Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.

Get drunk, get raped, and it means you consented

135

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ballerina wrote:
    this sort of reminds me of the post i made a while back....
    about the guy who touched me up and stuck his hand down my trousers (while my own brother was in the room and without my consent) and i was so terrified i froze and couldnt stop him, and obviously i couldn't say anything out loud because my brother was there!
    does that mean its my fault for not being able to stop him?
    No it's not your fault. But you can't prove very much of what happened either. It doesn't make it any less wrong though. It just means that he'll get away with it whether you report it or not.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ballerina wrote:
    does that mean its my fault for not being able to stop him?

    Of course its not your fault.

    Problem is, the defence in a court would say that because you didn't say no you meant yes. The even bigger problem is that juries would buy into this bullshit, and acquit.
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Posts: 16,688 Skive's The Limit
    Kermit wrote:
    Zalbor, even if a person doesn't expressly say no, it doesn't mean they consented.
    Sure it doesn't mean they did, but it doesn't mean they didn't either in itself.
    If they were not in a position to say no- such as if they were paralytic with drink, for example- then there is an assumption that it is rape unless there was implied consent.
    Is this assumption a legal one? I mean, is there a law about it? If there isn't then all the court can do is release the suspect for absence of proof, isn't that right?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Zalbor wrote:
    Sure it doesn't mean they did, but it doesn't mean they didn't either in itself.

    Nope.

    It should have been left for a jury to decide.

    What troubles me is the legal precedent that if you can't remember saying no then that means you didn't say no. The even more troublesome extension of this is that because you were drunk and didn't say no, then that means you said yes, and wanted sexual intercourse.
    Is this assumption a legal one? I mean, is there a law about it? If there isn't then all the court can do is release the suspect for absence of proof, isn't that right?

    The problem with rape is the absence of proof. Of course it is. Rape doesn't happen where people can see it, and rapists deliberately choose victims who won't be believed.

    Consent does not have to be explicit; nor does non-consent. That is why it is so tricky. If I was attacked but didn't fight back, the defence would seek to show that I didn't fight back because I wanted sex. Trebly so if it was an acquaintance who raped me. Even more so again if I was drunk.

    In UK courts the prosecution fling as much shit as possible at the defendant. The defence stand up and fling shit at the complainant- if she was drunk they will grill her until she is tied up in knots saying she can't remember. They will then say the drunk made her say yes, and humiliate her by denigrating the rape, saying she wanted it and loved it. It happens in every rape case; the defence will seek to portray the woman as a dirty slut who wanted it. It takes a very brave woman to put herself through that, to have her character humiliated in such a way.

    Is it any wonder that women don't want to put themselves through this?

    Especially when you get to the end of it, you've been humiliated in court, been forced to hold your knickers up for anyone, and the little cunt who raped you got four years. Why bother?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    Rape proceedings do nothing but humiliate the woman. Unless the woman was sober and violently attacked the twats of this world will assume she said yes. The defence will attack her character and seek to humililate her in the very worst sense of it. It's no wonder that 80% of all rape victims keep their mouth shut and say nothing.

    Some people seem to think that's acceptable. I don't. I'm obviously in a minority, and that sickens me.


    we dont find it acceptable but its innocent til proven guilty...

    id like to see these sort of trials though more anonymous and less character based
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Posts: 16,688 Skive's The Limit
    I know what you said is right, but if that's so then how can anyone be convicted of it? It sadly seems there's no way to find proof in most cases.

    So what you're talking about here seems to me to be a full rewrite of the legal system, isn't it?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't think given the law as it stands that the Judge had any choice but to direct the jury to find him not guilty.

    But the law should not be allowing sober men who are supposed to be escorting her home and protecting her to have sex with women who are virtually unconcious. She wasn't just drunk, she was paralytic and incapable of walking, never mind consenting to sex.

