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

sashafierce

This post has been deleted.

Walter H Price

sashafierce wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's the point , we were both wrong , the lads were also bang out of order , she new i dint fancy her , i had turned her down a rake load of times as had some of the other lads she still got in bed and i still slept with her .. i was in a condition where id been put to bed by one of the other girls there because i was so Fcuked drunk , but she had had a few drinks too i'm assuming given it was a gaff party ... the issue is only one of us is a rapist under this new law, yours truely.

seamus

Walter H Price wrote: »

the issue is only one of us is a rapist under this new law, yours truely.

There is no new law yet.

You're debating an issue which doesn't even exist

Walter H Price

seamus wrote: »

There is no new law yet.

You're debating an issue which doesn't even exist

Even its proposal is absolutely wrong in my View , like i said by all means go for stronger sentences up to life for violent rapists , or people who are drugging or spiking girls but lobbing the stuff in the about only 1 party being responsible even in a case where both people are intoxicated is lunacy

sashafierce

This post has been deleted.

Robineen

I had an experience when I was 19 that would make me concerned about this in another way. I was at a friend's house party and was really drunk so she directed me to a spare bed in the house. I was drifting off to sleep when a guy slipped into the room, jumped into bed beside me and in short order had his hands inside my underwear. I think he thought I was passed out and that's how it would have looked. I pushed him away and out of the room and made myself go home to prevent anything happening if I slept there.

But I was only seconds away from sleep so I could very well have woken up with him on top of me. And he would have noted how drunk I was earlier on. We hadn't been flirting or even talking very much. It's worrying to me that in a case like this, he could use my drunkeness against me to claim I had consented when I definitely wouldn't have.

You can say "Don't get so drunk that you don't know what's going on!" but firstly, I was tucked up in bed at that point and secondly, many if not most of us will get very drunk at some point in our youth, or a good few times. Let's be realistic here. It's not justification for what happened to me and it was indeed already assault as it was. I left it and didn't pursue it any further and it's not hard to see why I didn't bother.

So, this subject is complicated. There are women who will regret their decision, but there are also people who will take advantage of another person's drunkeness and claim that they consented when they didn't.

Walter H Price

sashafierce wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Look i was never too broke up about it , p!ssed off with the lads but your one well knew what she was at and i i did still sleep with her so have to take some responsibility ... but this is not rare or uncommon i have other stories from college one of the lads was accused of spiking a girl , which he 100% didn't and she later admitted because they slept together after a night out and her boyfriend found out so that was the story she came up with , one girl got a horrific reputation from other girls spreading rumours about her because a guy one of them like shifted her on a night out.

A law like that proposed would only make stuff like this worse in my view and take away attention from real victims of rape.

seamus

Walter H Price wrote: »

but lobbing the stuff in the about only 1 party being responsible even in a case where both people are intoxicated is lunacy

but..they haven't lobbed in that stuff

The law as it stands holds the man accountable. The proposed law doesn't, and from what I can tell the proposed law in fact corrects that balance.

Walter H Price

seamus wrote: »

but..they haven't lobbed in that stuff

The law as it stands holds the man accountable. The proposed law doesn't, and from what I can tell the proposed law in fact corrects that balance.

I'm not sure it does , how do you work that one out ?

darkpagandeath

Robineen wrote: »

I don't know what this means.

Name any other legal cases that have been severely affected on the reporting of crime due to a punishment for lying. You cant. It's only Ever used in Rape cases and only for The woman.

Robineen

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Name any other legal cases that have been severely affected on the reporting of crime due to a punishment for lying. You cant. It's only Ever used in Rape cases and only for The woman.

Of course I can't. Currently I don't believe you can be charged for making false accusations. My point was if that did become something you could be charged for, it means that a woman could be accused of lying in a scenario where there was insufficient evidence to bring a rape conviction, even if the rape did actually occur. That means that even fewer people might come forward where they genuinely have been assaulted. They might worry that they could be accused of lying.

darkpagandeath

Robineen wrote: »

Of course I can't. Currently I don't believe you can be charged for making false accusations. My point was if that did become something you could be charged for, it means that a woman could be accused of lying in a scenario where there was insufficient evidence to bring a rape conviction, even if the rape did actually occur. That means that even fewer people might come forward where they genuinely have been assaulted. They might worry that they could be accused of lying.

And ? In most cases of Genuine rape that's already happened by the rapist in the police interview. Did not stop the case going ahead.

Butters1979

Butters1979 wrote: »

So..... Can 2 people rape each other at the same time?

No I really would like to know. If two people are too drunk to consent or to remember but have sex, are they both rapists? Did they rape each other? Or is it only the man who can be charged here?

