6 ms·

Court says aquitted man must tell police if he is going to have sex

19 points by chippy 11y ago

chris_wot 11y ago
I'm not sure I'm following: on what grounds can they apply this order? The man was acquitted of rape... If he's not a rapist then how can they restrict him?
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  Due process has been dying a slow death on the other side of the pond for some time now. The UK has abolished the prohibition on double jeopardy, the right to remain silent, and, in most cases, the right to a jury trial. They also don't have an exclusionary rule, so the police are free to rely on illegally-obtained evidence in court. Lots of things that require judicial warrants, like communication intercepts, in the US can be done in the UK with only administrative approval.
- DanBC 11y ago
  Rape is a criminal charge and requires the jury to be persuaded beyond all reasonable doubt that he did it. English juries tend not to convict people for rape. These orders protect vulnerable people (usually children or people with learning disability[1]) from harm. They're granted by magistrates, in court, so in theory the police can't just impose them whenever they want. The fact that the law has been in place over two years and this is the first case that's made the news is somewhat reassuring, although we'd probably be better off without laws like this. Here's the old law, which has been updated: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/2/crossheading/risk-of-sexual-harm-orders http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/2/crosshead... And here's the press release for the tighter controls: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-powers-for-tighter-restrictions-on-sex-offenders https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-powers-for-tighter-re... Here's the discussion document: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/251341/27__28_sexual_offences_and_VOO_fact_sheet.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...
  - EdwardDiego 11y ago
    > English juries tend not to convict people for rape. [Citation needed]
    - chris_wot 11y ago
      If it wasn't for that comment, that reply would have been very informative. DanBC, I'm a bit surprised - that's not you're normal form! For once, someone has used [citation needed] in the manner I intended when I invented it so many years ago on Wikipedia.
    - DanBC 11y ago
      Rape convictions in England have dropped. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27726280 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27726280 http://www.channel4.com/news/rape-convictions-myths-why-so-low-england http://www.channel4.com/news/rape-convictions-myths-why-so-l... Rape convictions in England are lower than the rest of Europe. Rape is a very serious criminal offence in England. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/rape/section/1 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crosshead... There's a potential life sentence for rape. The minimum recommended sentence for rape (if the victim is over 16; if the offender doesn't ejaculate or make the victim ejaculate; if infection or pregnancy is avoided; if it was a single instance of rape; if there was no other violence) is 5 years. http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/s1_rape/ http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/s1_rape... http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/sentencing/ http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/... We have little bits of research showing juries are reluctant to sentence someone to 5 years if the victim was drunk, and if the victim and offender knew each other. From the above guidelines: > Mitigating: > Victim engaged in consensual sexual activity with the offender on the same occasion and immediately before the offence The bits of research we have show that it's very hard to prosecute this type of rape and that juries are reluctant to convict. Everybody agrees that sexual activity happened, but they disagree about consent. Perhaps the victim and offender were both drunk. Asking jurors questions about the trial they were involved in is not legal in England, so jury research is tricky. Some people have run fake trials, and asked those fake jurors. Even in the fake trials they saw jurors didn't want to convict some rapists if the victim and offender knew each other and there was no other violence.
rocky1138 11y ago
Court ordered boner kill.
CompuHacker 11y ago
"Any female." "Any phone." Something's wrong with this.
- bitwize 11y ago
  It's pretty much the same justification for the sex offender registry. Everybody knows that all people who commit sex crimes are not fully human, but vicious monsters incapable of feeling guilt or remorse [citation needed, but don't expect one forthcoming] so for public safety purposes we must deny their freedoms, keep them on a very tight leash, and effectively prevent them from functioning normally in society again. SORs have stood up to Eighth Amendment scrutiny because the courts understand them not as punishments but as public safety measures like mandatory muzzles for pit bulls. This is the same thing, except without that pesky conviction. Convictions for rape are hard to acquire, so as a prophylactic measure we'll put him on the leash anyway. You only need a conviction to punish someone but this is a public safety measure.
hiram112 11y ago
Rape, along with paedophilia and drunken driving, has turned into the latest refer madness. Is it a problem? Yes, of course, just like child pornography, DUIs, etc. are known societal taboos for good reason. But because absolutely no one can come out and speak rationally about these subjects, lest they appear in support of it, the authorities use it to push more and more unjust laws in the name of 'protecting the women and children', keeping us safe from terrorists, etc. DUI has been used to eviscerate the Bill of Rights, specifically the 4th Amendment. Fishing road-blocks are a common sight in almost all US states, now. I'm no conspiriacy theorist, but I'm starting to wonder if the continued lowering of BAC w/ regard to DUI and also anti-smoking laws are actually being used to limit the plebs ability to congregate together and discuss issues. Instead, we're all being led to isolation at home. Highest commented article on Slashdot right now relates to Utah's law requiring IT workers to report child porn, and child support laws are now being used to effectively bring back indentured servitude and restrict freedom of travel, almost exclusively for men. On college campuses, the feds have forced institutions to enforce their own version of SJW law when related to rape, where all common American (from British) forms of jurisprudence have been tossed aside.
- Mz 11y ago
  In the absence of a constructive means to actually empower women, you can assume this trend will continue. I am a woman. Every single time I try to talk about what women can do to take control of their lives in a world that will never be entirely without risk, I get attacked as "a rape apologist" and/or I get accused of "blaming the victim." As long as the world as a whole sees sex as a male prerogative and male privilege and not something a good woman would actually want, we shall have no constructive path forward. As long as women who get laid are automatically viewed as servicing a man, being taken advantage of, etc. we shall have no constructive path forward. If women want equal rights and equal opportunities, they need to start taking more responsibility for their own lives and stop playing the victim card, the helpless damsel in distress and so on. They need to quit screeching about how men need to behave better. They need to figure out what is within their own power to act upon and put their focus there.
  - apnonsat 11y ago
paulddraper 11y ago
"The civil order was introduced in English and Welsh law last year and can be handed down by magistrates at the request of police where it is believed that a person who has not been convicted of a sexual crime nevertheless poses a risk to someone else." Why bother with pretense? Just throw acquitted guilty people in jail.

