Common sense breaks out wrt drunken "rapes"

#1
Senior judges have decreed that a drunken woman is in a position to consent to sex, or at least not in a position where sex would automaticaly constitute rape if she thought better of it in the morning.

Times article here

Ministers are expected to abandon plans for a statutory definition of “drunken consent” in rape cases after new guidelines from senior judges.

Sir Igor Judge, Head of Criminal Justice, said yesterday that the existing law on consent in rape cases was adequate to deal with allegations of rape in the context of drink.

Ministers were looking at tightening the law because only 5.7 per cent of reported rapes result in a conviction.

But in a test appeal yesterday Sir Igor said that it would be impossible to devise a system to link a person’s capacity to consent with how much alcohol was consumed.

The key test remained whether an alleged victim had lost her capacity to consent, whether through drink or any other substance, he said. An alleged victim who had drunk “even substantial quantities” could still consent to sex. Equally a woman who had been drinking might have lost her capacity to consent, in which case sexual intercourse would be rape. This capacity to consent, he added, could evaporate well before she became unconscious.

The Court of Appeal was giving its reasons for recently quashing the conviction of a 25-year-old man found guilty of raping a student after an evening of heavy drinking.

Sir Igor, Lady Justice Hallett and Mrs Justice Gloster said that the appeal by Benjamin Bree, a computer software engineer from Southampton, had required the court to “address the effect of voluntary heavy alcohol consumption as it applies to the law of rape”.

Sir Igor said: “If, through drink — or for any other reason — the complainant has temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have intercourse, she is not consenting and, subject to questions about the defendant’s state of mind, if the intercourse takes place, this would be rape.

“However, where the complainant has voluntarily consumed even substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remains capable of choosing whether or not to have intercourse, and in drink agrees to do so, this would not be rape.”
My bold, as I fully agree and have stated as much in the past, I think this is a step forward for common sense in the British legal system. I am thinking as long as she is conscious, and it was HER choice to get that drunk, she doesn't have an automatic case.

Obviously there may be cases where this wouldn't be the case.
 
#2
Think the concept that "I only had sex with her because I was drunk" should be introduced as a defence for the accused. If alcohol lowers standards of females, it does the same for men.
 
#3
Alcohol has made me have sex with hippocrocadillapigs on several occasions :oops:
 
#4
the_matelot said:
Alcohol has made me have sex with hippocrocadillapigs on several occasions :oops:
We pigs-in-lipstick aren't the ones pushing the rape cases. We're grateful.
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#7
Thank f*ck for that. Right, once I've found my balaclava and raping suit....I'm off down to Jesters!
 
#8
Biscuits, if you can't find yours, you can use mine ok?
 
#9
OldRedCap said:
Think the concept that "I only had sex with her because I was drunk" should be introduced as a defence for the accused. If alcohol lowers standards of females, it does the same for men.
Now that does create a very good argument.

Surely if a woman isn't responsible for her actions when she is drunk, then neither can a man be.

ergo
If a man raped a woman when he was drunk, would he not be held accountable for his actions?

I know that law isn't saying that a woman isn't responsible for her actions when she is drunk, but I know that there are many people who want the law changed to make that the case. IT CAN'T BE HAD BOTH WAYS!!

(well it can, but the other way hurts.....so I'm reliably informed!)
 
#10
TankiesYank said:
the_matelot said:
Alcohol has made me have sex with hippocrocadillapigs on several occasions :oops:
We pigs-in-lipstick aren't the ones pushing the rape cases. We're grateful.
Fancy a pint???? ;)
 
#11
.....Of Vodka?

Bagster, spot on. This is what makes the law so stupidly unfair.

If she can be so drunk as to not be able to consent, voluntarily, then so can a man. Making the whole law farcical.
 
#12
chocolate_frog said:
.....Of Vodka?

Bagster, spot on. This is what makes the law so stupidly unfair.

