Ched Evans

[feral chile]

Reminds e of the deafening silence after one of my lecturers said 'if a woman got raped while wearing a revealing outfit, you could argue that she was responsible for it'.

Maybe women and black people should be kept under curfew then. After all if they weren't outside they couldn't be attacked.

Of course the victims cause the attacks. women have vaginas and black people have dark skin.

What are they thinking, imagining they should have the freedom to walk the streets, wear what they like and get drunk if they want, without fear of being attacked. Just like white men can, without being judged as causing their own victimhood.

Anyone would think we lived in a free society, with laws and things!

oh yes, forgot about gay people and people with alternative lifestyles. They chose their lifestyles after all, so they must deserve to be attacked too.

In fact, everyone must be bringing it on themselves. After all, if you're somewhere that you could at all have left yourself vulnerable to attack, you could be deemed to have consented to it. And by definition, if you've been attacked, you've left it possible.

Edited January 13, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

The stupidity of the vicitm is irrelevant.

I wasn't going to prove the stupidity of any victim of anything, I was going to prove the stupidity of a particular point of law.

But never mind. There's too much defensiveness going on for me to bother to pursue it, and I wouldn't be necessarily thinking it applied around Evans anyway. So i'll let that one go, rather than string myself by people thinking what they're thinking and not reading what i'm saying.

But I 100% agree, the stupidity of the victim is irrelevant.

[eFestivals]

Reminds e of the deafening silence after one of my lecturers said 'if a woman got raped while wearing a revealing outfit, you could argue that she was responsible for it'.

that's absolutely not where I was going, nothing at all like it.

Anyone would think we lived in a free society, with laws and things!

What, like where a sentence is handed down in court, and not via a mob?

And where there's a principle that once released a crim is allowed to resume their place in society?

It would be nice is we did live in a free society.

[eFestivals]

If I got myself pissed and someone nicked my bag, whether it's my fault or not wouldn't be part of the defence. Opportunistic crime is still crime. The stupidity of the vicitm is irrelevant.

If you got yourself pissed and ordered a meal, can the restaurateur collect on the bill...?

Think about it.

The law is an ass!!

[feral chile]

I do get what you're saying. That's why the law is so strong on consent these days. Rape is the only crime I can think of where consent is a defence, so it allows for implicit consent.

of course it's common sense not to get so drunk you don't know what you're doing. That doesn't make it OK for someone to have sex with you, any more than it makes it OK for them to steal your bag.

The only similar situation I can think of is this one. There was an occasion where a colleague got so drunk that he maxed out his credit card buying drinks for everyone. People let him do it.

Now, it wasn't theft, so not illegal. But bloody immoral. I think this is what you're getting at Neil, is that right?

[bunique]

PMSL.

You could have just answered the question I actually asked.

Didn't see your question as I posted! I think my response would have been the same as zahid's though - If is stumbled and fell, my fault. If I'm pushed, then responsibility is with the pusher.

[bunique]

I think I'm missing what you're getting at as well Neil!

[eFestivals]

Now, it wasn't theft, so not illegal. But bloody immoral. I think this is what you're getting at Neil, is that right?

Nope.

I'm pointing out that in one instance what comes out of a drunk person's mouth is deemed legally competent and not subject to review, and that in other circumstances the words are subject to legal 3rd party review where they can be deemed to count for nothing (despite being said, and taken in good faith [rather than any deliberate 'taking advantage']).

It's an odd situation.

(note: I'm looking at this as a theoretical point of law, and not how it might apply or not to Evans' case)

Edited January 13, 2015 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

Nope.

I'm pointing out that in one instance what comes out of a drunk person's mouth is deemed legally competent and not subject to review, and that in other circumstances the words are subject to legal 3rd party review where they can be deemed to count for nothing (despite being said, and taken in good faith [rather than any deliberate 'taking advantage']).

(note: I'm looking at this as a theoretical point of law, and not how it might apply or not to Evans' case)

If you're just looking at how consent is deemed t have been given, then yes, it's a difficult area. You can't say a victim has to have said no, because they might be unconscious. Or frightened, and trying to placate their attacker. But a drunken yes...

Without knowing all the details, I'm assuming that if you have a man who admits having sex, and a woman who can't remember consenting, you'd have t look at her level of competence at the time, to determine whether she was likely to be able to have consented.

