Heated debate time...

[LMC]

There was no need to quote my entire post it was the one right before yours.

I agree, which is why I said that the guy should absolutely not have taken advantage of her drunken state.

[MartinHarper]

his ruling also implied that if she didn't remember consenting, then consent was assumed - or at least, that lack of consent could not be assumed.

I think it's more along the lines of "innocent until proven guilty". Mr. Dougal said she had consented, she said that she couldn't rememember. Accordingly, Mr. Dougal was found innocent.

[stewart38]

I agree with that completely, and, going back to my first post in this thread, everybody has a responsibility to protect their own safety as much as they can, but that said, surely if a somebody can clearly see that someone is too incapacitated to be in control of making a decision for themselves, or defending themselves, then they also have the responsibility to not take advantage of that situation. I certainly would agree that she was a stupid girl to get herself into such a vulnerable situation, but I certainly wouldn't say she was solely to blame!

what if they were both drunk and not in full control ?

[cheeks]

who decides that the majority go unreported, and how they know.

there is higher percentage of survivors of abuse and rape able to talk with a support worker/ befriender, nurse, doctor, councellor, support groups/projects confidentially now and they be attending for other reasons due to symptoms, difficulties that may have been caused by the rape.it's numbers of referrals and nature of support( rather than the possible cause - rape, abuse etc) that are reported in annual reports etc, Due to the confidentiality the survivor is given that choice for the crime to go unreported and that has to be respected, unfortunately this does not assist the many people who may still think they are alone or who do not have an outlet to guide or support them and this can fester for years and years until the truth of the crime is finally exposed.

[David Bailey]

I think it's more along the lines of "innocent until proven guilty". Mr. Dougal said she had consented, she said that she couldn't rememember. Accordingly, Mr. Dougal was found innocent.

Sure - but again, rape is different from a lot of other crimes, because it often comes down to one person's word against another - which is where it starts getting tricky, and where juries have to try to judge characters and intent, which is maybe not their strongest point.

And it also feels to me like that case has shifted the burden of proof of consent to the victim rather than the accused.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that consent must be given in writing, signed, sealed, witnessed etc. But "I can't remember all the details" should not IMO be taken as equivalent to "I gave consent"...

I dunno, we're second-guessing a case here, we don't know the details, but it does raise a few hackles. I guess I'm still remembering the nutty old judges back in the 80's who kept spouting all that sexist cr&p about provocation all the time.

[El Salsero Gringo]

Perhaps the interesting thoughts would be, what would you not constitute as rape, that others would?

I have known of someone who .... {snip}

I also have a friend who ... {snip}

And the most shocking conversation I ever overheard was ... {snip}

wouldn't you agree?

It's a pity you're trying to put words into my mouth by association with some extreme examples, because I think it weakens the very argument you're trying to make. Either way, though, I'll decline to engage on those particular terms.

Instead let's see what JiveCat wrote, earlier in this thread - and note that no-one took particular exception to it:

I think there's a continuum in types and causes of rape e.g.

1.Giving in to your husband's pestering for sex even though you're completely tired out and really don't want to.

2.Where sexual activity has already taken place but consent for penetration has been refused/withdrawn at a late stage.

3.Having sex with a stranger you've just met in a club, (who is also drunk)because you are too drunk to give/withhold consent.

4.Being the victim of a predatory stranger walking home late at night or some other public place.

5.Being attacked by a stranger in your own home or going about normal daily business e.g. in a carpark whilst walking to your car.

6.Being raped by soldiers as part of their invasion of your country.

(And many more scenarios besides.)

If you include all these acts in your definition of rape, then I would suspect that the 1 in 30 figure is too low. You could no-doubt come up with an even wider definition that would make rape more common than eating breakfast. But would it be useful?

Assault is a also crime - but we categorise violent behaviour towards other people, legally speaking, as common assault, actual bodily harm, grievous bodily harm etc. all the way to murder, recognising that there's a continuum of offenses and appropriate penalties. Even a threatening word from someone - 'merely' assault - can cause a traumatic reaction in the victim. Far be it from me to try to categorise a person's reaction to any of the variety of sexual assaults that are lumped together as 'rape' - but don't we do exactly that for other crimes?

Given that there's a mandatory life sentence upon convction for rape, or for assault by penetration, don't you think that lack of distinction might contribute towards the low conviction rate?

[Dreadful Scathe]

I won't bore you with the full calculations, but it starts off "Let's assume that 3 in 30 people are not human but aliens from the planet Mars, instead."