If she can be so drunk as to not be able to consent, voluntarily, then so can a man. Making the whole law farcical.
The difference is that drunkenness is no defence to having committed a crime. As far as I'm aware, refusal to have sex is not a crime, whereas rape is.
 
#13
We are not on about refusal to have sex. That would be rape, no matter what.

This law would allow, in it's most basest of forms, a woman to go out, get hammered, sleep with a bloke (or woman I suppose) and THEN decide that she hadn't consented as she was drunk.

The courts could then send down an innocent man, as a rapist (sure that would be a lovely experience in this countries jails) just purely because she got too drunk and had second thoughts.

All because whilst drunk she could be considered to be not in a positon to consent. Thus any consent given, whilst drunk, would be void.

Have you ever slept with a drunken woman? If so under this law you could be a rapist. And your location, a very sensible precaution.
 
#14
On the other hand, if some wretch jumps on a woman who has passed out due to drink- like in Animal House- he is a raping MoFo and needs an industrial strength slap. And a bumloving cell mate.
Common Sense I s'pose...
 
#15
chocolate_frog said:
Just like fat girls.....
Yes I just like them too!
 
#17
This creates potentially hazardous legal conditions for anyone on a "pull a pig" night. Biscuits AB - if your off to Jesters in scumhampton, you will have plenty of competition from the uni rowing team.
 
#18
chocolate_frog said:
We are not on about refusal to have sex. That would be rape, no matter what.

This law would allow, in it's most basest of forms, a woman to go out, get hammered, sleep with a bloke (or woman I suppose) and THEN decide that she hadn't consented as she was drunk.

The courts could then send down an innocent man, as a rapist (sure that would be a lovely experience in this countries jails) just purely because she got too drunk and had second thoughts.

All because whilst drunk she could be considered to be not in a positon to consent. Thus any consent given, whilst drunk, would be void.

Have you ever slept with a drunken woman? If so under this law you could be a rapist. And your location, a very sensible precaution.
The prosecution still has to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant had sex either without consent or reckless as to whether consent had been given. The recent ruling is that a woman, if drunk, can still give valid consent. The conviction rate for rape is very low - circa 10% or less?

Under current legislation, only a man can rape, the equivalent offence that a woman (or man ) can commit is assault by penetration.

The potential for a sexual partner to subsequently accuse you of rape is always there, especially with one night stands, even more so with drink / drugs involved.

Its a difficult area of law and the message for both men and women is to be careful.
 
#19
RH, I agree, however this law had all the hallmarks of making it easier to convict men, possibly with the intention of raising the conviction rate, by simply ruling that a drunken woman was not in a fit state to give her consent.

Ergo, in the extreme, all sexual encounters with a drunken woman would be rape.

The male population would, overnight, become criminals. The army destroyed more thoroughly that FAS and the Treasury could ever hope for.

Whilst I abhor rapists, and yes, where a woman, or man, is incapable of saying one way or the other, or says no outright, this would be rape I can not agree that a legless girl is not fully in control or should be seen that way.

At the end of the day, she chose to get drunk (obviously again with the clause that spiking would negate this choice and mean rape) if she then goes home with a bloke and has sex with him it is hardly rape. The bloke (as has been mentioned) could be as drunk, or worse, than she.

The label "rapist" should always be regarded as a death sentance. It truely wrecks lives, and the conviction of a rapist should be thoroughly investigated and reasoned before a man is branded with this mark - and he may as well be with the Sun, Mirror et al.

There should never be a short cut fitted in to the laws, which this ruling would be.

On a sidenote, I don't belive the identity of a rapist should be released until conviction either.

And a "raped" woman who later turns out to be lying (which has occured) should also be "outed" in the press.
 
#20
Ive had the dis-pleasure to watch a rape case, where it lead to a not guilty verdict, just cos the lady in question decided against going to her boyfriends getting bladdered and blaming the fact she shagged a bloke instead of seeing her "loved one" to rape to cover it up.
...And funnly enough the bloke got posted & she got away scott free. :x
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads