The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > The BBQ Pit

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-24-2005, 05:10 PM
Revenant Threshold Revenant Threshold is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Rape Judge = "Drunken consent is still consent"

What the fuck.

Apperently, being unconscious through drinking waives your right to not have sex forced on you.

A choice extract:

Quote:
The prosecution said that it could not go on after the woman admitted that she could not remember whether she gave consent or not, or whether sex had taken place. The jury at Swansea Crown Court was told: "Drunken consent is still consent."

Mr Justice Roderick Evans agreed, instructing the jury to return a verdict of not guilty "even if you donít agree".
So because this girl can't remember if she gave consent, this guy can't be charged with rape? Conviniently overlooking the fact that if she's so drunk she couldn't remember, she's in no position to give consent or fight off an attacker?

Quote:
Yvonne Traynor, chief executive of the Rape and Sexual Abuse Centre, said: "It is a totally incorrect, the judge needs to go back and look at the Sexual Offences Act 2003. If someone is incapable - and this girl clearly was because she could not even walk - then it cannot be considered consent.

"It is very frightening and it is going to put victims off coming forward. The knock-on effect is appalling - it gives a green light to rapists that it is OK to get women drunk and have sex with them because it is not rape."
I'd agree with this; surely this just sends a message that if the person is drunk enough, you can get away with rape? Not only that their case will seem "tainted" but that the case will actually be thrown out of court?

Seriously, WHAT THE FUCK?

Quote:
At the end of her evidence, Huw Rees, the prosecution barrister, said he was abandoning the case in light of the evidence revealed in cross-examination. He said: "The question of consent is an essential part of the case. Drunken consent is still consent. She said she could not remember giving consent and that is fatal for the prosecutionís case."
That's fatal for the case, is it? Well, if the law is such that even the victim's barrister feels he has no case if the victim was too drunk (to the point she was wavering into and out of consciousness) then the fucking law needs to be changed.

If she was too drunk to remember, and too drunk to fight off an attacker, then surely she was too drunk to give consent? Please tell me others agree here.
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 11-24-2005, 05:25 PM
Boo Boo Foo Boo Boo Foo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Sounds very similar to spiking a woman's drink at a bar so you can take them home later to have sex with her - regardless of whether she even knows it's happening. The moral aspect alone makes it a no brainer in my opinion. Anything other than a very positive "yes" is unacceptable in my book.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-24-2005, 05:32 PM
GorillaMan GorillaMan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Poor reporting might be disguising a reasonable judicial decision....or it might just be yet another embarassing British judge who lives on his own planet.

If the report is true that the accuser accepted that she "could not remember whether she gave consent or not", then I don't see how it could be possible to convict anyone beyond reasonable doubt.

If it is true that the judge simply extrapolated from this the concept of 'drunken consent', then he's a shameful creature. If the case was more complex than has been reported, or if there were other less clear-cut elements, I wouldn't be surprised.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-24-2005, 05:49 PM
Apos Apos is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
It makes sense that one cannot consent to sex when drunk... but aren't you considered to be 100% responsible for pretty much every criminal act you can name, including if you drunkenly have sex with a woman who is also drunk (and thus who cannot give consent)?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-24-2005, 05:51 PM
Rilchiam Rilchiam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
You gotta wonder about the kind of guy who will have intercourse with someone who's unconscious, or barely conscious. I love how these things never call the morality of the guy into question.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-24-2005, 06:07 PM
Askia Askia is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 7,155
The accuser's case was lost when she admitted on the stand she couldn't remember whether she gave consent or not. She handed the defense reasonable doubt right there.

Regarding the man: more often than not, drunk people have sex with similarly drunk people. Consent is clearest with the clear-headed.

With regard to drunken consent: I think many a man here, if they were completely honest, has at least considered trying something "new" with a drunken woman he knows damn well she wouldn't consent to sober.

But -- unless there was physical evidence of her struggling, or evidence of club drugs like GHB and rohypnol in the woman's system, or the man was stupid enought to record the sex act (a la R. Kelly), I don't think I could vote to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-24-2005, 06:08 PM
Larry Mudd Larry Mudd is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
To me it sounds like a testimony screw-up. I mean, on the face of it, I'd accept the maxim in the thread title. There's an awful lot of drunken consensual sex out there, every night.

There are quotes in the article that worry about scenarios like a woman having one glass of wine and then being fair game for rape:
Quote:
This is a dreadful outcome because women will now think they cannot have a single glass of wine - I think this is going to put women off coming forward again and again.
This makes no sense at all.