19 points by chippy 11y ago

I'm not sure I'm following: on what grounds can they apply this order? The man was acquitted of rape... If he's not a rapist then how can they restrict him?

marcoperaza 11y ago
Due process has been dying a slow death on the other side of the pond for some time now. The UK has abolished the prohibition on double jeopardy, the right to remain silent, and, in most cases, the right to a jury trial. They also don't have an exclusionary rule, so the police are free to rely on illegally-obtained evidence in court. Lots of things that require judicial warrants, like communication intercepts, in the US can be done in the UK with only administrative approval.
DanBC 11y ago
Rape is a criminal charge and requires the jury to be persuaded beyond all reasonable doubt that he did it. English juries tend not to convict people for rape. These orders protect vulnerable people (usually children or people with learning disability[1]) from harm. They're granted by magistrates, in court, so in theory the police can't just impose them whenever they want. The fact that the law has been in place over two years and this is the first case that's made the news is somewhat reassuring, although we'd probably be better off without laws like this. Here's the old law, which has been updated: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/2/crossheading/risk-of-sexual-harm-orders http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/2/crosshead... And here's the press release for the tighter controls: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-powers-for-tighter-restrictions-on-sex-offenders https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-powers-for-tighter-re... Here's the discussion document: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/251341/27__28_sexual_offences_and_VOO_fact_sheet.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...
- EdwardDiego 11y ago
  > English juries tend not to convict people for rape. [Citation needed]
  - chris_wot 11y ago
    If it wasn't for that comment, that reply would have been very informative. DanBC, I'm a bit surprised - that's not you're normal form! For once, someone has used [citation needed] in the manner I intended when I invented it so many years ago on Wikipedia.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    Rape convictions in England have dropped. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27726280 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27726280 http://www.channel4.com/news/rape-convictions-myths-why-so-low-england http://www.channel4.com/news/rape-convictions-myths-why-so-l... Rape convictions in England are lower than the rest of Europe. Rape is a very serious criminal offence in England. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/rape/section/1 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crosshead... There's a potential life sentence for rape. The minimum recommended sentence for rape (if the victim is over 16; if the offender doesn't ejaculate or make the victim ejaculate; if infection or pregnancy is avoided; if it was a single instance of rape; if there was no other violence) is 5 years. http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/s1_rape/ http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/s1_rape... http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/sentencing/ http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/... We have little bits of research showing juries are reluctant to sentence someone to 5 years if the victim was drunk, and if the victim and offender knew each other. From the above guidelines: > Mitigating: > Victim engaged in consensual sexual activity with the offender on the same occasion and immediately before the offence The bits of research we have show that it's very hard to prosecute this type of rape and that juries are reluctant to convict. Everybody agrees that sexual activity happened, but they disagree about consent. Perhaps the victim and offender were both drunk. Asking jurors questions about the trial they were involved in is not legal in England, so jury research is tricky. Some people have run fake trials, and asked those fake jurors. Even in the fake trials they saw jurors didn't want to convict some rapists if the victim and offender knew each other and there was no other violence.

