New law will define consent in rape cases... will it it really though ?

roadrunner16

I heard this on the radio today, a lot of people getting heated and emotional which is understandable, but it seems that a lot of people can't have a conversation about it without getting annoyed or angry.

http://www.98fm.com/podcasts/Dublin_Talks/98FM39s_Dublin_Talks/56498/

apparently half of Dublin is "rape babies" first time in a long time I've been engrossed in a radio piece,

but from the Irish Times article,

"if a woman is asleep or so intoxicated or under the influence of drugs that she is not capable of giving consent, then there is no consent." this sentence seems pretty clear cut on first reading.

but how intoxicated is that ??? does this mean that someone who is drunk who consents to a sexual encounter can later have that consent removed, and then have the other party arrested for rape??

"The fact that the accused man was also intoxicated or drugged cannot be a defense."

again pretty clear cut, if you do something while drunk you should still be held accountable. surely this applies to providing consent?

I'd say that the majority of times I've had sex there was some amount of drink had by both parties involved, me often being the more intoxicated party If I'm completely honest, some very shocking heated opinions on the radio today, was shocked by some of the attitudes of people supporting the law.


http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/new-law-will-define-consent-in-rape-cases-1.2864842

To be honest I'm not sure really how I feel, A law designed to protect and clarify sexual consent. can that be done clearly and easily ?

uch

Rape is Rape, regardless of what any cúnt thinks

darkpagandeath

Is there no accountability ? If I fall asleep in the street for example p*ss and get mugged I am partially at fault. The first person responsible for you is you. That does not excuse the rape for example or the crime. Rape needs to not be based on penetration too.

Arghus

I predict this thread will be a short lived affair, with much agreement, shared ground and nuanced understanding between all sides.

Angel Crow

The rape crisis centre once shared a poster which said 'consent is sober' and 'consent is verbal.' Taking that as fact, how many men have committed rape?

darkpagandeath

Angel Crow wrote: »

The rape crisis centre once shared a poster which said 'consent is sober' and 'consent is verbal.' Taking that as fact, how many men have committed rape?

Consent also needs to be defined with no margin for mind changing and the Responsibility of the male. Intercourse and alike takes 2. there needs to be consensus and accountability. And very very heavy jail time for liars. As a false rape claim will destroy the man's life for good. If a rape is Genuine I cant see how jail time for lying will stop the case. To me its an excuse to entirely put the responsibility on the male.

rarariot

Angel Crow wrote: »

The rape crisis centre once shared a poster which said 'consent is sober' and 'consent is verbal.' Taking that as fact, how many men have committed rape?

Two people can be drunk and still engage in consensual sex though.

kneemos

Angel Crow wrote: »

The rape crisis centre once shared a poster which said 'consent is sober' and 'consent is verbal.' Taking that as fact, how many men have committed rape?

Presumably the poster applied to both sexes?
Men can be coaxed into having sex and regretting it too.

rarariot

kneemos wrote: »

Presumably the poster applied to both sexes?
Men can be coaxed into having sex and regretting it too.

That's another question regarding consent that boggles me. If you wake up the next day and regret it, does that mean that you've been raped? Personally I don't think so. I think at some stage nearly everyone has pulled on a night out, been delighted with themselves, and woke up the next morning thinking "shiiiiiiiit what have I done?". Regret isn't really rape, to me anyway.

Del2005

rarariot wrote: »

Two people can be drunk and still engage in consensual sex though.

Not anymore if one of them is female.

How will male rape work if the victim is intoxicated, because a man being intoxicated means that they can't use that as a defence?

rarariot

Del2005 wrote: »

Not anymore if one of them is female.

How will male rape work if the victim is intoxicated, because a man being intoxicated means that they can't use that as a defence?

It just seems crazy that a sexual encounter can take place, where both people might be drunk, and it is consensual at the time, but the guy is at risk of having his life ruined if the female decides after the encounter that she regrets it, or wasn't sober enough to remember it in detail.

Obviously I'm not advocating rape or non consensual sex, but what if the guy regrets it too? Does he still go down even though both parties could have been equally as drunk at the time, and equally as complicit at the time?

Angel Crow

kneemos wrote: »

Presumably the poster applied to both sexes?

You would hope so.

Edit: I actually recall a discussion about this somewhere on Facebook on an Irish page. A guy was saying that he and his wife have often had drunken sex and was saying how it obviously wasn't rape. A lady replied saying that any sex involving drink is non consensual. Even knowing there's at least one person out there that believes that is quite scary.

