Accused rapist Ched Evans to be released from prison

[Athos]

Well, it is really.

I don't think that the figures quoted re rape are a fantasy, if anything, there is evidence to suggest that they are under-reported, but
conviction rates are woeful, so something needs to change.

The big problem with rape is its isolation, there generally aren't any witnesses. many times, the physical evidence has not been gathered, and you have a 'circumstantial evidence' case, and a 'He did it' 'I didn't' scenario. The person with the best barrister, and the more convincing demeanour usually wins. Sadly, often that is not the woman who has been raped. I felt that in a couple of sexual abuse cases, the judge was remiss in not pointing out to the jury that the accused were actors, effectively, people who lie for a living.

Then law is changing, albeit very slowly. The introduction of the offence of rape within marriage was long overdue, why on earth should any human being be forced to have sex, and have no redress in law. The cessation of allowing the complainant to be badgered and harassed over their past sexual history, is also good. (Yes, I do know that judges have an immense amount of discretion.) There was dreadful case in Scotland, where a rape victim had to display the underwear she was wearing that night, to the court. The girl committed suicide a while after the case.

What are your views on, the suggestion that those accused of rape should be anonymous, unless convicted? It is a heinous crime, and mud sticks. There is an argument that naming the person sometimes brings out other accusers, but they could come forward after the trial, if the man is convicted, very probably with a stronger case.

No, the big problem with rape is the attitude of those men who do it.

 

[Sasaferrato]

I already have, in response to your original bold absolute statement. it's the Joyce McKinney case from 1978. I suggest you Google it.

On 19 September 1977 McKinney was arrested and charged, but vigorously denied the charges. While being taken to Epsom for a court appearance, she held a notice up at the window of the police vehicle saying, "Kirk left with me willingly!"[9] Press reports and McKinney's lawyer refer to the size differential between McKinney, described as slightly built, and Anderson, described as substantially larger.[10][11]

Along with Keith May, her co-conspirator, McKinney jumped bail and fled the country.[12] On 18 July 1979, they were both arrested in the United States by the FBI on charges of making false statements in order to obtain passports.[13] They both received suspended sentences.[14]

No extradition proceedings were instituted by Britain, and the English court sentenced McKinney in absentia to a year in jail.[15] Under the then-Sexual Offences Act 1956, due to the victim's gender, there was no crime of rape committed, though indecent assault of a man applied

 

[Athos]

Yes indeed, rape convictions are not easily got. Perhaps it is time that the height of the bar was looked at.

No, that would be a very dangerous precedent if, for instance, the standard of proof was lowered, or the burden of proof reversed. Rather, rape should be handled equally well as other serious crimes, end-to-end throughout the criminal justice system. That equality will only come when the system, and, more importantly, the society that shapes it, holds the victims of rape i.e. predominantly women, in the same esteem as it holds men (the overwhelming majority of perpetrators).

 

[Sasaferrato]

No, the big problem with rape is the attitude of those men who do it.

Yes, it is. That can be addressed by education.

Do you think that online porn is a factor? Not perhaps as an instant trigger, but the portrayal of women as 'things', rather than human beings?

 

[toggle]

Yes, it is. That can be addressed by education.

Do you think that online porn is a factor? Not perhaps as an instant trigger, but the portrayal of women as 'things', rather than human beings?

porn isn't the cause, it's a reflection of attitudes that were there long before the internet

 

[Athos]

Yes, it is. That can be addressed by education.

Do you think that online porn is a factor? Not perhaps as an instant trigger, but the portrayal of women as 'things', rather than human beings?

I'm no expert, but my instinct is that it is both a cause and effect of men's attitudes towards women.

 

[Spymaster]

If it's bunfight time I'll allow Bellend's stuff again.

I've got tabs at the bottom of the page saying "show ignored content" and I haven't got anyone else on ignore.

He's probably lying about other posters, so just check out what he's saying. It'll almost certainly be a mendacious representation of what has actually been said.

 

[equationgirl]

Have you been drinking or something? Why the drastic response? If you don't like what I post, don't read it. My beliefs are honestly held. I am appalled by the present situation, where conviction rates are dismal.

As is well documented on urban, I do not drink and have not drunk alcohol in over 20 years.

I made the response because once again, long after many of the posters have been having the discussion, you pipe up in your usual ill-informed way telling us how it is. Maybe I get fed up with men telling me why the rape conviction rate is so low. I know why it's so low, thanks. Your comments add nothing new to the debate. Plus I get sick of answering the same questions over and over.

 

[equationgirl]

And McKinney forced a man to have sex with her against his will - she chained him up, in fact. It might not have legally been rape as the crime of a man raping a woman did not exist under the statute at the time, but it fits the current definition. what would you have called it?

