The Student Room Group

Alleged rape by two footballers, woman too drunk to remember anything

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Mr Dangermouse
Decent pull.


Thanks it's a shame I can't remember it at all maybe I should try and get her arrested and convicted of raping me I was obviousley in no fit state to consent to it right?
The problem with drunken rape cases is that is hard to see whether the person was raped or whether they regret it and just say they were raped.

The other problem is that a defence lawyer can easily rip holes in the prosecution.
Original post by Mr Dangermouse
I thought you were a guy?

It ticks me off that a drunken sex is always classed as rape(in this case a drunken spit roasting).

I am however like most people, I see rape as immoral.

This was not drunken sex, yes she was drunk and could not consent however from what I have read the men where very much sober or at the very least buzzed and they had a game plan to find a girl for one of the guys. That is rape and then they took it in turns, how much sicker can you get? :angry:

Edit: Nevermind you are 17, you don't understand this all yet.
Original post by tehFrance
I am however like most people, I see rape as immoral.

This was not drunken sex, yes she was drunk and could not consent however from what I have read the men where very much sober or at the very least buzzed and they had a game plan to find a girl for one of the guys. That is rape and then they took it in turns, how much sicker can you get? :angry:

Edit: Nevermind you are 17, you don't understand this all yet.


If the men were indeed sober then fair enough.



However if they were as drunk as the woman then it's just sex.
Original post by Mr Dangermouse
If the men were indeed sober then fair enough.

However if they were as drunk as the woman then it's just sex.

****ing hell have you even read anything to do with the case? they were not as ****ing drunk as the girl who was apparently very out of it.

And no, no it isn't. If she uttered the word no (what I have read has not been very clear on that, all I know is she was extremely out of it so she may of been unable to say anything) at any point it is automatically rape.
Original post by tehFrance
****ing hell have you even read anything to do with the case? they were not as ****ing drunk as the girl who was apparently very out of it.

And no, no it isn't. If she uttered the word no (what I have read has not been very clear on that, all I know is she was extremely out of it so she may of been unable to say anything) at any point it is automatically rape.


If she says no then it's rape, agreed.


But from my understanding she consented.
Original post by Mr Dangermouse
But from my understanding she consented.

From my understanding she did not.
Reply 207
Avatar for alex92100
alex92100
Original post by tehFrance
****ing hell have you even read anything to do with the case? they were not as ****ing drunk as the girl who was apparently very out of it.

And no, no it isn't. If she uttered the word no (what I have read has not been very clear on that, all I know is she was extremely out of it so she may of been unable to say anything) at any point it is automatically rape.


The relative drunkenness of the men and the woman have absolutely nothing to do with whether she was raped.

On the second part, you've answered your own question. If it is not beyond reasonable doubt that she said no at any point, then it is presumed she didn't say no. 'She may of been unable to say anything' - again, not beyond reasonable doubt that she couldn't say anything. The men will (I assume) testify she was able to speak, she has already said she cannot remember, therefore it will be presumed that she was able to say something.

UNLESS either it was video taped, or someone witnessed it, it will be very hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she a) didn't consent (i.e. said no or put up some sort of physical struggle), and that b) she was too drunk to consent.
Original post by alex92100
It would be appalling if that DID class as rape. Having your penis put into a mouth without consent is obviously not as bad as being penetrated by a penis without your consent. Including that scenario would only result in unfair labelling and the blunting of rape. It would be sexual assault, which is what it should be.


The 'blunting of rape' what? And why is it unfair labelling, they both involve being sexually accosted without consent, what is the difference?
Original post by Shabalala
I went on a night out in Glasgow during last summer I woke up in bed with some girl in a house in Edinburgh with no recollection of the events the night before all I remember is from earlier in the night with friends in a club getting drunk I don't remember meeting the girl or travelling to Edinburgh or agreeing to have sex with her.

Does anyone think I should try and get her convicted of rape?

No it's absoloutley ridiculous I clearly agreed to have sex with the girl and it was my fault I was drunk and agreed to have sex not her's and if I tried to prosecute her I would be laughed at. Unless this girl in the OP's post had memory of telling them to stop which she didn't or unless someone else had seen them forcing her to have sex or dragging her away then this shouldn't even have made it to court.



Do you feel taken advantage of? Were you absolutely paralytic, that the girl advised someone else to keep an eye on you after she had sex with you, and then left? Therefore acknowledging that you were in no fit state to look after yourself, and by extension clearly didn't really know what you were doing?
Reply 210
Avatar for alex92100
alex92100
Original post by AlmostChicGeek
The 'blunting of rape' what? And why is it unfair labelling, they both involve being sexually accosted without consent, what is the difference?


The definition of rape in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 was carefully considered before it's enactment in a report. The report stated that the traditional definition of rape is a man penetrating an orifice without consent. I think we can agree, a man forcibly penetrating someone with his penis is pretty much the worse thing bar kill that you can do to a person, the physical and psychological effects are not even worth thinking about.

Now consider a woman (or a man) putting a man's penis in her mouth without consent. Yes, probably not a nice experience if you don't consent, however the physical impact is much less. Being penetrated is a violation of your body, it is much worse than someone putting a body part of yours in their mouth. Why should a penis be any different to someone's nipple? Should that count as rape? By hugely broadening the definition of rape to things that are a lot less serious, you detract from the seriousness of the term rape. It's akin to calling everyone who kills someone a murderer, when in reality, there is a distinction between the more serious kind of killing (murder), and the less serious kind of killing (manslaughter). Murder is the worst form of homicide you can commit, just like rape is the worst kind of sexual offence you can commit.

