Men face jail for rape if a woman is drunk (UK Law)

December 28, 2006 9:10 PM

Men face jail for rape if women are 'too drunk' to consent in bed to boost convictions. Men who have sex with drunken women will be at risk of being convicted of rape under new laws to be considered by ministers. The legal shake-up would mean a woman would be considered incapable of giving consent to sex if she had been drinking heavily.
posted by IronWolve (268 comments total)

That's already the case here, in Victoria. (I think. Damn my failing memory!)
posted by liquorice at 9:16 PM on December 28, 2006

Dont say you where both drink, he must have committed the rape then. What happens if you are both drinking and she changes her mind afterwards?

At least they have legalized prostitution, wont be worth it to date women after laws like this.
posted by IronWolve at 9:16 PM on December 28, 2006

What if they're both drunk?
posted by spaltavian at 9:17 PM on December 28, 2006

"But it would open the way to prosecutions of husbands or regular boyfriends who have sex with drunken wives or partners as well as fierce arguments over medical evidence and real levels of intoxication of alleged victims."

That's stupid on many levels.
posted by liquorice at 9:18 PM on December 28, 2006

I should say that is the case here so long as the defendant's belief of consent was not honest and reasonable.
posted by liquorice at 9:21 PM on December 28, 2006

It's getting harder and harder to rape someone and get away with it.
posted by ColdChef at 9:22 PM on December 28, 2006 [5 favorites]

At least they have legalized prostitution, wont be worth it to date women after laws like this.

Uh, why, because you can only get laid if you get a woman drunk to the point of blacking out, so she can't recall whether or not she said yes? Charming.

Consent isn't consent if the person saying "yes" is too intoxicated to stand up. It isn't necessarily rape, but it sure isn't informed consent.
posted by cmonkey at 9:23 PM on December 28, 2006

It's getting easier and easier to frame someone for rape and get away with it.
posted by IronWolve at 9:23 PM on December 28, 2006 [5 favorites]

Here in the US, in RI at least, I've always been told by health teachers and the like that those who are drunk are not able to give consent. Therefore, it counts as rape. It's dumb in some/many cases, but in others I can see how that would make sense.

As far as both people being drunk, I've again been told that neither party is able to give consent. So technically, both people are legally raped? I'm sure the courts would favor the female if it were to go to court, however, and it often turns into just another he said she said case.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 9:25 PM on December 28, 2006

"A rape law making it an offence to have sex with a woman who has reached a set level of drunkeness is to be proposed by the Home Office committee that four years ago recommended the disastrous reclassification of cannabis that made possessing the drug less of a crime."

Clearly, this article is in no way biased.
posted by cillit bang at 9:26 PM on December 28, 2006

IronWolve you should have asked for MetaFilter's consent before you posted this thread. Couldn't you tell she wasn't up for it, what with her singing showtunes in the middle of the street and making out with the telephone booth?
posted by liquorice at 9:27 PM on December 28, 2006

Earlier discussion of this idea.
posted by dilettante at 9:30 PM on December 28, 2006

This will lead to breathalyzer belt buckles. "If you can’t blow this…"
posted by Tenuki at 9:33 PM on December 28, 2006 [1 favorite]

I'm confused. What if the man is drunk and the woman isn't? Is it still rape?

What if it's two really intoxiated lesbians?
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:36 PM on December 28, 2006

How do you prove how drunk a woman was? This doesn't sound like a very well thought out rule.
posted by aburd at 9:36 PM on December 28, 2006

cillit bang - The Evening Standard is owned by the Daily Mail. Foaming mouthed distortions come as standard.
posted by Artw at 9:39 PM on December 28, 2006

I love the picture in the article.

The fact that it is named "Drunk Girl" is an extra special touch.
posted by Hicksu at 9:41 PM on December 28, 2006

IronWolve: At least they have legalized prostitution, wont be worth it to date women after laws like this.

cmonkey:Uh, why, because you can only get laid if you get a woman drunk to the point of blacking out, so she can't recall whether or not she said yes? Charming. Consent isn't consent if the person saying "yes" is too intoxicated to stand up.

I don't recall the article stating the law applies only to that high level of drunkenness, and even if it did, the comment you were responding to was obviously tounge-in-cheek. But the retarded snark was fun, right?
posted by spaltavian at 9:42 PM on December 28, 2006

Tongue-in-cheek?
posted by liquorice at 9:44 PM on December 28, 2006

Also, if drunken intercourse is outlawed...
posted by Hicksu at 9:45 PM on December 28, 2006 [1 favorite]

Strange what can change in a year, isn't it?

Astro Zombie: I'm no lawyer, but as I said in my previous comment I have always been told that regardless of gender, if you are drunk you cannot legally give consent (in the US at least...).
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 9:49 PM on December 28, 2006

How do you know someone can't: a) have sex with you, b) chug a fifth of bourbon, c) take a cab to the emergency room and d) claim to have been raped?
posted by popechunk at 9:52 PM on December 28, 2006

Men face jail for rape if women are 'too drunk' to consent in bed to boost convictions.

I'm having fun attributing other meanings to that goofy headline. Exactly how drunk do you have to be to consent in bed to boost convictions? What if you consent in the parlor, or in Cleveland, to boost convictions? What if you don't want to consent to boost convictions at all?
posted by I Am Not a Lobster at 9:55 PM on December 28, 2006

popechunk: It's possible to frame a man for murder, as well.
posted by monocyte at 9:55 PM on December 28, 2006 [1 favorite]

As far as drunk men being "raped" by women, the main type of rape is usually defined as "criminal sexual penetration". So, if a woman can sexually penetrate a drunk man, then sure, she raped him.
What's sad is that this sort of law needs to be made, it's something I would have thought would already be a law in every civilized place. ... so it probably isn't here.
posted by eparchos at 9:56 PM on December 28, 2006

Oh, and way to editorialize with the keywords. The one-two punch of "misandry" and "feminism" is especially subtle.
posted by I Am Not a Lobster at 9:56 PM on December 28, 2006 [3 favorites]

Is there any distinction between someone being too drunk to respond, and being too drunk to have the willpower to not make a mistake that they will regret the next day? If you're so drunk you knowingly get into bed with someone, but the next day are smacking yourself, how do you fare?
posted by CharlesV42 at 9:57 PM on December 28, 2006

popechunk: It's possible to frame a man for murder, as well.

Huh? I don't get it. In one case, you got a brisk rogering, in the other, you're, uh, dead.
posted by popechunk at 9:57 PM on December 28, 2006

Even though this is a hand-wavey article in some ways it seems that the rape laws in the UK are a bit different than those in the US, in that they have been getting more strict only pretty recently. I note these facts stated by the article

1. only one rape accusation in 20 ends in a conviction
2. in 120 cases of sexual assault examined by researchers, in 119 cases the woman had been drinking.
3. Since 2003, a man accused of rape has had to show he had "reasonable" grounds for believing a woman consented. Before then, he had only to demonstrate that he believed she had consented. [which could mean that if the guy thought she had consented earlier and was now unconscious, it was okay to have sex with her]

And, the problem the article says the new laws are trying to solve is just this sort of problem:

The legal pitfalls around rape and alcohol were powerfully illustrated in a landmark case last year in which a security guard had sex with the 21-year- old woman student while she was lying drunk and unconscious in a corridor outside her flat in a university hall of residence.

Even though the security guard, 20-year-old Ryairi Dougal, was a stranger to the woman, a judge at Swansea Crown Court instructed the jury to bring in a not guilty verdict because she could not remember whether she had given consent.

"Drunken consent is still consent," Mr Justice Roderick Evans told the jury.