 

[Athos]

And McKinney forced a man to have sex with her against his will - she chained him up, in fact. It might not have legally been rape as the crime of a man raping a woman did not exist under the statute at the time, but it fits the current definition. what would you have called it?

I'm not sure it'd be a rape, now. Section 1 of the 2003 act requires penetration with a penis. The only way a woman could be convicted of rape is if she was an accessory e.g. holding a woman down whilst a man raped her. I don't know a lot about the case mentioned, but, from your description of what happened, it's not obvious it'd be a rape now.

 

[bimble]

Nope. The idea that it can lower someone's capacity is. If "legal guidelines" stated that it can "temporarily erase" (they state nothing of the sort) capacity, then they would be wrong on a point of fact.
If you're going to be disputatious, it's best to be sure of your arguments first.

I was remembering the bit (from article about the Bree case) where it says "it further recognises that the capacity to consent may evaporate well before a complainant becomes unconscious." So it was evaporate not erase, your honour.

Interesting to see that article is cited in the piece crossthebreeze linked to up there.
As crossthebreeze's link summarises "her idea is that the law should be changed so that it is unreasonable to believe that an intoxicated person has consented".

That's where I have a problem.
I reckon my confusion with this whole subject is this: I (probably mistakenly) see this debate as a dichotomy between personal autonomy and victimhood.
That's a totally shit choice, nobody should have to make that choice.

In my head, personal autonomy is a hard won really valuable thing when it comes to women and sex. The downside is it comes with a massive weight of watching my back, checking my choices, bailing out quickly of any situation that I think may leave me in harms way;
It means for instance saying no when a man I don't know offers to buy me a drink in a bar, because that might just possibly lead to all sorts of hassle- Policing my own behaviour all the time calculating risk etc. Its no fun at all, it's crap, i'm not proud of it and wouldn't wish it on anyone else.

But the other side of this is the idea that a drunk woman's actions are not the actions and judgements of a fully responsible adult person whilst a man's actions (however pissed they may be) are - that means that a woman is less adult less responsible, less free - less of a whole person in the eyes of the law than a man.

I'd really like to live in a world where I'd feel free to dance through the streets of London in my underwear pissed off my head singing and not fear that I'd be sexually attacked. That's the sort of thing a man could arguably do, on a stag night or after a match and he might lose his wallet or whatever but wouldn't have being raped as a major concern in his head. But we don't live in that world, at least not yet.
What I can't quite yet get behind is the idea that women should act as if we already live in that ideal world, that the law should put soft corners on things so as to allow us to behave as though the world is not full of fucked up predatory men when it so obviously still is.

 

[Spymaster]

You're wrong, it does happen - it's rare, but does happen. In the UK the most well-known case of this kind is the Joyce McKinney case, who was prosecuted and jailed in 1978 for forcing a man to have sex with her against his will.

And it is physiologically possible - I would expect you to know that, given you were a nurse.

Next time, try Googling before posting to avoid Pickman's model posting more pictures of diggers.

Wrong.

Joyce McKinney was convicted of indecent assault.

Rape can only be committed by woman if she has a dick.

What was that about diggers?

 

[Spymaster]

I'm not sure it'd be a rape, now.

It wouldn't be now and it wasn't then.

 

[bimble]

It wouldn't be now and it wasn't then.

So .. in the law if a man and a woman have had sex, even if lets imagine he was completely off his head pissed and she was stone cold sober, he's still always fully consented no question about it? ok.

 

[equationgirl]

I'm not sure it'd be a rape, now. Section 1 of the 2003 act requires penetration with a penis. The only way a woman could be convicted of rape is if she was an accessory e.g. holding a woman down whilst a man raped her. I don't know a lot about the case mentioned, but, from your description of what happened, it's not obvious it'd be a rape now.

I think it would be considered by many to be rape given that statute is 13 years old and attitudes have moved on. Morally at least.

 

[Athos]

So .. in the law men can't ever have nonconsensual sex with a woman? That's not good, is it?

It would still be an offence, just not rape, which is very phallo-centrically defined.

 

[Spymaster]

So .. in the law men can't ever have nonconsensual sex with a woman? That's not good, is it?

Well afaia the law requires that a penis penetrate an orifice for rape to occur.

 

[Athos]

I think it would be considered by many to be rape given that statute is 13 years old and attitudes have moved on. Morally at least.

Morally, yes. Legally, no. I don't think you're right to say that case meets the current definition, if you mean the legal definition (which the context of your comment implied).

 

[Spymaster]

Care to admit you were wrong about women never being prosecuted for raping a man Sasaferrato?

I guess you'll be revising this then, EG?

 

[bimble]

Well afaia the law requires that a penis penetrate an orifice for rape to occur.