"Did he rape you?" "Yes." "So, you didn't give consent?" "No, I did not." "But you had three wine coolers that night, didn't you? Are you sure you didn't give consent?" "Well, yeah. Bastard raped me. I thought we'd established that, what-- are you retarded?"

Whatever testimony was presented, it prompted both the prosecutor and the judge to declare the case unprosecutable. It sounds like the woman said that she may have given consent -- in which case, what can you do?

If you go any other way, every date that involves alcohol and ends with sex is prosecutable as a rape, even if both parties are into it at the time.

I'd like to see more details before calling for blood.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-24-2005, 06:08 PM
Rysdad Rysdad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
It's interesting that she indicated that she wasn't even sure that sex had taken place. If she wasn't sure, and there was no other evidence (semen, injuries, eye-witnesses, or otherwise) then how was the case even charged? Without those, it's a she said/he said, and the presumption of innocence must prevail.

Still, I agree that it's one hell of a lousy precedent. It means that any girl that passes out is fair game to a rapist with a rubber.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-24-2005, 06:16 PM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
In Sweden, it is apparently rape just to have sex with a woman who is drunk.

(Link)

I believe that there are other jurisdictions that feel this way.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-24-2005, 06:18 PM
Otto Otto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Madison WI
Posts: 22,506
Er...
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimesOnline
The prosecution said thatit could not go on after the woman admitted that she could not remember whether she gave consent or not, or whether sex had taken place.
I'm assuming that British jurisprudence operates under the "reasonable doubt" standard for criminal convictions? If the alleged victim in the case is unable to remember whether there was a sex act, there is no way reasonable doubt can be overcome. The judge should've just kept out of it, or if a directed verdict was required, direct it on the basis of reasonable doubt.

As for the issue of whether one can be intoxicated and still consent, I'd like to ask everyone here if they've ever had sex while intoxicated, and if so, do they believe that they have been raped? Have you ever had sex with a partner who was intoxicated, and if so do you think you're a rapist? I've had sex with drunk people abd had sex while drunk, sometimes at the same time, and I am neither rapist nor raped. From a British legal perspective, can a drunk person consent to sex? I don't know. From a common sense perspective, insisting on making drunken sex partners into rape victims strikes me as being very foolish.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-24-2005, 06:28 PM
Revenant Threshold Revenant Threshold is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
This is how I see it;

- The woman gave no consent, and thus it was rape. The case has been thrown out, and so it's a miscarriage of justice, and the guy got away with it.

- There was sex, but it was consensual. We still have the problem that the woman was, not just drunk or tipsy, but drunk to the point of unconsciousness; It's not exactly the most rational state of mind. As people have pointed out, they've had sex with their partners whilst drunk themselves; have you had sex with them whilst they were unconscious? Or vice versa? Added to this, the guy chose to have sex with a clearly drunk out of her head woman; doesn't really say much for his morals, or his intelligence.

- There was no sex at all. The guy is innocent, and the victim has remembered wrongly (which is possible, she was very drunk). However, because she cannot remember, her barrister decides to drop it, and the judge tells the jury to find him innocent? Sure, from the evidence here, I myself would have reasonable doubt. But how about we let her bring her case, and him his defence, so that I can decide for myself, rather than simply throwing it out completely? The whole point of "reasonable doubt" is that a jury finds it to be so, not the judge or the barrister.

And whichever is the truth of the matter, the problem still remains that this is telling people "Hey, if you get a woman drunk enough so she passes out, you can rape her and get away with it!"
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-24-2005, 06:30 PM
Askia Askia is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 7,155
Otto It might be foolish -- or it might be the truth. I am recalling a friend of mine who was fucked up the ass by a guy when she was drunk after a party he threw at his house. Now -- she consented to vaginal sex and a blowjob with the guy about an hour earlier that evening, but not the anal rape that followed the second or third time they had sex. She was already tired and he just flipped her over.

How does even a skilled prosecutor get a conviction under these circumstances?

How can a skilled defense attorney NOT introduce reasonable doubt?

Consent is clearest among the clear-headed.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-24-2005, 06:33 PM
yojimbo yojimbo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 9,302
This was just debated on a BBC political debate programme called Question Time. The general consensus seemed to be that while there is a very valid debate to have around rape and the level of difficulties women have in reporting it and being believed by authorities this was the wrong case to hang the debate on.

