Sex abuse groups welcome proposed legislation changes
Sex abuse groups welcome proposed legislation changes
Sex abuse help groups are welcoming plans to improve justice around sexual offending. The Ministry of Justice has issued a public discussion document, Improvements to Sexual Violence Legislation in New Zealand, on proposed changes to the Crimes and Evidence Acts. One of the proposals is that accused sex offenders, arguing their alleged victims consented to what happened, may have to prove in court how they gained consent. The ministry is also suggesting that the rape shield law, which limits the accused's ability to cross-examine a complainant about the past sexual behaviour, be extended to include previous sexual experience between the complainant and the accused. A 2001 study found 19 per cent of women and 5 per cent of men had experienced sexual violence at some stage, and young women and Maori women were at a greater risk. An estimated 90 per cent of sexual offences went unreported and the conviction rate for sexual offences is lower than for other crimes. It also found that many victims who had gone through a trial said they felt their behaviour was scrutinised more than the accused.
If you try to use insanity as a defence to murder, you have to prove that insanity, likewise if you are trying to claim consent as a defense to rape, you should have to show how you attempted to gain that consent, if a group of your peers doesn’t believe it, you can’t use it. This will cause a massive change in the way a lot of men go about cruising for sex, it seems being drunk is enough of a consent for some, but this law will force people to be a lot more responsible for their actions, gone are the days a rape suspect could claim consent from the sparkle in the victims eye. This move will make many men nervous, which shows how desperate the need to debate what consent really means, ‘she was gagging for it’ won’t suffice any longer.
posted by Bomber @ 6:50 am
26 comments
26 Comments:
What a complete and utter load of shit Bo ber.
Please explain how someone is going to prove consent?
It will come down to 'he said, she said'.
In fact even you seem a little confused about it -
show how you attempted to gain that consent
Is there a form to sign?, need a third party to witness it "yes we're going to go and have a good root and you guys are our witnesses"?
Come on.
Using the Law to 'send a message' is a stupid idea. The Law is the Law (to quote Judge D).
This is the perfect example why people of your ilk should not be near any of the mechanisms to create new laws.
Its also the perfect example of the type of damage 'the Left' has done to our country in the last 9 years.
No wonder you guys are on the way out, when you keep on coming up with this wishy washy bull.
show how you attempted to gain that consent
Is there a form to sign?, need a third party to witness it "yes we're going to go and have a good root and you guys are our witnesses"?
If the question is rape you will need to show how you attempted to get consent won't you, and the threshold is one the Jury will decide on. Why isn't it the responsibility of the person who is accused of rape to show how they gained that consent?
Legio X said...
Is this the same legio who believes global warming is a hoax?
Legio X said...
What a complete and utter load of shit Bo ber.
Please explain how someone is going to prove consent?
It will come down to 'he said, she said'.
In fact even you seem a little confused about it -
show how you attempted to gain that consent
Is there a form to sign?, need a third party to witness it "yes we're going to go and have a good root and you guys are our witnesses"?
Come on.
Using the Law to 'send a message' is a stupid idea. The Law is the Law (to quote Judge D).
This is the perfect example why people of your ilk should not be near any of the mechanisms to create new laws.
Its also the perfect example of the type of damage 'the Left' has done to our country in the last 9 years.
No wonder you guys are on the way out, when you keep on coming up with this wishy washy bull.
Funny when it is men having to explain their actions it suddenly becomes impossible to do. How typical.
No wonder you guys are on the way out, when you keep on coming up with this wishy washy bull.
50% of NZers don't believe National are honest, I think you are well off the mark mate
anon 8.07am - yeah but National win and you have to get off your arse and get a job, then you are stuffed!
anon 8.07am - yeah but National win and you have to get off your arse and get a job, then you are stuffed!
Can everyone imagine the rage National supporters are going to feel if the Maoris and Greenies give Labour a majority?
Two drunk people are making out in bar, they are with groups of friends who see them making out, the two leave together not under any form of duress and go back to her place. They have more drinks then fall into bed and have sex. The woman wakes up and completely regrets having sex with the guy - he is a complete deadbeat or whatever, or the woman is mentally unstable, for whatever reason she claims she was raped. Now, no outright consent was ever given, there might have been implied consent. She never said No or Stop.
A false rape charge can destroy lives, an unsound conviction could be even worse. There should be zero tolarance for any form of sexual crime, but this proposed change is unworkable.
The problem with the main thrust of this legislation that it'll create situations like the one above.
Or are two, potentially intoxicated, people suppose to stop in mid flow and one say to the other "oh, do you mind if we have sex?" or "could you sign this release form?"
