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

Granted it's not advisable to get so drunk you stop having fun and enter into danger, however that doesn't mean that it was her own fault that she was raped and taken advantage of. I very much doubt she intended to get that drunk just so she could get groped, molested and raped.
It's down to the people around her to know what is acceptable and what is not. The idea that she is to blame because the perpatrators didn't know right from wrong is absurd.

I subscribe to a positivist jurisprudential theory, a large element of which is the crucial distinction between what the law is and what the law ought to be.

It does, however, mean I am less likely to have sympathy, in much the same way I do not have sympathy for those who get drunk or take drugs, go driving and get injured.

Their own inherently reckless behaviour has led to the damage they suffered.

Drinking is recognised by English law as an inherently reckless activity (R v Majewski) and in my opinion it is erroneous that the law as it stands does not incorporate this decades-old principle into the law relating to sexual assaults.

But what you think the law ought to be, and what society thinks the law should be are obviously different. Ergo you are wrong because the law works, or should work, for society.

Going down that route though ignores the Thin Skull Principle. Yes, it's reckless behaviour, however it should not matter what state of mind the person is in, if they cannot consent due to whatever reason, and the person does not have a reasonable belief in consent, then that should be rape.

Also, if it becomes well known that extremely drunken sex is rape, then people are more likely to be cautious about it, which can only be a good thing.

The idea that she is to blame because the perpatrators didn't know right from wrong is absurd.

But she is to blame for putting herself in the situation. There is a different between deserving something and being at fault. People hate the argument, but if I go on holiday and leave all my doors and windows open, I don't deserve to be burgled, but I'm clearly at fault if I am burgled. As ridiculous as it is to say a girl deserves to be raped, its even more ridiculous for a girl to put the onus on the hundreds of random men around her to be nice guys. When do we ever think that is a smart choice and defend people who do in other area of life? I don't think its automatic, that every case should have the same levels of sympathy, because in this situation there were clearly steps should could have taken that would have meant this never happened, for many girls thats not the case.

I just think its a dangerous pretext to extend the law, which was introduced to protect those who are not of full mental capacity, to anyone who fancies relieving themselves of their senses because its fun. Where does that end? Can I be held responsible for committing a crime, I wasn't fully aware of what I was doing and in no position to make reasonable decisions. What about spending money, is it fair the bar man accepted my request to buy 8 bottles of grey goose, when I clearly was in no position to be aware of the cost? If being drunk of your own accord means a decision cannot be made, which decision it is you make is of no matter, you weren't in a position understand and to make it. Whether it be you or someone else who is affected.

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

If you look at my comment on the first page, however, I have more thumbs up than thumbs down, and as such people agree with me more than they disagree, and therefore the law ought to be changed.

I just think it is very dangerous to start blaming the victim. She most likely didn't set out to be that drunk, however she was. I don't know how drunk the two men were in this case but what I would ask is "were they of sound mind to know that she was too far gone and didn't clearly consent or wasn't able to consent?"
Just because she was very drunk and just because may have originally set out to end up with a man or men to sleep with that doesn't mean she's ultimately and automatically to blame.
If I was quite drunk and pulled a lady who was obviously very very drunk, and if we got back to hers and I saw she was really out of it I know that I would not take it further. Because to me it's common sense.
I think it's very dangerous to ultimately start blaming the victim when it seems that in terms of common sense (of lack thereof) it was the fault of the perpatrator.
That's in no way a legal opinion (since I don't know where exactly the law stands on this) but I think that's how it should be. I certainly don't believe in stigmatising a victim because he/she got overly drunk.

And honestly I think comments like:



Can be very damaging.

If she consented then its not rape.

I think what would be more fair to say, is that if woman gets so drunk she can't consent and is raped, the blame mainly falls on the rapist, however, she should take a proportion of the blame for getting in a state that allowed that to happen, just like someone who is robbed whilst drunk should bear a proportion of the blame for allowing him/herself to get in the situation that allowed them to be robbed.

She should certainly know better than to be that drunk in an enviroment where there are people who she doesn't know and doesn't know her, however that doesn't mean she is ultimately to blame.
Again it comes down to common sense. In this case common sense dictates that if unsure the perpatrator(s) would double check before going ahead and if in doubt or if no response is given, don't go ahead.
Ergo it is rash to blame the victim.

I just think it is very dangerous to start blaming the victim. She most likely didn't set out to be that drunk, however she was. I don't know how drunk the two men were in this case but what I would ask is "were they of sound mind to know that she was too far gone and didn't clearly consent or wasn't able to consent?"
Just because she was very drunk and just because may have originally set out to end up with a man or men to sleep with that doesn't mean she's ultimately and automatically to blame.
If I was quite drunk and pulled a lady who was obviously very very drunk, and if we got back to hers and I saw she was really out of it I know that I would not take it further. Because to me it's common sense.
I think it's very dangerous to ultimately start blaming the victim when it seems that in terms of common sense (of lack thereof) it was the fault of the perpatrator.
That's in no way a legal opinion (since I don't know where exactly the law stands on this) but I think that's how it should be. I certainly don't believe in stigmatising a victim because he/she got overly drunk.

I don't see how the thin skull principle relates to this issue at all, frankly.

The point you have made is not connected to it.

I don't think blame is a binary issue, it does have to be one or the other, I'm not placing the blame on her for if she was raped, but the situation of ambiguous consent was within her control. There is a difference between morally right and legally right, salesmen who target old people because they are more easily convinced, for me, are morally in the wrong, but legally they perfectly within their rights. As is proven with the thumbs up and down comment, people's morals and the law can be a dangerous mix. I personally wouldn't have done it, and I think their attitude is pretty sick and predatory, but as far as we can tell, they did ask for her consent. I just think if we are holding her in a position where she is accountable for everything else she does that night, she should be held accountable for this, why this one exception? Not just in this case, but exceptions which have no justification logically, IMO are dangerous.

I personally cannot offer the same level of sympathy as a girl who is attacked on her way home from school, the same way I can't for someone who dies at the hand of a drunk driver while not wearing a seatbelt. I reserve full sympathy for those who have done everything reasonable within their power to avoid harm. It doesn't change how wrong the perpetrator is, but how I feel about the victim.

The doctrines of Duress and Undue influence, and the Sales of Goods Act 1979 etc, protect old people from predator salesmen

Take your victim as you find them - You rape them, doesn't matter how blameworthy they are.

Also, you've completely misunderstood the principle of R v Majewski. Drinking is a reckless behaviour for crimes of basic intent, however that applies to the defendants, not to the victim.

The law as it is now is good. It's not just about whether or not a victim consents, it's about a reasonable belief in consent - and that's what the jury will decide upon. If the person does not have a reasonable belief in consent, surely they are blameworthy no matter how much the victim is blameworthy for getting into that situation?

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?