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

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

Announcements Posted on
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by laura130490)
    There's obviously different levels of drunkeness, and that's where the confusion lies. How drunk is too drunk to make consent invalid?

    To me this story sounds very predatory, in that they (when sober) deliberately targeted a very drunk girl because they knew they could get her to do things most sober girls wouldn't do. I.e have a threesome with two complete strangers and let them film it.
    That's my point. As far as I can see, if anything else happens under the influence, unless you're an addict, then diminished responsibility doesn't apply as the cause of the diminished responsibility was voluntary. You are still held in a position that your decision would have consequences.

    But yes, as I said it has got serious vibes of predatory about it. Its pathetic on their part.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by minimarshmallow)
    The thing about alcohol is that it causes frontal lobe dis-inhibition, you don't act in the same was as you would when you're sober - your decision making and other executive functions are compromised. .

    Doesn't that suggest girls shouldn't get totally drunk then if people are aware of the effects of alcohol ? Gonna bring a humorous analogy into this

    If during the Wimbledon final Federer plays a very drunk Nadal and destroys him 3-0 in sets. It would be like Nadal saying "That wasn't a fair game ! Alcohol has terrible effects for someone during sport, my balance was all over the place etc. I was in no fit state to play, you took advantage of the situation ! I was so drunk the match should never have happened, you should've noticed the state I was in and postponed the match". People wouldn't be very tolerant of that logic used by Rafa
    • 24 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Like a BAWS)
    Doesn't that suggest girls shouldn't get totally drunk then if people are aware of the effects of alcohol ? Gonna bring a humorous analogy into this

    If during the Wimbledon final Federer plays a very drunk Nadal and destroys him 3-0 in sets. It would be like Nadal saying "That wasn't a fair game ! Alcohol has terrible effects for someone during sport, my balance was all over the place etc. I was in no fit state to play, you took advantage of the situation ! I was so drunk the match should never have happened, you should've noticed the state I was in and postponed the match". People wouldn't be very tolerant of that logic used by Rafa
    Except that I'm pretty sure in your example that Rafa wasn't dragged from a night out and on to a tennis court in his inebriated state and made to play tennis. He would have known he would have to play tennis, and if he did turn up drunk of his own accord and Federer beat him, Federer would not be breaking the law. The example is in no way comparable to a drunk woman being raped.
    A woman shouldn't have to restrict her actions that are within the law because of the off chance that someone might try and break the law and rape her. By your logic, no man should ever get drunk either, in case another man rapes him. So nobody should ever drink because there are so many variables associated with how drunk you are going to get any given night.
    Or, people should not break the law...
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    It is this particular area of law which is one of the most difficult to analyse, simply because it is so fuzzy. It is unfair to make judgements not knowing the full facts if the case, and it is only with ALL the facts that people can come to a fair conclusion. A poster before said the difficulty lies in the line between being really drunk, and being too drunk to consent.

    My days of criminal law are a few years back but from what I can remember, the woman saying yes is largely irrelevant if she can be said to be so drunk that consent would be invalid. In most cases one would assume this to be obvious (i.e. she is practically comatose) but I do see the problems for both men and women. So the issue here is how drunk she was, and the men's awareness of this drunkeness (i.e. they weren't steaming drunk too).

    It's difficult because rape is largely unreported because of the very low conviction rate which does need to be changed. However, just because there is a low rate doesn't mean that standards need to be lowered just so more people are convicted when perhaps it might not be fair (legally wise). If she was ridiculously drunk, then yes I do find it disgusting that the men took advantage of that, BUT rape carries a prison sentence, and is their complete stupidity enough to warrant a criminal record? I don't think we have enough information to make a judgement!
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by minimarshmallow)
    Except that I'm pretty sure in your example that Rafa wasn't dragged from a night out and on to a tennis court in his inebriated state and made to play tennis. He would have known he would have to play tennis, and if he did turn up drunk of his own accord and Federer beat him, Federer would not be breaking the law. The example is in no way comparable to a drunk woman being raped.
    A woman shouldn't have to restrict her actions that are within the law because of the off chance that someone might try and break the law and rape her. By your logic, no man should ever get drunk either, in case another man rapes him. So nobody should ever drink because there are so many variables associated with how drunk you are going to get any given night.
    Or, people should not break the law...
    You are mixing up the idea of deserving something happening to you and not taking reasonable steps to stop something happening to you ina world where bad people do, and always will, exist.

    If I walk down a street in a dodgy area known for gangs flashing money and expensive phones around then I don't deserve to be mugged and it is disgusting if it happens, but I still played a part in it happening if it does. If I did everything I can to avoid that area (even if I end up there anyway), and kept all my money and valuables hidden etc then it would still be as wrong to be mugged, I would still not derserve it but I also would not have played any part in it happening to me.

