interestrateripoff Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Courts 'should assume women can't consent to sex when drunk': Rape report's controversial proposal Dame Elish Angiolini has called for a change to rape laws that goes beyond 'no means no' and takes into account occasions in which women may be incapable of giving consent, such as when heavily intoxicated. Nice to see presumption entering the legal system, they should extend this to all legal cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Banner Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 And if both the man and the woman are equally drunk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 its already the law...why do they keep going over this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikthe20 Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 This should save men a fortune - never have to buy a woman a drink! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 what they seem to be trying to do is putting numerical test to the case. for a barrister, I would think that having not thought it through would not be the case, but this idiot appears not to have. want to entrap your man?....drink a skinful two hours before you complain. as the offence then becomes absolute, we have a fait accompli..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longtomsilver Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 As a man who has seen a friend falsely accused of rape after a few drinks this frightens the hell out of me... well not me personally I'm past all that but I pity the young. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hail the Tripod Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Presumably if the drunk girl actively encourages the commission of the offence, she is aiding and abetting and should be tried as a joint principle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longtomsilver Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 The population would collapse if people stopped drinking to find a mate. Maybe it's all a part of the big plan there's a religious subset for whom drinking is forbidden and they are already aiding population growth at four times the national rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Banner Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Presumably if the drunk girl actively encourages the commission of the offence, she is aiding and abetting and should be tried as a joint principle. But she is not capable of aiding and abetting the offence as she is incapacitated by alcohol. This logic would, of course, would not apply to the man. The obvious answer to this problem is mandatory chastity belts for all women which can only be deactivated after the woman has provided a negative breath sample. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onlyme2 Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 I would have thought in legal circles assuming anyting is a highly dodgy stance in itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hail the Tripod Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 But she is not capable of aiding and abetting the offence as she is incapacitated by alcohol.Nonsense. Just because a person does not have capacity to give valid consent, doesn't mean they have any immunity to criminal charges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Banner Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Nonsense. Just because a person does not have capacity to give valid consent, doesn't mean they have any immunity to criminal charges. Sorry, I should have known better, irony does not always work on forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hail the Tripod Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Sorry, I should have known better, irony does not always work on forums. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkkandrew Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 It literally is unbelievable that the UK Government relentlessly seeks to criminalise swathes of the population. I recall as a young buck ending up in various sacks, that it rarely occurred without alcohol being involved for both parties. Literally all my social peers grew up in the same way. This lifestyle would now see the male half all imprisoned. Nuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hail the Tripod Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 It literally is unbelievable that the UK Government relentlessly seeks to criminalise swathes of the population. I recall as a young buck ending up in various sacks, that it rarely occurred without alcohol being involved for both parties. Literally all my social peers grew up in the same way. This lifestyle would now see the male half all imprisoned. Nuts. The sex offenders register has 10 year old pre-pubescent children on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corevalue Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 It literally is unbelievable that the UK Government relentlessly seeks to criminalise swathes of the population. I recall as a young buck ending up in various sacks, that it rarely occurred without alcohol being involved for both parties. Literally all my social peers grew up in the same way. This lifestyle would now see the male half all imprisoned. Nuts. If we take the case of Ched Evans as an example, you don't have to be the one buying her a drink. Worse, a third party can decide her ability to consent, the fact that she says she gave consent will be ignored because her sobriety will be judged by others (on no other evidence than CCTV). Going further, she could bring a historical claim, and not need to provide any evidence other than her say-so, probably backed up by a couple of mates. And she gets to collect compo..... We need to limit compo to providing therapy for any psychological problems, and introduce a strict time limit for reporting the offence. In the case of drunkedness, that needs to be less than 24 hours so some forensic evidence can be gathered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
long time lurking Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 I would have thought in legal circles assuming anyting is a highly dodgy stance in itself. +1 Was always told the police use the abc system Assume nothing Believe nothing Confirm everything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
long time lurking Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 It literally is unbelievable that the UK Government relentlessly seeks to criminalise swathes of the population. I recall as a young buck ending up in various sacks, that it rarely occurred without alcohol being involved for both parties. Literally all my social peers grew up in the same way. This lifestyle would now see the male half all imprisoned. Nuts. Yep put the boot on the other foot and i have been serially abused This stance should cover booth genders if it`s going to be applied ,who haven't woke up in the morning thinking no surely not i couldn`t have, you may have the piss taken out of you for a few weeks but soon get over the it ,the get out clause for any woman in this situation is now going to cost someone years in the pokey by default Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R K Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 If someone is unable to give consent to sex due to being drunk then they should also be unable to give consent to the contract implicit in purchasing the alcohol in the first place. Ergo, women could not become incapacitated if they werent served alcohol. Ergo, just ban serving alcohol to anyone who is unable to enter into the contract. Then they cannot get sooo drunk they dont know what theyre doing. But if they were served alcohol then they de facto cannot be drunk. Sorted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corevalue Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Shamelessly copied from a comment in the Washington Post. I do hope this doesn't become the de-facto standard of applying the law in this country, but since the "yes means yes" and "all sex with alcohol is rape" guidance, I fear we are not far away from the police and courts being given similar instruction. A Northwestern University insider, who wishes to remain anonymous, leaked to Popehat the following email on Title IX investigations, which was circulated to the Northwestern faculty and staff last Friday. FROM: Joan Slavin [Director, University Sexual Harassment Prevention Office; Title IX Coordinator; Special Assistant to the Provost] TO: FACULTY GROUP [3,344 email addresses], ADMIN GROUP [3,635 email addresses] DATE: Friday, May 30, 2015 at 3:15 p.m. Dear Northwestern administrators and faculty: Public Attacks On Victims: When a student accuses a faculty member or another student of sexual misconduct, the only University response consistent with Title IX is contrition, acceptance, and support. That's an obligation of all University employees. Whether or not the complaint has yielded public litigation or press coverage, it is inappropriate for University employees to engage in victim-blaming and victim-challenging behaviors that might deter complaints. Prohibited behaviors include weighing, evaluating, questioning, critiquing, deconstructing, or otherwise assaulting the victim's complaint. This proscription applies to all departments: it is inappropriate to challenge a victim's factual account or legal assertion through the disciplines of law, philosophy, rhetoric, logic, or physics. Statements of support and belief in the victim's account remain acceptable — and strongly encouraged — under any discipline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Do not question or evaluate the complaint....lord Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frozen_out Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Isn't this going against the whole basis of law I.e. we shouldn't assume any wrongdoing? The wrongdoing has to he proved by evaluating the evidence. I don't know where we go from here, I really don't. It's enough to make me turn to Sharia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Do not question or evaluate the complaint....lordThat's fine if you don't want to potentially upset the person making it any further - just as long as you don't act on the complaint either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 That's fine if you don't want to potentially upset the person making it any further - just as long as you don't act on the complaint either. Its all seriously messed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Its all seriously messed up.Welcome to the modern world, which I keep getting told I shouldn't let bother me (when these things happen precisely because a bunch of lunatics think they're improving the world, and everyone else doesn't get bothered enough about thus creating the environment in which the loonies' ideas can breed). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.