A very good article that touches on a broader subject; the reversal of the onus of proof.

The onus of proof should always rest with the claimant, yet in many of our civil regulatory regimes a claim is taken as being sufficient and in some cases this is detrimental to the principles of tort. For example, I am currently involved in a dispute with Suncorp insurance over a minor traffic accident in which the other party was insured by Suncorp.

I have invited Suncorp to prove their claim that I am responsible through the courts, to be told "we believe you are responsible and we're going to collect. We are not going to court for such a small amount." Needless to say, they are NOT going to collect unless they do go to court, but nonetheless I have been harassed by their agent, Collection House over the phone and in other ways, including some quite unconscionable behaviour over the Christmas period and while I haven't checked, I suspect that my credit reference file will have a default registered.

All of that for a dispute over a sum which Suncorp is not prepared to argue for in court and which has changed during the dispute process, for reasons which have not been explained. I have no way of knowing what the basis for the claim is because Suncorp refused to provide me with the details of the damage or the relevant evidence of their cost claim. This, of course, is standard practise for the less reputable operators in that business.

While this is obviously not as serious as a rape allegation, it seems to me to reflect the same type of degradation of the legal system, in that it is assumed that certain classes of party may be deemed reasonably able to arrogate to themselves rights and assumptions of authority that are not universal.

Given it remains impossible to give informed consent while drunk or drugged; and given some of those drugs can be administered without the knowledge or consent of the victim, informed consent can only be given while sober and drug free!

Besides, what sort of an animal takes advantage of someone he allegedly cares about, when she is completely vulnerable/out cold.

A real man would protect her and from himself on such occasions.

If you just want to have sex with a piece of meat, go buy a thick rump steak!

Nor should she be violated and shamed yet again, by having her attacker attack her and her credibility; and or her reputation, in an open courtroom!

We have space age lie detection that's almost impossible to beat, even by polygraph beating psychopaths!

And while it is still not used or mandatory; simply beggars belief! (Non invasive thermal imaging that sees what you can't hide however clever; and computer assisted facial recognition, that detects those tiny telltale facial movements, to quick for the average eye to discern)

And able to be applied completely covertly, so you unable to prepare yourself with drugs like mood altering cocaine, sometimes used by the wary, to beat the polygraph; which therefore is essentially,unreliable?

At the end of the day, truth must and should prevail, rather than too clever by half lawyers/tricksters/liars/cheats and frauds!

And if you don't want to be judged by the truth and the actual facts?

Then just keep your pecker in your pants, and or if unable, try lady Palmer and her five daughters!

Grow up and act like a real man, if you would be judged as one! Own your own behavior!

A drunk or drugged lady cannot give informed consent, end of story!

Let the truth prevail; given, the truly innocent will never ever be harmed by it!
Rhrosty.

Rhrosty, sometimes real men and real women get drunk and sometimes when they do they have sex.

A large part of the world's population is the result.

True enough Craig, and sometimes real R souls take an unfair advantage of a lady's diminished responsibly!

And often after they have been plied with strong drinks,; and or, rohipnol or both, in order to produce that very condition!

As I said, let the actual facts speak for themselves. The innocent have nothing to fear from the truth!

As yes, and to be fair, there are also predatory females, who have ulterior motives? Let the exposed truth speak for itself!
Rhrosty.

There is no real controversy about situations where a largely sober man takes advantage of a woman, who is "blotto" from drink or drugs. He deserves punishment.

The grey area in moral terms is where a person has consumed these substances but is still capable of making decisions. What do you do about situations, where both are equally badly intoxicated/stoned? Charge both with rape? If a sober wife initiates sex with her intoxicated husband, is she raping him? The law in NSW , for example, says he is incapable of consent, if he is "substantially intoxicated".

If every technical breach of our rape/sexual assault laws was prosecuted in court, the legal system would become a laughing stock.

Yes Bren and right on the money, that's why we need to deal the courts out of this during the initial investigation stage, and for the first time in our legal history, focus on arriving at the actual truth, warts and all!

And thanks to space age lie detection innovation, we actually can do that; and with a 99.99% success rate.

Compulsive or clever lairs have no chance, but particularly if the technology is applied covertly, and the results allowed in evidence.

For the first time we should let the actual truth speak out for the victims, whoever they are.

And simply dismiss alleged rape if actual consent was first given, then say retracted seconds before the vinegar stroke, because he wasn't using a condom; and almost an impossible ask.

When the accuser is confronted with the facts that destroy or confirm the case; and he or she confronts the very real possibility of going to jail for the crime of perjury; which must include supplying false evidence!

We will have gotten things around this very grey and murky; he said she said area, into real and enduring balance.

We just need to eliminate the human error factor, and allow the actual truth to prevail, and because we finally can!

Sorry if that deals out too clever by half, highly rewarded Silks, and or the tactic of further traumatizing and shaming already harmed victims! But I think its high time we reinvented the ideal of a genuine fair go; and because we can! And that is how you get the balance right!

Let the revealed truth speck for itself and the victims. And sure the recidivist offenders are going to scream blue murder and obfuscate every which way!

And should they prevail, we all of us lose!

Sure, let's tender justice with mercy, just not throw it into the too hard basket!
Rhrosty.