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

The drunk thing is weird. I live in Canada and there was a recent case where a woman knocked over and killed a little girl. She was clearly driving far too fast and without due care. However what really mattered apparently was whether or not she was over the limit. The police conducted a sting operation to get her to confess that she had had a drink or two, and as a result she got a much stiffer sentence, on the grounds that she had chosen to drive under the influence.

I'm not saying that was right, but it goes very oddly with the apparent get out of jail card that being drunk gives to rapists.

I do think this man got off because the jury decided he really thought he was raping his girlfriend, and that that was just fine. Because if he also walked off with her phone and they decided he thought it was his phone, the implication is that he thought it was his girlfriend in the bed, and that he therefore could do what he liked to her, even though he knew she had said no to his previous advances.

She should have said she was drunk.

I think that is what he is trying to say that had he been sober he would not have intentionally had sex with her or took her mobile. I think this as he is claiming it was accidental due to him being incapacitated due to alcohol. If i am getting this wrong let me know as I said I am no lawyer :P

That the actus rea, omg. The mens rea (intent) is the bit I just posted. I think.

Are we coming at this from a totally different angle? Are you saying that you think he didn't intend to have sex with her at all?

This is the part about intent in rape law.

Sexual Offences Act 2003 a person (A) commits rape if ?
(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,

As far as I know from a bit of digging, the part of the SOA that is the mens rea for rape is:

(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents

That's why I keep asking why juries are so willing to buy the often piss-poor excuses from defendents. And why defendents like this do not have their beliefs torn apart under cross-examination. "She looked at me" as in the other case we were talking about is an appalling reason to believe consent was given. "I was drunk" means nothing in the context of this scenario.

Remember he got aqquited of the mobile phone theft aswell. This is what makes me think this is an intent issue.

I'm not particularly convinced about the innocence of 'sleepwalking' rapists either but a lot of those men were cleared due to 'lack of intent'

I'm sure women sleepwalk as well but how many of them sexually assault people?

Here is more about intent that I found:

www.ias.org.uk/resources/publications/alcoholalert/alert200601/al2006_p10.html

I am not even saying that intent applies to rape as I said I am not a laywer so I am only guessing. I think I am going to try and look into it more though because this case is confusing to say the least.

Yes. Or gone into the wrong room and picked up a stranger's laptop and taken it with him cause he was so drunk that he did not know what he was doing.

Can you imagine anyone getting away with that?

Intent is different in different crimes like if Someone stole property from someone but did not intend to deprive the person of their property they would not be prosecuted unless intent could be proved. That is my understanding. I am not saying that he didn't do it and that he shouldn't be prosecuted I am simply saying that is the way I think it works and if anyone has a more informed definition I would be glad to listen.

Why would intent matter?

He walked into a room in which there was a sleeping woman.

Without even checking to see who it was, he had sex with her - that is not sex, that is rape.

If he had walked into a room and stabbed someone could the defense argue that he had not intended to stab anyone so he should not be done for murder? That he was so drunk that he did not know what he was doing?

No, but the point is that having sex with a sleeping woman is rape, so his defence of "I thought it was my girlfriend" holds no water.

Here's what the law says Rape & Consent

You cannot prosecute someone of a crime they haven't committed. He didn't rape his girlfriend so they can't use that as the prosecution and the jury quite rightly can't take that into consideration.