Group Sex fantasies make rape OK? (29)

Yes, sometimes I'm stunned at that too, but unlike Mr Tatchell, I don't regard it as A Bad Thing

If the case was over before the judge made his comments (which it was), then they are in any event irrelevant. But judges do have a duty to inform the jury in plain language of what is going on at all times. Presumably that is when he made these comments.

Firstly the base line is that rape is a very difficult offence to prove. The prosecution must prove that the complainant did not consent and that the defendant knew or should have known that she did not consent.

A lot of allegations come down to - a man and a woman are in a private place together. Afterwards she claims to have been raped, he says it was consensual sex. How do you PROVE that she can be relied upon and he's lying ?

That is why even peripheral inaccuracies in a complainant's account can lead to a failed prosecution.

However Peter Tatchell makes a sound legal and moral point - just because someone has had group sex fantasies doesn't mean that a group of men have the right to have sex with her. She has to consent at the time - and if she stops consenting then any sex after that is rape. The prosecution SHOULD NOT have dropped the case based on the complainant's previous sexual fantasies. The problem could however have come if the complainant had lied to the court about this in her evidence ("I've never had group sex fantasies" "I've never discussed group sex fantasies with anyone else") although it would seem harsh to me to have dropped the case on this point alone. It may have been that there had been other inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence and that this was the straw that broke the camel's back.

However on the face of the original report - that the case was dropped because the complainant's sexual fantasies had been revealed to include group sex - I would agree with every comment Peter Tatchell made.

The trouble is the original report is based on the reporter's understanding or interpretation of what happened, and almost certainly doesn't reflect what actually happened. In my experience it is highly unlikely nowadays that the prosecution would drop a case or that the judge would make comments like that just because the victim was discovered to have kinky fantasies. There is bound to be more to it than that, but either the reporter didn't understand that, or thought it would make a better story the way he wrote it.

Admin wrote: Tatchell really is a histrionic Daily-Mail style idiot sometimes http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/posts/260915/ All the prosecution had was the prejudice that group sex must have been rape because she wouldn't have consented to group sex. Regards, Admin

I'm concerned that this something Admin comments on as it adds a weight of authority to it that I don't think any of us have. I'd like to think that Admin isn't just an IC member posting opinions.

I hold no candle fr Peter Tatchell but....

There has been a lot of guesswork about why the judge said this or the prosecution did that. It may or may not be right but unless someone has access to the trial documents, I don't see how we can know any more than was in the press reports. So far as I can tell, eh reason given for withdrawing the prosecution was the chat logs and that the woman involved had discussed the concept of having group sex, so far as I recall in Ireland.

The idea that having discussed something hypothetical that might occur in a different country, possibly with a different group of people, would be reason to drop a prosecution for rape without hearing the evidence from both sides is worrying. I should make it clear that I do not assume innocence of guilt on either side, just that a trial is about testing the evidence and that didn't happen here.

Of course there may be something else hat none of know about, but we don't know (or doe we??) so everyone is just guessing that the woman involved said something that contradicted her evidence other than the stated reason of having discussed having group sex on a web chat session.

let's base this on the facts as presented rather than guesswork. If that makes the legal system look scary and biased, well little surprise there, particularly when it comes to rape trials. The conviction rates speak for themselves; either a lot of women are lying or the legal system just isn't up to giving them the justice they need and deserve.

And if anyone really knows that the woman involved actually contradicted herself, please post that information as it woudl make me sleep easier at night. Thanks.

When it came to light that she had that destroyed her credibility. With no other evidence, the case clearly could not go anywhere.

It's nothing to do with her being assumed to have 'had it coming', she simply is not a trustworthy witness.

What men in all the world have shown such daring?

The facts "as presented" do not make it clear what the damage to her credibility was, though clearly the reporter is trying to put a particular newsworthy spin on it. I do not know anything more about this particular case than is in the report.

However I do know more about how the justice system works and the current attitude towards rape. What I find scary is the way the panicky interpretation of this article means that any woman with kinky fantasies will now think they must keep them secret if they go to the police following a rape, or will be too frightened to report an assault at all.

I can't guarantee what happened in this case, but I do know that the police and prosecution are not generally so close minded as to reject rape or assault cases just because someone is kinky. Despite not knowing about this case I would stake quite a lot on that not being the reason they dropped it.

Reporting a rape is never easy, and a kink connection can add complications. However honesty is crucial if you do report something, and I would expect that the large majority of the time you will find sympathy if you admit the kinky connection, and not automatic rejection. It is important not to read this incident as being typical of what would happen to a kinky person who reported a rape, whatever their kink might be.

As for the conviction rates, there seems to be a belief amongst all sorts of people that there is some way we can create a system that will be a reliable way of getting at the truth and that there is some sort of lack of willpower to set it up. Short of a truth drug or 1984 style total surveillance there isn't, and never will be. Rape is particularly difficult to deal with because of its tendency to happen in private and that the physical side is so often agreed - that sex took place. If anyone can come up with a reliable way of proving, beyond reasonable doubt, who is telling the truth when one person says there was consent and the other says there wasn't I'm sure we'd all love to hear it. Until then to criticise the system as failing to give victims justice is absurd - there is no magic wand.

Edited 28 Jan 10, 1:48 PM by mq1965

"Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story."

* * *
.
Hosea 8:7

It's a difficult case due to so few of the facts being known to the general public. I for one would love to know more about why her credibility was shot to pieces. If it's simply that she talked about fantasies, and said her "morals go out of the window", then that's neither here or there as far as I am concerned. If she said no and meant it at the time, then that should be all that counts, if she's been caught lying, then it's a very different story indeed...

XxX

....or didn't want to have sex with those particular men (the lack of acknowledgement that 'wanted sex' does not in fact equal 'wanted sex with YOU' in rape cases is quite astounding). Even fantasising about group sex does not give any Tom, Dick and Harry open access to your vag just because you happen to have arranged the orgy.

I'm assuming that there must have been a pretty robust case up until the point (prosecutors don't work on these cases for months and months only to just dismiss them in court -- must have been infuriating!) that the online chats were revealed, possibly hinging on how she came to be in that situation at all. It's the fact that this evidence came to light that destroyed the prosecutor's case and her credibility as a witness.

"Well-behaved women rarely make history"
http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk

* * *
.
Hosea 8:7