Conquer Club

Factcheck: Men accused of rape don't have to prove that a woman said Yes

"Men must prove a woman said Yes under tough new rape rules"
Daily Telegraph, 29 January 2015

New advice for prosecutors has been published by the Crown Prosecution Service, aimed at improving how rape cases are handled. It does not in any way change the law on rape, which says that prosecutors have to prove that the alleged victim (of either gender) didn't consent to sex. Someone accused of rape doesn't have to "prove" anything—despite today's headline in the Telegraph.

This is because in English law, it's generally for the prosecution to show that a defendant is guilty for them to be convicted of a criminal offence. This is referred to as the 'burden of proof'.

In rape cases, to get a conviction the prosecution has to prove three things:

• That a man intentionally penetrated the vagina, anus or mouth of another person with his penis
• The other person did not consent to the penetration, and
• The man did not reasonably believe that the other person consents.

Consent means that a person "agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice".

The Crown Prosecution Service's existing Legal Guidance says that it's important for the police to ask during their investigations about the steps the defendant took to establish that consent existed. But this doesn't mean that if he didn't take active steps he is guilty of rape. It's to help gather evidence so that the prosecution can try to show lack of consent, and lack of reasonable belief that there was consent.

The 'toolkits' for police and prosecutors, announced yesterday, don't change the law or the Legal Guidance. But the advice about consent goes further in spelling out the importance of finding evidence about both the fact and the perception of consent. Better evidence would make it more likely that guilty people are convicted—but the dynamics of the trial don't change.

Such guidelines might also be aimed at changing behaviour among the public at large, by reiterating that men should seek out consent in sexual encounters. The Director of Public Prosecutions points out that "many rape victims freeze rather than fight as a protective and coping mechanism", so absence of a firm "No" doesn't mean consent.

That message does not change the legal position, though.

mrswdk wrote:I found something to LOL about: the ancient story in OP was actually totally debunked the day it was published.

Factcheck: Men accused of rape don't have to prove that a woman said Yes

"Men must prove a woman said Yes under tough new rape rules"
Daily Telegraph, 29 January 2015

New advice for prosecutors has been published by the Crown Prosecution Service, aimed at improving how rape cases are handled. It does not in any way change the law on rape, which says that prosecutors have to prove that the alleged victim (of either gender) didn't consent to sex. Someone accused of rape doesn't have to "prove" anything—despite today's headline in the Telegraph.

This is because in English law, it's generally for the prosecution to show that a defendant is guilty for them to be convicted of a criminal offence. This is referred to as the 'burden of proof'.

In rape cases, to get a conviction the prosecution has to prove three things:

• That a man intentionally penetrated the vagina, anus or mouth of another person with his penis
• The other person did not consent to the penetration, and
• The man did not reasonably believe that the other person consents.

Consent means that a person "agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice".

The Crown Prosecution Service's existing Legal Guidance says that it's important for the police to ask during their investigations about the steps the defendant took to establish that consent existed. But this doesn't mean that if he didn't take active steps he is guilty of rape. It's to help gather evidence so that the prosecution can try to show lack of consent, and lack of reasonable belief that there was consent.

The 'toolkits' for police and prosecutors, announced yesterday, don't change the law or the Legal Guidance. But the advice about consent goes further in spelling out the importance of finding evidence about both the fact and the perception of consent. Better evidence would make it more likely that guilty people are convicted—but the dynamics of the trial don't change.

Such guidelines might also be aimed at changing behaviour among the public at large, by reiterating that men should seek out consent in sexual encounters. The Director of Public Prosecutions points out that "many rape victims freeze rather than fight as a protective and coping mechanism", so absence of a firm "No" doesn't mean consent.

That message does not change the legal position, though.

Metsfanmax wrote:Here in New York and in California there are affirmative consent laws that apply to college campuses.

william18 wrote:So much for the telegraph.

Metsfanmax wrote:Here in New York and in California there are affirmative consent laws that apply to college campuses.

• yes
• no

mrswdk wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:Here in New York and in California there are affirmative consent laws that apply to college campuses.

Laws that require the defense to prove the defendant is innocent, rather than requiring the prosecution to prove the defendant is guilty?

