"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!"

I do wonder about that. I have some sympathy for the position but also some concerns that it appears to be at variance from other parts of the law. It's possible to commit a crime while intoxicated and be held responsible for doing so. I've wondered about liability in other areas of the law, making an online purchase while intoxicated and other places people can make choices which they might not otherwise make.

I also get the impression that in cases where both parties are intoxicated the male is assumed to be more responsible or is it really the one who does not or is slowest to regret the decision who is held responsible?

I get the impression that a significant percentage of women who choose to get intoxicated do so to reduce their own inhibitions.

I would like to see the best of tools available to determine truth used provided safeguards in in place to prevent operator bias from interfering with the outcomes.

Both sides of this debate have merits, our legal system can be very tough on victims but we also need to be careful not to allow "special case" pleading to undermine the safeguards we have in our legal system to minimise the conviction of innocents. Added to that is the push to have post sentence provisions in place such as sexual offender registration, maps etc. Moves I generally support as long as we are very careful that only genuine offenders end up on those lists.

I was also intrigued by the deception over facts part and the possible consequences of such a clause. Wander what the statute of limitations on that would be.

R0bert

R0bert; operator bias is possible with polygraphs, but not with covert thermal imaging, and or computer assisted facial recognition, both of which help to identify formerly undetectable pork pies.

Even in polygraph beating psychopaths, certain parts of the brain always light up when we tell porkies; and certain expressions flit across the face, and too quick for the human eye!

Not so computer assisted facial recognition, which sees and recognized every expression, and what ones are associated with telling pork pies; and contempt!

So we can even use two distinctly separate systems to confirm the facts/the truth or the lack thereof.

And clever questioning can even identify any crime and when and where it was committed, and just by utilizing the sum of the negative responsive!

And there are other tell tales signs that ordinary folk can't hide anyway, that include rapid blinking, pupil dilation and sweat on the upper lip, or even the whole face!

Let the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth hold sway and prevail, and indeed, restore balance.

Moreover, a video record can be made and officially validated as an accurate record of interview, and by an over-viewing authority; in order to rule out any chance of any sort of operator bias.

With that in place, we really can rule out operator bias, and rule in, the inescapable truth.

Which is all we really ever needed, to decide guilt or innocence/get the balance right.

Given perjured evidence, can create a miscarriage of justice, I think the should be no statute of limitations on perjury; or mandatory compensation for the offended party!

In any event, exposing the truth warts and all, by employing the latest and best noninvasive technology, we can not only get at the literal truth but keep exposed economic migrants from obtaining entry, by successfully posing as asylum seekers.
Rhrosty.

Brendan,

I thought it was a well balanced article in all but the first line. Why would you start with the 'under-reported' rape myth?

I can't for the life of me understand why this myth is never challenged. In 1950s and 60s when rape still had some stigma involved, I can understand why feminists might claim rape was under-reported. When women were raped it was seen as their fault for putting themselves in a position where they could be raped. Women were treated as adults then, with independent agency, who were responsible for their actions. But in this day and age, where no matter what a woman does she can never bear any responsibility for her actions, and it is considered oh so schick to be a victim (especially of a sex crime), then why oh why would a woman not report a rape?

I'm really so over feminists and their obsession with sex.

Rhostry,

Love your comments about 'real men'. Would love to hear your thoughts on what constitutes a 'real women'. Or do only men have responsibilities?

Would it not be in the best interest of truth and justice to apply the "lie detector" to both the alleged victim and alleged perpetrator?

Dane, It's almost impossible for a woman to rape a man!

And in the sexual context, women are invariably the real prey and men the real hunters!

Pray tell what responsibility does a deer (the prey) have when the hunters bullet rips into her heart!?

That she was there and available?

In the case of sexual conquest, the power almost always remains with the man, and the only one capable of ending coitus, once it has begun!

Women who make a mistake and with their informed consent, still retain the option of the morning after pill and minimizing any possible adverse consequences, as should the rape or incest victim!

Albeit, in the case of incest, that option can be withheld by a controlling parent and perpetrator!

I witnessed a rape where the lady bent over to kiss the boyfriend goodnight only to have the widow wound up on her neck and then taken doggy style!

All while she pleaded no, sweetheart no!

He however claimed it was the expected consequence of a costly night out!

Eventually she simply moaned, just get it over R soul.
When I, just a troubled 15 year old boy taking a stroll on a beach, understood that the lady was being violated; popped up and said, I saw it all and would report to the police!

The woman's demeanor quickly changed and said, nothing not wanted had happened and invited the boyfriend upstairs for a "nightcap"?

On later adult reflection, I think she was part of the two thirds of unreported date rape and for myriad reasons; personal shame, or keeping a cuckolded hubby out of the loop, etc!

This tells me, all we really need is a way to ensure the truth prevails when reported!

After all, we cannot force reporting, given the public exposure.

However, if it could be satisfactorily concluded by exposing the truth in a private setting, this could change, and not before time.

Let the truth prevail!

That is the only way to restore balance!
Rhrosty.

Gawd a'mighty...