Rape Trial Coverage Fiasco

Wildey - after the Sexual Offences Act 2006 a woman can now rape a man in UK (or another woman). As I paraphrased earlier, penetration of any part of the body with anything, with a sexual purpose.

And the intoxication piece is relevant - there is a point beyond which someone is too drunk to give consent. A lot of the difficulty of rape prosecution is dwon to the 1-1, lack of witness evidence. He says 'she was stone cold sober and consented'. She says she wasn't. If the alleged rapist did not take into account their sobriety, they could have been reckless as to whether consent was given or even if given, was suitably informed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Denzark

Wildey - after the Sexual Offences Act 2006 a woman can now rape a man in UK (or another woman). As I paraphrased earlier, penetration of any part of the body with anything, with a sexual purpose.

And the intoxication piece is relevant - there is a point beyond which someone is too drunk to give consent. A lot of the difficulty of rape prosecution is dwon to the 1-1, lack of witness evidence. He says 'she was stone cold sober and consented'. She says she wasn't. If the alleged rapist did not take into account their sobriety, they could have been reckless as to whether consent was given or even if given, was suitably informed.

---

So how does intoxication work in England? Is it a defense to say that, although the purported victim may have been too inebriated to give informed consent, the accused did not and could not reasonably have known that?

I get the notion of a sufficient level of intoxication removing a person's ability to give informed consent to sex. And I get why you might want to make that a question of strict liability. On the other hand, I'm not entirely comfortable with there being no room at all for a non-reckless mistake of fact. In California (whose rape law is deficient in other ways, I think, but generally pretty good) various altered mental states (unconsciousness, sufficient inebriation, etc.) don't count against the accused unless the accused knew or should have known that the purported victim was not in a state fit to consent, and ... I see the argument on both sides, but in general, I think I prefer that to Ohio's strict liability regime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wildeybeast

Why would you waste good scotch on him?

---

10 minutes and a pair of pliers ;)

Job done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nabterayl

So how does intoxication work in England? Is it a defense to say that, although the purported victim may have been too inebriated to give informed consent, the accused did not and could not reasonably have known that?

I get the notion of a sufficient level of intoxication removing a person's ability to give informed consent to sex. And I get why you might want to make that a question of strict liability. On the other hand, I'm not entirely comfortable with there being no room at all for a non-reckless mistake of fact. In California (whose rape law is deficient in other ways, I think, but generally pretty good) various altered mental states (unconsciousness, sufficient inebriation, etc.) don't count against the accused unless the accused knew or should have known that the purported victim was not in a state fit to consent, and ... I see the argument on both sides, but in general, I think I prefer that to Ohio's strict liability regime.

---

Nabby I understnad there could possibly be a non-reckless mistake - say the victim was a champion shot drinker, with a high tolerance of alcohol, whose external responses give you no sign of their level of consumption between 0-750ml of vodka. You could probably argue in that sort of case that you were mistaken not reckless. In return the prosecution is likely to state if you know the victim well enough to know that they can get intoxicated without external signs, then you should have known you can't tell whether or not they are capable of consent...the onus returns to the alleged suspect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wildeybeast

Why would you waste good scotch on him?

---

Tradition?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deadlift

10 minutes and a pair of pliers ;)

Job done.

---

add richard littlejohn to the list while you are there

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deadlift

10 minutes and a pair of pliers ;)

Job done.

---

Walk him around the tree I say!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirsten

add richard littlejohn to the list while you are there

---

Yup. Sick of that little Weasel spouting bile, and then claiming freedom of the press. Transgendered person teaching 8 year old kids? Will they even notice? And if they do, and it affects them, that's a major issue in their upbringing.

Drag him out, hang draw and quarter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Denzark

Wildey - after the Sexual Offences Act 2006 a woman can now rape a man in UK (or another woman). As I paraphrased earlier, penetration of any part of the body with anything, with a sexual purpose.

And the intoxication piece is relevant - there is a point beyond which someone is too drunk to give consent. A lot of the difficulty of rape prosecution is dwon to the 1-1, lack of witness evidence. He says 'she was stone cold sober and consented'. She says she wasn't. If the alleged rapist did not take into account their sobriety, they could have been reckless as to whether consent was given or even if given, was suitably informed.

---

As far as I can tell there isn't one in 2006. There is one in 2003, is that what you meant? Please could you provide a link to the 2006 one if it exists. [URL="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/1"]2003[/URL] clearly defines rape as:

(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
(3)Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

The use of the words 'he' and 'penis' seems pretty clear cut.

As to intoxication, I'm not arguing someone who is drunk is always capable of consenting, merely that someone is capable of consenting when under the influence of alcohol. As you say, the issue comes when deciding whether they were drunk enough for either of them to understand whether consent had been given or what they were consenting to.

Sorry for the double post, but further clarification can be found [URL="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/pdfs/ukpgaen_20030042_en.pdf"]here[/URL]. Only a man can rape a woman. I'm pretty sure you are thinking of assault by penetration Denzark, which can be with any part of the body and can be committed by women. I was however incorrect in saying it is a lesser offence - it still carries a life sentence. I'd be surprised it sentences were, on average, as harsh as they are for rape, but I have nothing to support that assertion.