The 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
Thanks Karen. And riffing off what both you and JAG have said so well; a true feminist, Camille Paglia, has been saying for many years what you too common sense women just said.
Nick – that’s hilarious about the BAC pen!
If I understand correctly, a woman could get a man drunk and take complete advantage of him, with impunity, but a man could not have sex with a woman who had the slightest bit of alcohol, even if she enthusiastically said “yes” every 30 seconds, in the presence of a notary, and with a thumb print in the notary’s journal. She could even record consent. He’s still a rapist.
This whole argument is especially offensive to me. I have grim memories of visiting my friend’s roommate in the hospital after a savage gang rape. Her doctors said her injuries were as great as if she had been hit by a car doing 70. Her head was swollen until she was unrecognizable, and that was the least of it. She was kidnapped out of a bar soon after she’d arrived. Dumbing down the criteria of rape is an insult to real victims.
I resent this trend in treating women like irresponsible, helpless children.
Karen, I agree 100% ..
This especially:
Rape is a very serious, traumatic crime with life changing effects. It demeans real rape victims to lower the threshold to include such petty issues as regret or irresponsible behavior. A woman who wakes up regretting her behavior the night before should not be in the same category as someone who was physically assaulted or given a date rape drug.
BFM: Your comment at 12:33 said it so much better than I did.
“Have some Madeira my dear” is grounds for arrest!
England needs prohibition. Have any of you folks on the blog ever visited? They are a bunch of drunks. A lot of the women are ugly. So the males have to be drunk to do the deed. A lot of the men are inept so the women have to pay other males to do the deed. If the ugly ones did not get laid then they would not have ugly offspring. So prohibit alcohol for the good of mankind. And maybe their Parliament wont have ugly women members with cobwebs on their heads. How they get laid with that thing on there is a big question. What a bunch of dorks. Watch them on CSPAN during session. Jeso.
I disagree with this law, unless they changed it to the legal equivalent of “intoxicated to the point of incapacity.” If someone is unconscious or nearly so they are literally unable to consent to anything.
To absolve a woman of all responsibility with such a vague reference to intoxication, while giving full responsibility to the man, even when he is intoxicated, is treating two human beings completely differently based only on gender.
Why is a woman unable to give consent, but the man must be fully responsible, with the same BAC? What if a woman drank just enough that her normal inhibitions loosened, she willingly and enthusiastically slept with a man, and then woke up with morning after regret? Does that make the man a rapist? Must men travel with a breathalyzer? How would a man know if a woman was intoxicated? What is the legal limit for intoxicated? What about different metabolisms? A woman like me who rarely drinks would be completely drunk on very little alcohol. If her date noted how little she drank, there would be no way for him to tell that it affected her metabolically more than it would the average person. What if a guy just begs and pleads and she caves in, but regrets it afterward. Is that rape?
In my opinion, all men are being viewed as potential rapists, while all women seem to be absolved of personal responsibility. The threshold of rape is being lowered from the very serious crime that it is, to encompass morning after regret. College campuses are now teaching that saying “no” or pushing someone away is not even required. What is required? Mind reading? A psychic to guess what the woman will feel about it tomorrow?
For me, feminism means that women and men have equal rights. This law does not create equal rights. It makes men in charge of everything, regardless of alcohol intake, while absolving women of all responsibility with the same alcohol concentration.
Rape is a very serious, traumatic crime with life changing effects. It demeans real rape victims to lower the threshold to include such petty issues as regret or irresponsible behavior. A woman who wakes up regretting her behavior the night before should not be in the same category as someone who was physically assaulted or given a date rape drug.
Nick Spinelli
1, June 3, 2015 at 2:54 pm
Dame Elish looks like she has not gotten any in decades. Maybe that’s the problem.
————-
Don’t MOST Radical Feminists? 😀
Awwww Thank you Nick!!!!
If only Feminism held the same meaning as it was once supposed to… Equality.
This is why I don’t call myself a feminist.
If woman TRULY want equality, then they have to be held EQUALLY responsible for having
sexual relations when drunk.
Women have sexual relations with intoxicated men, will women be held in the same
responsibility for this or is this law ONLY directed at men?
Now, if what she meant by Intoxicated was being Passed Out, then I agree, but, that is already a
law, as that person is not able to consent, being they are incapacitated.
They don’t need to make up NEW laws, just start re-enforcing the laws that are on the books.
and they NEED to stop calling EVERYTHING sexual assault, for example, a man kisses a woman
without asking…. This is NOT sexual assault. UNWANTED advances are also NOT sexual assault.
The Younger generation is VERY confused on this issue.
I read a post once about a guy and a girl started dating.
when they were getting to know each other, she informed him that she did not like morning sex.
One morning after she spent the night at his house, they were playing around and
ended up having sex.
Afterwards, she was fine….
She left his house, and called the police and said he raped her.
So, even though they had sex and were doing this together, she felt that since she told him
she did not like morning sex, that them having sex in the morning constituted actual rape.
If they NEED ideas as to what to do…. here is one:
They NEED to start prosecuting women who make false rape accusations,
and if a woman is found guilty of falsely accusing a man of rape, then she needs to
serve the same amount of time the man would have had to serve had he actually raped her, OR even more
time.. being that an accusation like that, can ruin a mans life.
Indeed. Their judgement is impaired and unreliable on intoxicants, according to women themselves.
“Unsafe at any speed” is the new feminist motto.
“She is also clearly correct that at some level of intoxication there cannot be consent. ”
‘At some level….’
What level is that exactly?
What number …exactly?
Such an amorphous claim is pure horse hockey.
Unconscious? No argument.
But until that level….what?
The only conclusion is that women should not be ALLOWED to drink and have sex (or really be involved in any other activity), precisely because they cannot give reliable affirmative consent.
Pogo – it is clear to me that any woman who has a drink should not be allowed around children or allowed to drive.
Are We Good 2 Go? The Mobile App for affirmative consent for sexual activity.
good2goapp.com/
Thank you
http://www.kamuevi.com/haber/2089/oecd-egitim-raporunda-41-sirada-yer-aldik.html
However, I will agree with those who are think this is treating women like children. It is exactly like that. It is paternalistic.
We’ll either see a rise in the number of attorney’s specializing in this area of the law, notaries (with consent forms) setting up shop next to bars or both.
Olly – I see notaries riding along with couples to lover’s lanes or their apts
This new ruling does not nail every guy who has sex with a woman following an evening’s drinking. It simply allows for a situation to be argued from the beginning through the other perspective, that of the woman.
What kind of nonsense is this? The proposed law would have two requirements to prove rape:
1. A complaint, and
2. Evidence she drank any alcohol.
Your right Paul. At this rate of “progress”, next will be laws against woman working, then take away the vote and finally Burqas.
@Paul
Exactly, and that is what I was aiming at.
The side arguing for these restrictions cannot –cannot– answer that very simple question.
What counts as proof for consent?
How will you prove a woman is not drunk or high when consenting?
Pogo – I suppose the university could issue BACs to each student on campus and they could rate themselves at the critical juncture. Whomever is lower is the rapist.
And, more to these new rules, exactly how do you prove consent, especially if it must be repeatedly requested and granted along the multi-step 1st-home base path of sexual contracting envisioned by these lunatic SJWs?
Seriously, what is proof?
This is not a trick question.
Pogo – at least one university is requiring written consent by parties as they go along. Now I am sure that is not a mood breaker, but who knows.
Indeed, women can now merely claim exposure to alcohol or mind or mood-altering substances to CTRL-Z a Bad Decision.