What if it's two men? They both go to jail? What if it's 2 women? They both go to victim counselling or jail? Or both? What about a threesome. The more drunk of the 3 sends the other 2 to jail?

It all sounds a bit obtuse but the fact that you can even ask these question show how this legislation is not about justice but about criminalising one gender for a non criminal act. Gender neutral my hole.

seamus

Walter H Price wrote: »

I'm not sure it does , how do you work that one out ?

Based on what I've seen reported, and the limited information available on oireachtas.ie.

The current law is very old. And in the event that a man and woman get polluted and have sex, only the man can be charged.

The new legislation seeks to correct that by including a definition of consent which will be effectively gender-neutral.

Robineen

darkpagandeath wrote: »

And ? In most cases of Genuine rape that's already happened by the rapist in the police interview. Did not stop the case going ahead.

What I mean, if a man is found not guilty of rape, can he then, if it became an offence, have the person who accused him charged with making a false accusation? As said, it can difficult to prove that an rape occured, even when it did, and the prospect that the above could then happen could mean less women come forward for fear of that outcome.

darkpagandeath

seamus wrote: »

Based on what I've seen reported, and the limited information available on oireachtas.ie.

The current law is very old. And in the event that a man and woman get polluted and have sex, only the man can be charged.

The new legislation seeks to correct that by including a definition of consent which will be effectively gender-neutral.

Not with the Feminist lobby. No interest in Gender Neutral if it's against their interests. How many do you see advocating and demanding exact same sentencing for women committing crime ? The woman is always painted as a vulnerable. Even when the same people are shouting about strong independent females.

seamus

Butters1979 wrote: »

No I really would like to know. If two people are too drunk to consent or to remember but have sex, are they both rapists? Did they rape each other? Or is it only the man who can be charged here?

At present it's only the man who can be charged.

Ideally the law should account for the scenario where both were too drunk to consent. And it probably will.

The law convicting people for victimless crimes is nothing new. Afaik, one of the landmark cases in Ireland in relation to homosexual activity was when two men were both charged with some obtuse form of assault, for engaging in sex with one another. Despite full consent from both parties, there was clearly no victim, the state still convicted them both.

The law in regards to bondage and such is still very grey here because of the notion that one cannot consent to be assaulted. Even though, in fact, you can.

So in theory, where both people are too polluted to consent, they could both be charged with sexual assault on the other.

Which is obviously crazy.

Walter H Price

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Not with the Feminist lobby. No interest in Gender Neutral if it's against their interests. How many do you see advocating and demanding exact same sentencing for women committing crime ? The woman is always painted as a vulnerable. Even when the same people are shouting about strong independent females.

Exactly its far from equality being demanded by the Vagina hat brigade

darkpagandeath

Robineen wrote: »

What I mean, if a man is found not guilty of rape, can he then, if it became an offence, have the person who accused him charged with making a false accusation? As said, it can difficult to prove that an rape occured, even when it did, and the prospect that the above could then happen could mean less women come forward for fear of that outcome.

You can already take a case for slander/deformation, Usually a payment and does nothing for clearing your name and makes you look like a bully. Most men just have to live with the accusation.

seamus

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Not with the Feminist lobby. No interest in Gender Neutral if it's against their interests. How many do you see advocating and demanding exact same sentencing for women committing crime ? The woman is always painted as a vulnerable. Even when the same people are shouting about strong independent females.

What are you talking about? We're talking about a specific bill currently making its way through the process.

How is wittering on about the feminist lobby relevant?

darkpagandeath

seamus wrote: »

What are you talking about? We're talking about a specific bill currently making its way through the process.

How is wittering on about the feminist lobby relevant?

You realise most Female TD's would classify themselves as feminist. And are in a position to effect the wording.

seamus

darkpagandeath wrote: »

You realise most Female TD's would classify themselves as feminist. And are in a position to effect the wording.

Yes.

You do realise that the vast majority of feminists (practically all of them) are not the anti-man brigade you paint them out to be?

All of the committee suggestions on this bill in relation to consent include gender-neutral definitions.
http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2015/7915/B79b15s-DCN.pdf

But don't let your anti-feminist agenda get in the way of the facts. Feminists bad. Hate men. Grr feminists.

darkpagandeath

seamus wrote: »

Yes.

You do realise that the vast majority of feminists (practically all of them) are not the anti-man brigade you paint them out to be?

All of the committee suggestions on this bill in relation to consent include gender-neutral definitions.
http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2015/7915/B79b15s-DCN.pdf

But don't let your anti-feminist agenda get in the way of the facts. Feminists bad. Hate men. Grr feminists.

What agenda. I'm sure you can list the Litany of cases Female TD's in the dail have been demanding the increase in sentencing and punishment of women who break the law ?

