English Dame Proposes New Rule For Rape Cases That Women Cannot Consent When Intoxicated

elishangioliniThe English court system is considering a controversial new report by Dame Elish Angiolini that would establish a rule that women cannot be viewed as consenting to sex if they are found to be intoxicated. The report is pushing an amendment of the Sexual Offences Act to establish the rule.

The current law allows the jury to decide such questions in the specific context of the case. They use their common sense and their view of the credibility of the witnesses. However, Dame Elish, a former Lord Advocate in Scotland, wants woman’s incapacity to consent to be a codified exception “embedded in legislation.”

Once police determine that a woman is intoxicated, they would consider any sex as unconsented and thus rape. Conversely, the new rule could effectively gut the ability of the accused to argue consent. The new effort is heralded by Director of Public Prosecutions Alison Saunders who said that with the sweeping change rape victims would no longer be “blamed” by society if they are too drunk to consent or if they simply freeze in terror.

The problem is that it could foreclose the key defense in such cases and denies jurors the ability to make this determination in the context of the case. In 2007, a court ruled that a woman could consent to sex even if drunk which is the standard approach in such cases. Intoxication can lead to a determination of incapacity and often does. However, there are different levels of intoxication and cases have different facts of when and how consent was given. Moreover, the level of legal intoxication is falling in many countries with the crackdown on drunk driving. It is not clear what level of intoxication would be viewed as per se foreclosing consent defenses. There is also the question of whether the same standard should be applied to the men if both parties are intoxicated — negating intent to rape.

Dame Elish admits that the various changes would required a “radical change” in the way they treat victims, but it could be equally radical in terms of the due process accorded such cases. I think that she is clearly correct in getting police to document the level of intoxication after a report by the victim is an important step and should be a regular practice. She is also clearly correct that at some level of intoxication there cannot be consent. However, the rule presents a far more sweeping rule and could clearly limit the core defense in such cases.

I am very sympathetic to the overall report which identifies some clear problems in staffing, resources, and handling of cases. She is also right that there appears to be no clear rule established for handling cases involving alcohol consumption. The problem is drawing a codified line in such cases that would be both consistent and clear and fair. There may be a good reason why intoxication is recognized as a critical factual determination but not codified in this sense. It is the type of contextual element that touches on some many elements of credibility and facts both preceding and during the sexual encounter. That does not mean that some codification could not be done but it is fraught with dangers if it is meant to curtail the defense of consent in my view.

Source: Daily Mail

94 thoughts on “English Dame Proposes New Rule For Rape Cases That Women Cannot Consent When Intoxicated”

  1. This barmy idea has more to do with prostituting herself to the media to try to build up a reputation for being proactive with regard to offences against the vulnerable, to cover up for misdeeds in the past and to cover up for the declining standards of Scotland’s prosecutors, who no longer have the required skill to successfully prosecute rape cases and child sexual abuse cases, as evidenced by the statistics.

    This legal propaganda must stop. It is a cancer within modern Society.

    The statistics show that 55% of cases, which have been marked by the Procurator Fiscal as having sufficient corroboratory evidence to gain a successful prosecution, are flung onto the ‘Do Not Prosecute Pile’ by Scotland’s Crown Office Prosecutors because they cannot be bothered to prosecute rape and child sexual abuse crimes and instead they prosecute petty crimes and ‘easy’ cases to keep their prosecute their hit-rate high to achieve their bonuses.

    Cash is King in Scotland and Justice is a dirty word and Elish Angiolini above all knows this?

  2. Given the failure to conduct a proper investigation into the allegations of repeated gang-rape made by Downs Syndrome sufferer Hollie Greig and the role played in this affair by Dame Angiolini – She was Fiscal (district prosecutor) when most of the allegations were made and Lord Advocate (National Head of prosecutions) when the final decision not to proceed with the case was made, should we place any confidennce in her judgement?

    I think not!

    1. Mentally deficient, blind, drunk, unconscious (alleged) victims make poor prosecution witnesses. For a prosecutor to drag an accused (alleged) perpetrator through a trial, or to use a shipload of frivolous felony charges to try to extort a false guilty plea to a misdemeanor is unconscionably unethical.
      A mentally deficient woman may not have as much awareness of the consequences of sexual intercourse as a more intelligent woman, but she has just as much right to seek out and consent to sexual activity as a more intelligent woman. She can also have second thoughts later and wish that she had not done it. An aggressive SJW can then convince her that she was raped.
      The alleged rapist may claim that any reasonable man in his place would have understood that she was not only consenting but made advances to him. He may readily admit to intercourse or other sexual activity with her even before any tests of his DNA markers are done.
      What is a prosecutor to do with that kind of case? Try to get a conviction on a mere accusation by the alleged victim? Try to extort a plea to a minor offense just to get some kind of conviction, by using the threat of a whole string of felonies? What kind of justice is that?
      Better the guilty go free than for the innocent to be punished.

