But all rapists are labelled Rapist and are tried for 1 level of rape. Like Murder/Manslaughter there should be different levels/charges. Rape being for the worst scenario and then maybe unconsented sex for a lessor charge.
I would say that most men are aware of this. In fact isn't what you are stating in fact the law??? The problem is however that often the person accused of rape in this certain scenario is often off their face as well and not in a state of mind where they can distinguish between rape and not! It is this scenario where courts find it difficult to send people down! One word against another!
Whores are more or less legal nowadays anyhow, the police generally only 'bust' illegal immigrants for that purpose rather than for them being prostitutes. The police will turn a blind eye to women offering services in their own homes or in 'massage parlours' because it keeps them off the streets, so it makes less work for the old bill. I worked on a huge project when I worked in criminal intel, alongside vice. When I'd work the later shift you'd see the early doors hookers fetched in, off the streets, and put in a cell for the night. They used to offer me all sorts in exchange for a cigarette, unfortunately for them I had access to their entire previous cons and their med exam results...yuk.
Utter horseshite. Speak for yourself. Rape is the hardest allegation to get to stick and the hardest to prove in court. A lot of people get away with no punishment because they're given the benefit of the doubt. The chances are if you're done for rape it's because you're a rapist, not because of a misunderstanding.
Which is why I was quite surprised that Ched Evans got found guilty! I havnt looked at the details of the case in great detail but it seemed to be one of those scenarios where it was one word against the other and difficult to prove! What was the clincher which had him found guilty??? How did the other guy get away with it? Was it because the other guy brought her back to the hotel? Just had a quick look and it seems that it might have hinged on the cctv footage showing how drunk she actually was on the way to the hotel!!! If she was as drunk as that, how did the other guy get away with it????? How was she sober enough to consent with one and not the other!??? Like I say, I'm pretty sure he is 100% guilty and took advantage of the girl, I'm just surprised that, like other cases, that he didn't get the benefit of the doubt!
I know nowt about the case personally mate but having read into the legal system surrounding rape while I was at uni I'm pretty sure that he'll have got what's coming to him.
The level of proof required in criminal law is 'beyond reasonable doubt' therefore there would be no doubt to get any benefit from. I would bet that all of us commenting on here, have read sanitised versions of the events and as such are not aware of what really happened. Evans was convicted of rape, he appealed against the conviction and his appeal was denied by the single judge, he again appealed and his appeal was denied by the panel of three judges, seems a pretty safe conviction to me. I think his co-accused, Clayton McDonald, is a very lucky boy to get a not guilty at the original trial.