The girl admitted that she just can't remember what happened. A mans life can't be ruined on that kind of evidence.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-24-2005, 06:40 PM
Dead Badger Dead Badger is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Got to say this seems like the (legally) right outcome to me. If she can't remember whether she gave consent or not, then you have to admit that it's possible that she did. And if you admit that, then you can't very well simultaneously maintain that rape was committed beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecutor stated this himself before the judge made any intervention. There's a difference between being unconscious and not remembering anything the next day; I've had many an embarrassing evening recounted to me the next day during which I was apparently up to all sorts without remembering a scrap of it in the morning. Reading the BBC story, it also becomes clearer that it is the prosecution which withdrew the case, not the judge - the judge merely instructed the jury as a result of the prosecution's actions. As I understand it, had the woman been able to convince the jury that she had been actually unconscious, then the burden of proof would have shifted to the defendant, but because she claimed merely that she could not remember, and would not have given consent, then it effectively became the defendant's word against no-one's. This BBC article has a brief overview of the whole consent problem.

I'm not saying that this guy wasn't an absolute shit, nor am I ruling out the possibility that he raped her (I think it's quite likely, and I'm not inclined to believe the sort of person who has sex with someone they've been charged with getting home safely). If you're sober and escorting someone in that state home, you don't sleep with them even if they beg you. BUT if she was walking and talking and just doesn't remember any of it, then there remains the possibility that she did indeed consent to sex. So he can't be found guilty of rape.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rysdad
It means that any girl that passes out is fair game to a rapist with a rubber.
It doesn't seem so, as again it depends what you mean by "passes out". It seems that this girl wasn't actually unconscious, merely so drunk she didn't remember what she'd done the next morning. As I said earlier, this hardly morally exculpates the defendant, but it does make him pretty impossible to prosecute. No precedent has been set; the very simple standard of reasonable doubt has just been applied.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rilchiam
I love how these things never call the morality of the guy into question.
I don't think anyone's defending the morality of this guy, nor are the news organisations failing to comment. It's just generally the case with quality UK newspapers (and I guess I'll grudgingly allow the Times this status) that the editorialising is kept quite stringently separate from the reporting. If you check out the various opinion pages over the next few days, you'll find plenty of voices calling the morality of the guy into question. But the link in the OP was to a factual report on the legal issues, and as such it's not really surprising that they didn't take time out to moralise. It's too early for the opinion pages to have this in yet; I'll check back tomorrow and I bet you you'll see what you're after there.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-24-2005, 06:42 PM
Revenant Threshold Revenant Threshold is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Yep, I was watching the program, and disagreed with the consensus; so I thought i'd have a look around for a bit more detail. That's where I got this from.


While this isn't the most clearcut case for which to hang the debate on, the fact remains that this judgement did take place, and as a result, it seem that a dangerous precedent has been set in place.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-24-2005, 06:44 PM
Revenant Threshold Revenant Threshold is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Ack. Seems.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-24-2005, 06:51 PM
yojimbo yojimbo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 9,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Revenant Threshold
- There was no sex at all. The guy is innocent, and the victim has remembered wrongly (which is possible, she was very drunk). However, because she cannot remember, her barrister decides to drop it, and the judge tells the jury to find him innocent? Sure, from the evidence here, I myself would have reasonable doubt. But how about we let her bring her case, and him his defence, so that I can decide for myself, rather than simply throwing it out completely? The whole point of "reasonable doubt" is that a jury finds it to be so, not the judge or the barrister.
Oh there was sex. The guy freely admits that they had sex in the corridor. The girl had a flashback to something happening in the corridor and went to the police. While she may have been very drunk and collapsed afterwards it appears that since it happened in a corridor she may been very drunk but not unconscious.

When I was a student I had many a blackout. I lost hours when I was fully awake and partying. I've woken up in bedside girls and not known how I got there and who they were. Later finding out that I'd spend hours with her and then went back to hers and had sex.

I'm not saying that the girl wasn't raped while unconscious in that corridor, I can never know for sure but I think under the circumstances in this instance there wasn't a solid case against the man.

I actually surprised that it actually even got to court since I'm assuming the girl had told the police etc. that she couldn't remember if anything bad or not happened.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-24-2005, 06:54 PM
Larry Mudd Larry Mudd is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Revenant Threshold
...it seems that a dangerous precedent has been set in place.
Can you put this precedent into words, precisely? Because I don't see any precedent at all.

