I think its because Spain adopted a policy “only yes means yes” where its up to the man to prove the women’s consent and not for the inquiry to prove lack of consent. But maybe Tomas is referring to something else.
Before this law, five men who raped an 18-year-old woman during the 2016 Pamplona bull-running festival were acquitted, because the court argued footage showing the woman motionless with her eyes closed, was proof of consent.
Four years after the rape in Pamplona, a group of men who gang raped a 14-year-old girl in Catalonia were convicted of the lesser charge of sexual abuse, this time because the victim was intoxicated.
In both cases, it reflected that the spirit of the law was until the victim could prove there was a firm no, it was not rape, even with footage ! Which is obviously extremely fucked up.
The new law does NOT state that the burden of proof lies entirely with the defendant. Just that both parties may need to provide evidence.
In a case like the ones I stated, just having footage of the victim dissociating will not be enough to clear them.
Courts may consider various types of evidence when determining if consent was given:
- Verbal communications before and during the encounter
- Text messages or other digital communications
- Witness testimony about the parties' behavior before or after the incident
- Physical evidence (if applicable)
- Expert testimony on the victim's mental or physical state
But proof is gonna be hard to bring for both parties now (and not only the victim !) :
For defendants: Proving affirmative consent may involve demonstrating clear verbal or non-verbal cues from the other person.
For victims: Proving lack of consent could involve showing they were incapacitated, coerced, or clearly expressed non-consent.
But reality is, in a lot of cases of rape and sexual assault, there is no material evidence at all because it happens in private, which is part of why it'll always be difficult to condemn a lot of rapists. That being said, it's currently going way beyond that, as we see clear rapists being cleared.
Anyway, I notice that here, like in some other comments, Tomas stopped answering whenever I asked for a source for a wild claim like this one, or whenever I gave various sources to mine. Which says a lot.
Do we have data on this ? I find it hard to believe that Spain prevently jail people without proof honestly.
I think its because Spain adopted a policy “only yes means yes” where its up to the man to prove the women’s consent and not for the inquiry to prove lack of consent. But maybe Tomas is referring to something else.
Except this is WAY more nuanced than that.
Before this law, five men who raped an 18-year-old woman during the 2016 Pamplona bull-running festival were acquitted, because the court argued footage showing the woman motionless with her eyes closed, was proof of consent.
Four years after the rape in Pamplona, a group of men who gang raped a 14-year-old girl in Catalonia were convicted of the lesser charge of sexual abuse, this time because the victim was intoxicated.
In both cases, it reflected that the spirit of the law was until the victim could prove there was a firm no, it was not rape, even with footage ! Which is obviously extremely fucked up.
The new law does NOT state that the burden of proof lies entirely with the defendant. Just that both parties may need to provide evidence.
In a case like the ones I stated, just having footage of the victim dissociating will not be enough to clear them.
Courts may consider various types of evidence when determining if consent was given:
- Verbal communications before and during the encounter
- Text messages or other digital communications
- Witness testimony about the parties' behavior before or after the incident
- Physical evidence (if applicable)
- Expert testimony on the victim's mental or physical state
But proof is gonna be hard to bring for both parties now (and not only the victim !) :
For defendants: Proving affirmative consent may involve demonstrating clear verbal or non-verbal cues from the other person.
For victims: Proving lack of consent could involve showing they were incapacitated, coerced, or clearly expressed non-consent.
But reality is, in a lot of cases of rape and sexual assault, there is no material evidence at all because it happens in private, which is part of why it'll always be difficult to condemn a lot of rapists. That being said, it's currently going way beyond that, as we see clear rapists being cleared.
Anyway, I notice that here, like in some other comments, Tomas stopped answering whenever I asked for a source for a wild claim like this one, or whenever I gave various sources to mine. Which says a lot.