    As a scoiety we need to concentrate on ridding these areas of the gangs etc (in my hypothetical scenario I mean), but on a personal level I am not special enough to suggest I shouldn't be taking action myself to lessen risks, and no one is.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by laura130490)
    Yes alcohol does effect everyone differently, but some people are saying that someone who is mildly drunk i.e tipsy could have prolonged periods of memory loss enough to forget having sex, this isn't true. You may have trouble recalling all the details of the night, but to be that drunk to not remember having sex you would need to be more than mildly drunk. How much it takes for someone to get that drunk though obviously depends upon the person.
    There isn't much doubt sex took place if it was apparently recorded. It's about whether she consented or not. Now tell me, when you say getting tipsy is enough to forget "the details of the night", does that also include whether she said yes or no? I think so.

    As for your wallet example, I don't think many people would say its acceptable, just that you'd find you won't get much sympathy and that a lot of people would admit your own irresponsible actions contributed to the incident.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joan2468)
    If a man walks home drunk and he gets attacked by gang members, that must be his fault too then.
    Although i dont necessarrily subscribe to the other guys comment , in your above, a totally drunk person can in some casees, in the eyes of the law, instigate the fact he gets the crap kicked out of him (depending on what he says/did). of course if this actually happens and depending on seriousness of injury, a judge/jury may or may not be more lenient on the charge of abh etc. The factor of being drunk leads to a complicated legal case giveing rise to some legal defence becuase it leads people not to act as they normally would, and also can lead to them instigate actions from other people.
    In this case it will have to be proven that if she were sober, would she had consentual sex with these men, and if they would have resonabley known her intention. Stictly speaking if she was almost paraletic drunk, a decent fellow wouldnt have had tried to have sex with her anyway, but court wont really know how driunk she was. tbh this is why drunkeness complicates the whole matter, and these guys i would expect will afford a decent quality QC, so nothing is certain in its outcome.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cocobubbles)
    It is this particular area of law which is one of the most difficult to analyse, simply because it is so fuzzy. It is unfair to make judgements not knowing the full facts if the case, and it is only with ALL the facts that people can come to a fair conclusion. A poster before said the difficulty lies in the line between being really drunk, and being too drunk to consent.

    My days of criminal law are a few years back but from what I can remember, the woman saying yes is largely irrelevant if she can be said to be so drunk that consent would be invalid. In most cases one would assume this to be obvious (i.e. she is practically comatose) but I do see the problems for both men and women. So the issue here is how drunk she was, and the men's awareness of this drunkeness (i.e. they weren't steaming drunk too).

    It's difficult because rape is largely unreported because of the very low conviction rate which does need to be changed. However, just because there is a low rate doesn't mean that standards need to be lowered just so more people are convicted when perhaps it might not be fair (legally wise). If she was ridiculously drunk, then yes I do find it disgusting that the men took advantage of that, BUT rape carries a prison sentence, and is their complete stupidity enough to warrant a criminal record? I don't think we have enough information to make a judgement!
    Is it irrelevant if the man is in the same state, as is very likely?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by minimarshmallow)
    Except that I'm pretty sure in your example that Rafa wasn't dragged from a night out and on to a tennis court in his inebriated state and made to play tennis. He would have known he would have to play tennis, and if he did turn up drunk of his own accord and Federer beat him, Federer would not be breaking the law. The example is in no way comparable to a drunk woman being raped.
    A woman shouldn't have to restrict her actions that are within the law because of the off chance that someone might try and break the law and rape her. By your logic, no man should ever get drunk either, in case another man rapes him. So nobody should ever drink because there are so many variables associated with how drunk you are going to get any given night.
    Or, people should not break the law...
    Such an incredibly stupid viewpoint to take. I guess stupidity is also legal to be fair.

    As in the above posters analogy, the victim should (not necessarily by law) take sensible precautions. We probably can't force him by law to stop walking the streets flashing his cash, even after being mugged 20 times, but you'd hope common sense prevails.
    • 24 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mabrookes)
    You are mixing up the idea of deserving something happening to you and not taking reasonable steps to stop something happening to you ina world where bad people do, and always will, exist.

    If I walk down a street in a dodgy area known for gangs flashing money and expensive phones around then I don't deserve to be mugged and it is disgusting if it happens, but I still played a part in it happening if it does. If I did everything I can to avoid that area (even if I end up there anyway), and kept all my money and valuables hidden etc then it would still be as wrong to be mugged, I would still not derserve it but I also would not have played any part in it happening to me.

    As a scoiety we need to concentrate on ridding these areas of the gangs etc (in my hypothetical scenario I mean), but on a personal level I am not special enough to suggest I shouldn't be taking action myself to lessen risks, and no one is.
    I am not confusing the two. I am saying that yes we should try to take precautions, such as always staying with your friends and trying not to get too drunk, but where do we draw the line on reasonable precautions?
    Do we say that any woman who had any drop of alcohol put herself at risk? What if she's wearing anything other than jeans and a jumper, she's at risk for flashing flesh, surely? If she steps outside the club on her own for a cigarette and the bouncers are paying attention to something else but she doesn't realise, has she put herself at risk by assuming she's safe near the bouncers? What if she jumps in a taxi on her own because her friends aren't ready to leave and gets raped by the driver, should she not have got in alone? By wearing make up to look prettier to make ourselves feel confident, are we putting ourself at risk? We are kind of at risk for simply leaving the house, aren't we? Or anytime we open the front door, someone could force their way into our house and rape us then? Where do you draw the line?
    I think women should take some precautions, and getting blind drunk is probably not a good idea for anyone, I know that, that's why I don't do it. But at the same time if it happens, it's pretty heartless to say 'Well, why weren't you more careful?' to the woman rather than 'Well, why didn't you show some self-restraint?' to the man who has committed the crime...
    • 24 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nosaer)
    Such an incredibly stupid viewpoint to take. I guess stupidity is also legal to be fair.