    What pisses me off are that people seem to be comparing the case of a sober man raping a woman to the fact they've had sex with their high or waking up after a heavy night and finding the woman in bed next to the is less attractive than she was with beer goggles. There's no comparison and to make one is at best, crass.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    What troubles me is the legal precedent that if you can't remember saying no then that means you didn't say no. The even more troublesome extension of this is that because you were drunk and didn't say no, then that means you said yes, and wanted sexual intercourse.
    If you cannot remember what happened, then nothing can be proven. Without proof or reasonable suspicion, there is no case.
    rapists deliberately choose victims who won't be believed.
    :confused:
    They certainly choose vulnerable victims, of course, but believability is another thing entirely.
    Consent does not have to be explicit; nor does non-consent. That is why it is so tricky. If I was attacked but didn't fight back, the defence would seek to show that I didn't fight back because I wanted sex. Trebly so if it was an acquaintance who raped me. Even more so again if I was drunk.
    And with good reason. If someone is denying the allegation of rape, they should be allowed to defend that allegation and put forward their version of events. Yes, they may have done it, but the law demands that the jury gives a verdict without a "reasonable doubt". If you want to start locking up all rape defendants based on the allegation, fine but be honest about it. Don't rant about cases where there has been inadequate proof that a criminal offence took place when we do not know the details, and in which a judge/barristers made the decision that there is insufficient evidence to proceed.
    Is it any wonder that women don't want to put themselves through this?
    No, it is no wonder. Rape is a heinous crime and rapists should be locked up wherever possible, but that is no reason to soften the legal process such that a witness is not properly and thoroughly cross-examined.
    Especially when you get to the end of it, you've been humiliated in court, been forced to hold your knickers up for anyone, and the little cunt who raped you got four years. Why bother?
    Is four years not enough? Should evidence not be produced in court? Should the court be closed? Should rape be brushed under the carpet and not pursued through the courts?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    if a person has gotten themselves into a state where they can't remember what the hell was going on when and where and how ...then their evidence in court should not be ble to convict anyone of anything at all.
    if you were charged with shoplifting and the only witness was an unconsious drunken geezer falling around and smashing his head against the walls and the floor ...and couldn't remember sod all ...would you feel justice had been done as his/her evidence got you thrown in jail?
    come on now ...lets get fucking real.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    if a person has gotten themselves into a state where they can't remember what the hell was going on when and where and how ...then their evidence in court should not be ble to convict anyone of anything at all.
    if you were charged with shoplifting and the only witness was an unconsious drunken geezer falling around and smashing his head against the walls and the floor ...and couldn't remember sod all ...would you feel justice had been done as his/her evidence got you thrown in jail?
    come on now ...lets get fucking real.
    Precisely. I think some of us here are, understandably, getting caught up in the emotion of it all and not looking at the case on its merits.

    I personally think it is highly likely that this man has taken advantage of a young girl who has got herself incapably drunk - and that constitutes rape, whatever the technicalities of consent. But to convict of rape based on this feeling would open the floodgates on many miscarriages of justice. We must demand a certain level of proof before we lock people up and destroy their character in open court.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    We must demand a certain level of proof before we lock people up and destroy their character in open court.
    exactly.
    i'm pretty certain anyone who admitted being in such a state would not be allowed to give evidence in any other kind of criminal case ...i certainly hope so.

    what happened to personal responsibility?

    you cannot expect to go out and get that intoxicated and honestly not expect some bastard to take advantage of you in some way wether it be nicking your stuff beating you sensless kidnapping you or even killing you.
    and getting in thast state also makes you a danger to others and not just yourself.
    sorry but ...if i were a judge i would be alarmed if a case even got as far as court if the main witness was absolutey plastered.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Rolly, if it had been anyone else but someone charged with looking after her then I would agree with you.

    The guy has abused a position of trust and deserves to go down just for that. Even consensual sex on the job should at least get him fired.

    I agree that you can't do him for rape, there is no evidence for it either way. He is definitely guilty of abuse of position and trust.
    what happened to personal responsibility?

    I think most people sold it to the government a while ago.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    What troubles me is the legal precedent that if you can't remember saying no then that means you didn't say no.

    I suspect that "precedent" is more about what you have read into it.

    The judgement was made on the basis that she couldn't testify that she said no. Without that the judge felt that there was no evidence that she was raped, because she was just a likely to have said yes, as no.

    She was honest and it has cost the case.

    Personally, as I said, I think the jury should have been given the option to deliver a verdict. I am dubious that a woman would have sex outside her do, consented or not. All they had to do was open the door and walk in. For me that gives an element of doubt about the level of consent given.
    The even more troublesome extension of this is that because you were drunk and didn't say no, then that means you said yes, and wanted sexual intercourse.

    Again, not the case. The Judge didn't say that it meant she said yes, just that there was no testimony that she said "No". Or should we assume that's exactly what happened even though no-one in the case can show, in any way, that she did. Doesn't tha lack of that testimony give an element of "doubt" over consenting?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    Might as well have.

    The poor little lamb
    .
    might as well have?

    replace poor little lamb with irresponsible idiot ...in a dangerous world.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    Rolly, if it had been anyone else but someone charged with looking after her then I would agree with you.

    The guy has abused a position of trust


    .
    since when was that a criminal offence?

    we all know that rape is a terrible crime.
    we all know many women have made false accusations of rape through regret or want of revenge.

    for a woman in this kind of condition to be able to even be considered to be a relible witness makes a mockery of the legal system.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    since when was that a criminal offence?