You don't mean 'this is telling people "Hey, if you get a woman drunk enough so she passes out, you can rape her and get away with it,"' do you? Because it does no such thing.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-24-2005, 06:58 PM
Dead Badger Dead Badger is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Revenant Threshold
And whichever is the truth of the matter, the problem still remains that this is telling people "Hey, if you get a woman drunk enough so she passes out, you can rape her and get away with it!"
Again: no. It appears that the woman did not testify that she had passed out. As the law stands, if the woman had convinced the jury that she was actually unconscious, then it would have been up to the defendant to prove that she consented. She therefore can't have testified to being actually unconscious, as in that case the trial would have continued, and the jury allowed to decide whether she was or not. Rather, she testified to being unable to remember, which is a quite substantially different thing. The continued use of the word "unconscious" is confusing matters greatly, as British law as it stands states that an unconscious person can not consent. Had it been the woman's testimony that she was unconscious, this would be a different matter, but it wasn't. I think this is the crucial point.

In addition, those worrying that this gives licence to administer alcohol/drugs until the "appropriate" level of intoxication is reached should read the relevant passage of the Sex Offences 2003 Act, which specifically states that in this instance the defendant shall not be presumed to have "reasonably believed" that consent has been given.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-24-2005, 07:10 PM
Revenant Threshold Revenant Threshold is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
OK then - Dead Badger and others have convinced me that it won't necessarily set a precedent. It just seems very worrying to me that someone could, it appear, very easily get away with something like this - and may have done so in this case. And I'd still argue that the case should have continued; it isn't up for the judge or barrister to decide whether there's reasonable doubt, but a jury.

It occurs to me I didn't pit the guy in question in the OP; I think we can be pretty certain he's either a shit or a moron.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 11-24-2005, 07:41 PM
Dead Badger Dead Badger is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
There's no two ways about it; rape is a difficult crime to prosecute. Frequently it ends up as one person's word against another, and with the burden of proof on the complainant, that means getting a conviction is tricky at the best of times. And certainly it's frustrating that a man who (as far as we can tell) is pretty much a scumbag seems to be getting away with something, it pretty much has to be that way to avoid the possibility of erroneous convictions. But the fact that he's pretty clearly a scumbag also leads on to...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Revenant Threshold
And I'd still argue that the case should have continued; it isn't up for the judge or barrister to decide whether there's reasonable doubt, but a jury.
Actually, I'm pretty sure it's part of a judge's remit to instruct the jury if a certain minimum standard of evidence has not been reached, in order to avoid capricious jury verdicts in emotive cases (such as rape). And if even the prosecution lawyers agree (or in this case, are the first to acknowledge) that that standard hasn't been reached, then there really is no purpose served by continuing to a jury verdict, save to allow for the chance that the jury would act in contradiction of the law. Consider that, had the CPS known in advance that the woman would testify that she simply couldn't remember, it is likely that no prosecution would have been brought in the first place. It's only because that came out later under cross-examination that this went to trial at all.

Undoubtedly this illustrates the huge problems of mounting a successful rape prosecution, but the application of the law appears (in my admittedly lay view) to have been pretty much on the nail, unfortunate though it may seem. I'd ask my Welsh barrister friend for an informed opinion, but since I'm going to his wedding this weekend I don't think this is precisely the topic of conversation to bring up...
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-24-2005, 07:46 PM
Troy McClure SF Troy McClure SF is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Everyone accusing the guy of being a slimeball, can I ask you to re-read this snippet?

Quote:
she could not remember ... whether sex had taken place
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-24-2005, 07:51 PM
Revenant Threshold Revenant Threshold is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy McClure SF
Everyone accusing the guy of being a slimeball, can I ask you to re-read this snippet?
He admitted having sex with her. He had been tasked with safely escorting her home. She was drunk off her face. Consent or no, you don't think that's slimeball behaviour?
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-24-2005, 07:57 PM
Rysdad Rysdad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Badger
Again: no. It appears that the woman did not testify that she had passed out.
I was basing my statements on the passage from the original link that said:

Quote:
A High Court judge yesterday threw out the case of a student who claimed that she was raped while unconscious through alcohol.
(bolding mine)

Nice reporting there, Times. Being in a blackout does not equal unconciousness.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11-24-2005, 08:04 PM
Dead Badger Dead Badger is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rysdad
Nice reporting there, Times. Being in a blackout does not equal unconciousness.
Yeah, totally, I don't blame you. Hence my earlier comment about begrudging the Times their "quality" status. Not my favourite paper, it's safe to say.