Tefral

Walter H Price wrote: »

to be honest at this stage you'd want to be asking any young one you brought home after a night out or your OH to send you a text or something to say she agreed to it , just to cover your own arse.

I wouldn't make light of rape at all , i mean actual legitimate cases of violent sexual assault or someone being drugged , spiked etc ... but the notion that two adults could have a drunken fumble in the dark and the bloke , only the bloke mind you, could be charged with rape after if she felt a bit guilty , ashamed or rejected afterwards that's horrific to be honest.
?

This is no actual joke myself and the wife had a chat about this last night. She said she would write and sign a letter to say pretty much that. (Theres no need though as im assuming it would only be her who could say it was or wasnt).

The only snag we hit was, say for arguments sake you did write a letter, when does it become invalid? All joking aside we really had this conversation

seamus

darkpagandeath wrote: »

What agenda. I'm sure you can list the Litany of cases Female TD's in the dail have been demanding the increase in sentencing and punishment of women who break the law ?

That's not what we're talking about. Try again.

In any case, TDs have no control over sentencing of specific cases and it would be wholly inappropriate for one to make any statement in the Dail encouraging interference in the judicial process.

If a judge imposes a different sentence on men and women for the same crime, there's actually nothing the Dail can do about that.

Walter H Price

Tefral wrote: »

This is no actual joke myself and the wife had a chat about this last night. She said she would write and sign a letter to say pretty much that. (Theres no need though as im assuming it would only be her who could say it was or wasnt).

The only snag we hit was, say for arguments sake you did write a letter, when does it become invalid? All joking aside we really had this conversation

What about a tinder like thing where you just connect and hit a button both get e-mail confirmation ... 2 seconds job done

Tefral

Walter H Price wrote: »

What about a tinder like thing where you just connect and hit a button both get e-mail confirmation ... 2 seconds job done

Man.. you know what, this is ridiculous that we are even having this conversation.

Walter H Price

Tefral wrote: »

Man.. you know what, this is ridiculous that we are even having this conversation.

To be honest its where its going , sad but that's the way it is

darkpagandeath

seamus wrote: »

That's not what we're talking about. Try again.

In any case, TDs have no control over sentencing of specific cases and it would be wholly inappropriate for one to make any statement in the Dail encouraging interference in the judicial process.

If a judge imposes a different sentence on men and women for the same crime, there's actually nothing the Dail can do about that.

Yes they do they can create laws, Just like the one you say will be gender neutral. Come on if there is no agenda you should be able to link a few Female Td's Demanding harsher sentencing for women in direct proportion the the male criminal.

orubiru

Robineen wrote: »

The problem with this is, what if a rape occurred but there is insufficient evidence to convict? Would the accuser in that case be thought a liar? How could you tell if it was a lie or just a lack of evidence? If someone was found not guilty of rape, could they then accuse the accuser of lying? People are reluctant to come forward as it is when they have raped. This might make it even harder to come forward for fear of what might happen if it's a not guilty verdict.

I agree with you here and I think it's a very important point to make.

I think a far better system would be that it should be illegal to publicly accuse someone of a crime without first going through the justice system and getting a guilty verdict.

So if the accuser goes to the police and makes an accusation but never goes public with that accusation then I don't see any need to punish them if the verdict is "not guilty".

However, for example, if the accuser makes the accusation on twitter and then goes to the media and then the verdict is not guilty then it seems clear to me that their ought to be some kind of punishment there.

If someone makes an accusation and then a third party goes public with the accusation then that third party should be held accountable regardless of any verdict.

I think the main issue here should be whether or not the system is open to abuse and what kind of punishment will be handed out to people who do abuse the system.

When it comes down to it though I always think we have tough questions that we need to ask ourselves.

Is it acceptable to put 10 or 20 or 100 innocent men in prison if it means we catch all the rapists out there? So a woman makes an accusation and we all "listen and believe" and the guy goes to prison. This way we would catch all rapists who can be identified and accused.

The cost would be that a small amount of false accusations, or cases of mistaken identity, would put innocent men in prison in the name of "the greater good".

Historically, society has always asked men to sacrifice themselves for the greater good so maybe this "listen and believe" mantra is just an extension of that?

So it's the same deal with this focus on consent and intoxication. Actually it's kind of a middle ground. We are not saying "listen and believe" but we definitely are making it more difficult for actual rapists to basically get away with it.

We can definitely say that false accusations are rare but we can't say that they never happen. The easier it is to make a false accusation, sometimes without consequences or risk to the accuser, the more frequently they will occur.

So, great, we catch more rapists but this comes at the cost of catching more innocent guys in the net.

Is that a cost we are willing to accept?

