Evidence is easier if the argument isn't just about consent. RE; different levels of rape... why did they slaughtered for that? There is! For example, if 16 and 15 year olds do the tango, it is often also classed as rape as well as *****philia. Its not that the 'victim' didn't give consent, its more that the victim is legally too young to actually giving consent. There is blatant and brutal rape; dragging them kicking and screaming and having your wicked way. And there is the consent argument we're discussing. Probably others I've missed too. Hell, there are even different levels of *****philia depending on the victims age.
Richard Dawkins... think it got discussed on here a while ago. "Richard Dawkins is wrong to suggest that there can be varying degrees of severity involved in rape It’s not up to men to try and define women’s experiences of violence for them" http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...ees-of-severity-involved-in-rape-9635662.html
Well, I clearly agree Edit: having now had a quick look at that link and read this... ...I'd like to retract my previous claim to be in agreement. The above claim is ridiculous!!!
Dawkins got slaughtered on here too, as I remember, as well as in the media. I haven't taken much notice of the Evans case, and wouldn't make any decision based on what I'd read in the papers anyway, because most of it is written by hypocritical, ****-stirring opportunists. All I do know is that if the girl's defence cited her drunkenness as a factor then that is quite ridiculous. As pointed out, unless her drinks were deliberately and surreptitiously spiked, then it is her responsibility not to get so drunk that she can't make that decision. As I said, I don't know the details of the case and so can't say whether or not the right judgement was made, but the point of punishment is meant to be rehabilitation, and allowing people to take back their place in society is meant to be a factor in that.
For rape this case higlights that 'innocent until proven guilty' is a thing of the past now. Evans 'victim' didn't even accuse him of rape. He stood charged because "she couldn't remember" having given consent or not. He claimed she did give consent, as did his co-accused, the only other witness. Therefore he had to somehow try and prove that he did gain consent, when even the 'victim' couldn't say whether he did or not? How does that work? It used to be "no means, no". That's now morphed into "if I choose not to remember, you're a rapist". How any judge could fail to clearly spell out to the jury about their repsonsibilities in relation to "reasonable doubt" in relation to this case is beyond me. It stank from the outset and that stench is still in the air. Evans is a slimey douche bag, but that doesn't make him a rapist.
the thing is a court found him guilty. he has an appeal going which is a very different thing which is why the bbc are saying"convicted rapist" every time his name comes up though. the thing is..................... I don't know the particulars enough but we should not generalise... We know date rape drugs create the i don't remember scenario so its pretty clear in law that rape includes this type of thing... however in the specific case i don't know whats what.
Joking aside, aside from recording the woman saying yes, that's sounds like it's necessary ffs. Ridiculous
thats all well and good but over simplistic... In a court of law and in law making SOMEONE has to determine the severity in order to create sentencing and levels of crime. In an ideal world there would be more women involved at each level but at this point in time representation still has to grow. blame the women who don't go forward as politicians i say... blame thatcher for putting them all off. (last part not serious)
You say we shouldn't generalise and haven't read about the specifics of the case, and proceed to generalise................... I have read about the case, in great detail and there's never been any suggestion of this woman being the victim of a date rape drug. She met McDonald in the street and willingly went back to the hotel with him.
I was obviously joking but I was also taking the piss out the situation. Its a complete joke and I expect to see a lot more cases as a result.
The only reason date rape drugs came up was because that was the only reason the woman could think of why she had no memory. There was no medical evidence for it. Also, I believe that she didn't meet McDonald until after she'd left the bar she was drinking at, so if there were drugs, then it was either a) someone else who gave it to her, or b) she was given it at some point at the takeaway/taxi/hotel, which is possible, but perhaps less likely. Given that she came onto McDonald, I'm also not sure why he would need to give her one.
Have you managed to read the original decision? I've only found the appeals decision online (https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans).
I'm just being specific that saying if someone chooses not remember it must be rape is not a good line to have. thats all I don't know if she did or did not choose to have a blank slete nor do i know if any drugs were involved but as there is clear prior cases where such drugs do get involved you can see why a defense that she didn't say no is not enough. however in general i would expect some effort be taken to detect said drugs and the absence of such evidence would have to be part of the defenses case.
No, that's not correct. In cases where there is forensic evidence that a date rape drug has been used, and there's sufficient evidence to prove that the defendant was either aware of this fact or administered it himself. Then you can say that consent cannot be given freely and is therefore not enough. In this case there was no evidence of any drug being used and the circumstances of the 'victim' ending up in a situation where consensual sex was highly likely i.e. in a hotel room with a man she'd just met in the street, were clearly of her own choosing.
There's reams of information out there mate. i've read the judges summing up post the verdict from the original case, but haven't got a link to hand.
so........... if i read all this right... and i went and read that link above too... Is the issue here the fact that evans should have known she could not have consented given her state the issue at hand? ie.... she seems to have done the mcdonald character and he got off but evans wander on up and had his way with her and she was in no fit state to consent... accroding to the judge or prosecutor that he should have known from the state of her she wasn't fit to make an informed decision about anything? Is that the case then?
That's the crux of it as I undestand it, yes. Hence why the case hinges on the CCTV and eyewitness evidence of the state of her drunkeness.
More or less. Which exposes it as a complete nonsense. As for consenual sex to have occurred then she needs to have been consenting throughout the act. Therefore for McDonald to be innocent of rape he had to have consent to the point he'd finished. If she changed her mind half way through and consent ceased he'd be guilty of rape. Evans entered the rooom while they were still at it, both him and his mate testified that they asked if it was ok for him to join in. Shortly after his mate dismounts and Evans moves in, he then performs oral sex on her (at her request according to their testimony - he deserves a 5 stretch for this alone like tbf) He then has full sex with her and his mate leaves the room. The security guard had sneaked up to the door and tesitifed to hearing the normal sounds of a couple having sex. The conclusion was that she wasn't capable of consenting to either man, but the fact that she went back to a hotel room with McDonald (she patently wasn't expecting to be playing scrabble) was enough to suggest that he had consent, whereas she'd not met Evans until he gained entry to the room. This is not backed up with video evidence of her walking into the hotel and then going back outside on her own to pick up a pizza. At the time of the incident they worked back that she was about 2 1/2 times over the legal drink drive limit. Expert medical evidence would suggest that this is enough to make you unsteady and giddy but not enough for complete memory loss. The fact that she was claiming zero recollection given the footage is enough for "reasonable doubt" on its own imo. As even when totally bladdered you can usually recall snippets of the previous evenings events, even if much of it is a blare. To claim zero recall smells wrong in itself.