My guess is they're trying to quantify that. Hamfisted, probably. On the other hand, the issue of consent is tricky and pretty integral to the ability to prosecute for rape. IronWolve, you clearly have an axe to grind here and I'm sorry if someone has hurt you in the past, but it doesn't seem to me that this is some angry group of feminists keeping you or anyone else from having sex with drunk women. It's more like trying to establish standards for consent as well as "new rules that could also include fresh guidance for juries on matters of consent and the right for defendants to call experts on rape who would explain to juries how damaging to a victim the offence is."
posted by jessamyn at 10:01 PM on December 28, 2006 [11 favorites]

I'm so drunk...
posted by 0of1 at 10:03 PM on December 28, 2006

You know, a staggering majority of rapes in America go unreported, and I'm sure a lot of that is because of the culture that seems more concerned about the dangers men face of being accused of rape than the dangers of women actually being raped.

But what do I know; there are countries where it's perfectly legal to rape women so I guess I should just shut up and be happy I live in a country where women are free enough to be accused of lying most of the time.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 10:05 PM on December 28, 2006 [13 favorites]

if you are drunk you cannot legally give consent (in the US at least...).

Darn. I'm a virgin again.
posted by bardic at 10:06 PM on December 28, 2006 [1 favorite]

Well, now I feel better about not letting that really drunk girl have sex with me back in college.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:07 PM on December 28, 2006 [2 favorites]

It's worth emphasizing that this is just a committee recommendation at this stage; many (even most?) things recommended by ministry committee don't ever get written into a bill or discussed in the House.

Rape convictions are very low compared to other crimes; it's not surprising that the home office would want to do something about that. When a woman is unconcious or severely impaired through alcohol, sleep or drugs (such as rohypnol) I personally don't see how she *could* give informed consent. How many decent people would find a stranger unconcious in a hallway and take that as an opportunity to have sex? The law already reflects that - you need reasonable grounds to believe she consented. That said, the previous law change apparently hasn't had the desired effect, which may be why this stronger change to the law is being thought about. Juries still think that the woman is at least partially to blame for being raped if she drank at all.

One thing I do find iffy about this proposal is the back calculation of drunkeness. Especially given the time between sample and incident, people's metabolisms do vary quite a bit when it comes to processing alcohol. To tie that to some sort of drink/consent limit, rather like the drink/drive limit seems rather inflexible. Perhaps better instructions to the juries of the existing laws by the judge would make more sense than trying to force juries to convict 'probable' rapists, with a questionable law and drunkness limit.

What the hell happens when both parties are drunk, anyway? Would you end up with the ludicrous position where both have comitted rape because they were too drunk to give consent, but since reduced judgement through drunkeness isn't a defence under the law, they're guilty? Reminds of the legal trouble minors can get into if they have sex with another minor their own age...
posted by ArkhanJG at 10:08 PM on December 28, 2006

Here in the US, in RI at least, I've always been told by health teachers and the like that those who are drunk are not able to give consent.

I'm pretty sure that's the standard throughout the U.S.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 10:11 PM on December 28, 2006

Sooooo......y'all are saying I've raped my wife? Hunh.
posted by popechunk at 10:12 PM on December 28, 2006

Dont say you where both drink, he must have committed the rape then.

You're drunk right now, aren't you?
posted by Mikey-San at 10:13 PM on December 28, 2006

You know there is an easy way around all of this... DON'T HAVE SEX WITH SOMEONE YOU DON'T TRUST.
posted by edgeways at 10:14 PM on December 28, 2006 [2 favorites]

I don't recall the article stating the law applies only to that high level of drunkenness, and even if it did, the comment you were responding to was obviously tounge-in-cheek. But the retarded snark was fun, right?

Ah, no, spaltavian, that comment was obviously not tongue-in-cheek. Maybe you haven't encountered the MANGRY INTERNET MALE before, but I have.

I don't actually recall the article stating what level of drunkenness it will apply to. The article did talk about a woman who was passed out on the floor and the man who raped her got away with it at a judge's directive. That situation wasn't consensual at all, and the government really needs to make that clear.
posted by cmonkey at 10:17 PM on December 28, 2006

The Judge was required to ask at what point does the withdrawal of consent mean rape. As council for the defense my first recommendation would have been: Once I've shot my load.

It's getting harder and harder to rape someone and get away with it. An unqualified good, if true^*. Sad if it were simply getting easier and easier to convict someone of rape.

^*Almost unqualified.
posted by econous at 10:18 PM on December 28, 2006

popechunk: It's possible to frame a man for murder, as well.

Huh? I don't get it. In one case, you got a brisk rogering, in the other, you're, uh, dead.

Am I right in understanding that you think it makes sense to be more concerned about false accusations for rape than for murder because rape is (relatively) not so bad?
posted by scottreynen at 10:18 PM on December 28, 2006 [1 favorite]

What makes legislation like this particularly asinine is the whole notion of "giving consent," as if two people sign a piece of paper or put together a power-point presentation before they fuck, even when they're sober.

No doubt rape is a serious, horrible crime, but larding over relatively clear legal guidelines (rape = crime) with vagaries like this (What constitutes "drunk"? What constitutes "too drunk"? What constitutes "consent"?) seems to only add to the problem, IMO.

What if someone has just smoked some really good weed? What if they forgot to take their Prozac? What if they took too much of it? What if they're (*gasp*) in love, which is arguably a powerful distorter of impressions and judgement? What if it's a threesome?
posted by bardic at 10:21 PM on December 28, 2006

Am I right in understanding that you think it makes sense to be more concerned about false accusations for rape than for murder because rape is (relatively) not so bad?

No. Fuck no. In the first case, "framing a man for raping you", you got drunk and had sex, and in the second case, "framing a man for murdering you", you are dead. Surely it costs the accuser less to frame a man for raping you than murdering you.
posted by popechunk at 10:24 PM on December 28, 2006

It's also worth pointing out there was a big media storm a couple of years ago when the law changed in the UK - men used to have to have an 'honest' belief that consent for sex had been given, currently they need a 'reasonable' belief. This was supposedly going to cause a huge upswing in convictions, including false convictions.

Basically, men could say 'I thought she consented' and the question then hinged on - was he telling the truth? If there was no other evidence such as witnesses hearing screams, or physical injury greater than that explainable by rough sex, juries would usually give the man the benefit of the doubt, in fact they pretty much had to.

With the 'reasonable' wording, it puts some of the burden of proof on the man, to show he had a reasonable reason to believe she had consented, it's not just about his word any more. Given the accused is supposedly innocent until proven guilty, but this wording potentially spins him as guilty until he proves his belief to be reasonable, that's why there was all the dire worry of a wave of false convictions.

As it turned out, juries - and judges - haven't really changed their views or their verdicts, and pretty much any belief of consent has been accepted as 'reasonable', where it comes down to he-says-she-says.
posted by ArkhanJG at 10:26 PM on December 28, 2006

You know there is an easy way around all of this... DON'T HAVE SEX WITH SOMEONE YOU DON'T TRUST.

Of course, if you're drunk, you aren't really capable of assigning levels of trust, right?
posted by smackfu at 10:26 PM on December 28, 2006

*actually, "consent" seems a sensible enough concept. But "lack of consent" doesn't. Even the most loving of couples will get busy at times when one partner is horny and the other is just "going through the motions" to satisfy the other. That's not rape, that's marriage and/or any long-term relationship.
posted by bardic at 10:26 PM on December 28, 2006

only one rape accusation in 20 ends in a conviction

That struck me as appallingly low. The UK has been experiencing a tripling of rape accusations over a decade while prosecutions and convictions have not kept pace. This seems to be the original report on "attrition" in rape cases which has now been answered by some recommendations.

Note that rape, along with other violent crimes, is prosecuted successfully at a much higher rate in the United States directly compared with England. Ten years ago, the US Justice Department concluded:

The higher U.S. conviction rate for rape is attributable both to the higher U.S. police-recorded rape rate and to a United States criminal justice system that catches and convicts rapists at a higher rate than England's system. According to the most recent statistics ... the U.S. police-recorded rape rate is three times England's, but the U.S. rape conviction rate is over eight times England's (.212 versus .025), indicating that a rape in the United States is more likely to lead to conviction than one in England.

