Alleged rape by two footballers, woman too drunk to remember anything
Scroll to see replies
Original post by arichmond64
Its not really the same as an underage prostitute though.
It is a little worrying, I don't see how you can be "too drunk" to consent, does that mean, she did consent, but it wasn't valid.
Its amazing how bad alcohol really is.
It is a little worrying, I don't see how you can be "too drunk" to consent, does that mean, she did consent, but it wasn't valid.
Its amazing how bad alcohol really is.
Saying yes is not the same as consenting.
And an underage prostitute would be worse, because if you're under 16 then you cannot consent in the eyes of the law. Hence why its called 'the age of consent'.
Original post by badcheesecrispy
no it isnt drinking is lawful rape isnt. having sex with someone who cannot consent is rape and is illegal it is the rapists fault. why is it seeming to be the males on here who are blaming the woman makes me ashamed to be a man.
Drinking is lawful, being so drunk in public that you can't consent to sex is not, either way drinking puts you at a much higher risk of being the victim of violent crime. While no one deserves to be raped she was responsible for her drinking we should not be absolving her of all responsibility. Ched Evans is a disgusting **** she is a moron.
Should the woman not be prosecuted because she falsely accused one person of rape? I have no sympathy for this woman at all. She doesn't know what happened at all so how can any conclusion have been come to.
Original post by minimarshmallow
Saying yes is not the same as consenting.
And an underage prostitute would be worse, because if you're under 16 then you cannot consent in the eyes of the law. Hence why its called 'the age of consent'.
And an underage prostitute would be worse, because if you're under 16 then you cannot consent in the eyes of the law. Hence why its called 'the age of consent'.
You're right, it isn't, but in reality the threshold of how drunk you have to be to not be able to consent is very high.
Original post by Dominic101
When it comes to sexual encounters men always come out worst, the law is prejudice against men.
As reflected by the ridiculously high percentage of rape convictions
Original post by badcheesecrispy
this is why so many rapists get away because of your attitude. its quite horrible really. hopefully you get some understanding and life experience behind you before you become lawyer.
Hopefully you understand thats its better for a rapist to get away with it than for an innocent to be put down for it. You cant just chuck someone in prison as soon as a girl cries rape.
EDIT: someone beat me too it, hadn't read this page yet
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Cherriesxo
The fact that she can't remember what happened proves that it shouldn't have happened. She was too drunk to consent and the men took advantage of her.
She chose to get that drunk. Oh dear.
Apologies if someone has covered this but I gave up halfway through reading this thread.
My point isn't related to the original post but to some of the disturbing comments that have come up during the discussion.
If someone tells you they really really want to have sex with you, wears revealing clothing, flirts with you, has been drinking, kisses you, and/or takes you back to their place and at any point changes their mind and says they don't want to have sex with you any more and you have sex with them - that is rape.
None of those characteristics give someone the right to have sex with you without their consent.
It genuinely concerns me that some of the contributors to this thread think that someone gives up their right to control what happens to them because they are a bit drunk or flirt with someone.
For more info see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming
It is not the victim's fault, it is the attacker's.
As I said, this doesn't relate to whether or not those in the original case are guilty or not, I wasn't in court and didn't hear all the evidence and I'm not an expert on the law (and I doubt many people in this thread were/have/are) but I just wanted to counter some of the other comments made.
Also, for those of you comparing victims of different types of crimes, thought you might be interested in this - http://projectunbreakable.tumblr.com/post/14837789319/hi-i-love-this-project-i-think-it-is-truly-amazing-i
Jo
My point isn't related to the original post but to some of the disturbing comments that have come up during the discussion.
If someone tells you they really really want to have sex with you, wears revealing clothing, flirts with you, has been drinking, kisses you, and/or takes you back to their place and at any point changes their mind and says they don't want to have sex with you any more and you have sex with them - that is rape.
None of those characteristics give someone the right to have sex with you without their consent.
It genuinely concerns me that some of the contributors to this thread think that someone gives up their right to control what happens to them because they are a bit drunk or flirt with someone.
For more info see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming
It is not the victim's fault, it is the attacker's.
As I said, this doesn't relate to whether or not those in the original case are guilty or not, I wasn't in court and didn't hear all the evidence and I'm not an expert on the law (and I doubt many people in this thread were/have/are) but I just wanted to counter some of the other comments made.
Also, for those of you comparing victims of different types of crimes, thought you might be interested in this - http://projectunbreakable.tumblr.com/post/14837789319/hi-i-love-this-project-i-think-it-is-truly-amazing-i
Jo
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by alex92100
You're right, it isn't, but in reality the threshold of how drunk you have to be to not be able to consent is very high.