The new law proposals are coming from a good place. They are seeking to review the validity of using "I believed she had consented" as a defense.

On one hand this will definitely catch more actual rapists as a possible defense tactic has been taken away from them. On the other hand some innocent guys are going to be sent away because actually she really did consent and he really did believe he had consent.

For most of us, sure, if 1 in 100 times it's just some random student lad getting sent away for a crime he didn't commit then we won't lose much sleep over it. Hell, we probably won't even hear about it. Maybe some nameless dude hangs himself over a false allegation, who cares right?

What happens though when that innocent guy is your son or brother or father or best friend etc?

seamus

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Yes they do they can create laws, Just like the one you say will be gender neutral. Come on if there is no agenda you should be able to link a few Female Td's Demanding harsher sentencing for women in direct proportion the the male criminal.

That's pretty arbitrary. So I can say that if you haven't ever demanded X, then I can assume you have an anti-X agenda. Useful to know.

Anyway, they create laws and define sentences for breaking those laws. They do not have the final say in the exact sentences that judges pass down. TDs can't demand harsher sentencing for one gender over the other.

None of which is relevant here. The proposals aim to gender-neutralise the issue of consent.

Something which doesn't exist at present. Why are you opposed to gender-neutralising the issue of consent?

CeannairBluexx

I say this as a woman - women lie. Women will cry rape. Why should anyone's life be ruined by automatically believing a rape claim ?

Arghus

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Surely the point of the proposed law is not to prosecute men en masse for having sex while intoxicated with equally intoxicated women, because God knows that's a big feature of Irish life, but to prosecute people for taking advantage, unfairly, of those with diminshed responsibilty.

You may say it's comparativly rare, but it's exactly those type of comparativly rare situations that the law would deal with.

darkpagandeath

Arghus wrote: »

Surely the point of the proposed law is not to prosecute men en masse for having sex while intoxicated with equally intoxicated women, because God knows that's a big feature of Irish life, but to prosecute people for taking advantage, unfairly, of those with diminshed responsibilty.

You may say it's comparativly rare, but it's exactly those type of comparativly rare situations that the law would deal with.

They state this may lead to less reporting of Rape, False alligation seem to trump fairness. I know of no other area other than Sexual assault this is the case. As I have said An actual sexual predator will immediately claim the victim is lying. That never stops the case going ahead. Only seems to come to an issue when the claim in not vindicated and the just in case is brought out.

DEFTLEFTHAND

If this is what now constitutes as Rape then yes I believe that over half of Dublin and the country as a whole were conceived in drunken sexual relations, i.e Rape.

:rolleyes::pac:

I'm more than likely a product of Rape myself.

darkpagandeath

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

If this is what now constitutes as Rape then yes I believe that over half of Dublin and the country as a whole were conceived in drunken sexual relations, i.e Rape.

:rolleyes::pac:

I'm more than likely a product of Rape myself.

There would be a lot less people around if it had to be sober.

Specialun

What about men..this law is very weak on male rape..

The Legend Of Kira

Here are two excerpts from a particular caller (Melanie ) on yesterdays 98FM radio discussion on this new consent law.

she admits to a 1 night stand in the past, In her own words she " said yes " & didn,t say " no " she " remembers it " & considers it " rape " later, like WTF ?

slovakchick

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.

What about if the girl requests a condom but he doesn't follow suit and slips it ? See swizz case in news recently

Angel Crow

slovakchick wrote: »

What about if the girl requests a condom but he doesn't follow suit and slips it ? See swizz case in news recently

Not sure what that has to do with anything but that would be a despicable thing to do.

Katgurl

Wibbs wrote: »

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

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.

Oh yes I remember reading about it here.

Off topic but the replies on the thread were utterly disgusting; guys auggesting the victim had a lesbian encounter in the bathroom and then was embarrassed so claimed she had been assaulted. I was quite disturbed by a) the story and b) the reactions.

Anyway much as I think this proposal is ludicrous there does need to be reform in the law to protect women from rape.

This hysteria suggesting women run around screaming rape constantly is ridiculous.

Yes some women make false rape claims

BUT

Some men rape women.

And members of both groups get away with it.

darkpagandeath

Katgurl wrote: »

Oh yes I remember reading about it here.

Off topic but the replies on the thread were utterly disgusting; guys auggesting the victim had a lesbian encounter in the bathroom and then was embarrassed so claimed she had been assaulted. I was quite disturbed by a) the story and b) the reactions.

Anyway much as I think this proposal is ludicrous there does need to be reform in the law to protect women from rape.

This hysteria suggesting women run around screaming rape constantly is ridiculous.

Yes some women make false rape claims

BUT

Some men rape women.

And members of both groups get away with it.

And then you have phrases like "Rape Culture"......