This is in contrast to the higher murder conviction rate, which the study concluded was almost entirely due to the higher rate of victimization rather than to differences in prosecution.
posted by dhartung at 10:27 PM on December 28, 2006 [1 favorite]

Are they talking about women so drunk they can't even talk or what? In the US that's considered rape. I think it's a difficult issue, since the evidence in cases of date rape is really difficult to figure out, unless you take the position that accusation is true by default.

But the fact that it's a complicated issue doesn't mean it should just be legal, obviously.
posted by delmoi at 10:27 PM on December 28, 2006

I love watching straight people squirm.
posted by matty at 10:28 PM on December 28, 2006 [1 favorite]

What relatively clear guidelines? For most people rape = lonely woman walking down dark alley getting attacked by random male stranger. Yes, that is rape. But there are a lot of other situations that are rape as well that many seem to have misguided notions about. The majority of sexual assualts happen between two people that know each other. Obviously consent is going to become a legal issue when these types of cases arise. We're dealing with real life events here, and it's never going to be clear-cut.

It was only twenty years ago that raping your wife wasn't a crime. These type of laws that the ministers are discussing are sorely needed, but more importantly - education. The next generation is filled with boys and girls who still think it's okay to pressure someone into sex if she flirted with you, if you spent a lot of money on them, or if they've "done stuff" with other guys. We're far from "rape = crime" for a lot of people.
posted by liquorice at 10:31 PM on December 28, 2006

Assuming this law isn't abused (which, whenever dealing with a law is always a concern,) I find myself not actually against it. I'm sure the idea is to protect women who are clearly too drunk to make clear decisions. Not unlike the idea of charging men who use roofies to take advantage of women in a unconscious and therefore non-consenting state. The inevitable problem is that eventually it will be used vindictively by one party or the other to get even for a night of bad choices. Hopefully the UK lawyers and Justices have the good sense to start building precedences early to weed out this sort of thing.

/Takes idealistic hat off...

Yeah, this is going to end badly for someone. I mean, Booze is the lubricant for society in more ways than one (double entendre, I know...) People drink to pick other people up and have sex. It has been going on since alcohol was invented. Hell, the smart money is on the idea that it was why alcohol was invented.

I would love the idea that this will be a good tool to put bad people away. And by accident, it could happen. But more likely it will be nothing more than a hammer to settle grudges in court.
posted by quin at 10:31 PM on December 28, 2006

Basically, men could say 'I thought she consented' and the question then hinged on - was he telling the truth? If there was no other evidence such as witnesses hearing screams, or physical injury greater than that explainable by rough sex, juries would usually give the man the benefit of the doubt, in fact they pretty much had to.

MAN: Let us commence fucking
WOMAN: I consent to fucking

They fuck. Time passes. The woman changes her mind, and reports it as rape. What recourse does the man have to prove that it was consensual sex. How could it be anything other than, "he said, she said"? Why should the burden of proof be higher for the man? I don't get it....
posted by popechunk at 10:33 PM on December 28, 2006

I love watching straight people squirm.

Man, I can't keep up with all the new fetishes.

Meanwhile, in Durham (which is not to say that all accusations of rape are as baseless as this one, but I do think that going down the slope of "no outright statement of consent = rape" is really problematic.)
posted by bardic at 10:33 PM on December 28, 2006

smackfu : Of course, if you're drunk, you aren't really capable of assigning levels of trust, right?

Not to mention the whole, 'We just met for the first time that night' aspect. Assigning trust happens in relationships and totally ignores the one-night-stand phenomena.
posted by quin at 10:39 PM on December 28, 2006

Is the blood alcohol level where you no longer bear any responsibility for the consent decision higher or lower than the blood alcohol level where you no longer bear any responsibility for the driving decision?

All in all it sounds like a reasonable rule (using alcohol as means of eliciting consent that otherwise would not be given is not a good thing) but it quickly bogs down into fine points of distinction that law is not very good at handling.
posted by obfusciatrist at 10:41 PM on December 28, 2006

The next generation is filled with boys and girls who still think it's okay to pressure someone into sex if she flirted with you, if you spent a lot of money on them, or if they've "done stuff" with other guys. We're far from "rape = crime" for a lot of people.

Perhaps because those people believe that "pressuring" someone into sex isn't rape.

Forcing? Yes. "Pressuring"? No.
posted by cribcage at 10:42 PM on December 28, 2006

popechunk : What recourse does the man have to prove that it was consensual sex.

The obvious answer is to digitally record all trysts. Just to be legally safe.

Man youtube is going to be awesome in the next couple of years.
posted by quin at 10:42 PM on December 28, 2006

popechunk: before, he only had to say 'I believed she consented' and unless there was absolute incontrovertible proof he was lying, there was no way to convict. So, for example, he could have slipped her a roofie, and unless it could be proved HE gave it to her, the fact that he had sex with her while she was unconcious in a toilet couldn't be proved to be rape. Also, if a man raped his partner, he could say that he thought he had consent and she was just playacting by saying no. Virtually impossible to convict, again.

The change in the wording was intended so that he didn't just have to SAY he thought he had consent, he has to show he had reasonable grounds for that belief. IE unconcious women can't give consent, so the belief that she did isn't reasonable. A woman clawing your face and shouting no - when no history of BDSM - shows you wouldn't have a reasonable belief of consent either. That's the theory, anyway.
posted by ArkhanJG at 10:46 PM on December 28, 2006

Perhaps because those people believe that "pressuring" someone into sex isn't rape.

Forcing? Yes. "Pressuring"? No.

I never said it was, my point was that you can't expect the law to be clear on such a complicated issue.
posted by liquorice at 10:53 PM on December 28, 2006

ArkhanJG, I see what you mean.

If it is in fact the case that what you and Jessamyn are saying is true, that some judge somewhere claims that unless an unconscious woman can say, "no!", she's fair game, I for sure understand what you are saying, and agree that the law should be changed.

But I have to believe, because this is so insane, that this idiot judge's decision would be over-ridden (by a higher court), and there is no need to pass a law that would make it so easy to get an innocent man convicted of rape. There must be a less drastic change we could make to the law that would protect woman who were passed out, for whatever reason.
posted by popechunk at 10:57 PM on December 28, 2006 [1 favorite]

I suddenly find myself strangely glad that my parents don't drink, because under these sorts of laws the majority of the populace could be considered the endproduct of a sexcrime.
posted by Ryvar at 11:00 PM on December 28, 2006

Unless you're in the Dead Kennedys.
posted by bardic at 11:05 PM on December 28, 2006

popechunk: In the case highlighted, the 'reasonable' addition to the law in 2003 didn't help - as since she had no memory at all, she *might* have consented. You and I would say that given he found her unconcious through drink, it wasn't reasonable to accept that consent, even assuming she did give it. That was the intent of the law, after all.

However, if the judges and juries find accepting drunken consent - or even the possibility there was drunken consent - to be 'reasonable', then, as the law stands, there's no way to appeal it.

I think we're in agreement on this. I too would prefer a smaller, less drastic change. If someone is drastically incapacitated, i.e. unable to talk, walk or move (through whatever cause), then they cannot consent, and the defence of 'reasonable belief of consent' wouldn't apply. The back-calculation and percentage of blood alcohol is a bit too hand-wavy to make good law in my opinion. Stick to incapacitated, similar to the US law.
posted by ArkhanJG at 11:10 PM on December 28, 2006

I doubt many semi-drunk strangers-in-a-bar will end up using this proposed law as a weapon. You'd have to be highly motivated to falsely accuse...rape trials aren't for chickens on either side.

