Do you read me?
Speech acts, expressive behaviour and states of mind in rape cases
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.21000Keywords:
consent, rape, communication, intention, behaviour, pragmatics, evidenceAbstract
This paper argues that there are three separable but related dimensions that are important to the legal notion of consent. One is a consenting state of mind, the ‘going along with’ a plan of action, which may or may not be communicated or even reflected upon, but which certainly can be. A second is displaying behaviour which reveals or is an expression of consenting. Another is intentionally communicating consent. I illustrate how the communicative act is often vitally important as evidence of an underlying consenting state, but the underlying consenting state has to be postulated and brought to the fore since consensual actions (e.g. sexual intercourse) can, and more often than not do, take place without the communicative acts, and the communicative acts might for various reasons be made in the absence of the genuinely consenting state of mind. The arguments I put forward offer a reframing of cases in which an apparent intentional communication of consent was treated as consent, rather than as a piece of evidence which may or may not be indicative of a consenting state of mind. This paper emphasises that we must not allow the importance of something as evidential to eclipse the underlying phenomenon, which is itself, however hard to access otherwise, the thing of primary legal importance.
References
Anderson, I. and Doherty, K. (2008) Accounting for Rape: Psychology, Feminism and Discourse Analysis in the Study of Sexual Violence. London: Routledge.
Bolinger, R. (2019) Moral risk and communicating consent. Philosophy and Public Affairs 47(2): 179–207. https://doi.org/10.1111/papa.12144
Bakht, S. (2021) I-CONSENT fury at new app that gives men ’24-hour consent contract’ to have sex after Denmark passed controversial rape law. The Sun, 21 January.
Buist, E. (2014) Can sexual consent app ‘Good2Go’ really reduce sexual assaults on campus? The Guardian, 30 September.
Cowart , M. (2004) Understanding acts of consent: using speech act theory to help resolve moral dilemmas and legal disputes. Law and Philosophy 23: 495–525. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LAPH.0000022993.69964.eb
Crown Prosecution Service (2021) Rape and Sexual Offences. Legal guidance, Sexual Offences. [Online] Available from: cps.gov.uk
Crown Prosecution Service (2022) CPS quarterly data summaries: Sexual offences , domestic abuse, hate crime. https://www.cps.gov.uk/publication/cps-quarterly-data-summaries
Dougherty, T. (2015) Yes means yes: consent as communication. Philosophy and Public Affairs 43(3): 224–253. https://doi.org/10.1111/papa.12059
Eades, D. (2016) Erasing context in the courtroom construal of consent. In S. Ehrlich, D. Eades and J. Ainsworth (eds), Discursive Constructions of Consent in the Legal Process 71–90. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ehrlich, S. (2016) Post-penetration rape: coercion or freely given consent? In S. Ehrlich, D. Eades and J. Ainsworth (eds), Discursive Constructions of Consent in the Legal Process 47–70. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ehrlich, S. (2019) ‘Well, I saw the picture’: semiotic ideologies and the unsettling of normative conceptions of female sexuality in the Steubenville rape trial. Gender and Language 13: 251–269. https://doi.org/10.1558/genl.35019
Ehrlich, S., Eades, D. and Ainsworth, J. (eds) (2016) Discursive Constructions of Consent in the Legal Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fileborn, B. and Hindes, S. (2021) Consent apps are a bad idea – here’s why. Pursuit, University of Melbourne [Online] Available from: https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/consent-apps-are-a-bad-idea-here-s-why
Grant, T. and Spaul, K. (2015) Felicitous consent. In P. Tiersma, L. Solan, J. Ainsworth and R. W. Shuy (eds) Speaking of Language and Law: Conversations on the Work of Peter Tiersma 145–149. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Green, M. S. (2007) Self-expression. New York: Oxford University Press.
Grice, P. (1969) Utterer’s meaning and intentions. The Philosophical Review 68: 147–177.
Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (2015) HMIC Rape Monitoring Group publication. https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/publications/rape-monitoring-group-digests-and-data-2014-15/
Luckhurst, P. (2015) We-Consent is the new app that lets you say ‘yes’ to sex … is it useful or just plain creepy? Evening Standard, 23 July.
Macdonald, C. (2016) Would you use the controversial ‘Yes to Sex’ app? Software requires each person to give consent – and even agree a safe word. Daily Mail Online. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3530667/Would-use-controversial-Yes-Sex-app-Software-requires-person-consent-agree-safe-word.html
McGowan, M. (2021) NSW police commissioner admits his sex consent app proposal ‘could be a terrible idea’. The Guardian, 18 March.
Office for National Statistics (2022). Crime statistics, period ending September 2022. Newport, South Wales: Office for National Statistics.
Petter, O. (2018) Why consent apps don’t work, according to criminal lawyers. The Independent, 14 May.
Savin, J. (2021) A new sex consent app has sparked global backlash. Cosmopolitan, 18 March.
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1995) Relevance: Communication and Cognition. 2nd ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Stickings, T. (2021) Denmark launches sexual consent app where lovers can give permission ‘for one intercourse, valid for 24 hours’ in the wake of new rape laws. Daily Mail Online, 5 February. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9227555/Denmark-launches-sexual-consent-app-passing-new-rape-laws.html
Thompson, R. (2021) Please, I beg of you, stop suggesting consent apps. Mashable, 18 March. https://mashable.com/article/consent-apps-not-the-solution
Tiersma, P. (2007) The language of consent in rape law. In J. Cotterill (ed.) The Language of Sexual Crime 83–103. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
