Girls - don't get drunk and complain about not getting a rape conviction

[Hacker Khan]

Slight change to the scenario.... if (in this instance) a woman was drunk and stepped out in front of a car then should she take some of the blame?

and back to the original scenario..

If you get drunk and prior to that you took NO steps to make sure you were going to be safe once completely blotto out of your skull should you NOT accept some of the blame?


added: my point being that if you get blind drunk then you should accept (some) responsibility no matter what the outcome, even if you end up being the victim of a car accident or an assault. That doesn't mean that the other party is necessarily innocent of course.

If someone drunk wonders out in front of a car (and lets assume the car was just driving normally) then the car is an innocent party. It just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, so there is very little if any blame that can be attributed to it and a lot of the responsibility is on the person that got hit, if by the result of their drunkenness, they walked in front of a car.

However, in a case of forecable and violent rape the man is committing one of the most horrific crimes possible. So whilst the woman may be in the same state, there is a world of difference between a car being in the wrong place at the wrong time and a man raping someone. One is taking advantage of a situation and is guilty of perpetrating a disgusting crime, and one is just unlucky. And there is a huge amount of difference, both legally and morally between them.

And to use the car example to prove that drunk women are in some way to blame for their actions but to them transpose that into a rape situation is in my opinion stupid.

I'm just wondering how many of the people on here would think the same thing if their daughter got raped after having a few drinks. How many would be so keen to stand there and lecture her on the fact that she brought some of it on herself.

 

[drdel]

Everyone has the right to go about their lawful business without being assaulted; sexually or otherwise.

It is as well to remember that sexually assault can happen to both sexes - its not unknown drink fuelled girls to assault lads; but guys are expected to "man-up".

The big issue with rape, apart from the emotive reaction, is that it is defined as illegal because of the lack of consent. Consequently if one or other, or both of the two people involved are drunk the truth of how the sexual encounter too place is very hard, if not impossible to establish.

Everyone must take responsibility for their own actions and sometimes this means acting responsibly and not placing yourself at risk.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Everyone has the right to go out for a night on the town and not be worried about how it will end, BUT, they are all adults over the age of consent and so have to take responsibility for their actions. In particular, that means knowing your own limitations with alcohol and not getting so drunk you are incapable of making consenual decisions and putting yourself in potentially dangerous or unwanted positions. However, I accept this isn't going to happen, epecially in the current drinking climate especially amongst young women, when people will drink far too much and sadly become a victim to rape and other crime. This doesn't make it right or any less harrowing but it does make the job of getting those who commit these offences brought to justice much harder.

There's no easy answer other than curb your intake and remain in control of your situation but this won't happen and I'm not sure what can be done both in terms of prevention and prosecution

 

[ManinBlack]

In court the victim often says "I was so drunk I didn't know what I was doing" In most cases the accused could say the same thing. They both did things that, when sober, they may not have done. Does this constitute a crime? Some would argue that there are not different grades of rape. This is nonsense.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

If someone drunk wonders out in front of a car (and lets assume the car was just driving normally) then the car is an innocent party. It just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, so there is very little if any blame that can be attributed to it and a lot of the responsibility is on the person that got hit, if by the result of their drunkenness, they walked in front of a car.

However, in a case of forecable and violent rape the man is committing one of the most horrific crimes possible. So whilst the woman may be in the same state, there is a world of difference between a car being in the wrong place at the wrong time and a man raping someone. One is taking advantage of a situation and is guilty of perpetrating a disgusting crime, and one is just unlucky. And there is a huge amount of difference, both legally and morally between them.

And to use the car example to prove that drunk women are in some way to blame for their actions but to them transpose that into a rape situation is in my opinion stupid.

I'm just wondering how many of the people on here would think the same thing if their daughter got raped after having a few drinks. How many would be so keen to stand there and lecture her on the fact that she brought some of it on herself.

I do hope you're not think that I am of this mindset - I 100% am not. My point is imply that has some responsibility towards herself to be aware of what she is doing - we all do. But if she gets blind drunk and gets assaulted - but is unable to remember any evidence, she is part responsible for failure to convict. . So as the judge pointed out - the legal spect of the case rather than any moral aspect. But deliberate or otherwise some Rape concern groups failed to understand the difference.