That said, a friend of mine went through a breakup where the (batshitinsane) woman falsely accused him of molesting her son. You want some trouble? Try that. He eventually cleared his name--helped by the fact she wrote him pleading letters during the investigation telling him she made up the accusations and would drop the charges if he got back with her. (Lesson he learned: Hot monkey sex is NOT worth dating someone with a smooth cerebral cortex.)

Surely this proposed law is a good reason to keep your web cam on...video might be the only proof you could produce if you are wrongly accused.
posted by maxwelton at 11:11 PM on December 28, 2006

Why should the burden of proof be higher for the man?

Well, first off, our cultures are historically patriarchal, hence men are more aggressive and already in a higher social position.
Secondly, men are typically stronger than women, and thus more capable of forcing the issue.
Thirdly, men have the proper plumbing to sexually penetrate. Women don't.

The law is there for protection, theoretically, and women are in more need of protection (generally) in patriarchal societies than men are.

Note that rape, along with other violent crimes, is prosecuted successfully at a much higher rate in the United States directly compared with England.

I'd be curious about whether or not there is a higher conviction rate for all crimes in the States than there is in the UK.
posted by eparchos at 11:15 PM on December 28, 2006 [1 favorite]

the fact that he had sex with her while she was unconcious in a toilet couldn't be proved to be rape

Are you sure? Logic would seem to dictate that since the woman is unconcious and therefore unable to give consent, that would be rape.

Plus wouldn't the evidence of a rohyphonol in her system be proof that her ability to consent was considerably compromised, regardless of whether it could be proven that he was the one to give it to her?
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 11:19 PM on December 28, 2006

MeatheadFilter.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:24 PM on December 28, 2006

UK rape laws used to REALLY suck, CitrusFreak12. They still do, even after the 2003 attempt to fix them. Prior to 2003, an 'honest belief of consent' was usually enough to secure an acquital, unless there was very strong evidence of force or refusal. It hinged on whether he believed he had consent, rather than whether she actually could consent. That's why the law was changed in 2003, though it would appear it didn't work.

Here's a bit from an article about the 2003 changes (not the proposed new extra changes)

How do the reforms change rape laws?
...
On the issue of consent, people will be considered most unlikely to have willingly agreed to sex if they were unconscious, drugged, abducted, subject to threats or fear of serious harm, or incapable of giving consent because of learning disability or mental disorder.

There has also been a tightening of the approach to "date rape", although there is no specific law to deal with it. Defendants would have to prove they made "reasonable" efforts to ensure their sexual partner consented. The Home Office said what was considered reasonable will have to be judged "on a case by case basis".

Rape law will not be extended to cover a woman who forces a man to penetrate her with without his consent but this crime will be covered by a new offence of causing another person to perform an indecent act without consent.
posted by ArkhanJG at 11:28 PM on December 28, 2006

The law is biased, its written gender centric, and puts undo proof on the accused.

And for the "he has an axe to grind" comments, people who are abused or used, feel some sort of injustice do tend to find even if overly for a cause. I don't see many men fighting for mens rights anymore. People of means have lawyers, its the working class man that doesn't have a fair deal in these crisis es. I'm not taking up the cause, I'm just being aware and pointing them out when it happens. The preachiness of my post are just trying to offset the imbalance of inaction for mens rights. You're not saying mens right is bad are you?

And
The easiest way to frame someone, just have a couple of glasses of alcohol before being tested.
posted by IronWolve at 11:33 PM on December 28, 2006

Or maybe there's a new business opportunity:

Informed Consent, Inc.

Men, call our 900 number and an accredited member of our legal team will ask all parties involved in your tryst if they understand that in a matter of a few moments something humiliating may or may not happen (see hipster coke dick).

For a per minute charge (two minute minimum) we offer live monitoring--with your choice of seven musical themes played over your speaker phone during your "transaction." For an extra two dollars we will announce the time at an accelerated pace (for every 10 seconds passed we will ping the music track with our "minute" note). Other services include frank but admiring discussion "accidentally" revealed over the music track and precisely timed pizza delivery (our sexologists can predict with uncanny accuracy when you'll be ready to eat).

Court appearances will be charged at $250 per hour.

posted by maxwelton at 11:35 PM on December 28, 2006

Men's rights are important IronWolve, but so are women's rights. The way things are in the UK, women have a lot more to fear from rapists - almost always men they know, and usually men they have a relationship with - than men have to fear from false accusations.

I believe, from an earlier thread that false accusations for rape run at about 2%, the same as false accusations for other crimes. Around 5% of rape trials end in convictions - and that doesn't include the large number of rapes that aren't reported, or are reported and aren't considered strong enough cases to go to trial over.

It is possible to believe that different groups of people are being ill-served in different circumstances, rather than take the partisan approach that all men are rapists and potential child molestors, or all women are harridans out to scream rape if we even look at them funny.
posted by ArkhanJG at 11:40 PM on December 28, 2006 [1 favorite]

Holy fuck your tags are ignorant and insulting. I swear to god every man I know who pipes up for "Men's rights" drags the term further and further into the mud.
posted by dobbs at 11:54 PM on December 28, 2006

i'
m gonna have to go to the emergenc room now to have them reset my eyes in their sockets,. having rolled them bacjk so far redaing ironwolve's drivel.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 11:57 PM on December 28, 2006

False accusations of rape in non-divorce cases where around 2%, that number rises in divorce cases, so do claims of child abuse and battered spouse claims. People lie if they feel threatened. There was a study about women lying to protect their children in divorce cases, cant find the link, but the number was over 60%. (If you can trust any study, lies, lies and statistics.)

There problem I have with these biased laws,
1. The male is deemed the attacker if both parties are intoxicated.
2. Intoxicated consent is no longer valid for a woman, but still for a man.
3. Intoxication set at blood levels is easy to fake or be incorrect.
4. The burden of proof is on the male.
5. No way to fight unjust claims, or very expensive.

Now the world is grey, and we try to make laws grey'ish, but these laws are written to be gender specific.
posted by IronWolve at 12:04 AM on December 29, 2006

How come I feel like I'm at a fraternity party?
posted by eparchos at 12:18 AM on December 29, 2006

Argh, I thought we were past this in the Duke thread.

1) This article is laughable and about as unbiased as the Washington Times.
2) People on this board would get mad if people randomly claimed to be experts on evolutionary developmental biology whenever we talk about the latest creationist assault on evolution. Rape laws, like the teaching of evolution, are important elements of society that deserve widespread attention, yet they are also incredibly complicated and nuanced far beyond what this article is willing to state or what these discussions frequently reach. A quick glance at the Duke thread will see all the same canards as you would see in a high school debate about evolution (clocks in a field! eyes at the same time!) Jessamyn is spot on here with her analysis and it would be nice if people bothered to do some research before going off the handle.

As for me, my knowledge of rape laws in England are limited to the time I spent there as a student and I still don't feel qualified to talk about how these proposed changes will affect a complicated situation. I do know enough not to take this article any more seriously than a FrontPage Magazine missive. Seriously, the line about marital rape is so ridiculous it's hard to know where to begin. Same goes for many of the posts here. Just the most basic research into the issues surrounding criminal prosecution of violence against women would be a nice start instead of, well, unsubstantiated freewheeling.
posted by allen.spaulding at 12:18 AM on December 29, 2006

I'm not opposed to this law, but I am getting ready to be righteously pissed off at the (very small number of) women who will abuse it for vengeance and gratification. The vibe I'm feeling from the opposition side is "Wait, so if I hit you with my car and I'm drunk, I get my ass handed to me, but if you have sex with me and you're drunk, I can still get my ass handed to me?"
posted by tehloki at 12:18 AM on December 29, 2006

Also, IronWolve, I linked to the ABA statistics on false accusations in custody cases in the Duke thread. 21% of men's claims are false, compared to 1.3% of women's claims according to the best studies down out there, so I doubt your unsubtantiated 60%.
posted by allen.spaulding at 12:23 AM on December 29, 2006

And a report from "Victims of Domestic Violence" are not slanted? The whole thing is cherry picked statistics from resources.
posted by IronWolve at 1:08 AM on December 29, 2006

Buddy, that's the ABA commission on domestic violence.