(Although to be fair, the online stories tend to get less proof-reading before being chucked up on the main page, and this news is from today, so won't have appeared in the print editions yet.)
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 11-24-2005, 08:07 PM
Shakes Shakes is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Dallas Tx.
Posts: 10,418
Uhg!

Can some one please explain to me: Why is it if a person gets drunk, drives and kills a family of four it's COMPLETELY his or hers fault?

Yet if some woman gets drunk winds up fucking somebody then later regrets it; it's the man's fault?

Give me a fuck'n break already!

Ladies! When they say "Drink resposibly" they're not just talking about drinking and driving.

Duh!
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 11-24-2005, 08:11 PM
Tabby_Cat Tabby_Cat is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: No Gum Here
Posts: 2,291
The judge decides the law, the jury decides the facts. In this case, there was never a need for the case to go to the jury - even if all the facts that the prosecution brought up was true, there would still not be a case in law. Therefore, the judge MUST throw the case out.

Also, s62 of the Sexual Offences Act covers "administering an intoxicating substance" in order to enable sex without consent. This is an offence even if no sex actually occurs, as long as the intoxicating substance was administered with intent. So, there is no "loophole" for "getting girl drunk so that you can bang her".

Of course, there is still the problem of what happens if the girl willingly drinks to the point of memory loss.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 11-24-2005, 08:21 PM
guizot guizot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: An East Hollywood dingbat
Posts: 6,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear
In Sweden, it is apparently rape just to have sex with a woman who is drunk.
Is it rape for a woman to have sex with a man who is drunk? And how drunk is "drunk"?

I'm pretty sure a woman once tried to liquor me up for ulterior motives. (She kept insisting that I must try her fantastic version of a bloody mary, but I only drink beer, and she said she didn't have any.) Of course, I shouldn't have accepted it, especially when half-way through the thing I realized it was mighty stiff. I ended up politely leaving because I'd forgotten to feed my dog (HA!) But if I hadn't, and she convinced me to get into bed, could I have sobered up and later claimed rape? Could I say I wouldn't have consented to sex if I hadn't drunk her atomic bloody mary? (I must say, though, that it did taste pretty good--and the liquor didn't have that much taste.)

I mean in Sweden.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 11-24-2005, 08:30 PM
clairobscur clairobscur is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 14,306
I'm sorry, but people are generally held responsible for whatever they do while being drunk. If I murder someone while drunk, I'm not off the hook. Drunk people are still supposed to be responsible adults. So, I don't see why one's consent would be any less valid when one is drunk, nor, as a consequence, why one's partner should be considered a rapist in this case.

And, from the statement of the victim herself, there's no reason to assume that she didn't give it. So, I've no issue with this decision.





As for the issue of boys/men getting girls/women drunk in order to have sex with them, that might not be a shinning example of morality, but it seems to me there's a rather simple way to avoid getting drunk. That you could do things when you're drunk that you'll regret later is hardly a secret. Too bad for you if you said yes to an ugly, 50 years older, primary school dropout with a bad breath and syphilis after deciding it would be a smart move to get intoxicated.


Besides, assuming that it would somehow be a good idea to equate having sex while drunk with rape, I see a couple problems : first, how much alcohol would be enough to void the consent ("Indeed, I said yes, but I had a beer two hours before. It was a rape!!!")? More importantly, if the boy drank alcohol too, he doesn't have the ability to consent anymore , either, so he could bring charge for rape, or whatever fitting category of sexual abuse. So, should they both go to jail?



By the way, it reminds me of this night when, at the request of a bar owner, I brought back home a drunk women that I didn't know, with the help of some guy who was equally a stranger to both of us. Not only was she annoyingly provocative all the way back to her home (and it wasn't an easy task to bring her back, believe me) , but she very explicitely asked to have sex with me once I had put her in her bed (and after throwing up on her cat ).

With the reasonning advocated by some posters in this thread, we could have been sentenced as gang rapists, not only if we actually had sex with her, but even though we had not, because "I don't remember if we had sex, and in case we had, I don't know whether or not I consented" would be sufficient ground for a prosecution and conviction.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 11-24-2005, 08:45 PM
clairobscur clairobscur is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 14,306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Badger
Undoubtedly this illustrates the huge problems of mounting a successful rape prosecution,
And it also shows how easily charges of rape can be brougt on the flimpsiest pretenses, in case you didn't notice. This woman originally didn't even know if she had sex, was unable to tell whether or not she consented to it, and the case made it to the court??? WTF???




