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

Scroll to see replies

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...

I said reasonable steps, there is always a line but it is only very rarely a difficult one to see. Of course there is always risk, it is a risk crossing the road but it would not be a reasonable precaution to never cross the road. It would be reasonable to try and cross at crossing when possible and always wait until it is clear.
It is a simple case for most of the examples you give as well. It is not a reasonable precaution to never get a taxi on your own when needed but trying to order one from somewhere, if not only getting one in an area where there is a rank or they operate, never accepting random requests if a taxi driver stop you and just being sensible is a reasonable precaution. You don't seem to be making this distinction in the things you list.

It is a bit heartless, but we need to be a bit more aggressive on the issue. The sense of entitlement some women feel in not having this responsibility is getting pretty extreme and putting them in danger. It is time we started, not blaming or being quite as blunt as you in the aftermath, but educating and making them realise they do need to take precautions because plenty don't (and I know plenty that don't, and also think they shouldn't have to and it is sexist to suggest otherwise).

The final point is a bit silly, saying to a criminal "why didn't you show restraint" is both a bit deluded/naive and also not a substitute for educating women in taking precautions.

Edit: Also quite offensive thinking about it, rapists are criminals doing what they do because they are disturbed, bad people. Saying "'Well, why didn't you show some self-restraint?' to the man who has committed the crime..." is pretty sexist to me. They are doing it because thye are a criminal, not because they are a man.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 101

tehFrance

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.

If she was too drunk to remember if she gave consent then she was too drunk to give consent in the first place.

Reply 102

RetiredAccount89

Original post by walterwhite123

They recorded the men having sex with her, that won't prove she didn't consent.

It will if she is basically shown passed out

Reply 103

Arekkusu

Well this is the sort of thing we have humans in the jury for, to decide according to common sense.

drunk sex is fun

Original post by Like a BAWS

Taking advantage of someone that's drunk =/= Rape.

Does it make everyone who goes to nightclubs, pubs etc with the hope of 'pulling' rapists? After all, nearly everyone there will be under the influence of alcohol to a greater or lesser extent. Nearly EVERYONE at some point or other has sex when one person was under the influence of alcohol. To have a criminal record of being a Rapist tagged on you for the rest of your life for having sex with a girl that consented but was mildly intoxicated, to me, is unfair. I'm sorry, but even though taking advantage of a very drunk girl might be immoral and a low-life thing to do, it is not of the same magnitude as rape.

It's true, but it's difficult to determine the line between how drunk it's okay for her to be in order for it to be consensual. There's a difference between 'mildly intoxicated' as you've mentioned and far too drunk and it's not always easy to tell - I know some girls who seem barely tipsy after a heavy night of drinking but wake up the next morning with zero recollection of the night before, they're just good at hiding how drunk they are.

I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying at all but all guys should realise that in taking advantage of a girl that's absolutely smashed / wasted, she could turn around in the morning and accuse you of rape, so maybe just don't do it.

Reply 106

Evangelica

Original post by kka25

I'm hoping in future there's a law for this that can just throw the person who falsely accused people of rapping them to prison. That should be fair.

This already happens, I can think of a particular case from about a year ago I think.

Reply 107

Evangelica

Original post by Aspiringlawstudent

To be honest, if you're that drunk it is your own fault.

You're going to turn into one of those ******* lawyers that defend guilty people aren't you? Great, just what this country needs more of :colonhash:

Reply 108

nosaer

Original post by minimarshmallow

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.

Still seems like you're saying its acceptable to get pissed in these types of situations leaving yourself vulnerable to being taken advantage of. It's not and should not be regardless of legality. It's also the reason such people don't get much sympathy from others, which you interpret as lifting the 'responsibility on rapists' (as if rapists were ever responsible individuals who we should expect to act responsibly).

Reply 109

Like a BAWS

Original post by minimarshmallow

. 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.

