Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Dejarma

Accused of rape= what does that mean exactly?

61 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Stiff
6 hours ago, Dejarma said:

who's the victim??=

The man.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
MWoo7

 

.

.

.

.

9 hours ago, Stiff said:

The man.

The majority of the time, pretty much in everything dealing with courts guaranteed down in the states.  Did the juggernaut mind of someone's wife (( now filthy rich EX-WIFE) build Amazon?

Edited by MWoo7
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ruby04

Unless both parties can 100% consent it is rape. 

If someone is drunk to very drunk they no longer are in control of their own thoughts and cannot fully consent. 

Even in committed relationship rape happens. 

 

Around both my ex and my partner I have been very drunk and neither would do anything sexually as they saw it as I could not fully consent. 

Twice when my ex was drunk he was told no by me because he could not consent.

 

Consent from both parties no matter the gender is needed. 

It has nothing to do with oh you were at a bar or club and drunk. 

 

Hell I was at a bar seeing a live band with a guy friend of mine, I got very drunk and he didn’t let me out of his sight until my partner picked me up. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peter B
On 1/19/2019 at 12:08 PM, Dejarma said:

Example 1: a man meets a woman at a nightclub...

The drinks are flowing, they get on great & end up having sex...

The woman (the next day) thinks: 'oh dam what have I done' realizing in the heat of the moment she had sex with this man. 

Feels disgusted with herself & decides to claim rape= that's why she had sex because it was rape=  a subconscious way of justifying it? Was she forced? Well there's the problem= who knows? The man is put in front of a jury...

Example 2: a man hides behind a wall, jumps out on a poor unfortunate woman/ punches her in the face & has sex with her= the man is eventually court & put in front of a jury...

Technically these 2 scenarios are both classed as rape! Is it right because the man at the nightclub will have <<acused of rape>> on his record?

There's an obvious difference here but why are they both classed as RAPE???== again: 'what does that mean, exactly'?

Why are they both classed as rape? Well, would they?

The offence a person is charged with depends on the evidence available to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP - or whatever the equivalent is where you live). That in turn depends on the evidence the police are able to collect - evidence from the man and woman in each case, witness statements from people in the vicinity, CCTV footage, and so on. Based on the narratives you give in the two examples, I suspect the men would end up being charged with different offences.

For the two men in your examples to be charged with identical offences means there would have to be substantially similar evidence. If the evidence was considerably different, then the men would be charged with different offences. In your examples you provide one substantial point of difference: in example two the man punched the woman in the face, and I'd reckon (keeping in mind I'm not a lawyer) that alone would be sufficient for the charge to be upgraded compared to example one. The other point of difference is consent. I'm fairly sure no jury in example two is going to believe the woman gave consent. However I could well imagine that a jury would be a lot more conflicted about consent in example one.

So in the case of the laws here in Canberra, example one would appear to be "sexual assault in the third degree" (section 53 of the Crimes Act 1900) while example two would be "sexual assault in the second degree", (s.52) or maybe in the first degree (s.51). These are difference offences and have different punishments.

But then there's the practical matter: I suspect example one is unlikely to go to trial in the first place. What story is the woman in example one going to tell the police in order to get the man into trouble? At some point in the narrative, what the woman tells police happened is going to become different from what actually happened. She is therefore going to have to be very careful what she tells the police to ensure they don't discover her story doesn't match what you've described as actually happening.

Now to your other point: I don't know exactly how criminal records are kept, but I think you'll find that accusations aren't recorded. So if a man is accused of a crime and sent to trial and then found not guilty, he's not going to have "<<accused of rape>> on his record".

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peter B

And just to provide a bit of context, here's a very recent story from here in Canberra about a woman who concocted a sexual assault story:

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/act/how-fake-allegations-landed-an-innocent-man-in-jail-20190117-p50s0c.html

Now before you start claiming that women concocting false rape claims is a serious issue, and using this story as evidence, I just wanted to make a couple of points:

1. This story isn't much like your example one. In particular, the woman's actions stemmed from a serious relationship breakdown which occurred over a period of months, not from a woman's regret about going through with a one night stand.

2. The woman's story unravelled as the police investigated the evidence she presented: the condom found at the scene of the alleged assault was of a different brand from the ones found at the man's house and had none of the man's DNA on it; despite allegedly being violently assaulted her hair and clothes were unmessed and intact; and her car's GPS showed she'd driven to the in-law's house on the day she claimed they'd stolen her iPad, showing she had serious problems with telling the truth.

Now sure, this turned out to be a horrific ordeal for the man, and I don't think there was much else he could have done to avoid the web of lies the woman attempted to create. But in my experience, stories like this are very rare. The problem is that stories like this also make good cinema, so while I can't think of any other real cases like this, I can think of two movies involving storylines of women concocting sexual assault allegations ("Disclosure" and "Gone Girl"). Still, in each case the reason for the concoctions is far more complex than morning-after regret.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

I think men just have to accept our word is second best. A few Jerks have given our entire sex a bad name. We are stereotyped before given the chance to explain ourselves. 

The systems does work too sometimes though. This fellow, Gable Tosti I honestly feel would be jail for murder right now if he didn't record most of his hookup on his phone. He is an idiot, but not a murderer. 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/oct/20/gable-tostee-cleared-over-death-of-warriena-wright-during-tinder-date

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
On 1/18/2019 at 7:58 PM, Golden Duck said:

That alcohol has complicated the situation. Lawyers will be looking and what may, or may not, constutitute reasonable consent.

Yes and if they are both impaired legally neither one of them can give consent and unfortunately asking the judge" Do you think I would have slept with her if I was sober?" might be detrimental to a fair consideration of circumstances.:lol:

jmccr8

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Impedancer

It's not that hard....If it' s non consensual it's rape. if we were forced to sign a document before having sex it would be sort of a turn off :-D

Edited by Impedancer
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Impedancer
4 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Yes and if they are both impaired legally neither one of them can give consent and unfortunately asking the judge" Do you think I would have slept with her if I was sober?" might be detrimental to a fair consideration of circumstances.:lol:

jmccr8

It's all in the eye of the beer holder :-)

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Impedancer

It's all in the eye of the beer holder :-)  "beholder" "boooo get him out of here" I know, I know it was a bad joke. :-)
 

Edited by Impedancer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MWoo7

That's a proverb from some sacred book ..... re:     "      It's all in the eye of the beer holder :-)    "

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.