They cant. The offence is something completely different. This is from the Sexual offences act 2003 Section 1. By the simple fact that a woman does not have a penis she cannot rape a man.
Check out the section on rape by gender http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_gender PS: I was wrong about the 'ready for action' bit on the guy's part
You are missing the point. A woman cannot rape a man!! Rape is defined in Section 1 of the Sexual offences act 2003 as # Therefore a woman cannot rape a man!! No women i know have a penis!! Therefore the offence is called something entirely different and carries a different sentence.
If a woman uses an object that resembles a penis and is used against a man's will, then it is rape. There is also the situation where a man is forced, against his will, in certain cases of domestic abuse. I'm not saying it's common, it's just possible, that's all
If the woman penetrates the man, or forces him to penetrate her in anyway it falls under Assault by penetration as per Section 2 Sexual offences act 2003. A woman cannot rape a man. Rape is as i have described and only as i have described. It was copied from here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/contents
I'd never heard of assault by penetration, the UK laws aren't the same as US laws, where I know a woman got convicted of raping a man. I was wrong
Yeah. Never ever presume that because the Us laws say X that the UK laws are the same. For intance the US has a 3 tier murder charge, but we have 2. Its not often i can be certain about something, but as i have just done a semester on criminal law at uni i was pretty sure lol.
Doesn't necessarily mean that Evans is guilty. Who says that I was happy in my example? I'll admit, unless it was someone who was repulsive then I probably wouldn't care that much (if the sex was protective...but that's another discussion). But even if I was upset....I wouldn't assume that I've been abused just because I do not remember the night before. I do not believe that waking up and deciding that you've been raped is fair to the man at all. It is after the act has been done.....you're basically making it possible for every man to be a rapist...so long as a woman gets drunk and then phones the police the day after saying that she was raped. She could flip a coin and say "Should he be a rapist....or should I not phone the police?"..... How do you know that? No proof that she never knew he'd be there. He said that he asked to join in and she said yes. The guy who's not been found guilty knew that Evans would be there and probably join in. Evans is guilty because the woman retrospectively decides that she wanted sex with one guy but not the other (with no prior objection, warning etc!?). How can you be drunk enough to not consent or remember anything, but be able to pick and choose who you wanted to have sex with with? For me it's either one way or the other....this mixed up verdict is absolute bollocks. I guess, assuming she was not aware of it. But then how else would the prosecution know if she didn't know. I'm not sure if any of these people were grassing each other up...but it remained a "claim" in court and nothing else. I think you must be as guilty as there can be. For you to know all of that for sure...you must have been one of the people watching!
I do see where Moose is coming from ,playing devils advocate, If there is any reasonable doubt that sexual acts took place ......no. Was consent given ,with out knowing all the facts of the case , the jury obviously felt there was no doubt(or they were all wednesday fans) I just find it odd ,that if the girl willingly went to the hotel room ,stumbling or not,then that does sound to me that she has consented ,because surely she understood what happens if you get intoxicated and go to a hotel room with strange men!! Now the last issue that we dont know is if a date rape drug was used and or if her drinks were spiked ,if this was the case ,she would have been in no state to resist ,give consent ,or frankly do anything. As Moose was alluding too we do not know all the facts that were put in front of the jury! As an aside as well there are cases like this when there were wrongful convictions so blind faith in the countrys legal system I would be wary of as well !
Unless anyone knows better then our system of trial by jury seems the fairest way of dealing with criminal offences. Do juries always get it right - of course not but so long as they do their best there is little more can be expected. We do have a system of appeal so that if a defendant is found guilty he or she still has the chance to correct an injustice. The only injustice that could not be corrected is capital punishment which is why I do not support it. Rape seems to me to be a very difficult crime to try as there are so many possible perspectives and neither victim nor defendant are incapable of lying. We do not know the full details that the jury heard so any attempt by us to deliver a "correct" opinion is flawed. For my own part though I think you have to regard both parties as potential victims - someone who is raped clearly is but a man found guilty incorrectly of rape is equally a victim. I just hope that the jury in this case really were truly convinced and had no reasonable doubt about their verdict. If I were Evans lawyer I would appeal as I would think this is a complicated case and if the woman was drunk then even she must be somewhat in doubt about what she did or did not consent to. To take away a man's freedom and livelihood is no light matter - any more than it is to rape a person
It's just how I am. There are too many things that we as the general public do not get to know. I would usually question a case like this...I'm not necessarily saying that Evans is not guilty, but I'd rather not pass judgement.
About the only thing that is clear is that peoples opinions are based on what they are reading in the press - unless, of course, they were present at the whole of the trial, either in the gallery or in the jury box - and unfortunatley the press are notorious for spinning reports for their own purposes. Even in reporting the judge's summing up ("clearly too intoxicated to consent...") they may be quoting out of context, simply by not reporting the whole of his summary. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that the girl in question consented to anything, nothing to suggest that she even knew what was happening when McDonald picked her up, nothing to confirm what he actually said or didn't say to her - so quite how she could be expected to "surely understand what happens........" simply doesn't count. For all we know, McDonald may well have deceitfully offered her a lift home, realising that she didn't know who or where she was, never mind who he was. All we really know is that he texted a message "Got a bird" - was that a boastful claim that spurred Evans on because he hadn't, or was it a signal to come and join in - I doubt we'll ever know unless the press print the court transcripts. The only mystery for me is, based on those facts reported, how McDonald was found to be not guilty, although if Evans appeals, that may come to light.
As I seem to have read that McDonald and the girl had sex then the jury appear to believe she consented to that - if that is the case it is difficult to understand an argument that says she was not too intoxicated to consent to that but was for the second man. It implies she consented to go to the hotel room and have sex there but that she then became too intoxicated to have sex with Evans - as I said before a complicated story and one which must give grounds at least for an appeal.
Not at all, just a genuine musing as to why one person got away with the same offence. Such a lazy response to cry 'racist' - attitudes like that stifle debate and cause tensions to arise.
No - your defining the man purely as black is racist. If I were still a Mod I would remove your post and let you post something that did not imply colour had any bearing.
I did not attend the trial so cannot give a decent answer - but I can guess that the jury decided that as he invited the girl to his room in a hotel and she willing agreed and they had sex and she did not claim to have said no that the jury somehow decided her state of drunkenness was not as great as when Evans turned up - uninvited by her. However that is pure speculation on my part and more than likely to be rubbish. What I do not do though is to assume that the colour of a man's skin affects his guilt or innocence. It is just plain wrong to base an opinion on a person's colour unless you believe the jury were all racist