Metsfanmax wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:Here in New York and in California there are affirmative consent laws that apply to college campuses.

Laws that require the defense to prove the defendant is innocent, rather than requiring the prosecution to prove the defendant is guilty?

The law requires explicit, unambiguous consent as a precondition for having sex.

DoomYoshi wrote:I heard that rape is legal in transgender bathrooms in the UK. Can you verify or deny this mrswdk?

william18 wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11375667/Men-must-prove-a-woman-said-Yes-under-tough-new-rape-rules.html

Men must prove a woman said 'Yes' under tough new rape rules

Is the legislature just a bunch of cuckolds? Do Uk guys walk around with a sex contract in their wallet when they go out, right beside the condom? Do you make sure to buy a particularly bitchy ONS breakfast if you forgot the paperwork at home?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ailed.html

Is this the right step forward toward a progressive society?

2dimes wrote:Just write up a contract.

Do you want sex?

• yes
• no

Print Name _____________________
Date_________ Signature __________________

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

william18 wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11375667/Men-must-prove-a-woman-said-Yes-under-tough-new-rape-rules.html

Men must prove a woman said 'Yes' under tough new rape rules

Is the legislature just a bunch of cuckolds? Do Uk guys walk around with a sex contract in their wallet when they go out, right beside the condom? Do you make sure to buy a particularly bitchy ONS breakfast if you forgot the paperwork at home?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ailed.html

Is this the right step forward toward a progressive society?

A cuckold is someone whose wife or gf cheats. I'm not sure i see the relationship.

-TG

william18 wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:Here in New York and in California there are affirmative consent laws that apply to college campuses.

Im sure that boy from occidental college got just what he deserved.

mrswdk wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:Here in New York and in California there are affirmative consent laws that apply to college campuses.

Laws that require the defense to prove the defendant is innocent, rather than requiring the prosecution to prove the defendant is guilty?

thegreekdog wrote:

william18 wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:Here in New York and in California there are affirmative consent laws that apply to college campuses.

Im sure that boy from occidental college got just what he deserved.

I think you mean Stanford and it was pretty well publicized that the kid got six months in county jail for sexually assaulting a woman because he was... I guess... an athlete? I'm not sure of the reasoning.

william18 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

william18 wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:Here in New York and in California there are affirmative consent laws that apply to college campuses.

Im sure that boy from occidental college got just what he deserved.

I think you mean Stanford and it was pretty well publicized that the kid got six months in county jail for sexually assaulting a woman because he was... I guess... an athlete? I'm not sure of the reasoning.

Lol no, I mean occidental college. A boy and a girl were both hanging out. She texts him if she has a condom. He says yes. She texts her friends she gonna go have sex. They get drunk, have sex. Next day she regrets it and the boy eventually gets expelled while she stays a student.

william18 wrote:

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

william18 wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11375667/Men-must-prove-a-woman-said-Yes-under-tough-new-rape-rules.html

Men must prove a woman said 'Yes' under tough new rape rules

Is the legislature just a bunch of cuckolds? Do Uk guys walk around with a sex contract in their wallet when they go out, right beside the condom? Do you make sure to buy a particularly bitchy ONS breakfast if you forgot the paperwork at home?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ailed.html

Is this the right step forward toward a progressive society?

A cuckold is someone whose wife or gf cheats. I'm not sure i see the relationship.

-TG

It can also be a pejorative for men who clearly act against their own interests.

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:That said i did have lulz at the one story where the young male student was kicked out of school for simply resembling a young female's rapist, even though he had never interacted with her and the rape happened hundreds of miles away.

-TG

mrswdk wrote:

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:That said i did have lulz at the one story where the young male student was kicked out of school for simply resembling a young female's rapist, even though he had never interacted with her and the rape happened hundreds of miles away.

-TG

His detractors obviously never heard of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:That said i did have lulz at the one story where the young male student was kicked out of school for simply resembling a young female's rapist, even though he had never interacted with her and the rape happened hundreds of miles away.

-TG

His detractors obviously never heard of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I'm afraid you've gone over my head here. Whose detractors, the kid kicked out of school? Will he go on to become a rapist?

-TG