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

1235»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote:
    1) If a woman cannot remember saying no, then it does not mean that the (alleged) rapist is automatically aquitted. If there is some kind of evidence - a witness, a confession of guilt, or a taped record - then the rape trial would clearly proceed.

    Was in this case.
    2) The most strikingly obvious untruth - the point is whether she had sex consensually, since that is the idea of a rape trial.

    For a jury to weigh up the evidence and decide. Not for a judge to make assumptions.
    3) If there is no evidence to put before a jury (as in this case, where the only witness would have been the defendant) then the case is dismissed by the judge, since there is no grounds for the trial to proceed.

    Her testimony, if accurately reported in the press, should have been enough.

    All I'm saying is that if this man had been one of our clients we'd have been delighted with the prosecution doing what they did.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    1) Was in this case.

    2) For a jury to weigh up the evidence and decide. Not for a judge to make assumptions.

    3) Her testimony, if accurately reported in the press, should have been enough.

    All I'm saying is that if this man had been one of our clients we'd have been delighted with the prosecution doing what they did.

    1) and 2) So where is the evidence? In a rape trial where there is no question that intercourse took place between the accuser and defendant the only question is consent. Since by her own admission she cannot remember whether or not she consented, she cannot stand as a witness, and her testimonial would have been the only evidence presentable to the court. Thus there is no evidence that she did not consent to sex.

    3) Employed in the legal profession as you are, surely you understand that the only possible way to convict somebody is if there is some kind of evidence that they are guilty. Since there is none what else could the prosecution have done?

    As a side issue I would like to add to those who saluted the honesty of this girl. It must have been extremely tempting to claim that she could remember refusing, and I have every sympathy with her. If press reports are accurate then clearly the accused is a severely disturbed and despicable character - lets hope he gets his comeuppance one day.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I read her testimony as that she was so far out of it she couldn't have given any meaningful consent anyway. Especially given the sober state of the defendant, who should have reasonably known she was too drunk to give meaningful consent.

    I quite agree that it has to be beyond all reaosnable doubt. I rather suspect a jury would have acquitted anyway. But it should have been left to the jury to decide, after hearing the evidence of the defendant. The defendant should have been cross-examined, and it is that that bothers me, not the acquittal.

    I would salute the honesty of the girl too. Perhaps she shouldn't have been so honest- defendants rarely are.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Klintock, if a man considers himself to have been sexually assaulted, and he has been felt up in inappropriate places by a woman in a pub, then yes, that woman is guilty of indecent assault. It's all in the law.

    Yeah I was responding to NQA. I know how ridiculous the law is.

    The problem with it is, of course, that it's all the opinion of the assaulted.

    A hand on the arse won't actually injure you, but it can allow you to feel afraid, aroused, excited, apprehensive, amused, angry or any other emotion. To then say that it's a sexual assault depending on how you feel about it is difficult as far as a court is concerned because emotions can't be proven.

    We should probably have a "not proven" verdict, let the doubt follow him around.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So Kermit, what happened to those quotes? Can't find any? :rolleyes:

    Lying like that a couple of hundred years ago and it'd be pistols at dawn old boy.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Spliffie wrote:
    So Kermit, what happened to those quotes? Can't find any? :rolleyes:

    Plenty of inferences from the first page. Just about all of them to about post 60 in fact.

    But you'll just go "oh noes! i didnt say that!!!111" so what's the point?

    Still think that victims of sexual assault should be "grateful for the attention"?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    Plenty of inferences from the first page. Just about all of them to about post 60 in fact.

    But you'll just go "oh noes! i didnt say that!!!111" so what's the point?

    Still think that victims of sexual assault should be "grateful for the attention"?

    Nice get out clause.

    I don't honestly believe you can actually think i've said or implied that. Your mind surely can't be that warped?

    So go on, show me. If you're going to throw accusations like that about then at least have the balls to back it up eh?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Spliffie wrote:
    I don't honestly believe you can actually think i've said or implied that.

    If you didn't mean that then pheh. I'm bored shitless, but I'm not bored enough to argue about that.

    Heard it so many times on here that it's to be expected that there are nobheads about who really think that. Go and look at what Amnesty found out.

    A lot of people do think that raped women brought it on themselves by wearing a slinky top or getting drunk. Heard it hundreds of times on here too.

    And given your comments to Ballerina I do wonder.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    I read her testimony as that she was so far out of it she couldn't have given any meaningful consent anyway. Especially given the sober state of the defendant, who should have reasonably known she was too drunk to give meaningful consent.

    I quite agree that it has to be beyond all reaosnable doubt. I rather suspect a jury would have acquitted anyway. But it should have been left to the jury to decide, after hearing the evidence of the defendant. The defendant should have been cross-examined, and it is that that bothers me, not the acquittal.

    I would salute the honesty of the girl too. Perhaps she shouldn't have been so honest- defendants rarely are.

    Agreed - I would like to have seen the defendant give justification for his actions if nothing else.

    However, the question is not whether "meaningful" consent was given, simply consent.

    As a matter of interest, are there any cases/precedents/conditions of the law which discount consent through incapacity?

