
Court says aquitted man must tell police if he is going to have sex - chippy
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/23/court-man-must-tell-police-if-he-is-going-to-have-sex
======
hiram112
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
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
I agree with you.

My take on this sort of activism is this: How Dare You. How dare you take away
my agency to make my own choices as a human being. So what if I am 'female'? I
make my own decisions. Who my lovers are (if I have any). Where I work (my own
choice). What schooling I pursue (my own choice).

I will NOT list my traumas or gender or race or disadvantages as some sort of
sick measuring stick of worthiness of my right to speech. I will only list my
species: Homo Sapiens.

If I come across people who are not like myself, my gender, my culture, etc, I
approach them with genuine curiosity and openness, and allow myself to be
approached. I ask questions. I answer questions. I DO NOT JUDGE. If someone
won't talk to me, I will ask someone else, and answer someone else. "No" IS a
complete sentence, for all people of all types. So is "YES". Don't infantilize
me.

Do not try to protect me 'For My Own Good'. Let me make mistakes, let me
learn, let me grow. Do not try to batter down holes in institutions to make
space for me. Let me earn them. Let me find my own way. You shove me where I
am 'needed' as a 'token' anything, and I will suffer the worst imposter
syndrome ever. I can't even cheat at card games. Why are you forcing me to
cheat at life?

If we apply 'For Your Own Good' Code of Conducts, we destroy open and honest
discourse between people and replace it with a sick sort of Kafkaesque
reality. This sort of 'Righteous Thinking' has given us Residential Schools
and Dukhubour child camps in Canada, Magdalene Laundries in the UK, The
Spanish Inquisition, The Salem Witch Trials, Zero Tolerance School
Administrations, the School to Prison Pipelines, and Minimum Sentencing
Policies in the USA, among so many other examples. The one thread in all these
things? 'Guilty if you are Suspected in the First Place' thinking, and the
invariable 'Punishment of the Innocent'. Collateral damage, anyone?

Michele, I admire you, your hard work, your contributions to the world, (and
they are many, large and small!) I also admire your candour, and the fact that
you have opinions that are not mine. I cannot live in an echo chamber. Show me
new thoughts, new views and new perspectives. I only ask the same of all other
people as well. ALL PEOPLE. If we're always safe, we're weak and untried for
the true tribulations of the world.

With Eternal Kindness, -Anna Vit

~~~
Mz
Thank you. I was mostly away from keyboard yesterday. I just saw this today.
Thank you for saying it.

------
chris_wot
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?

~~~
DanBC
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/crosshead...](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/2/crossheading/risk-
of-sexual-harm-orders)

And here's the press release for the tighter controls:
[https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-powers-for-tighter-
re...](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-powers-for-tighter-restrictions-
on-sex-offenders)

Here's the discussion document:
[https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...](https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/251341/27__28_sexual_offences_and_VOO_fact_sheet.pdf)

~~~
EdwardDiego
> English juries tend not to convict people for rape.

[Citation needed]

~~~
DanBC
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-l...](http://www.channel4.com/news/rape-convictions-myths-why-so-low-
england)

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/crosshead...](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/rape/section/1)

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/...](http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/sentencing/)

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.

~~~
marcoperaza
It's because it's on the periphery of the Law's effective reach. It's very
hard to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, what happened between two people
behind closed doors. Especially when the only evidence is the allegation
itself. Rape kits have helped with this problem, but they often can only show
that some sexual interaction happened, not indicate whether it was consensual
or not. It's even harder to convict when the charges are brought years after
the alleged crime, as is often the case.

------
paulddraper
"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.

------
CompuHacker
"Any female." "Any phone."

Something's wrong with this.

~~~
bitwize
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_.

------
rocky1138
Court ordered boner kill.