 

[Hacker Khan]

In court the victim often says "I was so drunk I didn't know what I was doing" In most cases the accused could say the same thing. They both did things that, when sober, they may not have done. Does this constitute a crime? Some would argue that there are not different grades of rape. This is nonsense.

I'm sure you are a seasoned watcher of rape cases so have lots of stats to back up your statement that the victim often says that. And a male forecable having sexual intercourse with someone when drunk, which he may not have done when sober, is constituted as a crime. It is called rape.

Are you really saying that morally, either party having had a drink means that the rape is in a different category? Is it less of a crime? Are you under the delusion that most rapes occur when drunk women consent to sex but then accuse the male of raping them the next morning? Or drunk women lead a man on the point of penetration but then decide to not go ahead with intercourse?

I think for my sanity I'm out of here.

 

[ManinBlack]

I'm sure you are a seasoned watcher of rape cases so have lots of stats to back up your statement that the victim often says that. And a male forecable having sexual intercourse with someone when drunk, which he may not have done when sober, is constituted as a crime. It is called rape.

Are you really saying that morally, either party having had a drink means that the rape is in a different category? Is it less of a crime? Are you under the delusion that most rapes occur when drunk women consent to sex but then accuse the male of raping them the next morning? Or drunk women lead a man on the point of penetration but then decide to not go ahead with intercourse?

I think for my sanity I'm out of here.

No, what I'm saying is that the victim can be too drunk to consent and the accused too drunk to realise the victim is too drunk to consent. It can happen when there was nothing forceable at all.

 

[MadAdey]

I'm sure you are a seasoned watcher of rape cases so have lots of stats to back up your statement that the victim often says that. And a male forecable having sexual intercourse with someone when drunk, which he may not have done when sober, is constituted as a crime. It is called rape.

Are you really saying that morally, either party having had a drink means that the rape is in a different category? Is it less of a crime? Are you under the delusion that most rapes occur when drunk women consent to sex but then accuse the male of raping them the next morning? Or drunk women lead a man on the point of penetration but then decide to not go ahead with intercourse?

I think for my sanity I'm out of here.

I think your going off on a tangent here, the discussion was about girls getting drunk and then calling rape but not 100% sure it was as they where too drunk to remember. I think when some one is covered in bruises and has been slapped around that is a different case altogether. But waking up the next day not happy with what you did last night because you where drunk is not the same as a violent rape.

I'm not legally trained, but for a jury to convict someone do they not have To find them guilty beyond all reasonable doubt? A girl being seen drunk with a man then making a rape accusation, but being unsure it was as she was drunk is putting doubt into the minds of a jury. So getting a conviction is nearly impossible.

people always say that you should be able to do what you want when you and not be frightened that something may happen to you. I agree 100%, only problem I see is we do not live in a society that allows you to.

 

[JustOne]

And to use the car example to prove that drunk women are in some way to blame for their actions but to them transpose that into a rape situation is in my opinion stupid.

I'm just wondering how many of the people on here would think the same thing if their daughter got raped after having a few drinks. How many would be so keen to stand there and lecture her on the fact that she brought some of it on herself.

An opinion you are entitled to. I find your argument stupid. If you don't think that someone can be drunk and yet still be responsible for their actions then go ahead and explain drink driving.

 

[Val]

This thread has a very generalised view where rape means that someone forced sex on another where that is not always the case, many rape cases are where drunk men and women are together and non consensual sex happens but without force. Both very different but both rape by definition, I can understand where the non forced rape cases fail because of the lack of memory when drunk and why a the judge has stated as was suggested in the OP

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

This thread has a very generalised view where rape means that someone forced sex on another where that is not always the case, many rape cases are where drunk men and women are together and non consensual sex happens but without force. Both very different but both rape by definition, I can understand where the non forced rape cases fail because of the lack of memory when drunk and why a the judge has stated as was suggested in the OP

Why just non-forced rape? I don;t think the judge was differentiating at all on this moral point. She was saying that getting a accused rapist convicted can be very difficult if the accuser can't remember anything (or very little).

 

[chrisd]

Let's see how far we can get into this thread before some mostly elderly male posters, commenting on the plight of women, degenerates into every day misogyny. I give it 9 posts, if indeed it hasn't already. And it will be closed by thread 27.

Wrong as usual ! Already at post 30+