To your second point, it is unfair labelling because you are throwing together everyone who commits a sexual offence into the same boat. Feeling someone's breast is a sexual accost that isn't consented to, but they clearly should be called the same as someone who rapes someone.
Original post by alex92100
UNLESS either it was video taped, or someone witnessed it, it will be very hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she a) didn't consent (i.e. said no or put up some sort of physical struggle), and that b) she was too drunk to consent.

It was recorded and apparently there was hotel receptionist that got suspicious.

If she was as drunk as I have read how could she have put up a struggle? I personally see it as rape.
Reply 212
Avatar for alex92100
alex92100
Original post by tehFrance
It was recorded and apparently there was hotel receptionist that got suspicious.

If she was as drunk as I have read how could she have put up a struggle? I personally see it as rape.


If it was recorded, that will conclusively prove whether it was rape one way or the other. The receptionist's suspicions are suspicions, not enough to convict someone.

The question that needs to be answered is was she too drunk to consent? R v Bree states that drunken consent is still consent. It held that just because you don't remember something, that doesn't mean you are incapable of consenting, in fact it harms the prosecution. There is a point at which you are too drunk to consent, and for a conviction it will have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that she was beyond the point at which she was capable of consenting.
Original post by alex92100
The definition of rape in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 was carefully considered before it's enactment in a report. The report stated that the traditional definition of rape is a man penetrating an orifice without consent. I think we can agree, a man forcibly penetrating someone with his penis is pretty much the worse thing bar kill that you can do to a person, the physical and psychological effects are not even worth thinking about.

Now consider a woman (or a man) putting a man's penis in her mouth without consent. Yes, probably not a nice experience if you don't consent, however the physical impact is much less. Being penetrated is a violation of your body, it is much worse than someone putting a body part of yours in their mouth. Why should a penis be any different to someone's nipple? Should that count as rape? By hugely broadening the definition of rape to things that are a lot less serious, you detract from the seriousness of the term rape. It's akin to calling everyone who kills someone a murderer, when in reality, there is a distinction between the more serious kind of killing (murder), and the less serious kind of killing (manslaughter). Murder is the worst form of homicide you can commit, just like rape is the worst kind of sexual offence you can commit.

To your second point, it is unfair labelling because you are throwing together everyone who commits a sexual offence into the same boat. Feeling someone's breast is a sexual accost that isn't consented to, but they clearly should be called the same as someone who rapes someone.


Fair play.
Original post by AlmostChicGeek
Do you feel taken advantage of? Were you absolutely paralytic, that the girl advised someone else to keep an eye on you after she had sex with you, and then left? Therefore acknowledging that you were in no fit state to look after yourself, and by extension clearly didn't really know what you were doing?


Well I don't know I can't remember but to get to that point I must have been very drunk when I agreed to have sex with her. So in a way yes she has used my drunken state and took advantage of me but you can't blame her because I said yes and agreed to have sex with her when drunk so to punish her would be absoloutley ridiculous and unfair. I can guarentee if I had went to the police station that day and explained what had happened they would have told me to go away. People who commit crimes when completley out of it on alcohol are still held as responsile as a non drunk so this girl should take responsiblity for saying yes when drunk.

If she can't even remember if she had agreed to have sex or not then they shouldn't be prosecuted just because she feels ashamed of herself for getting in a spit roast. If they did rape her and she said no even when drunk or if they spiked her drink it's different but there is no evidence of this she just feels guilt over having a threesome you can't prosecute the men unless there is other evidence i.e CCTV of them spiking her drink or dragging her away.

So maybe they did rape her but if there is no evidence then you can't prosecute them just incase they did rape her. Yes they took advantage of her but men and women do that all the time up and down the country.
She is probably yelling rape because if she gets pregnant she will have someone to blame it on and some alimony payments. I think the commonly known term is GOLD-DIGGA!
This kind of thing almost certainly happens every weekend, and all summer in places like Magaluf, Benidorm, Malia......

I personally know two girls who have had similair experiences. One said she woke up just after, and thinks it was rape.

The other, woke up the next morning, says she was spiked, and doesn't remember a thing.

Now I just think both of them, got a little bit too drunk, and had sex with some random, regretted it, and thought wow, I would never do something like this, I must of been spiked and raped.

For me, the point at which this woman consented, is when she decided to go back to the hotel with the guy. Just picture it, 19 year old drunk female meets a FOOTBALLER, and he is staying in a hotel down the road, and is willing to take her back.......... Almost certain 80% of 19-21 year old girls on a night out would jump at the chance.

And when does anyone ever consent to sex with a YES and NO question, haha, don't make me laugh.

I would say these men took advantage of a drunken woman, but they are not rapists. Sleazy, yes, rapists, definitely not.

It will get thrown out.
Guilty
Reply 218
Avatar for alex92100
alex92100
Evans sent down, McDonald cleared, don't really see how that works?
Original post by alex92100
Evans sent down, McDonald cleared, don't really see how that works?


I thought the same, McDonald was the one who has sex with her first.

Does a full report ever come out of court cases like this?

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you