    For instance, if someone was to persuade a severely mentally ill, senile, or handicapped person to consent, would they be liable for rape?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    If you didn't mean that then pheh. I'm bored shitless, but I'm not bored enough to argue about that.

    Heard it so many times on here that it's to be expected that there are nobheads about who really think that. Go and look at what Amnesty found out.

    A lot of people do think that raped women brought it on themselves by wearing a slinky top or getting drunk. Heard it hundreds of times on here too.

    And given your comments to Ballerina I do wonder.

    I don't remember anyone ever saying that girls deserve rape for being tarted up on here. Fucking disgrace it they did.

    As for the Ballerina thing, i may as well clarify my stance here...i don't think touching someone's leg/thigh is particularly heinous...sounds like an otherwise innocent guy making a move badly and Ballerina (being young and innocent) has freaked over it.

    You've been out of order here Kermit, but as you say it's boring now.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote:
    Agreed -
    if someone was to persuade a severely mentally ill, senile, or handicapped person to consent, would they be liable for rape?
    yes ...summat in the papers not long back.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote:
    However, the question is not whether "meaningful" consent was given, simply consent.

    The law is that the person has to give consent, and be in a position to give consent.

    If you had sex with an unconscious or asleep woman, and your defence was that she didn't push you off therefore she must have consented, then that is rape.

    The law has recently changed, in fact. It used to be the case that a person of any age could give consent to sexual intercourse- there was one case where a defendant claimed a five year old consented therefore it wasn't rape, and this was held to be a valid defence (although he was still done on having sex with a girl under the age of 13). This loophole has been closed with the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

    What I don't like about this case is the precedent it sets. I've explained my position already, I don't have anything new to say.

    If you wonder why the conviction rate is so low, perhaps this article will help explain how badly rape victims are treated by the judicial system.

    Anyone who knows anyone who has been raped will know just how useless the judicial system is. And that an awful lot of sick men are allowed to get away with it because the woman was drunk and she couldn't stand up in court and categorically say she said no.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Just a few little things to consider:

    The rate of false reporting is about 2%, as for all other crimes. Source.
    A woman cannot agree to sex if she is too drunk or drugged. Source - "A Matter of Consent.
    The CPS believe the stereotype of "real rape" (i.e. violent attacker) just as much as anyone else. Source.
    Judges "furious" that sexual history shouldn't be considered relevant. Source.
    Men rape because they can. Story.

    Just a bit of food for thought.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    1. No precident was set. For that to occur, the defendant would have to be found guilty and to fail an appeal.

    2. I believe he judge did not throw out the case. I understand the prosecution withdrew the charge, at which point the judge (correctly) instructed the jury to acquit.

    3. No one is claiming that because she was drunk and can't remember means she must have consented. Insistance that those who are not screaming for castration are claiming this does you a disservice


    From what I've heard, on balance of probability, he was a very bad lad; she should pursue a civil action for compensation.

    He probably abused a position of trust, but was he smart enough to realise it?

    Being on the job, in the job should get him at least a written warning, if not a gross misconduct dismissal.

    There are a lot of people who won't do things sober that they will after some drink - dutch courage - you can't reasonably demand that consent can only be obtained when someone is sober, so you are then trying to come up with some crazy definition of how drunk you have to be before your consent cannot be accepted, and how the other party can recognise that your conset is no longer legal, while that party may also be drunk.

    by far the worst thing to have happened, would have been for the case to have proceeded, and the jury "feeling" the man to be in the wrong find him guilty ("guilty not proven" would be a nicer verdict); then for the case to come to appeal and a precident be set that
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote:
    For instance, if someone was to persuade a severely mentally ill, senile, or handicapped person to consent, would they be liable for rape?

    The recent sexual offences act deliberately makes it extremely difficult for consent from these groups - even to the point where mental health campaign groups worry that it may be almost impossible for people with mental disablilties to ever consent to sex; regardless of the situation.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ok, well I have to take issue with kermit here, and not just from reading the posts but hearing the story myself and seeing the details on the news and reading the article posted.


    In this case I belive the Justice was right to instruct a not guilty verdict. There is no evidence of rape and the issue of consent is not clear. While I do not defend rapists and nor do I say the system is perfect, I belive there have been some very valid points made on the flaws of the system regarding rape cases, I believe that this case should not have gone to court.

    You have made some false assurtions kermit. There wa no evidence of any drugging or even a deliberately attaempt to get this girl drunk and nor does the law say that when date rape drugs are used there will be no prosecution. Obiously date rape drugs are a different matter. While the victim may not remember saying yes or no, the clear fact that there is a drug in her system that has no place being there except for the use of knocking her out, then that clearly shows the intent of removing consent and so is a clear rape. That is why consent is the keystone of any rape cases. It is that which what defines what is rape and what is not, with the expection of age, as children are seen as too young to be give consent so even if a girl under 13 said yes to sex with an older man, the man would be prosecuted under child rape laws. The issue of consent is the vital part of consensual sex. In the UK, hardcore pornography has onky recnetly been legalised, in the past few years in fact. However it is still under strict controls. They are monitered and they are not allowed to have a woman's mouth be gagged or clocked even for a second as this would impaire the ability of consent.

