning people when she wrote in her autobiography that she felt partly responsible for what happened to her aged 21 ?
She was violently villified by people shouting that she had every right to be off her head and to follow the hells angels guys home but has no right at all to claim any agency in / responsibility for what happened next.
I was thinking this is a generation gap thing, but if so then you Sasaferrato are kind of an incongruous frontliner.

I was taught by my father that no means no, and also that if a woman is drunk, then only scum take advantage. I can understand your view that a woman has a duty of care to herself, but even if she does put herself in stupid situation, there is never a case where she is asking to be raped.

 

[Athos]

I was taught by my father that no means no, and also that if a woman is drunk, then only scum take advantage. I can understand your view that a woman has a duty of care to herself, but even if she does put herself in stupid situation, there is never a case where she is asking to be raped.

This whole 'duty of care' thing makes me uncomfortable. Because it follows that a woman might be causally responsible (if not culpable) as a result of a breach of that duty. Whereas all of the responsibility for rapes always rests solely with rapists. Victims (overwhelmingly women) don't need to change their behaviour; rapists (overwhelmingly men) do.

 

[existentialist]

This whole 'duty of care' thing makes me uncomfortable. Because it follows that a woman might be causally responsible (if not culpable) as a result of a breach of that duty. Whereas all of the responsibility for rapes always rests solely with rapists. Victims (overwhelmingly women) don't need to change their behaviour; rapists (overwhelmingly men) do.

Not just their (well, "our") behaviour: our assumptions and expectations, too.

 

[bimble]

and my point still stands. if you are unable to work out if your partner is consenting, then you should refrain from having sex.

tbh, i certainly don't think i'd want to be alone with someone who felt they were unable to tell the difference between consensual and non consensual sex.

Just want to say the only bit that confuses me in all this is the question of whether drunken consent is consent, or not. It seems like the case law on this is far from clearcut.

Eg. "In R v Bree [2007] EWCA 256, the Court of Appeal explored the issue of capacity and consent, stating that, if, through drink, or for any other reason, a complainant had temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have sexual intercourse, she was not consenting, and subject to the defendant's state of mind, if intercourse took place, that would be rape. However, where a complainant had consumed substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remained capable of choosing whether to have intercourse, and agreed to do so, that would not be rape. ."
That's just not completely plain black and white, is it? The case was not about someone who'd passed out it was about whether or not her choices at the time should be deemed invalid due to intoxication rendering her incapable of a fully informed and considered rational decision.

The question being basically do intoxicated people have the capacity to consent.
Here's someone's attempt to have a serious look at the question. He concludes that no, drunken factual consent should not be the same thing as legal consent but acknowledges that its a complex question not a plain and simple thing.
He says "I am not a keen supporter of paternalism and am very wary of state intervention in order to protect people against their will, especially in areas of sexual choices which are so important to a person’s wellbeing. Nevertheless, I think the argument advanced in the name of (positive) sexual autonomy should be rejected.."
http://www.trinitinture.com/documents/wallerstein.pdf

 

[Spymaster]

If he didnt get clear consent its rape.

If that were the case then McDonald would have been convicted too. As Athos has pointed out several times, the bloke can have a reasonable belief that she consented, even if in fact she actually hadn't.

The only difference between what Evans did and what McDonald did was that she travelled to the hotel with McDonald in a taxi and was heard to ask him not to leave. She says she doesn't remember that, or consenting to McDonald either, and she definitely did not get drunk with McDonald earlier. Bellend just made that up.

I think McDonald's behaviour that night was worse than Evans'. He picked the girl up and texted his mates to get involved.

 

[Spymaster]

Just want to say the only bit that confuses me in all this is the question of whether drunken consent is consent, or not. It seems like the case law on this is far from clearcut.

Eg. "In R v Bree [2007] EWCA 256, the Court of Appeal explored the issue of capacity and consent, stating that, if, through drink, or for any other reason, a complainant had temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have sexual intercourse, she was not consenting, and subject to the defendant's state of mind, if intercourse took place, that would be rape. However, where a complainant had consumed substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remained capable of choosing whether to have intercourse, and agreed to do so, that would not be rape. ."
That's just not completely plain black and white, is it? The case was not about someone who'd passed out it was about whether or not her choices at the time should be deemed invalid due to intoxication rendering her incapable of a fully informed and considered rational decision.

The question being basically do intoxicated people have the capacity to consent.
Here's someone's attempt to have a serious look at the question. He concludes that no, drunken factual consent should no be the same thing as legal consent but acknowledges that its a complex question not a plain and simple thing.
He says "I am not a keen supporter of paternalism and am very wary of state intervention in order to protect people against their will, especially in areas of sexual choices which are so important to a person’s wellbeing. Nevertheless, I think the argument advanced in the name of (positive) sexual autonomy should be rejected.."
http://www.trinitinture.com/documents/wallerstein.pdf

That's what this is about. Not whether or not someone who is comotosed and pissing themselves is consenting. Of course they're not.