Quote:
but the application of the law appears (in my admittedly lay view) to have been pretty much on the nail, unfortunate though it may seem.

How is this unfortunate? The acused wasn't charged with "dubious morality" but with rape. In case you're not aware of it, it's one of the more severely punished crimes in the books.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 11-24-2005, 08:47 PM
Rysdad Rysdad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur
but she very explicitely asked to have sex with me once I had put her in her bed (and after throwing up on her cat )..
She puked on her....nah, too easy.

Still, vomiting on a cat is kinda funny. If you think little Buttons was aloof before...
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 11-24-2005, 09:15 PM
Troy McClure SF Troy McClure SF is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Revenant Threshold
He admitted having sex with her. He had been tasked with safely escorting her home. She was drunk off her face. Consent or no, you don't think that's slimeball behaviour?
Yes I do... I should've RTFA better before posting.
__________________
Tweetybox
Troy McClure SF; Proud 99'er!
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 11-24-2005, 09:21 PM
Dead Badger Dead Badger is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur
And it also shows how easily charges of rape can be brougt on the flimpsiest pretenses, in case you didn't notice. This woman originally didn't even know if she had sex, was unable to tell whether or not she consented to it, and the case made it to the court??? WTF???
Where in this entire thread can you find me arguing that the court's actions were anything but correct, or that the law should be anything other than it is? Nowhere, that's where. Please read my posts. I just think that this man is a shitheel for having sex while apparently sober with a person who was completely blotto. I don't think that's necessarily illegal, and I certainly don't think he should have been convicted (or even charges brought), but it's a fucking slimy thing to do.

Quote:
How is this unfortunate?
"...unfortunate though it may seem," I said. I think the application of the law was entirely correct, and as it should be. Wasn't this obvious? It seems unfortunate because even if consent was given, the guy looks like a scumbag, but my whole flipping point was that we have to ignore this, and acquit him. In the post you quoted, I was attempting to explain why this sort of thing is frustrating from an outside perspective, but why it can't be any other way. I think it's unfortunate that there's no way to tell whether she consented or not, because I think it's quite possible that she didn't. I even acknowledged that this sort of emotive reasoning is precisely why the judge should have dismissed the case, and supported him in doing so. I wouldn't have it any other way than it is, because otherwise we'd be sending innocent people to prison. I think I made this pretty clear, to be honest, and am perplexed at your condescension.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 11-24-2005, 10:04 PM
Otto Otto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Madison WI
Posts: 22,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Revenant Threshold
And I'd still argue that the case should have continued; it isn't up for the judge or barrister to decide whether there's reasonable doubt, but a jury.
Not knowing how things work in the UK, but in the US a judge may find as a matter of law that no reasonable jury can return a verdict of guilty.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 11-24-2005, 10:08 PM
clairobscur clairobscur is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 14,306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Badger
Where in this entire thread can you find me arguing that the court's actions were anything but correct, or that the law should be anything other than it is? Nowhere, that's where. Please read my posts.
And where did I state you said so? Please read my post.

You stated : "it shows how easily it is to..." and I responded "it also shows how easily it is to..."





Quote:
"...unfortunate though it may seem," I said. I think the application of the law was entirely correct, and as it should be. Wasn't this obvious? It seems unfortunate because even if consent was given, the guy looks like a scumbag, but my whole flipping point was that we have to ignore this, and acquit him. .
Admitedly, I didn't understand correctly the "though it may seem" part. Nevertheles, I would say it's not unfortunate at all.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 11-24-2005, 10:17 PM
Apos Apos is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Quote:
I'm sorry, but people are generally held responsible for whatever they do while being drunk. If I murder someone while drunk, I'm not off the hook.
Given that you cannot legally give consent when drunk, I should think it at least makes sense to question whether someone should be fully culpable for what they do when drunk.

Quote:
Drunk people are still supposed to be responsible adults. So, I don't see why one's consent would be any less valid when one is drunk, nor, as a consequence, why one's partner should be considered a rapist in this case.
But supposed to is not the reality. Drunk people are definately NOT responsible or in a sound frame of mind.