    As in the above posters analogy, the victim should (not necessarily by law) take sensible precautions. We probably can't force him by law to stop walking the streets flashing his cash, even after being mugged 20 times, but you'd hope common sense prevails.
    See above.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    They look a bit rapey though. Case closed.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mabrookes)
    Is it irrelevant if the man is in the same state, as is very likely?
    Well I'm most probably mixing in my own personal views here but one would assume that if the man was equally as drunk, sex would not have occurred in the first place. The standard is actually quite a high one to pass, which is obviously correct given the severity of what is at stake. People can get really drunk to the point of being sick and yet still could be said to give valid consent. I have a feeling that some might think a girl getting drunk and not remembering parts of the night (which lets face it, happens a lot!) is enough to get a conviction: it is definitely not.

    All circumstances of the case would be taken into account (including the alleged spiking of the drink by someone else) but her drunkenness would have to be of the level that she is practically comatose: it is a SERIOUS level and is very difficult to prove without witnesses. Therefore, a man being in the same state would mean he is also on the point of passing out: I'm not a scientific person but I think sexual intercourse is unlikely at this stage (I understand I could be very wrong in this respect)! However, as I said before, it really is a case-by-case situation and is extremely subjective. Therefore the filming and the witnesses at the hotel who saw how drunk she was will play a vital role.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Multitalented me)
    I think the main point is that they should be held accountable in some way for their actions providing they gave "proper consent". The problem is even if a women is only a little intoxicated then it's all suddenly the other person's fault. It gives women too much power imo as they can just lie and say they were too drunk to make a valid decision or pretend to not remember anything & get away completely.
    I actually hate women (bitches) that cry rape, imo they should be thrown in jail with the key disgarded for ruining someones life like that. But my main problem with his post was that he was questioning why drunkness isn't an excuse for a crime. Thats pretty stupid to compare something brought upon you by being drunk (which if I'm honest is pretty stupid) in comparison to committing a crime because you're inhibited.
    Being a victim of a crime cause you were drunk or committing a crime cause you were drunk.

    What's worse?

    If we gave people that we're drunk a free pass to commit crimes just wait and see the utter chaos that would ensue.

    (Original post by NB_ide)
    It takes two to tango.
    Not for rape.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Like a BAWS)
    If during the Wimbledon final Federer plays a very drunk Nadal and destroys him 3-0 in sets. It would be like Nadal saying "That wasn't a fair game ! Alcohol has terrible effects for someone during sport, my balance was all over the place etc. I was in no fit state to play, you took advantage of the situation ! I was so drunk the match should never have happened, you should've noticed the state I was in and postponed the match". People wouldn't be very tolerant of that logic used by Rafa
    I'm not quite seeing the similarity here, between these things; there is nothing unfair about playing tennis with someone worse than yourself. You can even play tennis with kids, if they want to.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tyler Varona)
    Not for rape.
    Yes, by definition. That really adds nothing to the discussion as to whether this was "rape", though :rolleyes:
    • 49 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by headunderwater)
    In an ideal world, it wouldn’t matter how much a woman had to drink, what she was wearing, or what overtures she had given—no man would ever consider sex without explicit consent and would recognize that a drunk girl isn’t an invitation to rape.
    I agree with what you are saying. But you have to consider that generally if people have been out, the male is going to be drunk as well and has given consent while under the influence. So is it rape both ways?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by minimarshmallow)
    See above.
    K. Your original post made it look like you thought people shouldn't be told not to get pissed off their faces simply because its legal.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    There's a difference between going to a club and intoxicating someone with the intention of having sex with them. As opposed to going to a club and seeing someone intoxicated who wanted to have sex with you and agreeing. Although, in my opinion, it's morally wrong. Just like asking someone for their wallet/cash whilst they're intoxicated is morally wrong although might not be legally wrong. If the footballers were drunk, I think it's fairplay.

    Does anyone know British law when it comes to consent? Is it illegal to have sex with someone when they're very drunk?
    • 24 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nosaer)
    K. Your original post made it look like you thought people shouldn't be told not to get pissed off their faces simply because its legal.
    Yeah, I would never think that. I just don't think that we should be making women feel worse or trying to remove any of the responsibility from the rapist just because she was drunk. She probably shouldn't get so drunk that she can't stand up, but she is still entitled to and it doesn't make it any less of a crime to rape a woman in that state.

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

Strictly iPlayer

Will you still watch if some BBC programmes go online only?

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.