Got a magazine/catalogue from PC world yesterday. Apparantly 1 in 20 (it didnt even specify 'internet users') have fallen victim to an internet phishing scam at soem point and half of those have not been recompensed by the bank/card company. Thats just got to be true. So if you have 20 friends, one of them is clearly a complete idiot who has entered personal credit information into some dodgy badly spelt website they got from an unexpected email.

I feel sorry for Rebecca

[bigdjiver]

...Given that there's a mandatory life sentence upon convction for rape, or for assault by penetration, don't you think that lack of distinction might contribute towards the low conviction rate?

I certainly do. Some suggest the death penalty or castration. That is why I posted my rag-bag of observations. At one extreme I have the girl on the bus who seemed to regard being "raped" as a bit of a downer on a night at a disco. At the other extreme rapes with consequences on the entire life of the victims. If there was the possibility of a drunken "tumble" resulting in "only" a suspended sentence a jury might well be more inclined to convict. There would be outrage at the lightness of the sentence, and the politicians passing such a law could not expect to see office again. Nevertheless more convictions might deter a few rapists (drunks do not weigh consequences) and encourage a few more reports and prosecutions. The big effect would probably be on those who make it a regular practise. The jury who are more prepared to convict expecting a "slap on the wrist" might well find that the guilty party had "previous", the behaviour and cover story was pre-meditated, and the convicted gets what he deserves.

Sometimes, even in law, "less is more".

[Dreadful Scathe]

e. He took a detour, took her to an area that is notoriously bad, and then told her that if she didn't have sex with him, he'd kick her out the car there. So she did, he knew she didn't want to, she felt she had no choice, would you call this rape? I would!

I wouldnt. Yes he threatend her but didnt apparantly force himself on her - she agreed to his terms. Id be interested to hear of anyone reading this who would have also agreed to his terms ?

[LMC]

If I had been stupid enough to be stranded with such a nasty person (however well I knew him) without being in possession myself of a) cash b) a mobile phone (or both) then I'd still take my chances of leaving the car, finding a phone box and calling the police. I don't condone using the police as a free taxi service, but in these circumstances I'm sure they would rather see me safely home than taking up even more of their time as a victim of crime...

[ChrisA]

I wouldnt. Yes he threatend her but didnt apparantly force himself on her - she agreed to his terms. Id be interested to hear of anyone reading this who would have also agreed to his terms ?

Hmm.

"Have sex with me or you'll have to get out of the car and walk back through this really bad neighbourhood where you might get killed etc..."

or

"Have sex with me or I'll cut your throat with this knife".

She might say "ok" in either case.... but in the second example I can't imagine you'd say that she agreed to his terms and therefore he didn't rape her.

Where do you draw the line?

[LMC]

Looks like a full risk assessment is in order

[stewart38]

Hmm.

"Have sex with me or you'll have to get out of the car and walk back through this really bad neighbourhood where you might get killed etc..."

or

"Have sex with me or I'll cut your throat with this knife".

She might say "ok" in either case.... but in the second example I can't imagine you'd say that she agreed to his terms and therefore he didn't rape her.

Where do you draw the line?

Is raped defined somewhere ?

There must be case law on this ?

I would have thought first one isnt but if she or he is so scared out of their wits re being left in place she/he didnt know ,who knows ?? Not sure if its black or white

[El Salsero Gringo]

Is raped defined somewhere ?

Rape is defined in the Sexual Offences Act 2003:

<table cellpadding="2" width="95%"> <tbody><tr><td align="center" valign="top">PART 1</td></tr> <tr><td valign="top"> </td> <td align="center" valign="top">SEXUAL OFFENCES</td></tr> <tr><td valign="top"> </td><td align="center">
Rape</td></tr> <tr><td align="right" valign="top">1 </td><td valign="top">Rape
</td></tr> <tr><td valign="top"> </td> <td valign="top"> (1) A person (A) commits an offence if-
</td></tr> <tr><td valign="top"> </td> <td valign="top">

• (a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,

</td></tr> <tr><td valign="top"> </td> <td valign="top">

• (b) B does not consent to the penetration, and

</td></tr> <tr><td valign="top"> </td> <td valign="top">

• (c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

</td></tr> <tr><td valign="top"> </td> <td valign="top"> (2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
</td></tr> <tr><td valign="top"> </td> <td valign="top"> (3) Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
</td></tr> <tr><td valign="top"> </td> <td valign="top"> (4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.</td></tr></tbody> </table>

I imagine if the woman persuaded the court that she had no alternative but to consent to sex with the man, through fear of the consequences if she refused, then that would not count as consent and the man could be convicted. I expect the jury would have to decide whether being left alone in the dark in an unfamiliar area was acceptable.

