Guilty verdict in "he said she said" case changes the landscape of Criminal Justice

[Breccia]

so if both were drunk both should be arrested for rape?

*seems if he was too drunk to understand consent he was too Drunk to give consent too. Judges hand should have been tied both ways and charged her with rape also.

Actually legally the fault is with the initiator. So not both of them, no.

[Canpinter]

and people wounder why some of us are worried about an anti male bias in the court system?

[Deleted]

Actually legally the fault is with the initiator. So not both of them, no.

Does a text saying we should fuck count as initiating the act?

[Zenfoldor]

Seems more like men should just opt out of women, if they can simply tell a life and death lie(not that this case is a lie necessarily, but there is no way to know) and be believed without any evidence or even any circumstantial evidence to back it up.

It seems like a very dangerous world to be a young college male with an active sex life. There is a lot of incentive to lie about this as well. From financial, to revenge, to hero worship in some cases. People kill their babies for attention, many people are horrible and will do stuff to hurt you when it benefits them, male or female.

[Breccia]

So that only applies to women ? He was also drunk so she also CLEARLY raped him ? Or is that again something that only women can benefit from ?

No. It applies to Canadians, not just women Canadians.

Again: the way the law is written, the judge really had no choice. Maybe a case like this will force a change in the law, but the way it's written right now, drunk = no consent.

- - - Updated - - -

Does a text saying we should fuck count as initiating the act?

No. Canadian law section 273 is also very specific about changing your mind and/or stopping after a certain stage of sexual activity.

[Canpinter]

No. It applies to Canadians, not just women Canadians.

Again: the way the law is written, the judge really had no choice. Maybe a case like this will force a change in the law, but the way it's written right now, drunk = no consent.

- - - Updated - - -



No. Canadian law section 273 is also very specific about changing your mind and/or stopping after a certain stage of sexual activity.

by this logic almost everyone is a rape victim because most people have had drunken sex at some point in there lives.

[Canpinter]

What I find hilarious about some of these people bitching is that normally, most of the time when a guy DID rape a girl he often times gets away with it or there isn't enough evidence against them. The people who don't bitch at this are most likely the ones who bitch when the jury decides to believe the girl.

its normal to be more concerned with potentially innocent people going to jail then people who are guilty not being punished.

[oplawlz]

Hopefully this case will be quickly overturned on appeal by someone who understands how the Salem witch trials happened, and this judge is brought under censure. Impassioned pleas and the utter conviction of moral obligation are possibly the worst basis for criminal law.

[Theodarzna]

by this logic almost everyone is a rape victim because most people have had drunken sex at some point in there lives.

Perhaps we do really secretly want to ban liquor but having failed to ban alcohol last time around we plan to just widdle it away by making it a ticket to prison by other means.

- - - Updated - - -

What I find hilarious about some of these people bitching is that normally, most of the time when a guy DID rape a girl he often times gets away with it or there isn't enough evidence against them. The people who don't bitch at this are most likely the ones who bitch when the jury decides to believe the girl.

I'd rather 10 guilty people go free than 1 innocent person go to prison.

[Slythan]

The judge is running for political office?

Sounds very much from information provided that he had an agenda to push and was using the case to become the precedent setting judge. He won't be the first to do it. It's a pretty disgusting aspect of the justice system that crops up from time to time.

[Zcion999]

What I find hilarious about some of these people bitching is that normally, most of the time when a guy DID rape a girl he often times gets away with it or there isn't enough evidence against them. The people who don't bitch at this are most likely the ones who bitch when the jury decides to believe the girl.

You are blinded by ideology. The issue here has almost nothing to do with rape or genders. The issue here is that apparently a judge decided that someone was guilty WITHOUT any proof, on account of the victim's testimony only. This is incredibly dangerous for our society as a whole. This is what witch trials were, this is what soviet style justice was.

I get it, I really really do. It is incredibly frustrating that guys date raping a girl get away with it because of lack of evidence. I wish there was a better way to deal with that but there isn't. The solution is NOT to inverse the "innocent until PROVEN guilty" system and start giving free reign to women to have any man go to prison on her say so.

[tehealadin]

What I find hilarious about some of these people bitching is that normally, most of the time when a guy DID rape a girl he often times gets away with it or there isn't enough evidence against them. The people who don't bitch at this are most likely the ones who bitch when the jury decides to believe the girl.

