It's A Snowflake...shut Things!
News1 min ago
No Rape for Drunk women???
I could not believe my ears today when I heard on Sky News that a judge has decreed that a woman cannot claim Rape if she is drunk. How nice is that? So men see a drunken woman (not nice but it happens) they can go ahead and rape - she has no defence. What a ridiculous country!!!
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by netibiza. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Just playing devil's advocate here:
If you were very drunk (and you do see these girls on a Fri/ Sat night) and you can't remember with clarity, your actions, how can you call rape the following day.
I am sure there are women out there who have woken up with someone after a drunken night who would never sleep with that person if sober.
Please don't take this the wrong way - I am not condoning rape in any way shape or form - just making a point.
This is a highly emotive sjubject - as recent activity on the site has shown.
I think His Honour is demontsrating the age-old predjudice that if women 'appear to offer the prospect of intercourse' then it's perfectly OK for a man to act on that assumption.
Bizarre, unbalanced and utterly unaceptable, but some men really do think like that - and some of them, as in this instance, are in a postion to make far-reaching decisions that affects people's lives. Worrying isn't it?
To be fair, it's slightly more complicated than that. The fact that rape is obviously so emotive always makes these things sensitive, and rightly so. In this case, as far as I understand it, there was more grey areas than not.
What happened was the woman in question said she had no recollection of whether she had had sex or had given her consent. My understanding is that if a women gives her consent when drunk, that is (legally speaking) taken to have the same weight as if she were sober. If a woman were unconscious, it is - again, my understanding - impossible for consent to be assumed - i.e. it would be rape if someone had sex with her.
Okay, here's a slightly unpalatable example (particularly for me), but hopefully it might be instructive. I was once informed by a mate that I had had very noisy sex in a bathroom during a party the previous night. I was absolutely appalled. I had no memory of this event whatsoever. However, I had been capable of doing the deed and the young lady in question and I had apparently then rejoined the rest of the party and joined in and were snogging etc. I have absolutely not a smidgen of memory about any of this. I am absolutely not proud in the slightest of being so drunk that I don't remember having had sex with someone, nor of doing it in a bathroom when it was apparently entirely obvious what was happening (both are decidedly not my normal style), but that doesn't mean anything untoward took place. In my case, the girl and I went on to have a short relationship afterwards, and there was never any question about whether it had been 'okay'.
I mean to illustrate by this that it is perfectly possible to be so blitzed that one cannot recall an event. It does not automatically followed however, that whatever did happen must have been unwilling.
To go back to the case in question, there was no physical evidence to suggest forced intercourse and simply no way that lack of consent could be proved to any degree of satisfaction and therefore the judge ordered the jury throw it out 'even if they disagreed'. Obviously we all hope the right decision was made. It will not affect your right to consent (or not) if you have had a few drinks.
What it does show, I suppose, is that getting totally plastered is in no one's best interests.
To go back to the case in question, there was no physical evidence to suggest forced intercourse and simply no way that lack of consent could be proved to any degree of satisfaction and therefore the judge ordered the jury throw it out 'even if they disagreed'. Obviously we all hope the right decision was made. It will not affect your right to consent (or not) if you have had a few drinks.
What it does show, I suppose, is that getting totally plastered is in no one's best interests.
Drunk or sober, no woman asks to be raped! I think that it is an appaling act and the rapist when convicted should face a long prison sentence. However...women should also be aware that there are some men out there only to eager to take advantage and need to take some responsibility for their own welfare.....make sure if you are going out you don't get split up from your friends or walk home alone or get so drunk you are not aware of whats going on around you!!
Have you got a link to the actual ruling? If a woman's drunkeness means that any claim to rape is disallowed, that is obviously a terrible ruling. (eg. If a drunken woman is dragged into the bushes by a stranger, then that is obviously rape and should be punished as such).
If the ruling is that a woman can't claim rape if the alcohol lowered her inhibitions/standards and she later regretted having sex "under the influence"; assuming that she willingly and knowingly both consumed the alcohol (eg her drink wasn't spiked) and was not forced to have sex, then it's a much more grey area.
We all do stupid things when drunk, and while men shouldn't take advantage of an intoxicated lady, we all know that they are going to. If the lady deliberately (by willingly consuming the alcohol) gets into such a state that she may have consensual sex with someone who she would, if sober, not entertain she should surely not have legal recourse to accuse her partner of rape.
When it happens the other way around (a guy wakes up next to someone who doesn't seem quite so attractive when the beer goggles have worn off) a man cannot accuse the lady of rape - even if she was sober and he was as drunk as a skunk.
The newspaper headlines that imply women are 'asking for it' in certain situations is worrying, but I think women have to be sensible though. If a woman wakes up and discovers she has had sex, there are no injuries on her to suggest it was forced and she can't remember a thing then how can she tell whether it was rape or not?
My dad sat me down when I was a teenager and said; "Go out and enjoy yourself and have a few drinks, but never let yourself get to the stage where you can't look after yourself". I started ranting on about how men should respect women and not take advantage etc. He replied, "yes, but we are not living in a utopia, we are living in the real world where men are not always nice". Good advice methinks.
The ruling was that she had been deemed to give her consent (while drunk) and later (after the intercourse) claimed she had been too drunk to know what she was agreeing to.
The judge said that drunken consent is still consent.
He has never said that drunk women should be raped or that drunkenness is an invitation to rape. All he said was drunken consent was still consent.