On the other hand, I've gotten about as drunk as I can without getting sick, granted probably not as bad as some, and at no point could I ever imagine doing something that would require _extended_ action against my own morals. While I definately can see doing something nutty or wrong on the spur of the moment (half the time you find yourself doing something before you've thought it out), I've still retained enough judgement to second guess a second later. So I can't understand how anyone who isn't a rapist to begin with could rape when drunk and have that be an excuse. Rape just requires way too much coordination and decision making and ongoing acts for even the drunkest I've ever been to explain how an otherwise good and normal person could be lead by the liquor, so to speak.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 11-24-2005, 11:23 PM
catsix catsix is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Quote:
Apos said:
But supposed to is not the reality. Drunk people are definately NOT responsible or in a sound frame of mind.
Unless they're being charged with a crime or expected to judge the sobriety and ability consent of someone else.

See, no matter how drunk a man is, he's expected to still no only be able to consent, but be totally responsible for knowing exactly how drunk a woman is and whether or not she's capable of consent. He's also considered to be of sound enough mind to have the mindset necessary for an act to be a crime.

Even if he can't remember later that it happened because he was just as piss-drunk as the woman and he blacked out too.

So if a drunk woman can't consent to sex, how the hell can a drunk man not only consent to sex but be held responsible for committing rape when 'drunk people are definitely NOT responsible or in a sound frame of mind.'

Or does that only apply to drunk women?
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 11-24-2005, 11:33 PM
CynicalGabe CynicalGabe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by catsix
Or does that only apply to drunk women?
Bingo.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 11-25-2005, 12:40 AM
guizot guizot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: An East Hollywood dingbat
Posts: 6,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apos
Given that you cannot legally give consent when drunk, I should think it at least makes sense to question whether someone should be fully culpable for what they do when drunk.
You can't? I think what you mean is that when someone is drunk, the consent is not necessarily legal. As mentioned above people probably get drunk all the time and have sex. If my girlfriend comes home blotto (and this has actually happened to me) and demands to have sex, and I comply, does that mean it's not legal? Or rather, do you mean to say I'm obligated not to oblige her, because she's drunk?
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 11-25-2005, 01:30 AM
TVeblen TVeblen is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: far away from the SDMB
Posts: 6,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apos
But supposed to is not the reality. Drunk people are definately NOT responsible or in a sound frame of mind.
But that's the kicker, isn't it? Drunkeness is self inflicted. It's certainly not a get-out-of-jail card when driving. The assumption there is that drunk off yer ass means a person is a danger to themselves and others. Licenses aren't required for socializing but seems to me the logic snaps when stretched that far, i.e. that a woman who drinks herself senseless is somehow granted wholesale legal protection.

Sure, any guy who pushes himself onto a drunk woman is a slimebag. (That's assuming that even if an equally puking-drunk guy could get it up in the first place it'd take a miracle for him to actually aim it anyplace--and that's with equal moral impairments happening.) Self-respecting guys don't pork unconscious women but self-respecting women don't get gutter-puking drunk and then cry 'victim!' later. Drunks make themselves vulnerable but none of 'em, gender be damned, gets a free pass just for being drunk.

This isn't morality; it's law. And common sense, none of the three being all that compatible, unnerstand. I fail to see how a rape could have occured if the 'victim' was too blitzed to remember whether she even consented or not. Rape is a dead serious legal charge, with heavy consequences. Drugged without one's knowledge is one thing. Complete unconsciousness is really stupid but right out too. (Not only predatory but unpleasantly necrophiliac.) Muddled reconsideration--"I'm sure I probably woulda said 'no' if I hadn't been blasted"--after the fact is quite another.

Rights come with responsibilities. Drunk isn't an excuse.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 11-25-2005, 01:33 AM
DanBlather DanBlather is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by guizot
Is it rape for a woman to have sex with a man who is drunk? And how drunk is "drunk"?

I'm pretty sure a woman once tried to liquor me up for ulterior motives. (She kept insisting that I must try her fantastic version of a bloody mary, but I only drink beer, and she said she didn't have any.) Of course, I shouldn't have accepted it, especially when half-way through the thing I realized it was mighty stiff.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 11-25-2005, 01:41 AM
Cubsfan Cubsfan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Scenario:

Girl hops in bed with a guy in a horny fit and regrets it later, or finds out he is married, or he rejects her afterwards. Knowing that drunkedness is a surefire way to nail the guy she runs home and downs 8 shots of tequila, waits till she's close to stumbling drunk, calls the cops and calls rape because "he took advantage of me when I couldn't control my self or give consent".

How does this man prove that she gave consent? How does he prove she wasn't drunk when he nailed her?

A womans decisions when she is drunk are still her own decisions. It's no different than someone who rams a tree when they are drunk driving. They are still fully responsible for deciding to get in that car. I believe the same thing applies here.