Didn't know that and it saddens me. Kind of underlines the problem (in my head) of women being less adult free responsible persons who act consciously out of their own free will than people with penises are, legally speaking.

 

[Spymaster]

So .. in the law if a man and a woman have had sex, even if lets imagine he was completely off his head pissed and she was stone cold sober, he's still always fully consented no question about it? ok.

No. Obviously a woman can sexually assault a man and I'm sure there are consent issues that would aggravate any such assault. I'd have to have a look if you want more than that.

 

[equationgirl]

Didn't know that and it saddens me. Kind of underlines the problem (in my head) of women being less adult free responsible persons who act consciously out of their own free will than people with penises are, legally speaking.

Welcome to the patriarchy.

 

[Athos]

I guess you'll be revising this then, EG?

I'm not sure that equationgirl's statement is wrong. Women can be convicted of rape, where they act as accessories e.g. in a gang situation. I only know of cases where women have been convicted in this way when the victims were also women, but the fact that I don't know if any with male victims doesn't mean there aren't any.

 

[Athos]

So .. in the law if a man and a woman have had sex, even if lets imagine he was completely off his head pissed and she was stone cold sober, he's still always fully consented no question about it? ok.

No. If he was so drunk as to be incapable of consent, and if she didn't have a reasonable belief in consent, it'd be a sexual assault under s.3 of the 2003 act.

 

[bimble]

Welcome to the patriarchy.

But .. what to do? Do you think its a good idea to say that a drunk woman's consent is not legal consent, drunk women are not competent responsible adults under the law but drunk men are ?

 

[Spymaster]

Women can be convicted of rape, where they act as accessories e.g. in a gang situation. I know of cases where women have been convicted in this way when the victims are also women, but the fact that I don't know if any with male victims doesn't mean there aren't any.

As accessories or under JE, perhaps. But that's not what EG meant, hence the mistaken McKinney reference

 

[Athos]

But .. what to do? Do you think its a good idea to say that a drunk woman's consent is not legal consent, drunk women are not competent responsible adults under the law but drunk men are ?

That's not what the law says.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Well, it is really.

I don't think that the figures quoted re rape are a fantasy, if anything, there is evidence to suggest that they are under-reported, but
conviction rates are woeful, so something needs to change.

The big problem with rape is its isolation, there generally aren't any witnesses. many times, the physical evidence has not been gathered, and you have a 'circumstantial evidence' case, and a 'He did it' 'I didn't' scenario. The person with the best barrister, and the more convincing demeanour usually wins. Sadly, often that is not the woman who has been raped. I felt that in a couple of sexual abuse cases, the judge was remiss in not pointing out to the jury that the accused were actors, effectively, people who lie for a living.

Then law is changing, albeit very slowly. The introduction of the offence of rape within marriage was long overdue, why on earth should any human being be forced to have sex, and have no redress in law. The cessation of allowing the complainant to be badgered and harassed over their past sexual history, is also good. (Yes, I do know that judges have an immense amount of discretion.) There was dreadful case in Scotland, where a rape victim had to display the underwear she was wearing that night, to the court. The girl committed suicide a while after the case.

What are your views on, the suggestion that those accused of rape should be anonymous, unless convicted? It is a heinous crime, and mud sticks. There is an argument that naming the person sometimes brings out other accusers, but they could come forward after the trial, if the man is convicted, very probably with a stronger case.

The big problem isn't that rape often takes place "behind closed doors", it's that in the entire criminal justice system, there's no crimes as consistently-poorly policed and tried by badly-educated people, as major sexual assaults. Even where advances have been made - same sex police contact, rape suites staffed by same sex as victim etc, we're still in an age where over 70% of complainants whose complaints get passed by the police to the CPS, and are actioned by the CPS, drop their complaints because of the psychological trauma the complaint adds to that already suffered through the sexual assault.
On top of this, once it gets in front of a judge there's - as I mentioned earlier - a tactic among defence lawyers of questioning the victim with extreme hostility, with sexual history brought up (even though not allowed, an effective barrister will find a "side-door" through which to introduce the subject) and aspersions cast on honesty and morality, usually by someone of the same sex as the person that attacked you, if you're a woman.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

.

Well afaia the law requires that a penis penetrate an orifice for rape to occur.

At the time of McKinney had you forced your dick into someone's mouth against their will that would not have been rape either.

So that's OK then?

Or does the law perhaps need to catch up?

 

[bimble]

That's not what the law says.

I thought it did say that. I thought the legal advice to jury was that it should consider whether a reasonable person would reasonably assume that consent was given and was valid, and that the jury should not consider how pissed the man making that judgement about the other persons state of mind might have been at the time. Is that wrong?