The Legend Of Kira

98Fm talked about this new consent law yesterday,, one particular female caller who called the show ( Melanie ) said she had a drunken one night stand with a guy years ago & the next day in her own words " she felt dirty & ashamed & regretted it " when she spoke about this drunken one night encounter a 2nd time later on during the programme she admitted that she even remember that night , she also said she went to the Gardai around a year later to make a complaint of " Rape " against the guy , now this law comes in how many more Melanies might be out there that regret a one night stand encounter the next day & make a complaint of " Rape " against the guy ? so people will know click on the link below to the podcast section of 98fm website podcast is under title

" ( "I Was Raped Even Though I Said YES" -" )

http://www.98fm.com/podcasts/Dublin_Talks/98FMs_Dublin_Talks/56498/I_Was_Raped_Even_Though_I_Said_YES__War_On_Air_Today

the_syco

He added that, as matters stand, if a woman is asleep or so intoxicated or under the influence of drugs that she is not capable of giving consent, then there is no consent.
The fact that the accused man was also intoxicated or drugged cannot be a defence.

So if she's in any way drunk, it's rape.

Arcade_Tryer

One step away from sexual consent forms.

In fact I think that's quite a good idea..

SEPT 23 1989

I thought men and women were equal

Amirani

uch wrote: »

Rape is Rape, regardless of what any cúnt thinks

Theresa May school of reasoning is it? You can say rape is rape all you want, but if you never define what it means then it effectively means nothing.

Amirani

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

One step away from sexual consent forms.

In fact I think that's quite a good idea..

Wouldn't work. Consent can still (rightly) be withdrawn after the signing of such a form.

thee glitz

kneemos wrote: »

Presumably the poster applied to both sexes?
Men can be coaxed into having sex and regretting it too.

No - when she's feeling sexual, you should be sexual.

GritBiscuit

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

I thought men and women were equal

Not in terms of violent crime statistics...

Arcade_Tryer

Amirani wrote: »

Wouldn't work. Consent can still (rightly) be withdrawn after the signing of such a form.

Well, as it appears the burden of proof is being placed on the part of the defendant here, it would be no harm either.

Del2005

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Well, as it appears the burden of proof is being placed on the part of the defendant here, it would be no harm either.

They could always say that they don't remember signing the form. There was a case in the US where a woman texted a man and told her female friends she was going for a booty call, next thing the guy is up in court for rape as she was drunk

It's getting to the stage that you will need to sobriety test the other party before sex and have independent witnesses throughout to make sure that you don't get done.

Angel Crow

Angel Crow wrote: »

The rape crisis centre once shared a poster which said 'consent is sober' and 'consent is verbal.' Taking that as fact, how many men have committed rape?

How many men have been raped?

Del2005

rarariot wrote: »

It just seems crazy that a sexual encounter can take place, where both people might be drunk, and it is consensual at the time, but the guy is at risk of having his life ruined if the female decides after the encounter that she regrets it, or wasn't sober enough to remember it in detail.

Obviously I'm not advocating rape or non consensual sex, but what if the guy regrets it too? Does he still go down even though both parties could have been equally as drunk at the time, and equally as complicit at the time?

According to the OP yes the man will get done. Once the woman is intoxicated she can claim rape, a man can't use being intoxicated as a defence.

Wibbs

roadrunner16 wrote: »

apparently half of Dublin is "rape babies"

Only an idiot, a loon, or modern so called "feminist" would believe that. The latter all too often the sure sign of the former two. And it seems legislators are listening to such voices.

"The fact that the accused man was also intoxicated or drugged cannot be a defense."

Well of course not, it is always men's(™) fault and women(™) are always victims with no agency or responsibility. This is the mantra.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Is there no accountability ?

See above. Apparently accountability and agency is only the preserve of men. Very Victorian indeed.

GritBiscuit wrote:

Not in terms of violent crime statistics...

The majority of victims of violent crimes are men.

Arghus wrote: »

I predict this thread will be a short lived affair, with much agreement, shared ground and nuanced understanding between all sides.

True, but when actual laws are now in force that take the nuance out, assume guilt and target a whole gender in doing so, you can be sure there will be miscarriages of justice. Particularly in a social political climate that buys wholesale debunked ideas like 1 in 4(5/3/8 depending on source). This is not a good thing and perfectly understandable why many will think what the actual fcuk is going on/did I take crazy pills last night to wake up to this?

The next time someone suggests modern feminism(and so called "liberal" politics) is all about equality and only the loony fringe have the daft headline grabbing clickbait ideas and such loons don't have real world impact, I'll point them squarely at this farce of a "law".

tritium

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Well, as it appears the burden of proof is being placed on the part of the defendant here, it would be no harm either.

Strangely i always thought the basis if our whole legal system was "innocent until proven guilty"

A large part of these proposals appear to be an attempt to hide the inconvenient grey areas around rape accusations and pretend everything is nicely black and white

Arcade_Tryer

tritium wrote: »

Strangely i always thought the basis if our whole legal system was "innocent until proven guilty"

A large part of these proposals appear to be an attempt to hide the inconvenient grey areas around rape accusations and pretend everything is nicely black and white

Essentially making life easier (and more lucrative) for the legal profession, while making life worse for the general population. What's new.