Absolutely. To be honest, these days the streets are so dangerous that even though I and everyone else are guilty of this, nobody should really get drunk. By all means, everyone is entitled to a drink, but people should drink responsibly, and there is a difference between 'having a drink' and getting drunk.

Its about risk assessment. The chances of a man getting raped by a man are miniscule, whilst isnt the figures for female rape something like 1 woman gets raped every 10 minutes ? Yet women still think they can act totally unresponsibly by getting so absolutely drunk they black out etc. Wow.

Reply 110

mr-breaker

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 :wink:

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

You've clearly never logged onto www.menstennisforums.com :lol:

Reply 111

DavidTheYoung

I never understand why footballers rape women. Surely they can go into a club, show off their rolex and say to a girl: "My Ferrari is outside if you want to come back to my place".

Not saying that all women are fame hungry money whores before all the studentroom chicks give me neg, but we've all been clubbing, we've all seen what a lot of girls there are like. Any footballers out would be right up their street.

Reply 112

danisolo

For everyone who thinks fault lies with the rape victim, read this:

Reply 113

Cigarette

Original post by edd360

People don't seem to realise that people choose to drink and get that wasted. She chose to get so drunk she can't remember, that's her own fault. No one forced her to drink that much. You can't blame a guy fo trying it on with a drunk girl because it's taking advantage, when she consented to get that drunk and should therefore know all the potential risks of doing so.

It annoys me how alcohol abuse is so overly abused it's almost accepted. It's a disgrace. Smoke weed everyday.

People choose to get extremely intoxicated, but that doesn't justify their human rights being violated.

Don't blame the victim for putting herself in a dangerous situation, blame the person who commits the crime.
In my opinion, if the evidence (in this case, footage of the victim inebriated) shows the woman is unable to consent then it should be judged as rape in the trial and the appropriate sentence given to the two men.

Reply 114

Hopple

Original post by joan2468

If a man walks home drunk and he gets attacked by gang members, that must be his fault too then.

If the man gives his consent to the beating, then yes.

Reply 115

TaylorGang_4

Do you know what. In cases like this both parties should be imprisoned. Society has deteriorated and these sort of issues could easily be prevented. These men are disgraceful, they prey on vulnerable women. However women should have more self respect for themselves, because when they lose that respect, the outcome can be life changing. Unless there is sufficient evidence to suggest she was in fact forced into intercourse no imprisonment can be handed. As there is no evidence and a possibility that the plaintiff is in fact lying to even things out I believe imprisonment for both parties should occur. This will compensate for the time that was wasted and for the costs of the tribunal. We live in a society where people are spoon fed, it will teach members of society to take responsibility for their actions.

Reply 116

alex92100

R v Bree - drunken consent is still consent, even if consent would not have been given if sober.Just because she can't remember consent, that doesn't necessarily invalidate it, in fact, if the woman cannot remember saying either yes or no, it could work in the defendant's favour, as it needs to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that she did not consent.

In R v Bree, a man and woman had sex after drinking heavily, she could not remember whether she consented or not, as there were gaps in her memory. The defendant claimed she had consented, therefore there was no proof that she hadn't and he was acquitted.

Lack of consent alone doesn't constitute rape. The defendant must not reasonably believe that the victim consented, therefore even if a woman is very drunk, is she consents either explicitly or implicitly, the man may have a reasonable belief and is therefore not guilty of rape.

From what I can gather from reading Bree, the capacity to consent is present if the victim knows that they are consenting to sex, e.g in Bree, the defendant claimed that the woman had taken her own clothes off before sex, even though she cannot remember this, which meant she was capable to consenting.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 117

Foghorn Leghorn

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.

I understand what you mean but I don't think it really works that way.

Reply 118

alex92100

Original post by Foghorn Leghorn

I understand what you mean but I don't think it really works that way.

You're right, it doesn't work that way. If you are capable to consenting, even when drunk that consent is valid. It doesn't matter if you wouldn't have taken that action when sober, drunken consent is still consent.

Reply 119

sexbo

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!