 

[Athos]

Just want to say the only bit that confuses me in all this is the question of whether drunken consent is consent, or not. It seems like the case law on this is far from clearcut.

Eg. "In R v Bree [2007] EWCA 256, the Court of Appeal explored the issue of capacity and consent, stating that, if, through drink, or for any other reason, a complainant had temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have sexual intercourse, she was not consenting, and subject to the defendant's state of mind, if intercourse took place, that would be rape. However, where a complainant had consumed substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remained capable of choosing whether to have intercourse, and agreed to do so, that would not be rape. ."
That's just not completely plain black and white, is it? The case was not about someone who'd passed out it was about whether or not her choices at the time should be deemed invalid due to intoxication rendering her incapable of a fully informed and considered rational decision.

The question being basically do intoxicated people have the capacity to consent.
Here's someone's attempt to have a serious look at the question. He concludes that no, drunken factual consent should not be the same thing as legal consent but acknowledges that its a complex question not a plain and simple thing.
He says "I am not a keen supporter of paternalism and am very wary of state intervention in order to protect people against their will, especially in areas of sexual choices which are so important to a person’s wellbeing. Nevertheless, I think the argument advanced in the name of (positive) sexual autonomy should be rejected.."
http://www.trinitinture.com/documents/wallerstein.pdf

We did Bree 60 pages so!

 

[Kesher]

l

What's the alternative? Absolve them of all responsibility for act committed under the influence? Doesn't work for drunk driving, does it? So what's different about sex?

Because you are not allowed to be drive whilst drunk. Whereas you are allowed to have sex whilst drunk. Also even if you are not drunk, you are not allowed to drive over the drink-drive limit. Whereas with sex there is no clearly defined drink-sex limit. Additionally, a car does not to give consent to be driven.

 

[bimble]

We did Bree 60 pages so!

so i see, back in october 2014 before i was even born

 

[existentialist]

l


Because you are not allowed to be drive whilst drunk. Whereas you are allowed to have sex whilst drunk. Also even if you are not drunk, you are not allowed to drive over the drink-drive limit. Whereas with sex there is no clearly defined drink-sex limit. Additionally, a car does not to give consent to be driven.

So it's all about what you are "allowed" to do??

Do you not see what a horrifying perspective that represents to women? The idea that the decision as to whether or not to have sex with them boils down to no more than the legal niceties? This really is bollocks.

 

[Athos]

l


Because you are not allowed to be drive whilst drunk. Whereas you are allowed to have sex whilst drunk. Also even if you are not drunk, you are not allowed to drive over the drink-drive limit. Whereas with sex there is no clearly defined drink-sex limit. Additionally, a car does not to give consent to be driven.

It's strange to think of sex in terms of what you're allowed to do to someone else, as opposed to what you and someone else both want to do together.

 

[Athos]

so i see, back in october 2014 before i was even born

The olden days.

 

[Kesher]

I was not the one who started the drink-driving comparison. However since it was used, I am trying to explain that the drink-driving scenario is less complicated than the drink-sex one. E.G: breathalysers are not involved and neither is human interaction.

 

[existentialist]

I was not the one who started the drink-driving comparison. However since it was used, I am trying to explain that the drink-driving scenario is less complicated than the drink-sex one. E.G: breathalysers are not involved and neither is human interaction.

I give up. Not least because the idea that I'm talking rationally with someone who appears to believe what you appear to is making me feel like I need a shower.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Wow. That's where we end up with this, isn't it though: men do sex and women have sex done to them.

It's where some heterosexual interactions do end up. That much is undeniable. Sometimes - say if you're unconscious - you have no agency.

 

[Spymaster]

Do you not see what a horrifying perspective that represents to women? The idea that the decision as to whether or not to have sex with them boils down to no more than the legal niceties? This really is bollocks.

Sure, but the law requires that a destinction is made between appalling behaviour and illegal behavior.

Both Evans and McDonald claimed that she was a willing and enthusiastic participant in what happened. McDonald has since given an interview stating that he believed the reason he was acquitted and Evans convicted was because Evans came across very badly when he gave his testimony. Not that the testimony differed from his own.

The suggestion from them is therefore that she gave her consent at the time but may have forgotten afterwards. There was expert testimony given at the trial, confirming that can happen. Most of us, when pissed, have said or done things that we can't remember the next morning. I've done it on these boards!

If that's what happened the question is not whether or not consent was given, but whether the consent given was invalid because of inebriation and did the blokes reasonably believe she was consenting.

So we're back to square one. The new evidence was compelling enough to have his conviction quashed. IF it relates to the issue of consent it is quite possible that Evans is legally not guilty of rape.

That doesn't mean that he and McDonald are not guilty of behaving like utter bastards. But that's not illegal.

