Accused rapist Ched Evans to be released from prison

[purenarcotic]

The law says that it isn't consent if due to the consumption of drugs / alcohol the person lacks the capacity to consent / is unaware what's going on. So you can be pissed and consent but may get to a point where you become so drunk you become incapable of giving informed consent.

 

[Grandma Death]

Just found this on consent:

"
Consent

Rape and Sexual Offences:
Chapter 3: Consent
Contents:

• Sexual Offences Act 1956
• Sexual Offences Act 2003
• Statutory definition of consent
• Reasonable belief in consent
  • Evidential presumptions (section 75)
  • Conclusive presumptions (section 76)
  • 'Conditional' Consent
• Transgender suspects
  • Evidential considerations
  • Public Interest considerations

Sexual Offences Act 1956
The Sexual offences Act 1956 contains no statutory definition of 'consent'. Juries must be told that the word should be given its ordinary meaning, and that there is a difference between 'consent' and 'submission'.

Lack of consent may be demonstrated by:

• The complainant's assertion of force or threats;
• Evidence that by reason of drink, drugs, sleep, age or mental disability the complainant was unaware of what was occurring and/ or incapable of giving valid consent; or
• Evidence that the complainant was deceived as to the identity of the person with whom (s)he had intercourse.

A boy or girl under the age of 16 cannot consent in law, (Archbold 2004, 20-152)."

 

[purenarcotic]

The case that examined this was R vs Bree (2007)

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The law says that it isn't consent if due to the consumption of drugs / alcohol the person lacks the capacity to consent / is unaware what's going on. So you can be pissed and consent but may get to a point where you become so drunk you become incapable of giving informed consent.

Yes, thought it was something like that. In other words, it's not really about whether or not you're drunk, and the lowered inhibitions of being drunk don't amount to lacking consent. It has to be a lack of understanding of what is being consented to, whatever has caused that lack of understanding, which might be alcohol.

Pretty sensible - not sure the law could be otherwise, tbh.

 

[Raheem]

The state gets one go. Its scope for fucking with people is there, in that it is deemed necessary to allow prosecution, but limited. It's the compromise that most countries have, tbh. In the US it's written into the constitution as a basic right, as it is in many other places

My point is that it's obviously unfair to be put on trial for something you didn't do. But it's not automatically an abuse of power. To be put on trial for something you didn't do twice is doubly unfair. But still not automatically an abuse of power. If, as you say above, this hasn't actually happened in the ten years since double jeopardy ended, how often do we think it would occur? Let's say that, over the next 90 years it happens once. But let's also say that it prevents two murders and allows one family a year to have society recognise a crime done to them. Would it really be better the other way around?

 

[The Octagon]

To be honest this is a horrible case legally to try and decide as a jury, I don't envy them at all.

As far as the facts (verdict) of the first case go she consented to sex with McDonald and Evans turned up midway through.

How is a jury supposed to decide at what point she was beyond consent to agree to Evans joining in, when she cannot recall the events? How do they make that call with any certainty?

It's horrible, and the fact the court allowed extra testimony after a monetary reward was offered just makes the whole thing sordid and fucked up.

I feel so sorry for the girl, who probably wishes the whole thing would go away at this point, she's had to move and change her surname because of fuckwits who don't understand she had nothing to do with the prosecution of Evans

What an absolute shitshow.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

How is a jury supposed to decide at what point she was beyond consent to agree to Evans joining in, when she cannot recall the events? How do they make that call with any certainty?.

They don't need to. The onus is on the Crown to prove guilt. If they only have the word of Evans and his mate to go on, their version is plausible, and there is nobody and no other evidence to contradict them, then they go free. They don't need to know that he's innocent, merely to decide that the case is not proven.

I and others got slammed earlier on this thread for suggesting the above , but the original case looked shaky as fuck to me for this reason.

 

[SqueakyBumTime]

Not really how it works

Don't think you're really cut out for urban

Probably not, but being "cut out for urban" is more your aspiration than mine.