Well, there are a lot of individual differences that will affect it. I think the law needs to be more specific so that these individual differences will be taken into account in cases like this. And we don't know the exact details of how many units, her body weight, whether she'd eaten, if she'd taken pain killers etc. all of which affect how quickly alcohol gets into the blood stream or is metabolised out of the blood stream. Without all of the information all we can do is speculate.
The jury have more information than we do, and they've made a decision that one of the guys was guilty. Now without seeing the full report we don't know why only one of them was convicted, but the jury must have had their reasons.
Original post by redferry
As reflected by the ridiculously high percentage of rape convictions
I'm not talking about sexual encounters of rape I mean just sex in general. If a boy over 16 has sex with a minor under 13 it can life imprisonment(which I can agree with)if a girl does that they can only get up to 10 years and they probably wont even get up to that.
I think I've sussed it.
If the one that got cleared is the guy that had taken her back, as in chatted her up, invited her back, initiated the sexy time etc then it's more likely that he would have gotten some sort of consent. The other one who just said, can I have a go most likely didn't have any form of consent.
Still isn't conclusive enough for a conviction though in my eyes.
If the one that got cleared is the guy that had taken her back, as in chatted her up, invited her back, initiated the sexy time etc then it's more likely that he would have gotten some sort of consent. The other one who just said, can I have a go most likely didn't have any form of consent.
Still isn't conclusive enough for a conviction though in my eyes.
Original post by redferry
As reflected by the ridiculously high percentage of rape convictions
The number of rape convictions are purely down to how difficult it is to prove it, nothing to do with the state of the law. Do you suggest sending more men down for rape when it hasn't been proved beyond reasonable doubt?
The law IS biased towards woman. I can't be bothered to find the relevant provisions of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, but if say I pretend to be your boyfriend, and under that false pretence (say maybe you'd had a few wines and we look similar) you'd had sex with me, I am guilty of rape.
However, switch that around, and it is you who tricks me into sex by pretending to me my girlfriend, guess what, you aren't guilty of any crime and walk free.
Now tell me how that is fair.
Original post by minimarshmallow
Saying yes is not the same as consenting.
And an underage prostitute would be worse, because if you're under 16 then you cannot consent in the eyes of the law. Hence why its called 'the age of consent'.
And an underage prostitute would be worse, because if you're under 16 then you cannot consent in the eyes of the law. Hence why its called 'the age of consent'.
Wow, really, saying yes I will have sex with you, isn't consenting?
Samples taken from the alleged victim at the time showed no alcohol in her system, though the prosecution claimed this was due to 'elimination'.[17] The samples did however show traces of cocaine and cannabis in her system, though she denied taking the drugs on the night of the alleged offence.[18] She had drunk two glasses of wine, four double vodkas with lemonade and a shot of sambuca.[18] After this drinking session she told police she "felt tipsy but not out of control".[19] The alleged victim claimed to have almost no memory what happened between leaving a dancing session with friends and waking up the following morning, leading her to believe that her drink had been spiked
I know this is from Wikipedia so might not be accurate/reliable but from reading that i'm sure any sane person should say they should be cleared.
I know this is from Wikipedia so might not be accurate/reliable but from reading that i'm sure any sane person should say they should be cleared.
Original post by arichmond64
Wow, really, saying yes I will have sex with you, isn't consenting?
Not if you're too drunk or too young to understand the consequences of saying yes. Or if someone says 'You have to say yes to having sex with me or I will kill you and your family'.
Now, the point at which you are too drunk to understand the consequences and are therefore unable to consent is up for debate, but the fact that alcohol compromises executive function in the frontal lobe is not.
Original post by minimarshmallow
Well, there are a lot of individual differences that will affect it. I think the law needs to be more specific so that these individual differences will be taken into account in cases like this. And we don't know the exact details of how many units, her body weight, whether she'd eaten, if she'd taken pain killers etc. all of which affect how quickly alcohol gets into the blood stream or is metabolised out of the blood stream. Without all of the information all we can do is speculate.
The jury have more information than we do, and they've made a decision that one of the guys was guilty. Now without seeing the full report we don't know why only one of them was convicted, but the jury must have had their reasons.
The jury have more information than we do, and they've made a decision that one of the guys was guilty. Now without seeing the full report we don't know why only one of them was convicted, but the jury must have had their reasons.
There are a lot of individual differences you are right, however, the state of the law is that it is not rape is the man reasonably believes that one has consented, therefore that throws all that out of the window, the man is not going to enquire her weight, or take a blood alcohol level test.
If the woman, even if she cannot remember it, tells the man yes I want to have sex with you and/or acts in a way that shows this, then it will be very hard to prove that he did not have a reasonable belief of consent. The law does not put drunkness into a scientific scale that applies to every case, it is an objective test that in the circumstances a reasonable man would have thought she was consenting.