rocky1138 11y ago

Court ordered boner kill.

CompuHacker 11y ago

"Any female." "Any phone." Something's wrong with this.

bitwize 11y ago
It's pretty much the same justification for the sex offender registry. Everybody knows that all people who commit sex crimes are not fully human, but vicious monsters incapable of feeling guilt or remorse [citation needed, but don't expect one forthcoming] so for public safety purposes we must deny their freedoms, keep them on a very tight leash, and effectively prevent them from functioning normally in society again. SORs have stood up to Eighth Amendment scrutiny because the courts understand them not as punishments but as public safety measures like mandatory muzzles for pit bulls. This is the same thing, except without that pesky conviction. Convictions for rape are hard to acquire, so as a prophylactic measure we'll put him on the leash anyway. You only need a conviction to punish someone but this is a public safety measure.

hiram112 11y ago

Rape, along with paedophilia and drunken driving, has turned into the latest refer madness. Is it a problem? Yes, of course, just like child pornography, DUIs, etc. are known societal taboos for good reason. But because absolutely no one can come out and speak rationally about these subjects, lest they appear in support of it, the authorities use it to push more and more unjust laws in the name of 'protecting the women and children', keeping us safe from terrorists, etc. DUI has been used to eviscerate the Bill of Rights, specifically the 4th Amendment. Fishing road-blocks are a common sight in almost all US states, now. I'm no conspiriacy theorist, but I'm starting to wonder if the continued lowering of BAC w/ regard to DUI and also anti-smoking laws are actually being used to limit the plebs ability to congregate together and discuss issues. Instead, we're all being led to isolation at home. Highest commented article on Slashdot right now relates to Utah's law requiring IT workers to report child porn, and child support laws are now being used to effectively bring back indentured servitude and restrict freedom of travel, almost exclusively for men. On college campuses, the feds have forced institutions to enforce their own version of SJW law when related to rape, where all common American (from British) forms of jurisprudence have been tossed aside.

Mz 11y ago
In the absence of a constructive means to actually empower women, you can assume this trend will continue. I am a woman. Every single time I try to talk about what women can do to take control of their lives in a world that will never be entirely without risk, I get attacked as "a rape apologist" and/or I get accused of "blaming the victim." As long as the world as a whole sees sex as a male prerogative and male privilege and not something a good woman would actually want, we shall have no constructive path forward. As long as women who get laid are automatically viewed as servicing a man, being taken advantage of, etc. we shall have no constructive path forward. If women want equal rights and equal opportunities, they need to start taking more responsibility for their own lives and stop playing the victim card, the helpless damsel in distress and so on. They need to quit screeching about how men need to behave better. They need to figure out what is within their own power to act upon and put their focus there.
- apnonsat 11y ago

paulddraper 11y ago

"The civil order was introduced in English and Welsh law last year and can be handed down by magistrates at the request of police where it is believed that a person who has not been convicted of a sexual crime nevertheless poses a risk to someone else." Why bother with pretense? Just throw acquitted guilty people in jail.