Thanks for the Orgasm

[Lego_Man]

Conduct an enquiry Dodge...maybe the mods enjoyed the more controversial title?

 

[[furrycat]]

Actually no, under new australian law, even consensual sex at the time, if they are intoxicated, and the "victim" later claims rape or doesn't remember the incident, you can still be charged with rape.... Sorry I don't have an official legal link but this gives you the gist of the law.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=410535&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source

That's not to say that she was not drugged, or otherwise. But whatever the crux of her argument is, she definitely has a legal leg to stand on. Laffranchi could be in some very serious trouble.

Does this apply in Australia? The link you have only relates to laws in England.

 

[cumberlandsashes81]

Actually no, under new australian law, even consensual sex at the time, if they are intoxicated, and the "victim" later claims rape or doesn't remember the incident, you can still be charged with rape.... Sorry I don't have an official legal link but this gives you the gist of the law.

It was a NSW law which has established an objective test for consent. You can no longer successfully defend yourself by saying that you believed you had consent if that belief was unreasonable. Now it must be a resonable belief.

One of the new ways in which the law works is that it specifically obliges the jury (i.e. the judge to direct them so) to consider that the ability to give consent may have been impaired by intoxication or... sleeping (as obvious as that may seem). There will of course be other evidence of consent, etc., that will be brought into the defence.

It's not quite as simple as: "having sex with a drunk woman will potentially make you a rapist".

 

[Johnny Bravo]

Does this apply in Australia? The link you have only relates to laws in England.

Sorry I must have posted the wrong link...

Here is another one
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22726261-5001021,00.html

But yes these laws are applicable in australia.

 

[Johnny Bravo]

It was a NSW law which has established an objective test for consent. You can no longer successfully defend yourself by saying that you believed you had consent if that belief was unreasonable. Now it must be a resonable belief.

One of the new ways in which the law works is that it specifically obliges the jury (i.e. the judge to direct them so) to consider that the ability to give consent may have been impaired by intoxication or... sleeping (as obvious as that may seem). There will of course be other evidence of consent, etc., that will be brought into the defence.

It's not quite as simple as: "having sex with a drunk woman will potentially make you a rapist".

I agree with everything you said, however the new laws do give this girl a leg to stand on irrespective of whether or not she consented at the time. Whether he gets charged or not is another matter all together, however there are laws in place that could see him convicted by a jury if the stories are believed to be true by a jury.

 

[cumberlandsashes81]

I agree with everything you said, however the new laws do give this girl a leg to stand on irrespective of whether or not she consented at the time. Whether he gets charged or not is another matter all together, however there are laws in place that could see him convicted by a jury if the stories are believed to be true by a jury.

Well, he's already been charged. He's currently going through a commital hearing to see if he will stand trial...

What I said was a direct explanation of the new laws.

And, by the way, the laws are applicable in NSW, not "Australia".

 

[Johnny Bravo]

Well, he's already been charged. He's currently going through a commital hearing to see if he will stand trial...

What I said was a direct explanation of the new laws.

And, by the way, the laws are applicable in NSW, not "Australia".

I'm not a lawyer, the question was if they were applicable in australia as I posted a british link. It was in a direct response to that, I apologise if I didn't narrow it down enough to a state to meet your standards.

The point I was making was that she was drunk and they had sex, scrap the proceedings type argument does not apply anymore. If you want to nitpick the posts, and go into semantics, go ahead. All I did was post some information about a law that could be used against Laffranchi. I never said I was an expert on the matter, it's quite obvious I'm not a lawyer, I just remembered reading about it in the newspaper a few months ago.

 

[Jatz Crackers]

Without much difficulty, this new law can be construed as a type of reversal of the onus of proof standard, and it is no accident that it falls against the male.

There are increasingly, many examples where feminist ideology is creating environments whereby the male is treated unequally. It will only become obvious to most blokes when their sons fall victim, and there is finally a cultural shift (after the fact) against male gender discrimination.

 

[Jatz Crackers]

And, by the way, the laws are applicable in NSW, not "Australia".

Probably a conspiracy by NSW women to get their boyfriends to take them on more interstate holidays ;-)

 

[themanonthehill]

I wonder if in this brave new date rape world where all men are guilty if one can use the `silence is as good as a nod' defence

Thank f**k i am no longer single and out there having to deal with brain dead head f**ks - say one wrong thing in the morning as you are heading out the door and you're on a (date) rape charge

 

[Lego_Man]

You play that game, you run the risk of getting burned. Which is why i have little sympathy for the girl or laffranchi.

 

[Perth Red]

you would think there would be an onus of being responsible for your own actions. What if he says "I was so drunk i can't remember what happened" and she does as well. What the hell is a jury supposed to do? Still not sure how you can have a case when they are not sure if a crime has been committed as she can't remember anything?

 

[[furrycat]]

you would think there would be an onus of being responsible for your own actions. What if he says "I was so drunk i can't remember what happened" and she does as well. What the hell is a jury supposed to do? Still not sure how you can have a case when they are not sure if a crime has been committed as she can't remember anything?

lol what the hell?
So if he is drunk you're saying he should be excused?
If you did it, you did itand you face prosecution.

 

[innsaneink]

lol what the hell?
So if he is drunk you're saying he should be excused?
If you did it, you did itand you face prosecution.

Different rules for different sexes?
Hypocrite.

 

[Manu Vatuvei]

Without much difficulty, this new law can be construed as a type of reversal of the onus of proof standard, and it is no accident that it falls against the male.

There are increasingly, many examples where feminist ideology is creating environments whereby the male is treated unequally. It will only become obvious to most blokes when their sons fall victim, and there is finally a cultural shift (after the fact) against male gender discrimination.

 

[[furrycat]]

Different rules for different sexes?
Hypocrite.

*Hypothetically* how has a female committed a crime if she gets drunk and is raped as a result? Its her fault is it?

Its not a different rule- doesn't matter if you're blue, black, white, man, woman, chicken, sober, or drunk- you aren't excused for having non consensual sex.

Idiot. You're arguing for the sake of it.

 

[[furrycat]]

Also, look up hypocrite- never said anything hypocritical in relation to this.

 

[[furrycat]]

I wonder if in this brave new date rape world where all men are guilty if one can use the `silence is as good as a nod' defence

Thank f**k i am no longer single and out there having to deal with brain dead head f**ks - say one wrong thing in the morning as you are heading out the door and you're on a (date) rape charge

... yeah its not quite as simple as that.

Theres more to prove than just if sexual intercourse has occurred in proving a rape case...

 

[coolumsharkie]

Originally Posted by Jatz Crackers
Without much difficulty, this new law can be construed as a type of reversal of the onus of proof standard, and it is no accident that it falls against the male.

There are increasingly, many examples where feminist ideology is creating environments whereby the male is treated unequally. It will only become obvious to most blokes when their sons fall victim, and there is finally a cultural shift (after the fact) against male gender discrimination.

Edit: ooops.. I need glasses

 

[innsaneink]

*Hypothetically* how has a female committed a crime if she gets drunk and is raped as a result? Its her fault is it?

Its not a different rule- doesn't matter if you're blue, black, white, man, woman, chicken, sober, or drunk- you aren't excused for having non consensual sex.

Idiot. You're arguing for the sake of it.

Ironic...so are you

You cant even follow the convo.

...as perth red said:

you would think there would be an onus of being responsible for your own actions. What if he says "I was so drunk i can't remember what happened" and she does as well.

quite different to

*Hypothetically* how has a female committed a crime if she gets drunk and is raped as a result? Its her fault is it?

try and keep up