The point is sexual intercourse is generally a private transaction between two people and it will still come down to "she said, he said".
This will cause a massive change in the way a lot of men go about cruising for sex, it seems being drunk is enough of a consent for some,
You must hang out with some real dicks, I've haven't come across too many men (other than gay men) that "cruise for sex" or think taking advantage of a drunk woman is an acceptable thing to do.
‘she was gagging for it’ won’t suffice any longer.
I doubt that defence suffices at the moment, so why change the law?
An estimated 90 per cent of sexual offences went unreported
Where does that estimate come from? It has a wiff of bullshit about it.
show how you attempted to gain that consent
This is getting perilously close to "guilty til proven innocent" stage
Saying:If you try to use insanity as a defence to murder, you have to prove that insanity, likewise if you are trying to claim consent as a defense to rape, is a very weak comparison - expert opinion in the form of doctors, psychiatrists etc can be bought in to do tests on a person to judge sanity.
How can you possibly bring in any sort of expert opion on "attempt to gain consent"?
This will cause a massive change in the way a lot of men go about cruising for sex,
I doubt very much that this law will changethe way young people gog to the pub in the weekend, get pissed and hook up.
but this law will force people to be a lot more responsible for their actions,
Great! a law that forces personable responsibility! Now can we have a law that forces people to be responsible for their own unhealthy lifestyles i.e. substances abuse, obesity, stds, having babnies they can't afford to look after?
Cause I'm sick to death of paying for other people whowant to piss their lives away and then expect the government to pick up the tab when it all turns to shit for them.
The courts will be able to impute intention to consent through the actions of the parties involved not through any written contract or whatever.
If the victim invites the accused back to her house and in the absence of bruise marks or evidence to the contrary the court would have to accept the defence. It really changes nothing.
You should really get some proper legal knowledge bomber
Sweetie, AFter three years of dating and stuff, I know this is a bit of a hassle all the time, but would you , once again, sign this consent for for me? I've dated it for the whole week we're here in Wellington for the Festival. Oh, yuou still want a separate form for every time - OK!
Your honour, I tried to get her to verbally consent, but her mouth was full of blood engorged flesh at the time and shoul wouldn't stop long enough to specifically consent. Oh, that's not a good enough attempt! Sorry.
WHat's that your honour, you're convicting me of making P because my home laboratory includes the equipment to make it - well sir, in that case you better convict me or rape too, as I've got the equipment for that as well!
I WILL NEVER CONDONE RAPE, by the same time a law that says "PROVE" a verbal undertaking was made is akin to the concept of 'prove you have stopped beating your mistress'. If you don't have a mistress, it can't be proven; if you do but never beat her it can't be proven either. Can any of you prove you slept more than six hours in the last week?
'prove you have stopped beating your mistress'
But that's th issue isn't it - the brusies on your mistress show you beat her, whether you are now isn't the issue
WHat's that your honour, you're convicting me of making P because my home laboratory includes the equipment to make it - well sir, in that case you better convict me or rape too, as I've got the equipment for that as well!
That isn't what is beng argued, if you use consent as a defense for rape, just as if you use insanity as a defence in muder, then you need to proove it, why shouldn't men have to hold their actions up to scrutiny, what exactly did you do to get consent? What did you say, did you ask or was she too drunk to answer and you thought that was good enough hu boys?
'prove you have stopped beating your mistress'
But that's th issue isn't it - the brusies on your mistress show you beat her, whether you are now isn't the issue
Missed the point entirely. Some things are inherently unable to be proved after the fact, unless you take action at the time to capture evidence of the proof.
E.g. You took a dump this morning, could you prove you deposited two stools into the toilet bowl, rather than one? The toilet has been flushed multiple times since you used it, the skid marks have gone and the stools are floating out towards Australia now.
Unless you had a witness or took a photo at the time, you wouldn't be able to prove anything.
That isn't what is beng argued, if you use consent as a defense for rape, , why shouldn't men have to hold their actions up to scrutiny, what exactly did you do to get consent? What did you say, did you ask or was she too drunk to answer and you thought that was good enough hu boys?
*Cough*virgin*Cough*
just as if you use insanity as a defence in muder, then you need to proove it
As has already been shown, there is no comparrison between proving insanity and proving you got consent - it all comes down to he said/she said.
But its a waste of time telling you this: You'll find out when actually have sex with someone that people don't make fromal agreements about what there are doing when they get down to business.
E.g. You took a dump this morning, could you prove you deposited two stools into the toilet bowl, rather than one? The toilet has been flushed multiple times since you used it, the skid marks have gone and the stools are floating out towards Australia now.
You are comparing rape with taking a dump?