Nothing is unbiased, but the ABA is like the AMA, it's a large and well-established organization without an overt agenda when it comes to these issues. Tort reform, sure, agenda overoad. Do you think the AMA has an agenda on cholesterol?

It's slogan is "Justice and Safety for Victims of Domestic Violence," something I think most people on this board would support. Nice try at a hatchet job though. Like I said, this data is accepted by practioners within the field. You know, those people with expertise.
posted by allen.spaulding at 1:19 AM on December 29, 2006

Finding of 60% of rape claims where false.

The McDowell team did in fact address these questions in follow-up studies. They recruited independent reviewers who were given 25 criteria derived from the profiles of the women who openly admitted making a false allegation. If all three reviewers agreed that the rape allegation was false, it was then listed by that description. The result: 60% of the accusations were identified as false. McDowell also took his study outside the military by examining police files from a major midwestern and a southwestern city. He found that the finding of 60% held (Farrell, 1993, pp. 321-329).
posted by IronWolve at 1:23 AM on December 29, 2006

Right, anyone can google and find some crackpot with a disreputable study that supports their theory. I've linked to one of the largest and best respected source in the legal field. You've linked to the equivalent of Michael Behe. If I were to write an article that cited your study, I'd be laughed at. Like I said, expertise is valued.

Have you even read that link? It's like reading about chemtrails. Not only does it take quotes out of context, but it's just riduculous hyperbole so far outside mainstream treatments of the subject that it's hard to take seriously, let alone the whole IPT-forsencics bit. It's a crackpot institute dedicated to 'debunking' all false claims (read all claims) of child abuse. Seriously, and you call me out on sources?
posted by allen.spaulding at 1:34 AM on December 29, 2006

I was just compiling a list of links to say what allen.spaulding just said. So, yeah! Hey! That Zepezauer fellow is crazy!
posted by wemayfreeze at 1:43 AM on December 29, 2006

Anecdote: A friend of mine was threatened with being accused of rape because he didn't "pull out." She didn't go through with it, and then later he ended up sleeping with her again (When it "blew over").
posted by delmoi at 1:45 AM on December 29, 2006

Allen.spaulding: Ahem, bullshit. That data isnt accepted by all practitioners in the field... ABA like the AMA has special interest groups, you cant trust them to be impartial, they have agendas. Maybe you didnt see who wrong the report (McDowell & Hibler, 1985) of the U.S. Air Force Special Studies Division. Not some crackpot. Thanks, youre Wrong, thanks for playing.

You must be young or very naive. Check out the famous false claim the Wenatchee Sex Ring about how false claims by those using the ABA reports can go overboard.

A Spokane County jury yesterday found the city of Wenatchee and Douglas County negligent in the now-discredited 1994-1995 Wenatchee child sex ring investigations, awarding $3 million to a couple who had been wrongly accused in the inquiry. ... In 1994 and 1995, Perez and Child Protective Services caseworkers initiated a series of investigations in Wenatchee that resulted in 43 people charged with 27,726 counts of child rape and molestation against 60 children.

Reports are slanted by the person or group giving them, if presented by a special interest group you have to question it. Its the same thing as the tobacco industry releasing health reports that smoking doesn't cause cancer...
posted by IronWolve at 1:45 AM on December 29, 2006

Look, the day care hysteria is another story. We're talking about false accusations in custody cases. And you're just wrong. Only Eugene Kanin believes that story. Pointing out that Bebe is at Lehigh doesn't give him credibility either.

Until you start referring to something that has a shred of credibility within the field, it's going to be hard to believe that you're on top of this research.
posted by allen.spaulding at 1:50 AM on December 29, 2006

er, that should read Behe. Freudian slips are intelligently designed 60% of the time or something.
posted by allen.spaulding at 2:01 AM on December 29, 2006

Um, IronWolve, anecdotal evidence is not statistical evidence. I'll trust the ABA over wikipedia, thank you. Besides which, that Wenatchee Sex Ring thing? Yeah, that was about poor evidence gathering and a badly-run legal case in regards to people accused of assaults on children, not women falsely accusing men of raping them. Also, there is no mention of teh ABA in there.
Could you just stop? Seriously, you're not making a good case here. I mean, not even knowing what your own links are about... that's just sad. Maybe there IS evidence in favor of what you're claiming here, but so far you've just managed to bolster the opposing view... you know, the sane one.
posted by eparchos at 2:08 AM on December 29, 2006

... if you are drunk you cannot legally give consent (in the US at least...).

zackly wat I told nice ofisher when he wannened to searsh my car.
posted by hal9k at 2:35 AM on December 29, 2006 [1 favorite]

I'm glad allen.spaulding mentioned the Duke lacrosse thread. IronWolve clearly has an axe to grind and has started a whole new thread to do so. Just stop.
posted by ninebelow at 3:35 AM on December 29, 2006

Good thing this is a British proposed law, not a US one, given the rather different legal landscape and all that. But wait! It must be the real purpose of the special relationship! The trans-atlantic feminist misandry cabal is in control, with Laura Bush and Cherie Blair secretly passing laws and twisting the courts so that all men will be locked up on no evidence for raping some girl they looked at in the pub/bar (*delete as appropriate)

Who will save us now from this wave of female tyranny?
posted by ArkhanJG at 3:44 AM on December 29, 2006 [1 favorite]

I think an appropriate response to such laws is to avoid picking up women in bars who are so drunk they can't talk intelligibly or stand without falling over... funny, I've already been implementing this for years. Then again I don't live in the UK, where drinking appears to be a sport (used to work with Englishmen, I could never keep up with them at the bar).

The point of the law is apparently to establish a scientific basis for making the "too drunk to consent" claim. If the claim's validity can be measured, then it goes beyond a "he-said-she-said" situation.

I'm a little surprised that the UK isn't more categorical about situations where a man has sex with a woman who's passed out, though. That would seem pretty much like an open-and-shut case.
posted by clevershark at 4:32 AM on December 29, 2006

IronWolve (for the love of god, please acquire an s), please remember that personal vendettas do not generalize well. I'm sorry your ex is/was a psycho who abused your trust. This does not mean that every woman is a psycho who will abuse your trust in the future with any more likelihood that a man will do the same thing to you.
posted by kalessin at 4:37 AM on December 29, 2006

eparchos writes "Thirdly, men have the proper plumbing to sexually penetrate. Women don't."

Does this mean, therefore, that it is impossible for a woman to rape another woman? Don't be so asinine. Rape means sexual assault, of which penetration may or may not be a component.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 4:46 AM on December 29, 2006

Does this mean, therefore, that it is impossible for a woman to rape another woman? Don't be so asinine.

I was responding to a specific question, in particular:

"Why should the burden of proof be higher for the man [than for the woman]?"

Don't be so asinine.
posted by eparchos at 5:00 AM on December 29, 2006 [1 favorite]

I think if people are drinking, they should be allowed to drive while having sex.

Further, there are legal complications. If you can be too drunk to drive, and too drunk to have sex, then how will you get home?

How is it that our most popular form of recreation is becoming legally incapacitated?
posted by ewkpates at 5:32 AM on December 29, 2006

it's either badly written legislation or a badly written article ... (i suspect it's the article)

at no point are we told HOW drunk is too drunk ... do they mean if she's passed out? ... that's not any different than u s law

if they mean a certain blood alcohol level, that seems pretty dicey to me, especially with "back-calculating" working in only 31 of 119 cases ... (and how did they manage to verify that it worked in THOSE cases?)

i'm sure they mean that a woman can't give consent if she's passed out or unresponsive ... that's reasonable
posted by pyramid termite at 5:35 AM on December 29, 2006

So are you also saying that rape=penetration? A friend of mine, whose babysitter repeatedly forced him to perform oral sex on her (this continued well into his teens), would take great exception to that. With, probably, a baseball bat.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 5:36 AM on December 29, 2006

No drunken sex? This could be the end of civilization as we know it.
posted by jonmc at 6:02 AM on December 29, 2006

"I love watching straight people squirm."

