Date Rape (reject, choice, mission, experience, recall)

[Fluffy]

That is not one of the most accurate of thread titles but what I am specifically wanting to look at here are instances of rape that happen between people who know each other and where alcohol or some other intoxicant is being used by one or both parties.

It seems intuitive to say that if you have taken some sort of drug (like alcohol) then you are unable to give consent. Therefore, if you are drunk, give consent and later regret that decision, then rape could be said to have occured.

Does this definition of rape damage its objectivity since it no longer relies on the feelings of the people at the time but their feelings afterwards? If both people are sober and give consent yet afterwards, one of them changes their mind, should this then be seen as rape? What if both of them give consent, then consume alcohol and have sex and then one of them changes their mind?

What about if both of them are drunk and give consent but one of them decides afterwards that they were raped. Since consent cannot be given whilst under intoxication, should both parties technically be said to have been raped? If one party is fine with the sex and one of them isn't can the person who is fine about it be taken to court for rape despite the fact that they were both drunk?

Similarly, if we are suggesting that rape can now be decided upon after the fact, can somebody who has been jailed for statutory rape be removed from prison when the person they had sex with comes of age and is therefore able to back date consent (if they wish) in a similar way to how somebody who has had sex whilst drunk is able to back date consent (or lack there of)?

[michel]

I thought there had been something on this not that long ago;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4780992.stm


Last Updated: Tuesday, 7 March 2006, 10:39 GMT

Ensure consent for sex, men told

One in five reported rapes in London leads to a caution or charge

Men should make certain that a woman has consented to sex to avoid being accused of rape, a new campaign launched by the Home Office is to warn.
The magazine and radio adverts and posters are aimed at reducing the number of sex assaults taking place when a woman is very drunk.
It comes amid low conviction rates for rape cases in England and Wales.
A law change has been mooted allowing juries to decide whether a woman was too drunk to give consent.
Law change?
Mike O'Brien, the solicitor general, told BBC Radio 4's File on 4 the law "may need some clarification" to allow a jury to decide whether the woman was too drunk to be capable of consenting, and whether she did consent.
" Giving consent is active not passive, and it's up to everyone to make sure that their partner agrees to sexual activity "


Home Office


Mr O'Brien said if the law were to be redrafted, he expected the number of rape convictions to increase.
A recent study by the Metropolitan Police revealed that more than a third of women who reported being raped had consumed alcohol immediately before the alleged attack.
The Home Office campaign - costing almost £500,000 - will begin on 14 March with radio adverts, followed a week later by include adverts in men's magazines, stickers on condom machines and posters in pub toilets.
Consent responsibility
A Home Office spokeswoman said the issue of consent was central to the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which stated that a person must agree to sex by choice and that must have the freedom and capacity to make that choice.
"Giving consent is active not passive, and it's up to everyone to make sure that their partner agrees to sexual activity," she said.
Amnesty International UK said the campaign was a "step forward" but that it must form part of a wider plan to tackle low conviction rates and "a sexist blame culture".
"The results of an opinion poll we commissioned last year showed that a disturbingly large proportion of the public blame women themselves for being raped," director Kate Allen said.
"In the end, a truly comprehensive approach can only come through the government backing an integrated strategy to end all types of violence against women in Britain."
BBC Home Affairs Correspondent Danny Shaw said the aim of the campaign was "to stop young men taking advantage of drunken women and having sex with them".
He said many cases failed to reach the courts because victim could not remember all the details due to having been drunk.
And in some circumstances judges have stopped trials because it has become clear that the woman was very inebriated at the time of the alleged attack.
'Unreliable' evidence
One woman told File on 4 she was raped by a man she knew after sharing a taxi back to her flat after a party.
"From the moment of sitting on the couch to the moment of waking up I don't remember anything "


Alleged rape victim

She said the man invited himself in, she remembers sitting down on the sofa, having had a lot to drink, and the next thing she knew he was raping her.
The case went to trial but the man was acquitted on the orders of the judge, who said her evidence was "unreliable" because she could not recall details of the alleged attack. She said: "I wanted to absolutely tell the truth so if there was anything I was in any doubt about I would say, 'Well, I'm not sure,' or, 'I can't remember'. "And the judge stopped me and said, 'So, it's possible you were actually making advances to the defendant during this period?' and I said 'All I've told you is from the moment of sitting on the couch to the moment of waking up I don't remember anything.'"

