Heads up, Ladies

[Heddi]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1945604

Binge-drink women may lose right to claim rape


WOMEN who are raped while drunk face losing the chance to bring their attackers to justice after a legal ruling on the eve of new licensing laws.
A High Court judge yesterday threw out the case of a student who claimed that she was raped while drunk and unconscious on the basis that “drunken consent is still consent”.

---cut---

The prosecution in the rape case had said 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.”

The judge agreed, instructing the jury to return a verdict of not guilty “even if you don’t agree”.

----

I'm linking to the LBN article because the link in the article is chopped off in the thread :-)

[ismnotwasm]

1. You know

I saw that thread had gotten locked after they moved it. But my 2 cents---One of the many things that bothers me about this is this; I realize there are drunk people, both men and women, who make very, bad decisions. Back when I used to drink, I woke up with a, shall we say inappropriate companian or two myself. But I knew it wasn't rape, it was me being stupid. I would remember enough usually to realize this. I am a recovered alcoholic, and If I know anything about anything, it's being very drunk, often.
My credentials on this subject being established, (I hope) This ruling is fucking dangerous man. How the hell do they know the woman wasn't drugged? I hate the whole "false accusation" shit people bring up, even though I know it happens, it's pretty goddam rare when you look at the whole picture of rape. Drunken consent is not "consent"--I know of drunk women who were gang raped-- passed out-- by males not nearly as drunk. That is not consent, it's rape.
If both people were drunk off their asses, I might cut the male a little slack. But this woman insisted that this man was no-one she would even look twice at basically, was UNCONSCIOUS and was appalled enough to accuse him of rape. This raises some serious red flags, because generally women who wake up with someone they're embarrassed to be by want the whole thing to go away-they don't bring it into the light with a rape accusation, a court trial and everything that goes along with it. (We know how rape victims are STILL treated in court)
The scenario that I've seen goes something like this;
A woman goes out to have a good time, has a few drinks, gets a little out of control. A male notices this and sees a opportunity. Maybe he knows this particular woman's drinking pattern. Maybe he buys her a few drinks, setting her up for the express purpose of getting her drunk enough to get sex off a drunken woman (There is something very sick about that rape or no) Bolsters his courage by drinking himself-but stays more sober than the woman. Finally she's out of control for him to take her home or in his car or in the dirt in a fucking alley.
Why is this NOT rape? Is it any different than slipping a roofie in a drink? Or any other date rape drug? Is it because alcohol is legal? Because she choose to drink? I think it's a deliberate, preditory, stalking type of rape.
If she was passed out any meandering discourse by myself is moot. She did not give consent. It was rape, pure and simple. And this ruling is bullshit.

[Hello_Kitty]

2. It happened to me

Those things guys slip into drinks get a lot of press these days but the scenario you described in your post is MUCH more common. I'm something of a lightweight when it comes to drinking and I know this has happened to me. At a New Year's outing years ago a guy who hung out with our group sometimes, who was known to be a bit infatuated with me and also knew how I get when I have a few too many, was hovering around me all evening. He was buying me drinks and shots. It's important to note that I didn't pay attention to what he was drinking.

To make a long story short, he took me back to my house at the end of the night. Because the details of the night were so murky, I assumed I must have seemed to be consenting. I say 'seemed' because I remember kissing him earlier in the evening. I also automatically assumed that he was as intoxicated as I was. I actually (gag!) went to breakfast with him the next morning and dinner (pity date) 2 nights later. During that dinner he happened to mention that he didn't really care for drinking, that it made him sick. That puzzled me a bit but as weird as this sounds, I still didn't give it too much thought because I just wanted to lose him. I definitely didn't find him attractive, nor did I see us as being compatible in any way. I'm sarcastic, blunt, and fairly outgoing in public. He's quiet, shy, and rather passive. Not to mention boring as all hell. Sorry, he just is.

Anyway, the more I thought about it in the ensuing days, the more the disparity between my alcohol intake and his that night bothered me. So I called my friend who was out with us and asked her if she remembered him drinking. According to her, he was getting me drinks but didn't seem to be partaking himself. She had noticed that he left a nearly full drink of his own on the bar and never went back for it. It dawned on me that not only was this creepy asshole NOT as drunk as I, but that he was most likely sober! He called and emailed me several times in the next few weeks but I ignored all his attempts. He finally stopped until February, when he emailed me one more time to ask me to do something with him. I replied with a scathing message where I told him exactly what I thought of his predatory behavior and warned him never to try to contact me again. I told him that having sex with an intoxicated woman is considered a Class A felony in Arizona and that while I didn't want to go through the ordeal of a rape trial, he might not be so lucky with the next woman.