Me too. If they're female.

Male, not so much.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:23 AM on December 29, 2006

Wish I had seen this article yesterday. oops.
posted by tadellin at 6:27 AM on December 29, 2006

So are you also saying that rape=penetration? A friend of mine, whose babysitter repeatedly forced him to perform oral sex on her (this continued well into his teens), would take great exception to that. With, probably, a baseball bat.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that women lack penises, ergo they lack the equipment (and I'm quoting exactly what I wrote above here) "sexually penetrate." A baseball bat might do the trick, though.
This thread is about men raping women, and someone asked why the burden of proof fell on the man, and plumbing was ONE of the reasons which I mentioned. One of the others was aggression, and another was men generally being stronger than women. I'm talking about generalities here, as that is in keeping with the topic of the thread. I'm sure there are plenty of stories of men being raped by women and stories of women accusing men of rape unjustly. However, consider a hard factoid: 1 in 6 women versus 1 in 33 men in the US report experiencing an attempted or completed rape at some point in their lives. I'll leave it to you anti-feminists to dispute the CDC.
posted by eparchos at 6:30 AM on December 29, 2006

Women are 10 times more likely than men to be victims of sexual assault.

I can't believe this is that hard to understand.
posted by eparchos at 6:33 AM on December 29, 2006

So are you also saying that rape=penetration?

As I understood it, the assertion was that, since it's easier to demonstrate forced penetration (i.e., tearing, abrasions), the burden of proof is higher for a man — presumably, lacking comparable physical evidence — seeking to prove he was raped by a woman.

Not that it doesn't happen. Just that it's more difficult to prove.
posted by cribcage at 6:52 AM on December 29, 2006

I love watching straight people squirm

Now is not the time to talk about your fetishes.
posted by jonmc at 6:55 AM on December 29, 2006

Ahem:
METAFILTER: LET US COMMENCE FUCKING
I am so. Sorry.
posted by damnthesehumanhands at 7:04 AM on December 29, 2006

This is what I don't understand:

#1 A woman getting drunk and then getting behind a wheel is legally responsible for her act.

#2 A woman getting drunk cannot consent to sex, and cannot be held legally responsible for her (drunken) consent.


So, you can be held accountable for drunken driving, but not drunken consenting? Ridiculous.
posted by ewkpates at 7:14 AM on December 29, 2006

Within 20 years, England will be a bland paste.
posted by aerotive at 7:28 AM on December 29, 2006

ewkpates' argument is pretty strong. Such a law has much potential for harm. For example, it may also provide an extremely drunken rapist some defence: "Your honor, my client was too drunk to tell that the girl was passed out.." Seems safest to keep all drunks fully respncible for all their actions.
posted by jeffburdges at 7:41 AM on December 29, 2006

So, you can be held accountable for drunken driving, but not drunken consenting? Ridiculous.

Yes, truly we can all remember the made for TV movie when the Ford Taurus cornered the freshman in her dorm room and forced her to hop in the driver's seat. "Dont' worry, babe! I'll turn at the last minute! Seat belts ruin the feeling!"

Or, what sort of non-sequiter nonsense are you talking about? You're comparing the individual use of an inanimate object to an outside party manipulating an intoxicated person. You might as well have said "how come it's rape if you're drunk and say yes, but your fault if you get wasted and do your taxes wrong?"

So, yeah, if I got drunk and did my taxes wrong, I'd be at fault. If I got plastered and my accountant went up to me and recommended I list my goldfish as dependents, then I'd probably drag his ass with me to the audit.

Your own argument is that it's your fault when you do something while drunk but not your fault when someone does something to you while drunk. Well... yeah. You really, truly, "don't understand this?"
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:42 AM on December 29, 2006 [1 favorite]

Xquz... I think the question that ewkpates is trying to ask is:

When drunk, many people think they are capable fo driving. They are not, and are held responsible for their actions.

When drunk, many people will consent. This law says it is impossible for them to consent, and that it is therefore rape. Why the burden of responsibility in one case but not the other?
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 7:45 AM on December 29, 2006

Look all these knee jerk reactions to this are silly. As Jessamyn pointed out this law (if it's passed) will be used to supplement existing rape laws in extreme cases. If you meet a girl in a bar and have a couple of drinks and she consents and later regrets it you will not be prosecuted for rape. This law will be put into place to get bastards who rape unconcious women in jail where they belong. So is the idea behind this to boost conviction rates? Of course, but not in the reactionary sense in which some people here think.
posted by ob at 7:49 AM on December 29, 2006

So is the idea behind this to boost conviction rates? Of course, but not in the reactionary sense in which some people here think.

Yep, and anti-terror laws were for terrorism and not for holding elderley hecklers at a party conference.

If the law is only for drooling, passed out can't talk drunk then cool, if there is any scope for using it after a couple of shots then its bullshit, which will, sooner or later, be abused.
posted by Reggie Knoble at 8:06 AM on December 29, 2006

I find it amazing that there have been so many comments and no one (including the 'journalists' who wrote the article) has apparently grasped the point of the proposed rule:

It's not to outlaw drunken sex. It's to specify a rule of evidence that can be used to prove the element of "no consent" in a rape trial.

In other words, if you rape a drunk woman, the rule circumvents the 'he said / she said' part of the trial where the (alleged, of course) rapist argues that she wanted it and the rapee says the didn't. The prosecutors can introduce her drunkenness as evidence that she didn't consent, because she couldn't.

The real issue here is whether the societal problem of women framing men is worse than the problem of rapists getting off (bad pun) because the prosecution can't prove the consent element. And frankly, it sounds pretty reasonable to me.
posted by norm at 8:08 AM on December 29, 2006

Men's rights are important IronWolve, but so are women's rights.

(my emphasis)

This sentiments seeks perpeptual discord between the sexes.

That's why I love living far far away from the west. Far away from this bullshit. Far from the tug-of-war men V women antagonism that pervades every issue concerning love and life in the west.

Men have rights. Women have rights. People have rights. It's not fucking zero sum.

People have rights and responsibilities, and any kind of pseudo-intellectualism trying to counter this truth is just a waste of breath fighting for a perverted cause.
posted by FieldingGoodney at 8:29 AM on December 29, 2006

> i'm sure they mean that a woman can't give consent if she's passed out or unresponsive ... that's reasonable

When the home office gets around to publishing the "consultation document" we'll be able to read it and see what it actually says. However, the purpose of the law overhaul is explicitly to increase the conviction rate to better match some a priori belief about how much rape is actually going on.

Solicitor General Mike O'Brien claims that the number of complaints about rape has gone up "quite sharply" but the number of convictions has risen only "very slightly".

Speaking on the Today programme this morning, Mr O'Brien said that only between three per cent and nine per cent of rape claims were "vexatious" – when the case has been instituted maliciously and without probable cause.

That suggests, he argues, that "an awful lot of people who are committing rapes are getting away with it" and is the reason why the government wants to overhaul the current system.

> So is the idea behind this to boost conviction rates? Of course, but not in the reactionary sense
> in which some people here think.

Nothing reactionary about it at all, we're being proactive and progressive.