You can't leave it down to whether the man assumed consent, because then you'd have morons thinking any woman would be glad to have them.

Edited January 13, 2015 by feral chile

[feral chile]

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/father-teenager-who-took-life-8438661

The inquest heard how a referral was made by the school nurse to social services as the girl could not remember the events of the evening in full.

No allegations were made against Yale

In the interview Yale, who staff regarded as an intelligent, gifted and polite, admitted that he and the girl had drunk a lot of alcohol and that some sexual foreplay occurred with the girl’s consent.

No allegations were being made against Yale by the female pupil and Yale’s parents were not contacted over the incident.

The inquest into the boy’s death in January 2013 heard that Yale was questioned during the last lesson of the day and was told when a girl is drunk she can’t give consent.



Coroner John Gittins concluded that it was probable that Yale “was shocked and scared” after he was informed of this and it “made him anxious believing there to be a risk that he could go to prison”.

After leaving school the coroner concluded Yale, “whilst probably suffering extreme anxiety” tragically hanged himself in the family’s garage.

Edited January 13, 2015 by feral chile

[bunique]

I think that case is less about consent and more about utterly appalling handling by the school

[feral chile]

I think that case is less about consent and more about utterly appalling handling by the school

Definitely that. It does make me wonder if there's enough education regarding what actually constitutes rape, even these days.

[feral chile]

I - at the risk of being shot down by either side here - think the argument over this has got lost a bit and that most people actually agree.

If someone gets really pissed and has sex with someone who takes advantage of the fact that they're pissed and inhibitions lowered then that's not rape. That's doing something stupid when you're pissed and you have to take responsibility.

Where the grey area is regarding consent in Evans case - as I understand it anyway - is if a woman is that pissed that she is near comatosed so isn't physically capable of saying no or trying to resist then some men may use that as a defense. That is not the same as getting pissed on a works do and thinking 'what the hell' and the office geek taking advantage of that.

That leads to regret but is not rape. Most men would recognise the difference and the woman in one instance has to take responsibility for her own drunkenness as Neil says as you can't say that a pissed up woman is not responsible but a pissed up man should know better.

However a pissed up man should know better than having sex with someone who clearly can't move or speak.

It's a very large grey area and practically impossible to define boundaries in law that a clever lawyer couldn't argue against but I'd like to think that all right minded people would recognise the difference.

The trouble is not everyone is right minded.

Essay over.

It's also a question as t whether someone who claims to have been so drunk they can't remember the event, never mind giving consent, would have been legally fit to give consent at the time.

I think what Neil's been arguing is that a drunken woman might not be the most reliable witness.

So how do you protect her? And try to establish the truth?

[bunique]

Definitely that. It does make me wonder if there's enough education regarding what actually constitutes rape, even these days.

I think that is the one positive that has come out of the Evans case - it's certainly encouraged a much greater level of discussion about consent

[feral chile]

I'm sorry but I don't buy that one. If a woman gives consent but then can't remember the next day, it isn't the man's responsibility to be the 'responsibile' one.

What if he's just as drunk and lucky enough to still maintain an erection? Why has he committed rape and she's a victim?

That's a drunken mistake that both parties have to take responsibility for.

It'd be too easy for women who regretted something to shout rape when there was none by exaggerating their drunkenness and feigning memory loss in that case. Especially if they'd cheated on someone.

But wouldn't most rape cases involving drunken people have that as the scenario? If they could remember, it would be clear cut.

The whole thing about these type of cases is whether the woman is incapacitated, and what incapacitated signifies. And whether she can be relied on to know if she was conscious at the time and forgot by the morning.

Sorry, I keep saying women, of course the victim could just as easily be male.

Edited January 13, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

Without knowing all the details, I'm assuming ...

You're assuming wrongly.

I'm simply pointing out that the law says that sometimes what a woman says is legally binding, and at other times what she says legally ain't worth shit.

[eFestivals]

I think what Neil's been arguing is that a drunken woman might not be the most reliable witness.

Nope, i'm saying a court of law that wasn't there at the time isn't the most reliable judge of the circumstances it didn't see.

And more than that, that sometimes a woman's word is worthless in law.

[eFestivals]

And i'll state again for the hard of thinking...

