The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

I can't believe the judge told the jury how to vote! That's completely against the principle of trial by jury!
And surely if she doesn't remember giving consent that doesn't automatically mean that she did but can't remember, which is how it seems to have been taken?
Regardless of this case, it's a very bad idea to create a precedent which suggests that any drunk woman is 'fair game' because she won't remember anything.Surely it's inviting guys to try and get a woman drunk and have sex with her!
Reply 2
wtf! Can't women do what they want without being raped?? So what if she was drunk. He took advantage of her and that's rape. Makes me maaad. :mad: :mad: And it gives rapists an excuse -- "She gave 'drunken consent'." Are we even safe anymore? And that judge :vmad: He wouldn't be like that if it was his own daughter. Rape = rape, end of story.
tritogeneia1
I can't believe the judge told the jury how to vote! That's completely against the principle of trial by jury!
And surely if she doesn't remember giving consent that doesn't automatically mean that she did but can't remember, which is how it seems to have been taken?

I presume the man who had sex with her said she did consent. So if there is no other evidence you have to go on that surely?

The judge wasn't telling them how to vote, they still had to decide whether they believe she did consent to it, however he seems to have made a disputable interpretation of the law.

Regardless of this case, it's a very bad idea to create a precedent which suggests that any drunk woman is 'fair game' because she won't remember anything.Surely it's inviting guys to try and get a woman drunk and have sex with her!

I don't think some guys need a court ruling for them to do this!

From that article alone we've not really got much information to make a judgement with.
Reply 4
I think that is what the issue is. Too many times a girl gets drunk gives consent and then cries rape when she regrets what happened. For too many years now girls have had it their way, but thats changing.

However in these situations the male is not blameless, he should realise that she was drunk and that she might only be saying yes for that reason therefore he should not have sex with her. It is taking advantage but if has permision to do so I then its perfectly legal if not imoral.

The moral of the story is never give consent and don't let strangers into your house :smile:. If you get so drunk that your common sense goes you need to start drinking less.
Reply 5
I'm agreeing with AT82 here. If you're so drunk that you're letting strangers into your house and then crashing in your corridor, your drinking habits are somewhat circumspect at best. I'm not saying that you then deserve to be raped, but as specified in the other thread about this, you make the risk of it a little higher, especially if you're too drunk to properly give consent or deny it.
Reply 6
agreed, its like i was saying on thread before this one. There are plenty of precautions to take to make sure your safer and stumbling about blind drunk isnt one of them
Reply 7
There is a rebuttable presumption that the defence will have presumably rebutted (don't think thats a real word but you understand the gist) under SOA 2003 (75)(2)(f)

(f) any person had administered to or caused to be taken by the complainant, without the complainant's consent, a substance which, having regard to when it was administered or taken, was capable of causing or enabling the complainant to be stupefied or overpowered at the time of the relevant act.

In this instance, the girl was presumably drunk on her own free choice, the accused did not administer alcohol to the victim without her consent. The defence presumably succesfully argued that defendant reasonably beleived that the girl "agreed by choice, and had the freedom and capacity to make that choice"(74).

The issue of wether she had the "capacity" to make this choice is debatable, the defendant may not have been aware that she was drunk (unlikely I know, but I for one would not turn down sex with a girl who was offering it to me whilst slightly inebriated)

That wasnt a very well constructed arguement I know, my point is that as the law currently stands the decision made by the court was correct. The law on rape has also been changed relatively frequently (2003), so we are not likely to see an immediate change in the law.
Reply 8
AT82
I think that is what the issue is. Too many times a girl gets drunk gives consent and then cries rape when she regrets what happened. For too many years now girls have had it their way, but thats changing.

However in these situations the male is not blameless, he should realise that she was drunk and that she might only be saying yes for that reason therefore he should not have sex with her. It is taking advantage but if has permision to do so I then its perfectly legal if not imoral.



Good post, unfortunately the male can only take reasonable steps to beleive that the alleged victim is consenting. After how many vodka and cokes does "yes, I want to have sex with you" mean "Alcohol has lowered my inhibitions and I want to have sex with you know as I don't know what I'm doing". Even getting a signed document stating consent before sex from both parties in this instance would not be beneficial! (The law is so strict with regards to the issue of consent now that I have almost considered a measure such as this before engaging in sexual activities with girls pulled after nights out!)
Reply 9
Catski
I'm agreeing with AT82 here. If you're so drunk that you're letting strangers into your house and then crashing in your corridor, your drinking habits are somewhat circumspect at best. I'm not saying that you then deserve to be raped, but as specified in the other thread about this, you make the risk of it a little higher, especially if you're too drunk to properly give consent or deny it.


Err, she was a student in halls and the guy was the SECURITY GUARD and she was UNCONCIOUS!!
Reply 10
she couldnt remember if you read it
Reply 11
segat1
Err, she was a student in halls and the guy was the SECURITY GUARD and she was UNCONCIOUS!!


If she was actually unconscious then this seems to be a bad decision, unger SOA 2003, 75 (d). However, if she must have been at least semi conscious to give consent, all be it drunken consent in the first place.
Reply 12
if she was unconsious as she claims then how does she know she was raped?
Reply 13
trigger
she couldnt remember if you read it


Exactly we have no evidence to confirm she that. If she was then its clear case of rape, but in order to convict somebody you need full evidence not ones word against the other.

I am not saying drunken girls deserve to get raped because nobody does, but if you get that drunk you have to expect bad things to happen, that might be getting run over or mugged etc.
Reply 14
trigger
if she was unconsious as she claims then how does she know she was raped?


good point, inaccuracies such as these in her statement would no doubt be picked up upon by the defence, and siginificantly weaken her case.
Reply 15
i mean i don know her or anything but it seems like shes making it up and im suprised its gone as far as court.
Reply 16
pugnacious
good point, inaccuracies such as these in her statement would no doubt be picked up upon by the defence, and siginificantly weaken her case.


uh dunno about you guys but I always know if I've had sex by the soreness. I mean, down there just feels different the next day. well it does for me.

All I'd really like is for someone to recognise that if someone is in a drunk/unconcious state then clearly they can't make the decision and should leave well alone. I mean, the guy - what a nutter - somehow I would hope if i passed out in the hallway at halls then someone would not go - easy target.
Reply 17
I think trigger said it on here, if she was unconcious how does she know she was raped??? and how would she know who raped her in the first place???

Anyway anycase that involves the female being drunk to that kind of state like it seems this girl was, then it always makes things dodgy, because the accused rapist will always say she didnt consent to sex thoe she doesn't remember.
If a female is drunk to the point she cant remember anything, then theres nothing much she can do to get the accused rapist convicted (unless there was any witnesses)
But if the womans drunk but still remembers everything then she shouldn't be rejected the chance to bring her attacker to justice its just wrong.
Reply 18
but then what right does she have just accusing someone that she knows would have been in the building? And you shpould she a dr because ethat doesnt sound right :confused:
Reply 19
segat1
uh dunno about you guys but I always know if I've had sex by the soreness. I mean, down there just feels different the next day. well it does for me.


We are not doubting the man had sex with her, that can be tested by DNA samples. What matters is in order to get a conviction the girl has to be able to prove that rape took place, who is to say she wasn't drunk and just gave consent, she might have been gagging for it that night and then changed her mind the next day. This has happened too many times.

The simple issue is nobody could prove that rape took place. It might have happened or it might not, but we can't convict people unless we are sure.

Latest

Trending

Trending