Rape & Alcohol - the new advertising campaign

[Saffron]

There has been a great deal on the news lately about how the governement are planning to introduce new laws to help rape conviction rates increase, in particular relating to cases where the victim was drunk. There is a planned poster campaign aimed at men, stressing that they should get clear consent before initiating sex, and warning them that if they do not, they could be charged with rape.

I was wondering what opinions you all have on the subject. Before I go on, i must make absolutely clear that I am ONLY referring to cases where the issue of consent is being debated, NOT stranger rape, or rape with physical violence or mental duress involved.

I am aware that there are predatory people out there who will take advantage of someone who has had so much to drink that they are not really capable of saying no, or making a decision.

However I am also aware that alcohol lowers our inhibitions to the extent that we will do things that we wouldn't normally consider in the cold light of day. Many many people have had drunken one night stands with people that they wouldn't normally be attracted to sexually, and bitterly regretted it the following day. Is this rape? If so, most people I know have been raped.

The problem I have with this new campaign is this:

Women are slowly having all responsibility for their own safety removed from them, and quite frankly I find this ridiculous and insulting. It is as though we are all potential victims who are incapable of taking any sort of responsibility. We really shouldn't allow ourselves to get into the state where we are in a potentially dangerous situation and incapable of making a lucid decision. Surely most women are capable of deciding who they want to have sex with, even after a couple of bottles of wine?

I accept that there are cases where women are raped or assaulted because they are incapable of saying no, or even unconscious, and this is despciable. But it is time we took at least some responsibility for our own safety. After all, we wouldn't go away for the weekend and leave our house unlocked, would we?

Additionally, I still don't really understand how this will help conviction rates. So in court, a man claim that he sought consent, and that consent was given. His victim will say that no consent was given. This still leaves us in the situation where the evidence is one person's word against another. How does this help? Unless the government are planning on making it illegal to have sex with a drunk woman, it doesn't reallly help at all, does it? If anyone can explain, I would be very interested to hear.

And finally, it again shifts the burden of proof to the defence, not the prosecution. A man can state that he did seek consent, but unless he can sonehow prove it, it is unlikely the jury will believe him.

Thoughts, anyone?

[diana_holbourn]

I suspect this has come about partly as a backlash because of the callous manipulative way lawyers have behaved in the past, suggesting strongly to the court that since an accuser was drunk, she was perhaps behaving too irresponsibly to have given a clear refusal and thus was partly to blame for what happened, or that if she'd been drinking, how could she be sure that while she was drunk, she didn't consent, or how could she have been thinking clearly enough to refuse, or that kind of thing. They have apparently done this in the past regardless of the evidence. In future, perhaps there will be more burden on the defendant to explain why he did such an irresponsible thing as to have sex with a person while they were drunk and less able to make a clear decision, thus turning things around. If lawyers disciplined themselves to ask questions that were strictly fair and didn't go all out to incriminate the other side by whatever means they can, or if the system itself was changed to make it less adversarial, there probably wouldn't be a perceived need for this kind of thing.

Perhaps children could be taught in schools to behave more responsibly than to get so drunk that they make themselves vulnerable to this kind of thing. I found an article on the Internet just a couple of days ago about a program that's been tried in some schools that teaches the positive benefits of staying sober enough to remain a good judge of things: New Anti-drug Program Shows 'phenomenal' Success By Focusing On Positives:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>A newly-released study suggests that a well-designed in-school and community communication campaign really can dramatically cut marijuana and alcohol use among young teens.

In a study of 32 schools in 16 communities around the country, researchers found that the campaign cut in half the number of students who began using marijuana and alcohol during the two years of the project, compared to students in communities without the program.[/b][/quote]

Perhaps this could be one way sexual assault and sex regretted later could be cut down.

[Saffron]

I personally think that the only real solution is for people to start treating sexual encounters more seriously. after all, it is meant to be an act of love. As humans, what sets us apart from animals is our ability to override basic animal instincts. sadly, we live in an age where instant sexual gratification is seen as the norm, and in fact in some magazines and television programs is actually encouraged as being "cool".

with regard to the callous questioning of some rape victims, and the implication they they were behaving irresponsibly by being drunk: my understanding was that the amount of acohol consumed has a direct bearing on how reliable a witness&#39;s testimony is likely to be. Alcohol affects our memories after all, and can trigger strange and aggressive reactions in the most mild mannered of people.

For example, if both the defendant and the accuser were drunk to the point of falling over, it is possible that neither of them can recall events accurately. If one was sober and the other completely drunk, then surely the sober testimony is more reliable. this can apply to both parties - someone attacked by a drunk person, and a drunk person attacked by a sober person.

However, in cases where both parties are drunk, putting the onus on the man to check that consent is given still doesn&#39;t solve anything. All it means it that more hungover women will wake up in the morning feeling a bit grubby and possibly a bit used and regretful, and be able to convince themselves they were raped. And when the case gets to court, it would still be one person&#39;s word against another.

Of course if people weren&#39;t so ready to jump into bed with someone, it wouldn&#39;t happen anyway.

[Rights Fighter]

The next thing is, we'll have to give written consent or talk into a recording device saying we consent! That in itself is insulting to both parties.

However, that probably wouldn't work as you'll then get some women who will say they "changed their mind" after siging said agreement or making verbal recorded permission.

Where will this end? I agree with Saffron that it is insulting that responsibility seems to be taken away from women in this way. I wonder where the idea originated and if it came from a man or woman?

I have to say that I come under the banner of one of the many who has been very naughty after a night out! But I would never cry rape in that instance. If I am "responsible" enough to go out and get plastered and then find somebody attractive (who in sobriety I wouldn't look at twice) then I have the responsibility to admit that I made the mistake.

RF

[friday]

it makes no difference. the system is screwed. i was drunk, i said no (and trust me there is no way he didnt hear), i had injuries, i had a report from a nurse, from a witness who saw me visibly distressed after the rape (he was a stranger who looked after me because i was a complete mess) and the result?

hung jury.

so i dont think for one second this will change how many people get convicted, just maybe make people a little more cautious when someone is verging on unconscious, which they should have been doing anyway.