 

[ViolentPanda]

So someone who is heavily under the influence of a powerful psychoactive drug like alcohol is meant to be aware of such a finely tuned element of judgement?

Yes. It should be ingrained into your social behaviours.

 

[Kesher]

Alcohol can be highly efficient at temporarily erasing ingrained social behaviours

 

[existentialist]

Alcohol can be highly efficient at temporarily erasing ingrained social behaviours

Then - as someone else has pointed out - don't use it. The fact that alcohol fucks with people's decision-making processes is exactly the reason why we should be cautious about consent from someone who's consumed it (especially lots) as well as being exactly the reason why we should know how it affects us, and avoid it if it's likely to result in us causing someone else harm, no matter how "legal" we might be in doing so.

It is not complicated. Most of the time, it is about situations which simply shouldn't arise. Using the fact that they do as some kind of way of excusing the consequences when they happen is Just Not On.

I admit, we're straying from questions of pure legality here, but those questions don't exist in isolation, but in a context: this is the context.

And, to answer Spymaster's point, yes, it may well be that all parties involved turn out to be technically innocent on a charge of rape. Were there an offence of Being An Utter Cunt, however, they'd be bang to rights on all counts.

And, if Evans is acquitted in his retrial, I hope that all those who cry "vindicated!" don't actually forget what he did do, and admitted to doing. If nothing else, then if I were involved in his club, I'd be wanting to make sure he never darkened our door again - footballers are, for better or worse, role models, and we don't need our role models demonstrating that not giving a shit about going two-up on a woman sufficiently drunk as to raise any question at all about consent is somehow an OK way to behave.

 

[dylanredefined]

It's strange to think of sex in terms of what you're allowed to do to someone else, as opposed to what you and someone else both want to do together.

Well that is what happens when the law is involved.
From what I have read I can't see how a trial can come up with anything other than "You are extra guilty you rapey bastard" maybe stuff that explains why he is innocent is not in public yet.

 

[Spymaster]

And, if Evans is acquitted in his retrial, I hope that all those who cry "vindicated!" don't actually forget what he did do, and admitted to doing.

Well all he's admitted to doing is having drunken sex with a woman who was enthusiastically consenting.

 

[toggle]

Sure, but the law requires that a destinction is made between appalling behaviour and illegal behavior.

Both Evans and McDonald claimed that she was a willing and enthusiastic participant in what happened. McDonald has since given an interview stating that he believed the reason he was acquitted and Evans convicted was because Evans came across very badly when he gave his testimony. Not that the testimony differed from his own.

The suggestion from them is therefore that she gave her consent at the time but may have forgotten afterwards. There was expert testimony given at the trial, confirming that can happen. Most of us, when pissed, have said or done things that we can't remember the next morning. I've done it on these boards!

If that's what happened the question is not whether or not consent was given, but whether the consent given was invalid because of inebriation and did the blokes reasonably believe she was consenting.

So we're back to square one. The new evidence was compelling enough to have his conviction quashed. IF it relates to the issue of consent it is quite possible that Evans is legally not guilty of rape.

That doesn't mean that he and McDonald are not guilty of behaving like utter bastards. But that's not illegal.

so mcdonald dosen't recognise that there is a distinction between the circumstances for him and for evans. as much as i find it nauseating, i don't consider it supprising that it would be accepted that the woman going back to his room was reasonable grounds for him to believe he had consent. wheras the man who he invited over for seconds did not have that excuse.

 

[existentialist]

Well all he's admitted to doing is having drunken sex with a woman who was enthusiastically consenting.

Maybe the moral bar is set differently for footballers, but regardless of the legalities, that's not the kind of behaviour I'd want my employees/ambassadors/representatives being seen to be doing...

 

[Spymaster]

so mcdonald dosen't recognise that there is a distinction between the circumstances for him and for evans. as much as i find it nauseating, i don't consider it supprising that it would be accepted that the woman going back to his room was reasonable grounds for him to believe he had consent. wheras the man who he invited over for seconds did not have that excuse.

Yes. That's the only reason that I can see for the difference in the verdicts is that and the porters evidence.

Similarly the porter's testimony that she asked McDonald not to leave her, could be taken as reasonable grounds for him to believe she was consenting, despite the fact that it's not actual consent.

 

[toggle]

Yes. That's the only reason that I can see for the difference in the verdicts.

Similarly, the porter's testimony that she asked him not to leave her, could be taken as reasonable grounds for him to believe she was consenting, despite the fact that it's not consent.

it's just indicative of the mentality that they don't seem to understand that there is a difference.

 

[Spymaster]

it's just indicative of the mentality that they don't seem to understand that there is a difference.

And therein lies the problem that the jury faces that I was getting so much stick for pointing out yesterday.

 

[toggle]

And therein lies the problem that the jury faces that I was getting so much stick for pointing out yesterday.

the problem is that juries also can contain people who can't see a difference. and people who think that women who drink deserve what they get. and all sorts of other shit.