Note that the Solicitor General dosn't say the number of rapes has gone up sharply, only that the number of complaints has increased sharply. The most likely reason for this increase in complaints is increased awareness on the part of the female participants in sexual encounters of the expanding definition of rape. Formerly rape meant out-and-out forcible intercourse (from Latin rapere, to take by force.) Presently it is heading very much in the direction of Catharine MacKinnon's dictum, 'Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated.' (Catharine A MacKinnon, 'A Rally against Rape.' In Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law [Harvard, 1987] p82.) So obviously, if more women are feeling violated after a sexual encounter and reporting that feeling of violation as an instance of rape, we gotta crank up the number of guys we burn to match the complaint rate. That is, just as MacKinnon says, politics. Not justice.


P.S., speaking of MacKinnon's dictum, we have a really superior example of the expanding definition of rape from our own licorice:

> The next generation is filled with boys and girls who still think it's okay to pressure someone into sex
> if she flirted with you, if you spent a lot of money on them, or if they've "done stuff" with other guys. We're
> far from "rape = crime" for a lot of people.

Why no. Happily we're still some distance from seeing vague notions like "pressure" as fully equivalent to forcible rape, because it isn't. Victim: "He took me to such an expensive restaurant that I felt pressured. That's rape." DA: "Put the cuffs on 'im, boys."


> It's not to outlaw drunken sex. It's to specify a rule of evidence that can be used to
> prove the element of "no consent" in a rape trial.

It's a rule of evidence that will be used to manufacture the element of "no consent" to achieve a given government-mandated conviction rate. It's just like cops having to meet ticket quotas, only it destroys lives.
posted by jfuller at 8:34 AM on December 29, 2006

In other words, if you rape a drunk woman, the rule circumvents the 'he said / she said' part of the trial where the (alleged, of course) rapist argues that she wanted it and the rapee says the didn't. The prosecutors can introduce her drunkenness as evidence that she didn't consent, because she couldn't.

So a woman can get passed the awkward he said/she said impasse by getting drunk after sex and stating she was raped. Get to the trial and she has 'evidence' on her side instead of just her testimony.

Do you not see the weakness in using alcohol as 'evidence of rape'?
posted by FieldingGoodney at 8:37 AM on December 29, 2006

That's why I love living far far away from the west.

Please tell me where this wonderland of gender equality you've found is. I'm presuming you're not speaking of England.

The "pseudo-intellectualism" you're referring here is to the legislation and the protection of rights. If you've got the "ultimate truth" or whatever, please let our leaders and our philosophers know... I'm sure they're all sick of wasting their breath fighting for the perverted cause of trying to inch toward a more harmonious and egalitarian society.
posted by eparchos at 8:40 AM on December 29, 2006

The next generation is filled with boys and girls who still think it's okay to pressure someone into sex if she flirted with you, if you spent a lot of money on them, or if they've "done stuff" with other guys.

If you want to expand the rape definition to that extent, you will see a lot of male victims of rape in the future. I know a lot of girls come on strong to guys at nightclubs for the explict purpose of a one night stand. This is certainly pressuring a person into sex.

Frankly, your view of rape is fucking ridiculous (pun intended).
posted by FieldingGoodney at 8:46 AM on December 29, 2006

I'm presuming you're not speaking of England.

OK, updated my profile.

I live in Thailand. And I don't want to know about your preconceived ideas about this country based on some pollitcally correct paper you've read. Save it for another thread.

My original statement was commentary on how downhill England is going with crazy legislation that can easily be abused by those who want to.
posted by FieldingGoodney at 8:56 AM on December 29, 2006

The real issue here is whether the societal problem of women framing men is worse than the problem of rapists getting off (bad pun) because the prosecution can't prove the consent element.

Or more generally, the issue is whether it's worse to convict some innocent people or let some guilty people go free (unless, like ob, you have magical foresight that the former will never happen).

Is rape a special case where a few wrongful convictions are acceptable, or are you arguing for the general principle that a wrongful conviction here and there is a worthwhile price?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:02 AM on December 29, 2006

So a woman can get passed the awkward he said/she said impasse by getting drunk after sex and stating she was raped. Get to the trial and she has 'evidence' on her side instead of just her testimony.

Do you not see the weakness in using alcohol as 'evidence of rape'?

It's not. It's using alcohol as evidence to support the contention of a the 'no consent' element of the rape charge. I recognize this may seem a fine distinction to draw, but I assure you it has real legal import. Besides, this all presupposes your answer to the question I posed above, which I'll happily quote myself on:

[Is] the societal problem of women framing men ... worse than the problem of rapists getting off (bad pun) because the prosecution can't prove the consent element[?]

I think that the idea that there are large numbers of vindictive women who are willing to lie to drag innocent men through the court system is a dangerous and misogynist canard. Yes, you may be able to cite an anecdote or two, but I will bet my eyeteeth that there is a far, far greater incidence of rapes being unprosecuted or unconvicted due to lack of evidence on this point.
posted by norm at 9:05 AM on December 29, 2006

Is rape a special case where a few wrongful convictions are acceptable, or are you arguing for the general principle that a wrongful conviction here and there is a worthwhile price?

Most rules of evidence make the exact same kind of balancing that I'm referring to here, considering the risk of prejudice versus the risk of useful evidence being excluded. Here's an example. In most states, the refusal to submit to a breath alcohol test is either a) an independent charge or b) evidence that may be used in trial to prove the 'intoxicated' element of a DUI case. There's not much of an outcry about these "implied consent" laws-- what's so terrible about an "implied unconsent" law?
posted by norm at 9:13 AM on December 29, 2006

Eventually, all sex will simply be negotiated by agents and lawyers, just to avoid this crap.

I'm beginning to this overregulation of sexuality is being furthered mainly by people who never get laid and don't want anyone else to either.
posted by jonmc at 9:20 AM on December 29, 2006

I think that the idea that there are large numbers of vindictive women who are willing to lie to drag innocent men through the court system is a dangerous and misogynist canard. Yes, you may be able to cite an anecdote or two, but I will bet my eyeteeth that there is a far, far greater incidence of rapes being unprosecuted or unconvicted due to lack of evidence on this point.

Abso-bloody-lutely seconded.
posted by chill at 9:21 AM on December 29, 2006 [1 favorite]

and norm, 'pressuring' someone into sex? what exactly does that mean? saying 'you'd do it if you loved me?' what? It sounds like a loaded definition designed to pump up statistics and create a climate of fear.
posted by jonmc at 9:21 AM on December 29, 2006

> Do you not see the weakness in using alcohol as 'evidence of rape'?
>
> It's not. It's using alcohol as evidence to support the contention of a the 'no consent' element of the rape charge.

A distinction without a difference. Anthing that supports an element of the charge supports the charge.


> I think that the idea that there are large numbers of vindictive women who are willing
> to lie to drag innocent men through the court system is a dangerous and misogynist canard.

That's not the proposition. The proposition is that there are large numbers of women who feel used and ambivalent after sex, and they are now increasingly encouraged think of this as being fully equivalent to old-fashioned forcible rape. And increasingly the law, being (as is well known) politics-based rather than justice-based, concurs.
posted by jfuller at 9:22 AM on December 29, 2006 [1 favorite]

I think that the idea that there are large numbers of vindictive women who are willing to lie to drag innocent men through the court system is a dangerous and misogynist canard.

Yes, because women are wonderful, pure beings made of sugar and light who would never dream of doing anything vindictive or cruel. And men of course are noting but icky, sex-crazed beasts who women must be sheilded from, lest their purity be soiled. Come on.

The actual numbers don't matter. The simple fact is that there's a lot of potential for abuse here.
posted by jonmc at 9:29 AM on December 29, 2006 [1 favorite]

I don't have any idea what percentage of women falsely accuse men of raping them. I don't even know how likely a woman is to be raped.

But it does seem self-evident that trying to determine whether or not informed consent was given is likely to be a futile exercise in most cases. Unless there is evidence of violent penetration, it's going to come down to two different people with different recollections of the same event.

Rape conviction rates SHOULD be low, because conviction should require proof of guilt, and non-violent rape is almost impossible to prove.