Original post by minimarshmallow
Not if you're too drunk or too young to understand the consequences of saying yes. Or if someone says 'You have to say yes to having sex with me or I will kill you and your family'.
Now, the point at which you are too drunk to understand the consequences and are therefore unable to consent is up for debate, but the fact that alcohol compromises executive function in the frontal lobe is not.
Now, the point at which you are too drunk to understand the consequences and are therefore unable to consent is up for debate, but the fact that alcohol compromises executive function in the frontal lobe is not.
Come on, at no point when someone is drunk, do they not know the consequences of having sex with someone. What you said is just using alcohol as a scape goat.
If they say yes, whether they are drunk or not, it is still a yes.
Whether this decision is what they would do if they were thinking straight is another thing, but it doesn't change the fact that they said yes at that moment.
Original post by minimarshmallow
Not if you're too drunk or too young to understand the consequences of saying yes. Or if someone says 'You have to say yes to having sex with me or I will kill you and your family'.
Now, the point at which you are too drunk to understand the consequences and are therefore unable to consent is up for debate, but the fact that alcohol compromises executive function in the frontal lobe is not.
Now, the point at which you are too drunk to understand the consequences and are therefore unable to consent is up for debate, but the fact that alcohol compromises executive function in the frontal lobe is not.
That is consent. Drunken consent is still consent. Just because you would not have had sex with the person if you were sober, it does not make it rape.
R v Bree - man and woman very drunk, man has sex with woman, woman doesn't remember most of it, but 'regains' memory half way through. She accuses him of rape. On appeal, he is acquitted because he says that she said yes and took her own clothes off.
Original post by alex92100
There are a lot of individual differences you are right, however, the state of the law is that it is not rape is the man reasonably believes that one has consented, therefore that throws all that out of the window, the man is not going to enquire her weight, or take a blood alcohol level test.
If the woman, even if she cannot remember it, tells the man yes I want to have sex with you and/or acts in a way that shows this, then it will be very hard to prove that he did not have a reasonable belief of consent. The law does not put drunkness into a scientific scale that applies to every case, it is an objective test that in the circumstances a reasonable man would have thought she was consenting.
If the woman, even if she cannot remember it, tells the man yes I want to have sex with you and/or acts in a way that shows this, then it will be very hard to prove that he did not have a reasonable belief of consent. The law does not put drunkness into a scientific scale that applies to every case, it is an objective test that in the circumstances a reasonable man would have thought she was consenting.
I understand where you're coming from, and I think the law needs to be more clear in respect to all of this. But him having a reasonable belief of consent is a judgement call for him, and also a judgement call for anyone to believe his story that he did have a reasonable belief.
If there is a point where it would not be at all possible for her to have consented at all, then how could have a reasonable belief that she consented? I'm not saying that is what happened in this case, because I don't know the details, but that does make sense, right?
Original post by arichmond64
Come on, at no point when someone is drunk, do they not know the consequences of having sex with someone. What you said is just using alcohol as a scape goat.
I suppose you can speak for the mental capacity of every single drunk person ever then? Just because alcohol has not affected you in that way doesn't mean it can't affect other people in that way.
If they say yes, whether they are drunk or not, it is still a yes.
Whether this decision is what they would do if they were thinking straight is another thing, but it doesn't change the fact that they said yes at that moment.
Whether this decision is what they would do if they were thinking straight is another thing, but it doesn't change the fact that they said yes at that moment.
Yes, it is a yes. But it isn't consent if the drunk person is past the point where their front lobe is working enough for them to make a decision. It is the same reason we have a law against sex with children. Like I said, this point is debateable, but it still exists, no matter how high it may be or if this woman was past it or not.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Students accused of rape at university bringing lawyers to hearings
- Is it alright if my boyfriend slaps me?
- Unconscious bias - is it time to rethink how we address VAWG?
- Answer honestly
- Prime - law work experience!!!
- Why am I horrible when I’m drunk?
- Do true feelings come out when drunk?
- Anxiety about what happened (possible rape)
- Examples of unjust laws in the UK
- My girlfriend of almost 5 years cheated on me while black out drunk
- Is it really possible for two persons of opposite sex to be best friends only?
- Going out with a 45 year old.
- Boyfriend cheated while blackout drunk
- justin bieber wasn't actually bad for a pop singer
- Enhanced disclosure check for nursing degree
- Scared to get drunk 🥴
- Getting taken advantage of while sleeping
- I messed up a hookup with a guy and he blocked me
- Girls boxing, your views
- Does Warwick still have a rape culture?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