    It's not. I think my usual cool about things has been blown by this.

    I had a woman so out of it she was drooling a few hours ago on my sofa, teaching her in trance how to live as a non smoker.

    The whole "partially responsible" thing has a special resonance for me. What would you say if I molested her? That it was her own fault for giving a man that kind of power over her "in a dangerous world"?

    Bollocks. Guy was in a position of trust. What he did was wrong. Of course, it's not illegal, but that don't make it right.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    It's not. I think my usual cool about things has been blown by this.

    I had a woman so out of it she was drooling a few hours ago on my sofa, teaching her in trance how to live as a non smoker.

    The whole "partially responsible" thing has a special resonance for me. What would you say if I molested her? That it was her own fault for giving a man that kind of power over her "in a dangerous world"?

    Bollocks. Guy was in a position of trust. What he did was wrong. Of course, it's not illegal, but that don't make it right.
    it's obvious the guys a twat.
    but ...we cannot be expected to run a legal system on the evidence of people who are drooling and remember nothing.
    we cannot lock people up who have not broken any existing laws ...no matter how much we dislike him and his behaviour.
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,282 Skive's The Limit
    Kermit wrote:
    She was drunk, she must have been a right slapper, eh Skive?

    Don't make yourself look like a cunt mate. Can you find where I implied anything of the sort?
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote:
    Don't make yourself look like a cunt mate. ?
    especialy with misleading titles such as ....

    Get drunk, get raped, and it means you consented
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,282 Skive's The Limit
    Kermit wrote:
    If a woman was drunk and got raped then it highly unlikely she will be believed by a jury filled with Skives and Spliffies.

    Where as if we had a jury filled with Kermits, we'd have the accused being sent off to the gallows based soley on the womans allegation.

    Ronaldo is a rapist cunt.

    It's OK for you to assume that he's a rapist on an allegation, but not for me to suggest the possibility that this woman may have consented?
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    In the situation where someone (sober) is given responsibility over a drunken person to make sure they get home safely, it should equate to a doctor/patient relationship in which it is illegal, or at least job threatening, to 'have relations' with the person whilst they are in that state. The problem, of course, is measuring how drunk someone needs to be before they can no longer consent.

    In this case, the man has certainly abused his position, even if he didn't rape her, since he had been given responsibility to get her home. This in itself should have similar consequences to those of a doctor, nurse or teacher who commits a similar act with a client.

    If a woman is bordering on unconsciousness, then I don't believe that anyone could suggest that she consented. If she was in this state in this case, then surely there would have been witnesses (was she at a club?) to back it up. This would then suggest that she was in an unfit state to give consent and in my opinion, should (not sure whether it does) count as rape. Of course, the problem is how drunk does one have to be before they are unable to consent? As it is, there can't have been any evidence of her being almost unconscious and so it's her word against his.

    Incidentally, however, I do think that until a charge has been brought, the accused should have anonymity too.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think the issue is less about the fact that a girl was so drunk that she couldn't remember whether she said yes or no and more about the fact that the guy was in a position of trust and stone cold sober.

    As I see it he abused the trust that was placed in him to get her home safe.

    On the subject did anybody see about the deaf and dumb girl in York?

    Worries you the kind of people that are out there.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    Of course its not your fault.

    Problem is, the defence in a court would say that because you didn't say no you meant yes. The even bigger problem is that juries would buy into this bullshit, and acquit.
    i was just giving an example....it was hardly rape but it left me so shocked, i didn't want to say anything because his parents and my parents are friends, and i didn't outwardly object so it would have been my word against his
    the horrible thing is was that i was only 3 days past turning 14
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Incidentally, however, I do think that until a charge has been brought, the accused should have anonymity too.

    I actually think that until conviction there should be anonymity, because of the stigma involved in rape cases. It would remove the incentive for false claiming, although the false reporting rate is no higher than for other crimes.

    Especially it would deter the people who bring false claims against those with some social standing, such as the footballers in La Manga, Craig Charles and the Hamiltons.

    I don't wish to presume anything about this case, as I haven't had the pleasure of reading the casework. Whether he raped her or not in this instance isn't really what I'm bothered about, what I am bothered about is the precedent.

    In my opinion a precedent has been set that if the girl cannot remember specifically saying no, and she happened to be drunk at the time, then there is the assumption that she consented. This matter was not put before a jury; the judge threw the case out because the girl could not remember saying no. She couldn't remember saying yes, or performing any act that meant she implicitly consented, and she testified she had passed out, but the case was thrown about simply because the girl could not stand up in court and say she said no. The fact she was drunk was taken to assume she would start having sex with a perfect stranger in a corridor, when she was literally inches from her room and her bed. As the defence counsel put it, she "had steamy raunchy sex with a stranger for kicks". At no point was the defendant even put to proof.