That's the real reason rape conviction rates are low compared to other crimes; it's not some gigantic male conspiracy; it's simply that in most cases the crime leaves no meaningful evidence behind.

In the absence of proof of guilt, the accused must be found innocent. This is absolute and non-negotiable in Western systems of justice.

It is better for ten men to "get away with it" than for one man to be falsely convicted. I'm sorry if that raises your hackles of feminist outrage; but that's the same standard that applies to all crimes.

And for what it's worth, I think the consequences to a man of being falsely convicted of rape are very much more severe than the consequences to a woman of being the victim of non-violent rape.
posted by thparkth at 9:35 AM on December 29, 2006

It's not. It's using alcohol as evidence to support the contention of a the 'no consent' element of the rape charge.

Umm, this doesn't mean anything in regards to the reality of being able to fabricate 'evidence' against someone you accuse of rape. It's been pointed out several times in this thread how easy it would be to do with this new law.

...but I will bet my eyeteeth that there is a far, far greater incidence of rapes being unprosecuted or unconvicted due to lack of evidence on this point.

Well you can keep your eyeteeth. Opinions on this are rather futile and can lead to 500+ threads of wasted time.

I think that the idea that there are large numbers of vindictive women who are willing to lie to drag innocent men through the court system is a dangerous and misogynist canard

I don't think it's naive to think false accusations exist and that some women have a motivation to make them. I think this is just a reflection of reality. It doesn't mean somebody hates all women to think some women are capable of doing this.
posted by FieldingGoodney at 9:36 AM on December 29, 2006

It doesn't mean somebody hates all women to think some women are capable of doing this.

FieldingGoodney: didn't you get the new guidebook, criticizing anything at all about feminism (if your a man) automatically makes you a misogynist. It's right there next to 'every man is a pontetial rapist.'
posted by jonmc at 9:39 AM on December 29, 2006

Every time anything related to feminism, patriarchy, etc. comes up, I like Metafilter a little less. The overall thoughtful tone takes a sudden nosedive (with some notable exceptions, of course).

I don't know if there are a lot of men here who are open-minded about everything except real gender equality, or it's just that these are the threads that the self-satisfied chauvinists come out of the woodwork to post in or what, but the glib comments, callous jokes and zero-sum "men's rights" bullshit are all really stomach-turning.

Can anyone really truly say we're going to see a sudden spike in wrongful convictions when across North America there's already an overwhelming deficit in rightful convictions when it comes to sexual assault? Any man who honestly feels he has something to fear from this sort of law is someone who I think the rest of us have something to fear from.
posted by poweredbybeard at 9:39 AM on December 29, 2006 [7 favorites]

I don't know if there are a lot of men here who are open-minded about everything except real gender equality, or it's just that these are the threads that the self-satisfied chauvinists come out of the woodwork to post in or what, but the glib comments, callous jokes and zero-sum "men's rights" bullshit are all really stomach-turning.

Please. Any response short of 'what a swell idea!' would be considered misogynist by many here.
posted by jonmc at 9:40 AM on December 29, 2006

And I don't want to know about your preconceived ideas about this country based on some pollitcally correct paper you've read.

Right, so a recently-feudal patriarchy which is working its way slowly out of their past is your example of gender eqality.... natch. Preconceived? Call it that if you will, but the "politically correct papers" that I've read are things like this(pdf).
Not to mention these.
My favorite bit from that last link is this: "...a husband may not be prosecuted for spousal rape."
posted by eparchos at 9:46 AM on December 29, 2006

You're comparing the individual use of an inanimate object to an outside party manipulating an intoxicated person.

Sometimes, both. But please leave my wife out of this.
posted by hal9k at 9:47 AM on December 29, 2006

Can anyone really truly say we're going to see a sudden spike in wrongful convictions when across North America

This discussion would be about an English law, nice to see you are well versed in what you're commenting on though.

Any man who honestly feels he has something to fear from this sort of law is someone who I think the rest of us have something to fear from

I know i have nothing to fear from this law, i'm in a long term, committed relationship with a woman i trust. And even if i wasn't im too socially retarded to pick up a woman in a bar, doesn't matter how drunk she is, they can smell fear.

That doesn't mean i can't see this potential law for what it is, a PR stunt with a massive downside in terms of potential for abuse.

And considering this (UK) governments habit of writing shitty laws and then abusing them, thats not something i look forward to.
posted by Reggie Knoble at 9:49 AM on December 29, 2006

FieldingGoodney:
Re: my last post.
Sorry, I actually defer to the opinion of someone who lives in a country rather than to my own notions, but ALL of the data which I have seen on the subject of Thailand and women's rights have been pretty negative compared to most countries in the West (with the glaring exception of my own). I understand two things which I rather disingenuously failed to make clear in that response for those who don't bother to go through all the links. One, Thailand is a pretty stellar human rights performer for Southeast Asia, commonly referred to regionally as a paradigm. Two, Thai Buddhism is a very fatalist philosophy, and many people are content with what anyone else would consider a horrible lot.
Sorry I didn't put this in that response, I got an itchy "post" finger.
posted by eparchos at 9:56 AM on December 29, 2006

FieldingGoodney: didn't you get the new guidebook, criticizing anything at all about feminism (if your a man) automatically makes you a misogynist. It's right there next to 'every man is a pontetial rapist.'

Yeah I have to admit I did get the guidebook. I also attended the lecture, and watched the video. I'm still suffering from a kind of cognitive dissonance though - I still don't believe it makes me a misogynist. Guess I'll have to watch that video one more time.
posted by FieldingGoodney at 9:58 AM on December 29, 2006

Does this mean, therefore, that it is impossible for a woman to rape another woman? Don't be so asinine. Rape means sexual assault, of which penetration may or may not be a component.

I had the same reaction you did so I looked it up. In England there are three definitions, one for rape (penile penetration), sexual assault (not gender specific) and assault by penetration (also not gender specific). I much prefer Canada's definition, it's not sexist and doesn't require a penis to be sexual assault.
posted by squeak at 10:07 AM on December 29, 2006

This thread in a nutshell:

jonmc: The actual numbers don't matter.

thparkth: I don't have any idea what percentage of women falsely accuse men of raping them. I don't even know how likely a woman is to be raped.

People with the least information and smallest commitment to getting accurate data to address a serious social problem have the loudest voice. I second poweredbybeard's opening sentiment. Every time we talk about rape, I feel that Metafilter as a whole is unable to reach a level of sustained informed discourse and becomes the kind of angry rmabling I associate with Freepers.

And I always bet on who will be the first to use Catherine MacKinnon in a misguided attempt to undermine some vague notion of feminism. Congrats jfuller!
posted by allen.spaulding at 10:11 AM on December 29, 2006

hal9k & eparchos, there's rather a lot to like about Thailand, particularly family life, despite what you may read. I rely on my experiences more than reading academic papers. OK, we choose different sources to form our opinion about a country - although when you finish reading your article, I am still living here. Interesting you criticise Buddhism, but this thread is not about where I live or Buddhism.
posted by FieldingGoodney at 10:11 AM on December 29, 2006

...but this thread is not about where I live or Buddhism.
You're right, it isn't.
Actually I form my opinions an every country based on two things: Reading and experience. In the absence of experience, all I can do is rely upon reading. However, I have found that I'm pretty good at finding out what my impression of a place will be by reading a lot about it before I go there. It worked for me in several South American countries, several Central Asian countries, and in a couple Scandinavian countries. It also has worked for me for my own country. There's plenty of data out there, all it takes is some sifting.
posted by eparchos at 10:17 AM on December 29, 2006

Every time we talk about rape, I feel that Metafilter as a whole is unable to reach a level of sustained informed discourse and becomes the kind of angry rmabling I associate with Freepers.

allen.spaulding, the very same who questioned the DNA evidence in the Duke 'rape' case.
posted by