I am justifying no act by anyone, I am simply pointing out some very strange anomalies in law.

[gary1979666]

I think there's a blurring of being so drunk that you're unconscious / so drunk you can't remember / very drunk, but can still remember - obviously it is a line of drunkenness not 3 distinct categories.

I think the first is clear to spot and I would hope most men, however drunk, know that there's no consent. Also, why would you want to? Can't see the attraction of it anyway!

But the other two - how do you know that if someone say 'yes' or 'yesh' (cos they're drunk) whether they will remember it. I've had nights when I can't remember things, and I'm not dissimilar to when I'm drunk and do remember it.

As for the analogy of walking down the road drunk - it's clear whether it's a push or a fall, but all the discussion is around when someone of a comparable enebriation bumps into you and you go down. Is it a push, is it a fall?

[gary1979666]

Back on to the Ched situation - even if it was consentual and the guy has all the benefit of the doubt.....WHY?

If I got a text from a pissed up mate, saying he had a drunk girl (hell, even if she was sober) at a hotel room and she wanted a 3some - I wouldn't fancy rocking up, going down on her after she'd been with my mate and then have coitus with her myself and then shoot off home. Just seems a bit wierd.

[eFestivals]

Back on to the Ched situation - even if it was consentual and the guy has all the benefit of the doubt.....WHY?

If I got a text from a pissed up mate, saying he had a drunk girl (hell, even if she was sober) at a hotel room and she wanted a 3some - I wouldn't fancy rocking up, going down on her after she'd been with my mate and then have coitus with her myself and then shoot off home. Just seems a bit wierd.

nor me, but each to their own. We all have our sexual preferences, and for most people they go beyond just the missionary position.

The crime here is rape, not what might be his consensual sexual preferences.

[eFestivals]

Keep telling yourself that as you wave that Ched banner....

my, aren't you the smart thinking man?

How come you accept the court saying "Ched is a rapist" and say the same yourself, but it means nothing when i say the same?

Might the problem be your very tiny mind? Why, yes it is.

[feral chile]

Nope, i'm saying a court of law that wasn't there at the time isn't the most reliable judge of the circumstances it didn't see.

And more than that, that sometimes a woman's word is worthless in law.

Every time I think I've grasped what your objection is, I realise I'm missing your point.

ok, if we take this a step further, then, do you disagree with the rape law as regards drunken people (it could still apply to men as victims I think, or does it still specify vagina as well as penetration?)

Is your concern with how evidence is gathered, or in the law itself? If it's the validity of the evidence, can you think of a better way of establishing consent?

The very real problem with alcohol s that even if a woman does consent, it's the drink talking. Never mind the whole can of worms we've discussed here, as t whether she can genuinely remember what's really happened.

If you disagree with the law, do you think people wh are incapacitated should be protected? If so, how?

If not, how do you separate that viewpoint fro all the other 'it was the woman's fault for putting herself in the rapist's path' kind of arguments, which as I knw from your prevous comments, you disagree with?

I am a little confused still, you think that drunken women should take responsibility of their alcohol consumption, which I can understand, yu do find yourself thinking 'what wee they thinking' sometimes when you hear of the mess people get themselves into. But do you think they then forfeit their right to legal protection?

People put themselves at risk all the time - letting strangers into their house on a pretext, clicking on links claiming to be from official sources etc.

Is a woman getting so drunk she can't remember what happened different, and if so, why?

[eFestivals]

She was clearly never in a fit state to give consent...

she was just 10 minutes before.

[feral chile]

But what if the man isn't in a fit state to recognise that. Why is it his responsibility if both parties are too drunk to give consent?

I agree with your radical idea. However it isn't against the law.

Ah now this I can understand. Again, mixed feelings. The rape law seems to imply women are vulnerable to be taken advantage of and need protection.

Also, being drunk, while being a mitigating factor, is not defence.

S yes, I think in some cases, when men have genuinely thought there was consent, or can't remember, it can be a bit harsh calling it rape. But how d you protect women from cut and dried rape attacks, where their assailants will say they thought she was willing, or deny being able to remember?

The Ched Evans case confused me anyway, from the little I've read. The Jury seem to think the woman was able to consent to the first man but not the second.

edit: ah I see Neil has mentioned that above.

Edited January 14, 2015 by feral chile