Wibbs

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Well, as it appears the burden of proof is being placed on the part of the defendant here, it would be no harm either.

Funny, I had always assumed the law works on innocent until proven guilty.

dav3

At least the OP referenced the Irish Times article instead of the hysterical carry on of 98fm.

Some interesting segments from the article

The decision came as a seven-judge sitting of the Supreme Court issued a lengthy consideration of the issue on Friday, in an appeal by a man who was convicted of raping his mother.
He had claimed she had consented, but the man’s appeal was dismissed.
Calls for the introduction of a definition of consent in Irish legislation go back to the 1980s, when it was recommended by the Law Reform Commission.
Other jurisdictions, including England, have already introduced such definitions...

...Law lecturer Dr Susan Leahy, of the University of Limerick, said consent was the dividing line between sex and rape and it was appropriate that it should be defined in legislation...


...Along with a range of other examples, English law says that a woman has not consented if she was too affected by alcohol or drugs to agree freely to sexual activity

It all appears fairly straight forward, I don’t think anyone would have an issue with that. I mean everyone who has ever travelled to England already knows this law is already in place don’t they? For all the men who had sex with drunk women in England, I’m sure this was going through everyone’s mind just before they did the deed right?


Then we have 98fm. It’s not the listeners fault, people will listen to any old sh*te on the radio if it’s on in the background. Are the people run run this show actually this thick?

Some gems from their website in the past few days

"I Was Raped Even Though I Said YES" - War On Air Today

"Mammy Knows Best; Father's I]sic[/I Are Useless Imbeciles"

"I Am Not Paying For You To Have A I]sic[/I IVF Baby"

Jeremy Blasted Lazy Parents With Some Home Truths Today

"Homeless People Need To Stop Being So Selfish...."

"I'd be safer living on the streets than in Tallaght"

Seriously people, seriously, 98fm over common sense? Come on, you’re better than that.

Arcade_Tryer

Wibbs wrote: »

Funny, I had always assumed the law works on innocent until proven guilty.

Not anymore apparently.

kneemos

dav3 wrote: »

At least the OP referenced the Irish Times article instead of the hysterical carry on of 98fm.

Some interesting segments from the article




It all appears fairly straight forward, I don’t think anyone would have an issue with that. I mean everyone who has ever travelled to England already knows this law is already in place don’t they? For all the men who had sex with drunk women in England, I’m sure this was going through everyone’s mind just before they did the deed right?


Then we have 98fm. It’s not the listeners fault, people will listen to any old sh*te on the radio if it’s on in the background. Are the people run run this show actually this thick?

Some gems from their website in the past few days

"I Was Raped Even Though I Said YES" - War On Air Today

"Mammy Knows Best; Father's I]sic[/I Are Useless Imbeciles"

"I Am Not Paying For You To Have A I]sic[/I IVF Baby"

Jeremy Blasted Lazy Parents With Some Home Truths Today

"Homeless People Need To Stop Being So Selfish...."

"I'd be safer living on the streets than in Tallaght"

Seriously people, seriously, 98fm over common sense? Come on, you’re better than that.

Does it apply to men being too drunk to give consent and how intoxicated is too intoxicated?

Tornaxx

Angel Crow wrote: »

You would hope so.

Edit: I actually recall a discussion about this somewhere on Facebook on an Irish page. A guy was saying that he and his wife have often had drunken sex and was saying how it obviously wasn't rape. A lady replied saying that any sex involving drink is non consensual. Even knowing there's at least one person out there that believes that is quite scary.

So if that same lad has a few drinks, has consensual sex with his wife, I presume she has raped him? (I know that's not your view.)

dav3

kneemos wrote: »

Does it apply to men being too drunk to give consent and how intoxicated is too intoxicated?

It should. I've no idea, I haven't read all the legislation.

Curly Judge

rarariot wrote: »

Two people can be drunk and still engage in consensual sex though.

And how will that be teased out in court if one of the participants later cries foul?

GritBiscuit

kneemos wrote: »

Does it apply to men being too drunk to give consent and how intoxicated is too intoxicated?

The OP states:

roadrunner16 wrote: »

"if a woman is asleep or so intoxicated or under the influence of drugs that she is not capable of giving consent, then there is no consent."

That would suggest it only applies to common-law rape.
Without seeing the legislation in full, it's impossible to say.

osarusan

Curly Judge wrote: »

And how will that be teased out in court if one of the participants later cries foul?

The same as now: the woman can claim rape, but the question of whether she was too drunk to grant informed consent still needs to be answered, and even if that is decided, the question of whether the man could have reasonably believed that she had granted him informed consent.

