Rape Judge = "Drunken consent is still consent"

The BBQ Pit
21

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…

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…

22

Everyone accusing the guy of being a slimeball, can I ask you to re-read this snippet?

23

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?

24

I was basing my statements on the passage from the original link that said:

(bolding mine)

Nice reporting there, Times. Being in a blackout does not equal unconciousness.

25

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. :slight_smile:

(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.)

26

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!

27

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.

28

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.

29

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 :rolleyes: ).

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.

30

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???

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.

31

She puked on her…nah, too easy.

Still, vomiting on a cat is kinda funny. If you think little Buttons was aloof before…

32

Yes I do… I should’ve RTFA better before posting.

33

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.

“…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.

34

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.

35

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…”

Admitedly, I didn’t understand correctly the “though it may seem” part. Nevertheles, I would say it’s not unfortunate at all.

36

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.

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.

37

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?

38

Bingo.

39

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?

40

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.