Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Man cleared of rape because he was too drunk to realise which bed he was in.

315 replies

ElephantsAndMiasmas · 26/02/2011 12:29

Sorry DM but here.

This guy's girlfriend refused sex, he stumbled into another room "by accident" and started having sex with the woman in the bed there.

He was cleared of rape.

There is so much wrong with this that I don't know where to start. I imagine he's been cleared because he didn't intend (apparently) to commit a crime. But the fact is that neither woman had consented to sex with him, so whoever he decided to penetrate it would have been rape. He seems to have been cleared on the grounds that if he had walked back into his (non-consenting) girlfriend's room and penetrated her without further ado, that would not have been rape. It obviously would have been.

:( scared and Angry all at once.

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
JeaninePattibone · 09/03/2011 18:00

As I said yesterday,, the torygraph has just churned the Mail's story. There is no original reporting in that short price, it even directly quotes the Mail.

OrangeClouds · 09/03/2011 15:18

The original story has finally been covered by someone other than the Mail. Telegraph

ambarth · 08/03/2011 19:24

Perception

ambarth · 08/03/2011 19:23

So sorry and angry on your behalf brokengirl. What the hell was wrong with that jury.

The Daily mail is contributing to the pereption that false allegations are common. They continually seem to run stories of false allegations. That paper is vile. The result is juries like brokengirl faced.It makes my blood boil.

sethstarkaddersmackerel · 08/03/2011 16:18

'Not sure I have any specific answers, but I do think it needs to be seen less as a technical legal problem and more as a cultural and political one.'

that's interesting. I think it's both - you can find technical solutions to cultural problems.

Prolesworth · 08/03/2011 15:57

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Original poster
ElephantsAndMiasmas · 08/03/2011 15:56

No Jean, they've done the research that shows they are uncommon already.

OP posts:
JeaninePattibone · 08/03/2011 15:50

You see, I didn't like the wording of the bit about false claims at all. It pre judges the outcome of be research - I think rape-apologists will be all over that one.

SmashingNarcissistsMirrors · 08/03/2011 15:47

going by the facts in the article alone (which is all i have to go by) i am absolutely shocked by this case.

his defence is absolutely unbelievable.

in what other criminal acts can alcohol be seen to diminish your responsibility / judgement to be able to use it as an excuse?

poor woman.

JeaninePattibone · 08/03/2011 15:47

@InmaculadaConcepcion,

Not sure I have any specific answers, but I do think it needs to be seen less as a technical legal problem and more as a cultural and political one.

Prolesworth · 08/03/2011 15:40

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Original poster
ElephantsAndMiasmas · 08/03/2011 15:34

x-posts :)

OP posts:
Original poster
ElephantsAndMiasmas · 08/03/2011 15:34

Yeah exactly MQ :(

Have you got a link for that, Proles?

OP posts:
Prolesworth · 08/03/2011 15:33

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

InmaculadaConcepcion · 08/03/2011 15:33

Ah, that's good, Prolesworth. Can you link to a source?

InmaculadaConcepcion · 08/03/2011 15:31

What approach would you prefer, JP?

(appropriate initials, perhaps?!!)

Prolesworth · 08/03/2011 15:31

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

mayorquimby · 08/03/2011 15:30

"The difference is, MQ, that people wouldn't commonly accept that stuff is open to being taken away unless someone specifically says no."

Completely agree. My point was that this is not a problem specific to the law regarding rape. The problem is juries readily accepting completely unreasonable justification as constituting a "reasonable belief" as to the womans consent when it comes to rape that they would not do with regards assault or theft.

JeaninePattibone · 08/03/2011 15:28

No I don't think justice was served, I'm just not entirely certain that I'm right and the jury was wrong.

Id like to think I would make a good juror, better than your average. But juries are selected at random, if you want to make them better informed you have to make everybody better informed.

I worry that the approach to rape is a top-down one where the enlightened look to tweak the law and judicial process in order to help juries arrive at the "right" decision.

Original poster
ElephantsAndMiasmas · 08/03/2011 15:26

The difference is, MQ, that people wouldn't commonly accept that stuff is open to being taken away unless someone specifically says no. If I go to the park and take my coat off and put it beside me on the grass, no jury would believe a thief who randomly passed by and picked it up and ran off with it, that s/he thought I wanted him/her to take it.

Whereas with rape it seems that people are pretty ready to believe that women are open to being penetrated by anyone unless there is a really really really good reason to think not (e.g. dark alley rapes at knifepoint etc). And even then.

OP posts:
mayorquimby · 08/03/2011 15:20

"Yes, next time I go into a shop and there are goods there with no price label on them/near them, I will assume they are free. That should be fine. If I'm too drunk to see that there is a label on them, that should be fine too.

And yet again we are making comparison between women's bodies and goods for the taking/selling, which I hate. So I will stop now."

But there already is a defence to theft that you believed you had the consent of the owner to take possession of the item either permanently or temporarily. So it would be the exact same in that it would then be up to the jury to decide if that belief was reasonably held.
I think this case has been decided appallingly, but it is not a defence which is unique to rape, it is there for all consent based offences.

dittany · 08/03/2011 15:03

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

dittany · 08/03/2011 15:01

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
ElephantsAndMiasmas · 08/03/2011 14:55

Yes, next time I go into a shop and there are goods there with no price label on them/near them, I will assume they are free. That should be fine. If I'm too drunk to see that there is a label on them, that should be fine too.

And yet again we are making comparison between women's bodies and goods for the taking/selling, which I hate. So I will stop now.

OP posts:
JeaninePattibone · 08/03/2011 14:47

You say he was lying, but at least 10 jurors didn't.

What do you know that they don't? Or do you just consider yourself to be intellectually superior?

Swipe left for the next trending thread