If there was no evidence, how can you bitch about a not guilty verdict? It isn't about "believing the girl", it is about convicting someone with no evidence.

[Breccia]

by this logic almost everyone is a rape victim because most people have had drunken sex at some point in there lives.

Um, if one side actually pressed charges and brought the case to court, willing to swear under oath in public they've been raped, then yes, it would. Of course, in this case, the man both admitted to sex and to her being drunk, which did not help his case at all.

I guess the rule is "don't have sex with someone too drunk or high to give consent". Honestly, if she'd been sober, the case probably would have been dismissed. When drunk, consent cannot be given. When sober, it could be.

[Canpinter]

Perhaps we do really secretly want to ban liquor but having failed to ban alcohol last time around we plan to just widdle it away by making it a ticket to prison by other means.

i always find how feminists change the definition of drunk at the drop of a hat interesting. if they say "drunk women cant consent" and are asked what they mean they will say people so drunk they are passed out which makes sense. But as soon as its put into law the definition switches to "had a drink or two just enough to lower inhibitions a bit" its an elastic word they want to be able to use at their discretion.

- - - Updated - - -

Um, if one side actually pressed charges and brought the case to court, willing to swear under oath in public they've been raped, then yes, it would. Of course, in this case, the man both admitted to sex and to her being drunk, which did not help his case at all.

I guess the rule is "don't have sex with someone too drunk or high to give consent". Honestly, if she'd been sober, the case probably would have been dismissed. When drunk, consent cannot be given. When sober, it could be.

when is someone to drunk, whats the BAC where you cant give consent?

[TheMediator]

its normal to be more concerned with potentially innocent people going to jail then people who are guilty not being punished.

Absolutely. Blackstone's ratio is part of the core fabric of western law. An innocent man being jailed is one of the greatest possible injustices in our legal system. In my opinion, perjury is not nearly penalized enough today, legally or socially.

[Breccia]

when is someone to drunk, whats the BAC where you cant give consent?

That isn't numerically defined in Canadian law. But the two of them closed down a bar, and that part of the story is unchallenged, so I doubt it's relevant here.

[Thetruth1400]

Do you agree with this ruling from this high profile rape case?

What does it mean for such cases moving forward?

How should "he said she said" cases be handled?

All I can say is, I'm glad it's not America this time.

That aside, I honestly can see how this happened, but it's frankly bullshit. The evidence detected his semen in her, and her story is he raped her. There's evidence for what she's saying.

It's pretty damn sad though that it feels like, as a man, you have to wear a body camera and ask for consent before every trust, because if not, you could become a rapist. If both of you are drunk, doesn't matter she didn't give consent because she couldn't. If you are drunk and have sex, again, you must have wanted it or else you couldn't have gotten it up. If she wakes up the next day and regrets her decision, drunk or not, her story can turn you into a rapist.

There needs to be updated laws, and that has to include what is and isn't consent. Frankly, if you're inviting someone in for the evening, as long as they don't pin you down, tie you up, or forcibly rape you, consent should be implied. Likewise, there needs to be a limit on the time period you can claim rape, and there needs to be evidence. Sorry, but if you decide two months down the road that you didn't want it and it comes down to your word, you shouldn't even be able to take that to court, let alone win.

[Dadwen]

Actually legally the fault is with the initiator. So not both of them, no.

Being both here are under the influence who can say who was the initiator, if they are to drunk to give or realizes consent, seems they would be to drunk to realize who initiated it, seems like a bad judge or bad legal setup.

[Zcion999]

i always find how feminists change the definition of drunk at the drop of a hat interesting. if they say "drunk women cant consent" and are asked what they mean they will say people so drunk they are passed out which makes sense. But as soon as its put into law the definition switches to "had a drink or two just enough to lower inhibitions a bit" its an elastic word they want to be able to use at their discretion.

In my mind, having both :

"Drunk driving is your choice and is criminal because you cannot be excused of your actions for being drunk"

and

"You cannot be held responsible for accepting sex when drunk"

Cannot coexist in the same set of laws. Witch is it ? Are we in control or are we not when we are drunk ? (hint: we totally are in control of our actions and decisions)
I am of course not talking about passed out. This is something else entirely.

[Queen of Hamsters]

So basically being progressive will actually be the new phase of religion.

Pretty much, yes... as if we didn't have enough of fanatics running around...