    If that assumption and precedent set does not concern people, then that scares me. That a judge assumes that because a girl was drunk and can't stand up and say she said no it means she consented is of deep concern. That a judge assumes you have to scream no in order to be raped concerns me. That a judge assumes drunk women will have sex with anyone, anywhere deeply concerns me.

    The actions of the prosecuting counsel illustrate the demand and need for specialist rape prosecutors. In my opinion, the prosecuting counsel was incompetent for not putting the defendant to proof. He should have been cross-examined, and made to account for how and why he came to be having sex with a paralytic girl when he was a) sober and b) in a position of complete trust over her. He should have been made to account for why he breached that trust.

    If a jury had decided there was not enough evidence, then that would be different. My problem is not that this man was acquitted- I haven't read the case papers, so I don't know what the facts are. My problem is that because a girl couldn't say she explicitly said no, she was assumed to have consented, and the defendant was not put to proof.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Surely if it was believed, by the judge, that she was too drunk to remember saying "yes" OR "no", it should also be taken that a "yes" or a "no" from her in such state would not be informed consent/unconsent? I would also argue that a lack of having said "no" does not equal consent in any case. For instance, can a woman who says and does nothing physical to prevent sex due to fear or being 'frozen' not bring her case to court?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    it's not really a bad precedant, the thing is - noone even knows if he had sex with her? he could of just been bragging for all we know, and then she heard, and believed it to be true

    the thing is you can't prosecute someone if there is no evidence of anything happening and to all intensive purposes it's innocent until proved guilty

    good reason to not incapacitate yourself i believe
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    it's not really a bad precedant, the thing is - noone even knows if he had sex with her? he could of just been bragging for all we know, and then she heard, and believed it to be true

    The facts and the precedent are separate.

    Presumably he admitted having sex with her. The defence issue was consent, remember.
    the thing is you can't prosecute someone if there is no evidence of anything happening and to all intensive purposes it's innocent until proved guilty

    There is evidence of sexual intercourse taking place. The defence issue would have been he didn't do it, not one of consent.

    The issue was of consent. She said she didn't give consent, but can't remember specifically and explicitly saying no. That is what the dangerous precdent is- not only that if you can't remember saying no you were not raped, but that if you were drunk you are presumed to have said yes.

    If a jury had acquitted there would not be this issue. The point is that the judge directed a not guilty verdict because she was drunk and can't remember saying no.

    If that doesn't worry you then I find that terrifying.

    The precedent set by this judge is that because the girl cannot remember saying no then there isn't enough evidence to convict. That is bad enough- a woman should not have to scream no to illustrate no consent.

    But what makes it worse is that the judge assumes that because she was drunk, she was in fact likely to have had "steamy raunchy sex" (defence words, not mine) with a perfect stranger on a corridor inches from her bedroom.

    The precedent is that if the complainant testifies she was drunk and can't remember saying no, then there is a presumption she was not raped. The defendant was not put to proof, the jury were not asked to decide- the judge decided, unilaterally, that being drunk and not remembering saying no = consent.
    good reason to not incapacitate yourself i believe

    So you're saying women shouldn't get drunk because if they do it is perfectly acceptable to presume they would have sex with a perfect stranger in a corridor?

    I love the way the blame is placed on the girl for getting drunk. Kinda proves the Amnesty report really.

    I can't say I'm surprised that many posters on this forum blame the woman. It's become expected, really. Especially when people label posters like MoonRat and Go Away as feminazi sexist bitches.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    to all intensive purposes
    :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    good reason to not incapacitate yourself i believe

    A good reason not to incapacitate yourself is to avoid accidents (y'know like falling off a train station or into a road).

    Someone taking advantage is not an accident. It's not her fault for being pissed.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm quite worried by the assumption that if you don't immediatley condemn someone whose been accused of rape you're obviously a male chauvanist pig who thinks all women out on the piss are drunk slags who are begging for it.

    Before I go on and to make this absolutely clear so no one suggests that I thought any of what happened was ok ... i think the man accused is a pig whatever happened.

    If he had been convicted what sort of precedent would that have set? If i get wasted tonight and sleep with a girl and don't remember consenting would I have grounds to accuse her of rape? Or if we're both too drunk do we have grounds to accuse each other?

    Again surely there's a difference between taking advantage and rape, they're both disgusting things to do but as far as I know only the latter carries a prison scentence.
Sign In or Register to comment.