Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

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

Announcements Posted on
Applying to Uni? Let Universities come to you. Click here to get your perfect place 20-10-2014
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I'm just wondering what other people's views on case this are?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-n...wales-17677969

    I am absolutely not of the opinion that a drunk woman can bring rape upon herself. However, I wonder what the outcome of this trial will be, if the woman cannot remember ANYTHING then how can the men be charged with rape when there is every possibility that she consented and forgot. I feel the men are somewhat in the wrong for having sex with a girl who was clearly inebriated but sometimes it's difficult to judge a person's level of intoxication!

    I really feel for the girl and hope she will be able to move on but I just wonder how viable everyone else considers her case to be??
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Well if she was too drunk to remember if she gave consent or not then the court case can't go anywhere really unless some other evidence comes up showing she was infact forced into it.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HolliAnnaBella)
    I'm just wondering what other people's views on case this are?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-n...wales-17677969

    I am absolutely not of the opinion that a drunk woman can bring rape upon herself. However, I wonder what the outcome of this trial will be, if the woman cannot remember ANYTHING then how can the men be charged with rape when there is every possibility that she consented and forgot. I feel the men are somewhat in the wrong for having sex with a girl who was clearly inebriated but sometimes it's difficult to judge a person's level of intoxication!

    I really feel for the girl and hope she will be able to move on but I just wonder how viable everyone else considers her case to be??
    I believe someone recorded the rapes.
    Not to mention the evidence from witnesses that this girl was disorientated and completely out of it and the men were not.
    • 25 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    If the woman was too drunk to remember whether she said yes or not, she was probably too drunk to have given consent, even if she did say yes.

    Edit: Saying yes is not the same as consenting. You have to know what you're consenting to, you have to be able to weigh up the pros and cons etc. and arrive at a decision. When drunk the frontal lobe is affected, therefore compromising decision making.
    I'm not saying any man who has sex with a woman if she's had a drink should be automatically branded a rapist, and I think the law needs looking at to measure exactly how much the frontal lobe is compromised in each individual case to see if the woman was capable of consenting. But the law is what it is at the moment, and that's why this case has happened.
    • 13 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    To be honest, if you're that drunk it is your own fault.
    • 13 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cakefish)
    Well if she was too drunk to remember if she gave consent or not then the court case can't go anywhere really unless some other evidence comes up showing she was infact forced into it.
    Legally speaking, this is not how it works.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HolliAnnaBella)
    I'm just wondering what other people's views on case this are?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-n...wales-17677969

    I am absolutely not of the opinion that a drunk woman can bring rape upon herself. However, I wonder what the outcome of this trial will be, if the woman cannot remember ANYTHING then how can the men be charged with rape when there is every possibility that she consented and forgot. I feel the men are somewhat in the wrong for having sex with a girl who was clearly inebriated but sometimes it's difficult to judge a person's level of intoxication!
    Mindsets like these are a big reason why rapists get away with the crime all the time.

    If she was too drunk to remember if she had consented or not, then she was in no state to give consent to sexual intercourse. The state of mind during the time is important, if she was that inebriated then she was in no position to be asked to have sex, if she was even asked. The woman was clearly very drunk, "she was stumbling and slurring and occasionally grabbing hold of Mr McDonald to steady herself." They took advantage of her current condition, plain and simple, and that is inexcusable.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    To be honest, if you're that drunk it is your own fault.
    If a man walks home drunk and he gets attacked by gang members, that must be his fault too then.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Why is This being discussed? It's irrelevant whether the woman is drunk or not....they confessed...

    And I facepalm at the dopes who think if you're that drunk, you deserve it... The sick bastards
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    To be honest, if you're that drunk it is your own fault.
    Don't become a lawyer :|
    • 140 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    To be honest, if you're that drunk it is your own fault.
    Oh, I see. So it's the victim's fault for partaking in a leisurely pastime that's legal, is it? That makes sense.

    Last time I checked, drinking alcohol was within the law and rape was against it. Did it ever occur to you that it could actually be the fault of the person(s) that think they are above the law?
    • 48 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HolliAnnaBella)
    I'm just wondering what other people's views on case this are?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-n...wales-17677969

    I am absolutely not of the opinion that a drunk woman can bring rape upon herself. However, I wonder what the outcome of this trial will be, if the woman cannot remember ANYTHING then how can the men be charged with rape when there is every possibility that she consented and forgot. I feel the men are somewhat in the wrong for having sex with a girl who was clearly inebriated but sometimes it's difficult to judge a person's level of intoxication!

    I really feel for the girl and hope she will be able to move on but I just wonder how viable everyone else considers her case to be??
    The hotel staff heard her telling them to stop apparently, and there is a film of what they did (bearing in mind she was pretty much unconscious I'm sure it will be fairly obvious it was rape). And as one of them left he said to reception 'you need to keep an eye on her, she's sick' - ie so drunk she was unwell. In the eyes of the law if you are that drunk even if you consent that is rape.

    If they don't get done for it it isn't because they don't have enough evidence, it is because they are footballers.

    I think this case is very viable, probably one of the most viable drunk rape cases I have seen.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jamie)
    I believe someone recorded the rapes.
    Not to mention the evidence from witnesses that this girl was disorientated and completely out of it and the men were not.
    They recorded the men having sex with her, that won't prove she didn't consent.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by minimarshmallow)
    If the woman was too drunk to remember whether she said yes or not, she was probably too drunk to have given consent, even if she did say yes.
    The key word there is 'probably'. That is not enough to find someone guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    Legally speaking, this is not how it works.
    How does it work?
    • 47 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PoGo HoPz)
    Oh, I see. So it's the victim's fault for partaking in a leisurely pastime that's legal, is it? That makes sense.

    Last time I checked, drinking alcohol was within the law and rape was against it. Did it ever occur to you that it could actually be the fault of the person(s) that think they are above the law?
    It's kinda strange that if someone starts a fight when drunk, they won't get any leniency from a court.. Yet if you are drunk and say yes to sex then you can't help that.
    • 48 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by walterwhite123)
    The key word there is 'probably'. That is not enough to find someone guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
    There is no probably about it - video evidence + evidence from hotel staff showed she was in no fit state to consent. Also people stupid enough to film themselves having sex with a ridiculously drunk girl probably deserve prison for sheer idiocy :P

    What annoys me though is she is now claiming she might have been spiked - she had 2 glasses of wine, 2 double vodkas and a shot of Sambuca. She was obviously just blind drunk. Not that that effects whether she was raped.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    There is no probably about it - video evidence + evidence from hotel staff showed she was in no fit state to consent. Also people stupid enough to film themselves having sex with a ridiculously drunk girl probably deserve prison for sheer idiocy :P
    Drunken consent is still consent.

    There wouldn't be a trial if it was so clear cut.
    • 48 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by walterwhite123)
    Drunken consent is still consent.

    There wouldn't be a trial if it was so clear cut.
    You still have a trial if something is clear cut you know XD
    If a man stabbed someone in front of 100 tv cameras - there would still be a trial. We aren't America! Everyone has a right to a fair trial!
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    You still have a trial if something is clear cut you know XD
    If a man stabbed someone in front of 100 tv cameras - there would still be a trial. We aren't America! Everyone has a right to a fair trial!
    Only if the defendants wanted a trial. If it's as clear cut and obvious as you say they would have pleaded guilty and got the benefit of a reduced sentence.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: May 7, 2012
New on TSR

Personal statement help

Use our clever tool to create a PS you're proud of.

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.