Please no one flame me because I didn't press charges. I was going through a lot of other crap at the time and just couldn't deal with it. The only thing that bothers me about it is that I don't know if this was a one time thing for this guy or if he does it all the time. I just hope it's the former and not the latter.

And now I read THIS article and see that shitheels like him might not have to worry at all! That just makes me :nuke: :banghead:

[Bunny]

3. I would never flame you for not pressing charges.

That is something that each woman has to decide for herself. Don't feel bad about it, please. You did what was right for you at the time.

I am very glad, however, that you told him about how the next woman he tried this shitty act with might not react the same way - maybe he took it to heart.

[Warpy]

4. Let's drug the judge's cocktail and then roll him

After all, drunken consent is consent to being robbed.

[Hello_Kitty]

5. Oh yeah

And if some big, hairy guy happens to think he's good pickin's for sex too, then hey no big deal. Somehow I think that would be "different", y'know? :eyes:

[smirkymonkey]

6. So if a man gets drunk and is raped by a homosexual, then it's

his fault? Why do I have the feeling that in that situation, the ruling would come down much differently. There is a real backlash against women in this culture - another sign of creeping fascism.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

7. The woman told the truth,

and, bless her heart, she set the defendant free.

This quote: "The prosecution in the rape case had said 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" is all there is.

The woman couldn't even testify under oath about whether or not sex had taken place?

If you can't have your main witness testify that she was raped, or, at the very least, that sexual relations took place, you can't bring rape charges.

Bless her for telling the truth and stopping what might have been a completely unjust prosecution and conviction.

What the judge said might sound like an unfortunate choice of words, but, in context, you do have to keep in mind that he was instructing a jury, and that language is not the same as conversational. So, it made sense when he instructed them that "drunken consent is still consent" when viewed through the lens of jury instruction.

[bloom]

8. It's difficult to know

what the truth is from a newspaper article - but what I think is that the judge has a point that “Drunken consent is still consent.” But THAT is assuming she gave consent. I think it sounds like she DID NOT give consent at all. And that is what the problem is.

From a quote in the article - it certainly sounds like a rape taking place - where she may have vaguely become semi-conscious in the middle of it.

The fact that she at one point said:

(In her statement to police) “I feel I am to blame because I got so drunk I could not remember the events.”

I don't think has anything to do with anything. A lot of women blame themselves initially (or even later) for this or that. That doesn't mean it isn't a rape - if the facts are that the man started having sex with a woman who was passed out drunk outside her apartment.


It is clearly to people's advantage to be clear about what happened - but that doesn't mean that people always will. The being drugged scenario. The predator who spikes the drinks scenario. You could have people passed out in a hospital. All kinds of things. If judges are to going to claim that “Drunken consent is still consent” - they should be clear that they are talking about drunken people who REALLY ARE consenting - not those who are being raped because they are drunk.

We do have a lot of people who don't understand that distinction. I think it is an important one to be made. If more people understood it - we would (hopefully) have a lot fewer rapes.

The article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1888035_1,00.html


From a related article:

Rapes soar as convictions plummet to a record low

"It is the fall in the conviction rate to 5.6 per cent which will cause most disappointment to the Government, Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and police....

The Home Office report said that it had found “a group of predatory men who target women when they are drunk, so drunk in a number of cases that their capacity to consent had to be impaired”.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1499525,00.html

[ismnotwasm]

9. As I pointed out, I think

I have a certain expertise in this area. Was around drunks, and drunken behavior for quite a little while. Blech. What my guess is, pure speculation,is the male told her or bragged about events to friends. Or like the article seems to say, she remembered enough to know that it wasn't anything she wanted to be doing. Hell, I've seen pictures on the internet that I'm sure the women (and men)Wouldn't give permission if any type of coherent decision making was available. This woman, being appalled, decided to press charges.
I agree with you 100% the problem is the wording "drunken consent is still consent" Very dangerous, and sick minded wording.

Interestingly I was discussing this with my son's girlfriend. She is 19, young enough to call young men "boys" Both she and my son have a fairly moderate partying history. She said " I know some boys, and some really bad boys, and they KNOW better when a girl is drunk they shouldn't mess with her, They KNOW better. She was pretty disgusted in her innocence. I liked hearing that coming from a younger generation. Hopefully signs of better things to come.
I'm going to talk about this ruling to my daughter's and their friends, not only so they can be more aware of thier surroundings, but to open up dialog, see what they think.