[michel]

Coincidentally,
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...216046,00.html

The TimesJune 08, 2006
Sentences for rapes after 'intimacy' cut

By Frances Gibb, Legal Editor
RAPISTS will receive lighter jail sentences if their victims withdraw their consent to sex at the last minute, according to new guidelines issued for judges yesterday.
The proposals, from the Sentencing Guidelines Council, which is headed by Britain’s most senior judge, were condemned last night as sanctioning a two-tier system for dealing with rape.
NI_MPU('middle');The council advises judges that “date rape” or “acquaintance rape” is as serious as “stranger rape”. An offender who ignores a victim’s wishes is guilty of rape, it says. But judges are then told that where consensual sexual activity takes place before the rape, it “must have some relevance for sentencing purposes” — although this is not defined.
Six years ago a Home Office review rejected the idea of a lesser offence of “date rape”. Ruth Hall, of Women Against Rape, said the concept was now being resurrected “by the back door”.
Ms Hall said that the council, headed by Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, was “talking out of both sides of its mouth”. She said: “The council has had to bow to pressure that rape is rape — whatever the relationship between victim and offender, whenever it is done and whatever the circumstances. But on the other hand, the same prejudices are being brought in by the back door.”
She said that the idea that a rape after consensual sexual activity should command a lesser sentence was also “insulting” to men. “It implies that they reach a certain point and are simply unable to stop — like a washing machine cycle.
“Women have a right to change their minds; or to go so far and no further — perhaps because they don’t like what they are being asked to do or because the man turns violent.”
Last year the number of rapists successfully prosecuted fell to a record low despite a rising number of attacks. One in 18 reported rapes end in a conviction, while in the ten years to 2004-05 reported rapes rose from 5,136 to 14,002.
Rapes where victim and offender know each other are thought to make up 80 per cent of the 14,000 reported rapes a year. Of those “acquaintance” rapes, the ones that involve previous sexual activityare hardest to prosecute. Juries often believe that victims “asked” for it — because of behaviour, drinking or clothing.
Levels of sentence will be left to judges’ discretion. The re-commended starting point for adult rapes is five years. The guidelines say: “Any rape is a traumatic and humiliating experience” and “whether the offender is an acquaintance, an ex-partner or a current partner is not, of itself, relevant to consideration of the starting point for the sentence”.
It also says that anyone involved in “consensual non-penetrative activity” has the right to refuse penetrative sex. An offender who ignores victim’s wishes “is guilty of rape”. But if an offender and victim know each other and there is consensual sexual activity, that must have an impact on sentence, it says.
The paper — the first guidance on sexual offences — covers some 50 sex offences from rape to sex with a corpse or an animal. At present 98 per cent of rapists receive a custodial sentence and the average length of sentence is 7½ years.The Director of Public Prosecutions, Ken Macdonald, QC, said the guidelines should not lead to lower sentences.
“Indeed they recommend higher sentences if aggravating circumstances, such as the extreme youth or age of a victim, apply.” Yesterday Professor Martin Wasik, chairman of the Sentencing Advisory Panel, said the guidelines were “simply stating accepted case law.” The breach of trust involved in a rape by someone known to the victim could make it as serious an offence as a “stranger” rape. But the more difficult area involved rapes where the couple had sexual familiarity. The panel took the view that there was a difference between someone who set out to rape a person he knew; and “a situation where rape occurs after sexual familiarity, up to and perhaps very close to, actual intercourse — and then the victim said ‘no’.”

[egroen]

If intoxicants are being used voluntarily and sex is consensual, I truly believe you can not claim 'rape' ex post facto. My opinion.

-Erin

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by egroen

If intoxicants are being used voluntarily and sex is consensual, I truly believe you can not claim 'rape' ex post facto. My opinion.

-Erin

I agree.

Unfortunately, you won't got to prison for long anyway in the UK - if it even comes to that.

[Mystic-als]

I can't really make an informed comment on this subject except to say that even if you have you **** inside and she says stop after originally concenting, and you dont stop, then it's rape. But where to draw the line is so difficult.

[Fluffy]

I can't really make an informed comment on this subject except to say that even if you have you **** inside and she says stop after originally concenting, and you dont stop, then it's rape. But where to draw the line is so difficult.

Okay but at the moment, if you are having sex and your partner (regardless of gender) says yes and is drunk, their words are meaningless according to current law. However, what appears to be happening is that if both people are drunk, both consent but one later decides against it, then the other person if guilty of rape. But if both people were drunk, surely neither of them were able to give consent and therefore they have either raped each other or rape cannot be said to have been committed.

What I certainly agree with is this: "She said that the idea that a rape after consensual sexual activity should command a lesser sentence was also “insulting” to men. “It implies that they reach a certain point and are simply unable to stop — like a washing machine cycle. " but I do think the situation becomes much more complicated when intoxicants are involved.

[egroen]

Heh, it's like not holding someone accountable for driving while intoxicated... because they were intoxicated.

-Erin

[GeneCosta]

If a woman (or man) gets drunk by knowingly swallowing alcohol, and then consents to sex before and through-out intercourse, there should be no way they can later come back and charge them with rape. It's different if someone spiked the drink, of course, but usually a third person will have seen the "victim" drinking. Perhaps this will reduce the ammount of alcohol consumed at school parties?

Too many times women abuse the law and get away with throwing (what I believe are) innocent men in jail.