I saw that news item today, too. I think it was a sad judgement passed by that judge who said the girl couldn't claim rape as she was too drunk too recall exactly what happened. Sad. If you are too drunk to recall all the events, then you should be declared too drunk to have given permission.
Perhaps, there should be different levels of punishment for rape? One shouldn't be able to get off scot free, especially in cases like the one in today's paper.
I think we need to be careful about the circumstances here. As LeMarchand (with whom I agree wholeheartedly) says, if a woman is forced into sex against her will, then the fact that she may have been drunk does not make it any less of a crime.
But - if her drunkeness makes her perfectly happy to consent to sex at the time (with a man who may not be "taking advantage", he may be just as drunk and uninhibited), the fact that she can't remember the incident the next day or regrets having sex should NOT give her the right to make accusations of a serious crime against a man who had no intent of hurting her, and just thought he'd got lucky. I know I shouldn't dare consider the man's viewpoint in this, but I'm going to.
You go to a party, you meet an attractive woman. You chat, you flirt, you drink, so does she. Eventually, inhibitions corroded by drink, you suggest a bit of action and she readily agrees. You have your fun, then go your separate ways, both of you (apparently) perfectly happy.
Next day she regrets the incident, but rather than take responsibility for her actions and simply not contact you again, she cries rape. You get arrested and taken to court. A politically correct judge agrees that she was too drunk to consent. You're found guilty. You go to prison. You lose your job. You are forever branded a rapist and quite possibly shunned by your friends and family. All for the sake of a bit of fun with a WILLING stranger at a party.
Don't get me wrong, I would never make light of rape, and if a woman says no, that means NO. But we all need to take responsibility for our actions, whether male or female. As long as you know what you're drinking (spiked drinks is a very different matter), if having too much to drink gets you willingly hopping into bed with someone you end up regretting sleeping with, it's your own silly fault.
But - if her drunkeness makes her perfectly happy to consent to sex at the time (with a man who may not be "taking advantage", he may be just as drunk and uninhibited), the fact that she can't remember the incident the next day or regrets having sex should NOT give her the right to make accusations of a serious crime against a man who had no intent of hurting her, and just thought he'd got lucky. I know I shouldn't dare consider the man's viewpoint in this, but I'm going to.
You go to a party, you meet an attractive woman. You chat, you flirt, you drink, so does she. Eventually, inhibitions corroded by drink, you suggest a bit of action and she readily agrees. You have your fun, then go your separate ways, both of you (apparently) perfectly happy.
Next day she regrets the incident, but rather than take responsibility for her actions and simply not contact you again, she cries rape. You get arrested and taken to court. A politically correct judge agrees that she was too drunk to consent. You're found guilty. You go to prison. You lose your job. You are forever branded a rapist and quite possibly shunned by your friends and family. All for the sake of a bit of fun with a WILLING stranger at a party.
Don't get me wrong, I would never make light of rape, and if a woman says no, that means NO. But we all need to take responsibility for our actions, whether male or female. As long as you know what you're drinking (spiked drinks is a very different matter), if having too much to drink gets you willingly hopping into bed with someone you end up regretting sleeping with, it's your own silly fault.
netibiza did the Sky News item actually say that the judge said that "A woman couldn't claim rape if drunk"? because it sounds from other people as if he actually said "drunken consent is still consent" which very different.
If this is the case it's really shoddy journalism and Sky ought to know better
I have to ammend my response both in the light of the excellent responses cogently argued here, and the fact that I have heard the item debated on the radio.
It appears that consent given when drunk is legal consent, and on that basis, his honour was correct. If the media are trying to twist his words, or his interperation of the law, then shame on them for scare-mongering (again) which is a worrying aspect to media coverage of almost anything these days.
Metagirl - "If you are too drunk to recall all the events, then you should be declared too drunk to have given permission."
How is someone able to know if you are drunk enough to be able to give permission? Should sex only be allowed if they are under the drink drive limit?
I'm with surfer mike on this one - How this got to court is beyond me.
If a woman agrees to sex, it's consensual. That's it. Sorry, it's black and white.
Are you honestly saying a drunk woman can't get laid? Are you honestly saying it should be up to the man involved to decide if the permission is valid? What if, as is in fairness likely, the man has drink taken too?
People should start taking responsibility for their own actions, and grow up.
By the same token, no means no. That's absolute and unequivicable.
My tuppence worth.
I am surprised that such an ill-informed and inaccurate question has been asked. You wrote:
... a judge has decreed that a woman cannot claim Rape if she is drunk.
but the judge never said any such thing. The facts of the case are that the woman herself admitted that she could not remember having sex, and could not remember whether she had had sex, and could not remember whether she consented. Therefore, by definition, it is impossible to prove that the woman did not consent - and it is impossible even to prove that sex took place. Therefore there is no basis for a conviction.
A man can only be convicted of rape if it is proved that he had sex with the woman, and that she did not consent to sex. This is not the same thing as an incident in which a woman has sex and then regrets it, or wishes she hadn't done it, or feels silly, or can't remember exactly what happened.
I cannot believe what metagirl has said - I'm staggered!!! Wholeheartedly agree that 'yes' is 'yes' irrespective of whether you are plastered or not.
Rape is one of the most heinous of crimes, and yet becuase of the number of times we have seen reports in the paper where women have cried wolf, whenever I read a report now I subconsciously question the motives of the 'victim' as opposed to the accused - what a sorry state to be in!!!!
Also, why are the false accusers allowed anonimity and yet the falsely accused are plastered all over the paper, before and after the verdict???
1 to 20 of 20