  3. I suggest a public bare-ass paddling for any undamaged woman who accuses a fellow of raping her and she can’t prove it.
    This falls short of the Deuteronomic (19:16-21) prescription of giving the same punishment to a false accuser as could have been given to the falsely-accused but it’s not likely that people in our enlightened age would tolerate 20 years to life for a false accuser of rape.
    But they’d turn out to see a woman’s barenaked butt paddled.
    And if she was telling the truth but couldn’t prove it, a sound paddling in the stocks won’t do any permanent damage and will frighten others into keeping their mouths shut if they have no evidence of rape. Genuine provable rape victims won’t be viewed with nearly as much skepticism if they risk a buttwhacking if their complaint fails.
    As long as fornicating is legal, every sex act must be assumed consensual unless it can be proven otherwise.
    If she hasn’t been:
    Beaten
    Choked
    Had a knife held to her throat
    Given a disease (she may have consented to sex but it’s not likely she consented to be infected)
    Otherwise show evidence of deliberate excessive force beyond normal consensual sex, which can be rather rough.
    Then she has no case. Shut up. See a counselor. You mostly need your hand held.
    Get on with your life. You weren’t harmed beyond being offended.
    If he keeps doing this stuff, and is convicted of raping someone, show up to testify at his sentencing hearing.

  4. A practical solution:
    For every woman who claims to have been raped, grab one man off the street and send him to prison. This will equalize justice.

    1. Squeeky – “Dames at Sea” is being remounted on Broadway this fall. 🙂

    1. “PS “The Donald” is a very serious person.”

      Well… the hair is serious – however he does it.

  5. English Dame Proposes New Rule For Rape Cases That Women Cannot Consent When Intoxicated

    I propose that people wearing ridiculous wigs upon their heads should never be taken seriously.

    1. “I propose that people wearing ridiculous wigs upon their heads should never be taken seriously.”

      Well who takes Donald Trump seriously in the first place?

  6. I know how I’m going to make my millions now: Selling breathalyzers in pickup bars.

  7. Panty Remover recipe
    2 oz dry gin
    1 oz vodka
    1/2 oz Fresca® grapefruit soda
    1 dash lemon juice

    Stir ingrediients together in a cocktail glass, and serve.

  8. From “anything goes free love sexuality” to “don’t even look at a woman without a notarized consent form”. OK, I exaggerate. But it seems to be the end game. A 45 year whiplash in social mores.

  9. Felix
    1, June 4, 2015 at 5:41 am

    Catfights over handbags and tears in the toilets. When this producer launched a women-only TV company she thought she’d kissed goodbye to conflict…

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1168182/Catfights-handbags-tears-toilets-When-producer-launched-women-TV-company-thought-shed-kissed-goodbye-conflict-.html

    ————————————————

    Felix, That is the BEST article. I saw that a few months ago, and it totally rings true.
    Anybody who thought an ALL female business was a good idea, had never worked
    with women in the real world. 😀

    What I find so stunning is that women want equality, BUT, seem to always be so focused on Gender.
    Feminism is supposed to be about equality.
    It has now been twisted into something far less honorable.

    I was watching an English TV show called: Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell
    and I like to go to IMDB and read what others think about different shows.
    I go to their forum, and one of the comments is how this one woman is disappointed
    that it does not have more female leads in the show.

    She was going on about how more women should have been represented in this show that is set
    in the late 1700’s and early 1800.
    Of course I had to remind her that it was a woman who had written the book, that the show
    is based on.
    Instead of just watching the show, and just enjoying the show for what it is… she
    had to make it a gender issue.

    Quite frankly, I refuse to call myself a feminist.
    It is women like this English Dame .. and the other women who call themselves feminists
    that really turn me off to this movement.
    Fact is, those women HATE me.
    Feminists hate EVERYTHING about me… Most likely because I LOVE being
    a woman, and I refuse to hate men and blame men for societies problems.

    Now, back to your article on that ALL female business.

    If somebody offered me a Million a year to work at a company, then they informed me that it was
    all females, I would laugh them out of the room.
    NO WAY would I want to work for a business that is only women.
    Any logically thinking person would KNOW, that is just a bad idea. 😀

  10. Overall, most who have commented here recognize the danger and foolishness of Damn Angioli’s proposal.
    I haven’t seen a posting that effectively supports her unique “standard” of starting with a presumption of victimization when a legally intoxicated woman consents to having sex.
    There is actually a presumption of guilt, of course, re the male involved.
    I don’t see any reason to “..
    applaud the British for taking care if their problem”.
    No amount of double-talk and weasel words I’ve seen here can effectively defend that “applause”.

  11. When you’re a dork, you’re a Dork!
    A Dork all the way.
    From your first little wig…
    To your last dying day.

    From Westside Story with alterations

    I think that Scotland needs to secede completely from England. And England needs to secede entirely from the EU. And America needs to restrict the immigration or tourism of English women into the United States. A woman with an English passport should be denied service in all American bars. If they arrive here with a wig on the head then send them straight to a country club. A wig on the head is like a veil on the face or a scarf on the head– narrow minds whose itShay dont stink.

Comments are closed.