You shouldn't get totally blitzed with people you don't know or trust. It's a decision you need to make BEFORE you start drinking.

Before you jump in here and blast me, yes, I think a drunk woman can be raped, but I think consent when you are drunk is still consent. For better or worse.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 11-25-2005, 03:52 AM
Malacandra Malacandra is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Otto
Not knowing how things work in the UK, but in the US a judge may find as a matter of law that no reasonable jury can return a verdict of guilty.
Yes, an English judge can direct a jury to acquit. I say "English" deliberately because Scotland, though part of the UK, retains its own legal system; a Scottish judge very likely does have the same power, but I don't hear enough about Scottish court cases to comment.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 11-25-2005, 04:16 AM
irishgirl irishgirl is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Bad case, right outcome, not, however, a good precendent.

I am entitled to feel that security guards escorting extrememly drunk female students back to their homes and who then have sex with them should be fired from their jobs, even if they are aquitted of rape.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 11-25-2005, 04:22 AM
Malacandra Malacandra is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by irishgirl
Bad case, right outcome, not, however, a good precendent.

I am entitled to feel that security guards escorting extrememly drunk female students back to their homes and who then have sex with them should be fired from their jobs, even if they are aquitted of rape.
Cool. He did nothing a court could convict him of, but he should be severely punished anyway. That seems fair.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 11-25-2005, 04:30 AM
Tabby_Cat Tabby_Cat is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: No Gum Here
Posts: 2,291
Of course, getting fired is private contractual obligations, not criminal law.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 11-25-2005, 04:43 AM
clairobscur clairobscur is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 14,306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malacandra
Cool. He did nothing a court could convict him of, but he should be severely punished anyway. That seems fair.

I must say that in this case, I must agree with her. If it is part of his job to safely bring people back home, he commited a serious ethical breach, failed at his obligations and ought to be fired. Being a criminal or not and being fit for your job or not aren't the same issues at all.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 11-25-2005, 05:00 AM
Daisy Mae Daisy Mae is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malacandra
Cool. He did nothing a court could convict him of, but he should be severely punished anyway. That seems fair.
Are you allowed to have sex on the job where you work?

If a person is brought into our emergency department due to an illness while drinking, does that mean we can have sex with him/her during the course of treatment if we can get them to say it's okay? And even if it doesn't make it rape I can still keep my job after having sex at work? That'll make a 12 hour shift go faster, I'll say that.

Having said that, I agree that in this case it would seem conviction would be nearly impossible. I'm just responding to the idea that it's okay to have sex with people while you're working at a job to protect them.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 11-25-2005, 05:52 AM
grey_ideas grey_ideas is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by irishgirl
I am entitled to feel that security guards escorting extrememly drunk female students back to their homes and who then have sex with them should be fired from their jobs, even if they are aquitted of rape.
Agreed if he was escorting her back home as part of his job, if he'd gone off duty and then later on that evening had simply offered to walk her home then perhaps not.

I used to work as a team leader for nightclub security when I was at university and I did help people get back to their halls of residense (normally only during freshers week...the poor things). It wasn't something that was part of the job but it was something some of us did to help out when we had a particularly blitzed student who could barely remember what hall they lived in and had no real idea how to get there (if they were at all together at least they remembered which university they were at!).

What we would do is get the office to call a taxi, get the student into the hall of residense and then call the on-duty warden who could find some of their friends to help them to their room. Normally I would then go with the other students to make sure the person got to their room okay and to make sure they were level headed enough to watch over the intoxicated student for a while (you don't want to hand over the intoxicated student to a bunch that's been drinking all night and feels the answer to the problem is that they just need a few more drinks!). I would not enter the other students room though, that would just be putting yourself in a position where any sort of accusation could fly.

I must say that if one of my team had done this whilst offering to help another student out I think our managers would have removed them from the job pretty sharpish. Even in the situation where there was no actual rape, I still think it is a breach of trust in the security team.

grey_ideas
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 11-25-2005, 05:55 AM
irishgirl irishgirl is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
A police officer or paramedic who was charged with escorting a drunk person home and had sex with them would be fired for breach of a duty of care.

A doctor who has consensual sex with a sober patient would be struck off.

A university teacher who escorted a drunk student home and had sex with them would be fired.

I don't see why a security guard should be different.
It was his job to get her safely from A to B, not to have sex with her in the corridor outside her flat. He was sober, he was at work, whether there was rape or not is immaterial, he doesn't deserve to have that job if having sex with a woman is more important than doing his job.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.