The " consent " enigma.

Few would disagree that rape is an atrocious crime and unfortunately standing in the witness box and having that crime discussed in detail must be a harrowing experience for any woman. There are moves to restrict the right of the accused to question the victim's story, particularly if that cross examination goes into minute detail of every aspect of the crime.
It may become the practice for the woman not to have to enter court to give her evidence but instead have it conveyed to the court by way of a television monitor from a secure room within the courthouse.
Unfortunately it is not unknown for an accused to be put to trial on a rape charge for malicious reasons. There is a danger in moves to protect the victim that removal of the right to confront the accuser may result in less than a fair trial.
Now there are moves to codify exactly what is meant by consent to sex. In most rape cases a key aspect is the plea by the accused that it was consensual sex, a fact usually denied by the victim.
In recent times, it has become part of our court process that a woman has the right to withdraw consent while sexual relations are taking place. In such cases, if intercourse does not stop immediately then the court considers that rape has occurred.
Lawyers and politicians are musing as to what should be the circumstances of consent. They argue that the woman should not be under pressure and have a clear opportunity to indicate that she is not willing - and have the opportunity to remove herself from that person's company.
There have even been suggestions that both parties should sign a written agreement consenting to sex.
This is probably an area where the law should tread carefully - because it could well be defined as " where angels fear to tread ". If the day ever comes where some written manifesto requires signing before a justice of the peace before couples can safely and lawfully engage in sex then George Orwell's 1980 has well and truly arrived. Big Brother is in control - and every aspect of our lives is now regulated.
The law has never been perfect - but we can not probably do better than the present arrangement where both parties plead their cases before a judge and a jury of twelve of their peers - and that unbiased group gives the evidence due consideration - and arrives at a verdict.
That old adage applies ! " If it aint broke - don't fix it ! "