I don't have any problem with it really - what I do have a problem with is that it can only go one way, in that a woman cannot legally rape a man in Ireland. The legislation should go both ways.

If the language in the law is gender neutral then everyone I've been with has raped me and vice versa.

Dravokivich

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

One step away from sexual consent forms.

In fact I think that's quite a good idea..

One step away from this more like...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjSHHO-Vhjo

Katgurl

Unless you have been spiked I don't see why people (and surely that includes women) aren't held accountable for how drunk they get themselves.

Being intoxicated renders you incapable of giving consent? Don't get so ******** drunk!

I know that being intoxicated is a defence for murder BUT that just means the charge can be downgraded to manslaughter. Murder is always a life sentence while manslaughter can be a life sentence. So that's reasonable IMO.

But I (as a woman) can go out, drink my bodyweight in shots, start feeling amorous so pick up a randomer, regret it in the morning then accuse him of rape?

It's demented.

AudreyHepburn

To be honest this change smacks of women attempting to use any means possible to hold men responsible for their (women's) mistakes.

I don't understand why so many of my fellow women feel the need to hold men to blame for every bad thing that happens in their lives, every mistake and regret they have.

Any change to rape related law would have to apply equally to both genders and both parties involved otherwise I personally couldn't agree to it.

Getting wasted and having drunken one night stand that you later regret is not rape, simple as.

AudreyHepburn

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Well, as it appears the burden of proof is being placed on the part of the defendant here, it would be no harm either.

Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty - if the woman is claiming she was raped then the burden of proof must be on her.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

pilly

The case quoted in the Irish Times is quite an extreme case in that he was accused of raping his mother. Any reasonable person could presume that his mother, in her right mind, would not consent.

It is an awful lot greyer when both parties are around the same age, meet up in a nightclub, get drunk and end up in bed together.

If this law is to be the case then surely it should apply to both genders?

Only bonus may be that it makes people think twice about the majority of one night stands, that let's face it, we all regret.

orubiru

How do these laws affect same sex couples?

If two drunk men have sex did they rape each other? Should they both be sent to prison?

What about 2 drunk women? How would the law apply to them?

Would it be possible for a third party to make the accusation?

Can a nosy neighbor look through the curtains and see you and your partner coming home from the pub at night, listen through the wall and hear you having sex and then make the call to the police?

ted1

Angel Crow wrote: »

The rape crisis centre once shared a poster which said 'consent is sober' and 'consent is verbal.' Taking that as fact, how many men have committed rape?

Or women.

Wibbs

dav3 wrote:

This post had been deleted.

So? Just because another jurisdiction has legislation that's a bit daft on the face of it, it doesn't mean we should follow that lead. We have an utterly idiotic law against "blasphemy" in this country and that shouldn't be replicated elsewhere.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Nails it IMH. Never mind if the guy was equally drunk and therefore of "diminished responsibility". Interesting that two pints would have one over the limit to drive and of diminished responsibility, but five pints in the guy carries full responsibility in areas of consent. Of course the woman carries pretty much none.

And at least in drunk driving cases there is nearly always a blood alcohol level to determine if legally valid intoxication is present. In the case of sex and sexual consent that's not very likely. Not unless we get wee breathalysers attached to locks on our pants. Toxicology reports could show some evidence after the fact if a drink was spiked, though no such case has been clinically reported in Ireland. In every case it was just ordinary alcohol and too much of same(with some other recreational drugs thrown in).

Mokuba

Equality.

Come back to me when your entire life can be ruined because she feels bad about her promiscuity and you get to see your child once a week because she doesn't like you.

Wibbs

orubiru wrote: »

How do these laws affect same sex couples?

Good question. IIRC there are differences, so with men it would be rape, with women it would be sexual assault.

What about 2 drunk women? How would the law apply to them?

There was a case(in the North IIRC?) where a woman sexually assaulted another woman in a nightclub toilet and she was done for sexual assault.

RubyGlee

I think this could get really messy. So on one hand I would think if someone, male or female is so drunk they can't stand then don't have sex with them but then I think back to a night where I was drinking ended up just me and male friend and we kept drinking and then ended up waking up beside each other. Memories are fuzzy and I don't remember clearly saying yup let's do it so could I claim even though he didn't force himself on me that I was raped?? What about the next morning when your not drunk but you don't exactly say I consent to this. Doesn't intent come into it at all?

seamus

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Your comparison is inconsistent because it ignores the presence of a second person who is capable.

If you get drunk and masturbate on public transport, you will equally be charged, even if you were polluted.

A more apt comparison would be getting hammered, and then someone sober comes along, gives you your car keys, puts you into the driver's seat of your car and encourages you to drive them home, reassuring you that it'll be fine.

In that case, it would be interesting to see what the law does.

Any road, this particular bill has yet to be published, so we don't know what the definition is going to be or how it is envisaged it will be applied.