*Cough*virgin*Cough*
Sums up the contempt you have for men taking responsibility for their actions.
As has already been shown, there is no comparrison between proving insanity and proving you got consent
Where?
But its a waste of time telling you this: You'll find out when actually have sex with someone that people don't make fromal agreements about what there are doing when they get down to business.
She was too drunk to answer and you took that as a yes?
Question:
Two drunk people are making out in bar, they are with groups of friends who see them making out, the two leave together not under any form of duress and go back to his place. They have more drinks then fall into bed and have sex. The man wakes up and completely regrets having sex with the woman - she is a complete deadbeat or whatever, or the man is mentally unstable, for whatever reason he claims he was raped. Now, no outright consent was ever given, there might have been implied consent. He never said No or Stop.
Do you think the man will have a chance in court? or is it only women who can play the rape card?
After all its always the mans fault!
Am I missing something ... by introducing such a law wouldn't it force the accused person to provide some sort of explanation that can be examined ...
this will give the jury two versions of events to examine and the ability to make a judgement about consent ...
As I understand it ... the common practise is for the alleged victim to make an allegation to which the accused is not obliged to answer ...
that allegation [and inturn the complainant] is then subjected to rigirous examination and that person is then forced to justify every action ... and some of which are stupid [but no excuse for rape]
I have no issue in obliging the accused person to provide a subjective assessment of why they believed they had obtained sexual consent ...
I also have sufficent faith in 12 ordinary people assessing both sides of that storey ... rather than the one sided system we currently have ... i'm a bloke in my late 20's ... and can't think of a sexual encounter that i couldn't present at least a reasonble argument for why I believed I had such consent ...
and if I read the law right [and I may be corrected here] if you honestly and reasonably believe you had consent ... you cannot be convicted anyway
But its a waste of time telling you this: You'll find out when actually have sex with someone that people don't make fromal agreements about what there are doing when they get down to business.
She was too drunk to answer and you took that as a yes?
Not that I condone even trying to get it on with someone so shitfaced they can't say yay or nay, but the cops get to use non-response as a 'yes' to their requests. Consent could also be non-verbal, reciprocating sexual activity or even just standing still and taking it can be implied consent, where as making gestures to push away or move away would be an implied no.
Anyway back to my wiskey and coke... it's been a long week.
Sums up the contempt you have for men taking responsibility for their actions.
No, child, it sums up my contempt for people who want to butt into a duscussion they clearly know nothing about.
Where?
Try re-reading the thread, and this time include the posts that you didn't write.
She was too drunk to answer and you took that as a yes?
Was who too drunk? What are you on about?
Read Paul's post to get a clue on what the rest of us are on about because it is pretty obvious you are a few years away from the real life experience?
I am a legend.
I am legend? decent movie. Whats your point?
No, child, it sums up my contempt for people who want to butt into a duscussion they clearly know nothing about.
No daddy it means you don't want to be responsible for consent.
Try re-reading the thread, and this time include the posts that you didn't write.
Daddy if they are so easy to find cut and paste them, all I see answering your concerns is Am I missing something ... by introducing such a law wouldn't it force the accused person to provide some sort of explanation that can be examined ...
this will give the jury two versions of events to examine and the ability to make a judgement about consent ...
As I understand it ... the common practise is for the alleged victim to make an allegation to which the accused is not obliged to answer ...
that allegation [and inturn the complainant] is then subjected to rigirous examination and that person is then forced to justify every action ... and some of which are stupid [but no excuse for rape]
I have no issue in obliging the accused person to provide a subjective assessment of why they believed they had obtained sexual consent ...
I also have sufficent faith in 12 ordinary people assessing both sides of that storey ... rather than the one sided system we currently have ... i'm a bloke in my late 20's ... and can't think of a sexual encounter that i couldn't present at least a reasonble argument for why I believed I had such consent ...
and if I read the law right [and I may be corrected here] if you honestly and reasonably believe you had consent ... you cannot be convicted anyway
No daddy it means you don't want to be responsible for consent.
So this is your idea of argument? "I know you are, you said you are but what am i?"
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Well Bomber you have found your new Most H8d, at least the old one was entertaining and had a bit of life experience behind him.
This one? Dullllllllllllllllll.........
interesting news story today
Party fears sees rapist's parole denied
Look at this quote...
"It is clear that in the atmosphere that then prevailed, in which Mr Owen was an enthusiastic participant, consent to sexual intercourse was mostly assumed, never respectfully sought."
The board declined his parole. It will see him again in six months.
Now I compare that comment with one above You'll find out when actually have sex with someone that people don't make fromal agreements about what there are doing when they get down to business.
Hmmm.
Post a Comment
<< Home