[TiggsTours]

If I had been stupid enough to be stranded with such a nasty person (however well I knew him) without being in possession myself of a) cash b) a mobile phone (or both) then I'd still take my chances of leaving the car, finding a phone box and calling the police. I don't condone using the police as a free taxi service, but in these circumstances I'm sure they would rather see me safely home than taking up even more of their time as a victim of crime...

The incident was about 15 years ago now, I don't believe she owned a mobile phone at the time, not that many people did, the area he took her to is in the middle of nowhere, God only knows how far away the nearest phone box is, or how far a walk it was. She was scared out of her wits, give in to his demands so she can get away, or get out and walk, not knowing which would be the best direction, and knowing it would be at least half an hour, in the dark, before she reached anywhere near civilisation.

[El Salsero Gringo]

Rape is defined in the Sexual Offences Act 2003:
...

Incidentally, the self-same act states that sex with a live animal is an offence, as is sex with a dead person. But it doesn't say anything about sex with a dead animal. So you can all continue to enjoy a nice bit of chicken at the weekend

[El Salsero Gringo]

"Have sex with me or I'll cut your throat with this knife".

She might say "ok" in either case.... but in the second example I can't imagine you'd say that she agreed to his terms and therefore he didn't rape her.

Where do you draw the line?

Read the act: Sections 75 states (my ellisions):

<table cellpadding="2" width="95%"> <tbody><tr><td align="right" valign="top">75 </td><td valign="top">Evidential presumptions about consent
</td></tr> <tr><td valign="top">
</td> <td valign="top"> (1) If in proceedings for an offence to which this section applies it is proved-
</td></tr> <tr><td valign="top">
</td> <td valign="top">

• ......

</td></tr> <tr><td valign="top">
</td> <td valign="top">

• (b) that any of the circumstances specified in subsection (2) existed, and

</td></tr> <tr><td valign="top">
</td> <td valign="top">

• .....

</td></tr> <tr><td valign="top">
</td> <td valign="top">the complainant is to be taken not to have consented to the relevant act ...
</td></tr> <tr><td valign="top">
</td> <td valign="top"> (2) The circumstances are that-
</td></tr> <tr><td valign="top">
</td> <td valign="top">

• (a) any person was, at the time of the relevant act or immediately before it began, using violence against the complainant or causing the complainant to fear that immediate violence would be used against him;

</td></tr> <tr><td valign="top">
</td> <td valign="top">....
</td></tr> <tr><td valign="top">
</td> <td valign="top">
</td></tr> <tr><td valign="top">
</td> <td valign="top">
</td></tr> <tr><td valign="top">
</td> <td valign="top">
</td></tr> <tr><td valign="top">
</td> <td valign="top">
</td></tr> <tr><td valign="top">
</td> <td valign="top">
</td></tr> <tr><td align="right" valign="top">
</td><td valign="top">
</td></tr> <tr><td valign="top">
</td> <td valign="top">
</td></tr> <tr><td valign="top">
</td> <td valign="top">
</td></tr> <tr><td valign="top">
</td> <td valign="top">
</td></tr> <tr><td valign="top">
</td> <td valign="top">
</td></tr> <tr><td valign="top">
</td> <td valign="top">
</td></tr> <tr><td valign="top">
</td> <td valign="top">
</td></tr></tbody> </table>

[TiggsTours]

It's a pity you're trying to put words into my mouth by association with some extreme examples, because I think it weakens the very argument you're trying to make. Either way, though, I'll decline to engage on those particular terms.

I apologise, that wasn't my intention, I was just wondering what you meant when you asked what people constitute as rape, and giving examples of some cases where some people would argue that the girl was to blame, where I don't believe she was.

[LMC]

Information which was not available to me at the time I made my post...

In that case it's a judgement call innit :shrug: - but I think I'd probably still take the "walk" option (and report him). Or get out of the car sooner. I expect you'll now tell me that said "dodgy area" was on the way to her home - but if someone who was giving me a lift went 'out of the way' I'd be out of that car sharpish.

Handy self-defence tip for passengers: grab driver's hand/wrist with your LEFT hand, turn it (in either direction) then bring your right elbow down HARD on the driver's elbow. Out of self-preservation they are more than likely to brake, giving you an opportunity to get out of the car.

[TiggsTours]

Hmm.

"Have sex with me or you'll have to get out of the car and walk back through this really bad neighbourhood where you might get killed etc..."

or

"Have sex with me or I'll cut your throat with this knife".

She might say "ok" in either case.... but in the second example I can't imagine you'd say that she agreed to his terms and therefore he didn't rape her.

Where do you draw the line?

Guys who comit date rape always come across as really nice people, then change when the girl is out with them. Which girl in her right mind would ever think "Ah, he seems nice, I bet he'd force me into sexual activity, against my will, I'd love to go out with him!"