    In this case, the girl got extremely drunk under her own will and was escourted back to her room. She was not unconcious or passed out. While you say the man in question was put in charge of her safety and should not have indulged in even consensual activity, you over look the fact that the man is not some 40 year old seasoned security worker. He is a fellow student doing a tempory job. He is just like her, he is the same age and of the sam emindset and while yes he was entrusted with getting her back to her room saftly, to sugest he is not allowed to have sex with a fellow student is misguided. In universitys the world over, students have sex with each other, whether they do bar work or security jobs or whatever. It is a common accurance and not out of the ordinary.

    The girl claims that she would not have had sex with him sober then also says if it wa swilling she owuld have taken him into her flat. Both of these areguements have little to no substance. How many times have people you know, you meet, you read about, you have seen get a pissed and then have sex with some1 they thought they never would? They see something in them or just feel horny or whatever, but they have sex at that moment and then regret the next day. It happens. Also the idea that if it was consensula it would only have been in her room is also void. I ask again how many people have you read about, know, seen, heard who just couldnt wait and id it out in public, in an alley, a toiliet, a car, in a bush etc etc. I would also suggest that if this man was intending to rape her, then surely he would have been better off doing it in her room as he would not have been seen. Rapiung someone in a public corrider, I imagine would make it it easier for him to be caught if someone happend to come into the corrider, they could probably tell.

    While the issue of consent is not clear, I ask what is the alternative. So if we take your scenerio and the man is guilty then a rapist has gone free. Ok, thats worst case scenerio one. Whats the second? He didn't rape her but they decide that he did and send an innoscent person to prison, place him on the sex offender's register and ruin his life. Thats pretty bad I would say and I don't imagine you would be too happy if it happend to you.

    It is not clear that this girl said no nor yes and with no evidence of drugs involved or injury then there is nothing to suggest the he raped this girl. I am afraid that is what cases are based on, evidence. If there is none then its highly unlikely they will or should convict. That is a fact I'm afraid.

    I think there is a lesson to be learned her. While no woman asks to be raped and I am not suggesting they are, I think people should bear in mind the consequences of being absolutley pissed off her there face to the point they have memory black outs and lose physcial control of their bodies. Being taken advantge of is one risk, doubtless there are health risks or the likely chance of wandering out in front of a car, etc etc etc.

    Hopefully people wil lthink about their own safety a bit more.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I've said all I have to say, nothing new.

    Two things though.

    Not all alcohol intake is consensual or meant. One of the most popular date rape drugs is alcohol itself- slip extra vodkas into a woman's drink, quite easy to do.

    Many date rape drugs disappear out of the bloodstream quickly, and give the same effects as a significant intake of alcohol. More women than people think would have been drugged, but only think they'd had too much. I don't know how many people have seen rohypnol in action, but I have when my wife was drugged in a bar; she was completely out of it, in no fit state to consent to anything, but she wasn't unconscious and she was talking to me. She woke up the next morning feeling that she'd just got wrecked and forgotten everything, and if she HAD been drinking she wouldn't have even considered that she'd been drugged.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Latest tests seem to have been up2 date the the mojority of date rape drugs and if tests are gone in a fair amount of time they can be detected in the blood stream.

    While alcohol itself maybe an inducent to taking advantage of someone, in this case and it is this case that you were specifically talking about kermit, so sticking to the facts of this case, the girl in question bought her own and drinks and her alcohol intake was not dictated by the accused so that arguement can not be used in this case.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Walkindude wrote:
    Latest tests seem to have been up2 date the the mojority of date rape drugs and if tests are gone in a fair amount of time they can be detected in the blood stream.

    Point is, you can only test for something if you know its there.

    Most people who go out drinking and get slipped a drug will just think they drank too much. Because that is what rohypnol is designed to do- mimick excess alcohol consumption.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I guess you do have a point there. Though I'd be interested to see the effetcs of rohypnol for myself, I mean I understand people not being able to taste or see the drug but then to apper nornal and be conscuous an dhave conversations biut still be out oif it then the next day not only no remember but assume to have drunk to much is a bit strange.

    However the point must be made that not ever drunken and regretted one night stand is a rape either.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You can't taste or smell the drug, and certainly not in a smoky environment.

    They don't appear normal, but they do appear like they are very drunk. Which is fine if its your girlfriend and its 8pm, you can carry her home, but its not so good with girls who get separated from their friends at 2am.

    Especially when it's the fucking doorman doing the spiking.
    What happens when you get spiked.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    A few fannies tried to tarnish my name because I'd bought some ketamine once. Silly twats thought its primary use is as a date rape drug :rolleyes:.

    Spiking drinks is a real cunt's trick. A friend of mine had his lager spiked with LSD about a year ago, fortunately he's done it before and thoroughly enjoyed tripping in a nightclub...but worrying all the same.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    yes I agree kermit, doormen are a big risk. I mean the stuff you hear about them, they get girls to shg them just to get entries into clubs, then the drugging stuff as well, they dont care really. I read about one guy who was banging a girl while she was vomiting in a sink. Terrible stuff.
Sign In or Register to comment.