Beware The Future: New British Guidelines Place Burden Of Proof On The Defendant
By V. Saxena, January 30, 2015.
Brand new rape guidelines in the United Kingdom place the burden of proof entirely on the accused man, meaning “men accused of date rape will need to convince police that a woman consented to sex,” reports The Telegraph:
The Director of Public Prosecutions said it was time for the legal system to move beyond the concept of “no means no” to recognise situations where women may have been unable to give consent.
Alison Saunders said rape victims should no longer be “blamed” by society if they are too drunk to consent to sex, or if they simply freeze and say nothing because they are terrified of their attacker.
Instead, police and prosecutors must now put a greater onus on rape suspects to demonstrate how the complainant had consented “with full capacity and freedom to do so”.
Campaigners described the move as “a huge step forward” in ensuring fewer rapists escape justice.
While the purpose behind these guidelines sounds reasonable, the dilemma lies with the fact that this radical move completely goes against our most basic tenet of justice: Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat – “The burden of proof is on he who declares, not on he who denies.” We call it the presumption of innocence, and it is the cornerstone of contemporary justice. Hell, even the radicals over at the progressive Daily Kos blog recognize the importance of this tenet:
We have reached a point where any accusation can destroy both public and private citizens. Once the media and the bloggers get a hold of a story, truth is no longer relevant. This is not exclusive to any political ideology.
. . . You can not have freedom without the concept of justice. We have laws which must be followed, and rights which can not be infringed upon. These concepts transcend politics. These concepts transcend public opinion. If we find ourselves losing these values, we will find ourselves falling down the rabbit hole.
By throwing aside this tenet, the British have basically made it so that men accused of rape are automatically assumed to be guilty. Furthermore, according to BBC News, even “using contraception does not signify consent,” which begs the question: How would a man prove consent? Unless the man were to first ask the woman to sign a contract, the notion of which is absurd, he would be out of luck. And even then, the woman could simply claim that the man forced her to sign it.
Another gargantuan problem lies with the fact that some women straight-up lie. Hell, even the radicals over at the progressive magazine Slate recognize the seriousness of false rape allegations:
. . . [W]rongful accusations—either deliberately made up or based on gray-area cases that may hinge on mixed signals, alcohol-addled memories, or misunderstandings of what constitutes sexual assault—are not the almost nonexistent anomaly advocates for victims often claim. They can be cries for attention and sympathy, or attempts to cover up embarrassing sexual encounters , or vendettas against former partners.
At whatever rate such cases occur, they should not be dismissed as statistical blips: These lies can have tragic results.
Exactly, which is why placing the burden of proof on the accused, while sounding decent from the get-go, is exactly the wrong thing to do!
Any thoughts?
http://downtrend.com/vsaxena/british-guidelines-consent