 

[two sheds]

That's the Supreme Court. Don't think it's been the lords for several years.

Yes you seem to be correct.

Retrograde step in my opinion, there's no substitute for 811 toffs being the ultimate decision makers on points of law.

 

[trashpony]

They don't need to. The onus is on the Crown to prove guilt. If they only have the word of Evans and his mate to go on, their version is plausible, and there is nobody and no other evidence to contradict them, then they go free. They don't need to know that he's innocent, merely to decide that the case is not proven.

I and others got slammed earlier on this thread for suggesting the above , but the original case looked shaky as fuck to me for this reason.

All rape cases that hinge on the testimony of a man versus of a woman are shaky as fuck.

Which is why most rape victims, including me, don't go to the police. Because we know we haven't got a hope in hell of being believed.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You're right. All rape cases that hinge on the testimony of a man versus of a woman are shaky as fuck.

The testimony of the woman was 'I don't remember'. I believe her. There was other stuff she did that night that she didn't remember as well.

 

[mrs quoad]

Yes, but if being tried once seriously fucks with your life, maybe the logical thing is to never put people who are not guilty on trial. There's an obvious difficulty, though.

Japan: 99.7% conviction rate.

Sorted.

 

[keybored]

It will be interesting to see if any of the bigger clubs will now sign him, I suspect that they won't.

He'll just get them drunk then sign himself up anyway.

 

[likesfish]

The UK is in a very small minority around the world in allowing double jeopardy, which it didn't allow for around 800 years. In the 10 years it's been allowed, it's not been abused. Yet.

One of the many examples of the Blair govt trampling on basic principles in response to populism. The real story of the failure of the Lawrence case was not the failure of the legal system, but the failure of the racist police force.

Er not so much institutional racism but old school Corruption
It wasn't so much the met are racist which was why their wanst a conviction although they are it was more the dective in charge was paid off

 

[bluescreen]

Yes you seem to be correct.

Retrograde step in my opinion, there's no substitute for 811 toffs being the ultimate decision makers on points of law.

They never were, or at least, not since the C19th. It was only Law Lords (judges) who heard the appeal.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Yes, thought it was something like that. In other words, it's not really about whether or not you're drunk, and the lowered inhibitions of being drunk don't amount to lacking consent. It has to be a lack of understanding of what is being consented to, whatever has caused that lack of understanding, which might be alcohol.

Pretty sensible - not sure the law could be otherwise, tbh.

Hooray, you finally get it.

 

[ElizabethofYork]

This case should never have gone to court in the first place.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

This case should never have gone to court in the first place.

You're right. Rapey bastard should have been lynched in Rhyl town centre the day after his crime and we could all have moved on.

 

[trashpony]

.

 

[bimble]

I think the word rapey should go away. It helps nothing and trivialises the whole issue.

 

[Orang Utan]

This case should never have gone to court in the first place.

Why?

 

[Pickman's model]

Why?

But answer came there none

 

[Pickman's model]

Probably not, but being "cut out for urban" is more your aspiration than mine.

Pisspoor

 

[ElizabethofYork]

Why?

Drunk people have sex. One of the drunk people doesn't remember it the next day.

Happens all the time. Not rape.

 

[Treacle Toes]

Wasn't her original concern that she had been spiked though?

 

[Pickman's model]

Wasn't her original concern that she had been spiked though?

Yes, this is gone through in the handy link bimble posted

 

[ElizabethofYork]

She went to the police to report her missing handbag.

 

[brogdale]

Happens all the time. Not rape.

Jury at Caernarfon Crown Court said it was.
Of course that was before the victim's 'sexual history' was considered.

 

[Orang Utan]

She went to the police to report her missing handbag.

who then told her what had happened.
You seem to be on the side of people like this:

 

[Treacle Toes]

Ched Evans trial is a masterclass in why women don't report rape