'If a woman is drunk a man should not be prosecuted for rape'

With mengogs case - I don't know if maybe differential drunkenness would be better? As then it would be hard to argue why he didn't he just put her in taxi or get her to call her friends as she obviously was in a state, or would that be argued anyway?

With both people very drunk won't the mans ability to 'perform' more likely to have stopped before his ability to consent? Personal experience

Had Mengog not intervened and had that man put his penis in that woman, and it got to court, that evidence would have been used both by the prosecution, to show the man knew the woman was too drunk to have capacity ... and by the defence to show the basis for the man's belief in her consent.

I think we should talk about too drunk (drugged, sleepy, otherwise impaired) for capacity rather than too drunk to consent - I think there's a general understanding that at some point you'd be too drunk to have capacity to decide to buy a house, or get a train to your parents' house, or cook some pasta or whatever. And that point is individual in each case.

Nothing bad happens if you don't proceed to sex if you aren't sure of capacity. Something bad might happen if you do. So why risk being a rapist?

Agreed. My question was a genuine on to any legal eagles out there - is there a better legal process anywhere about disputed consent than 'who can afford the best barrister'? I know some countries don't use juries in every type of case, but have panels of judges or experts instead. Does anywhere make a better of job of something this contentious?

"Does a woman have to be in love to 'give' herself to a man? "

Of course not. My point was, as you agree, that she was totally twatted and he well knew it. The language she used was a guide to that - if she'd been saying "this bloke is Harry potter, he really is!" it would be equally indicative of her state.

It comes down to capacity and it is always going to be and must be about judgement. Let's say it's not alcohol. Let's say it's SEN, or a manic episode, or early onset dementia. In each case, if it comes down to a "does this man or woman have the capacity to consent to sexual contact", it will be a judgement.

It might be reinforced by objective measures, such as blood alcohol levels the following morning or a previous psychiatric report, but even then there isn't going to be some rule we can all point to in order to hang our responsibility to our fellow human beings on a number on a chart.

That man did not think the woman loved him, thought he was fantastic etc.

I know what you are saying, Knicker, but what has that got to do with anything? Does a woman have to be in love to 'give' herself to a man? Or can she have a few scoops, feel a bit horny and fancy a shag with a bit of rough? I mean, women get just as frisky as men, right? And are just as entitled to a one-off, no-strings shag as a man is. Love and admiration don't come into it. Indeed, my wife my love me, admire me, fix my car for me - doesn't mean she wants a jump right now, does it?

And I know the previous example was of someone totally twatted, but in the wider picture I don't know what scale we use where there is an easily defined line where on one side you are able to consent, and on the other, you aren't. A comprehension test, walking along the white line in the middle of the road, mg of alcohol per ml of blood? I honestly don't know.

How do other countries define 'ability to consent'? For me, that is what it comes down to, and the UK law always seems such a mish-mash of cobbled-together nonsense and adversarial bullshit. Surely somewhere else has a better system of deciding these things.

Yy scallops. That man did not think the woman loved him, thought he was fantastic etc.

And if people are worried about hundreds of drunk but legitimately consensual encounters coming to court, well (a) it ain't gonna happen and (b) juries have capacity to decide about the legitimacy of consent and the strength of the man's defence of his belief in that consent with capacity. Just as in the CE case, they will convict if they think the belief not truly held or unreasonable and release (as with CM) if not.

Exactly.

-It's not possible for a victim to be guilty of any crime they are a victim of. Rape is a crime therefore is no different.
-If two people get drunk, and are incapable of consenting this is still true. Alcahol is no defense for any other serious crime, again Rape is a serious crime and therefore no different.
-The only thing a drunk woman could conceivably be guilty of is the sexual assault of the man she slept with if he was also simultaneously too drunk to consent. This does not however absolve him, if she did not consent he raped her, and as the victim therefore she is still not responsible for her rape, nor he for his sexual assault.

I think that covers it, in law people should be responsible for any harm that they do to others. The only thing women (or any human being for that matter) should be responsible for is harm they commit on others, not on that done to them.

If we want to have meaningful dialogue about rape crime we need to focus on the harm that is done (considerable), and treat it exactly the same as drink driving.

Victim blaming gets in the way of doing this and needs to stop.

I hope that victim gets justice too boogiewoogie .

She wasn't 'very into that man'. She'd never even met him . He knew that. He also knew she was raging drunk. Why wouldn't he just have packed her into a taxi or whatever? Why would he have thought it was OK to have stuck his penis into her?

Again rape isn't about what the woman does. It is about the attitudes and behaviour if the man.

I saw the David Osborne article from the other thread. Makes very depressing reading but unfortunately, it seems that many people agree with him and it's not just men. :( Being drunk doesn't mean available to rape!

I am currently following this story about a teenager being raped by two men on a night out. The man in the picture has been caught lying already about having sexual contact with the victim after arrogantly claiming that the police will find nothing on him. I really hope that the victim gets justice.

Mengog I know what you're saying. But I think that that's where we get into quite shady ground. I know that I personally don't really like the idea of someone telling me when I'm too drunk to make a decision about my own body, that harms nobody if all parties are consenting. And while it might class, sober, as a 'bad' decision for whatever reason (I didn't actually fancy him, I have a boyfriend, I was sick during it), I think that that is where ideas about taking responsibility for yourself come into it - if I'm going to make decisions about my body when I'm drunk that I actively dislike, that I regret, I think that needs to be on me, not on a man, to police my drunken-ness. I might not have done it sober, but I'm not sure I would want to classify it as rape. For me, rape is about consent and I'm not sure we can have a rule about drunk sex. I mean, would we be breathalysing people getting in cabs together?

Also, worth saying that it takes two to tango. If a man doesn't fancy having sex with a wasted girl he's totally within his rights to just take her home and put her to bed on the couch with a blanket, no matter how enthusiastic she might be.

I do think even enthusiastic consent can when drunk can be misread.

An example I recently dealt with at work. A woman stumbling down the street, clearly incredibly drunk, too drunk to consent to anything. A man as approaches her and she throws her arms around him, and they walk off together.

I (as a Police Officer) go and speak to them. She is off her face, he's sober and they don't know each other. However, she is all over him, saying she loves him and he's taking her home, he's taking "care of her".

We insisted on taking her home instead and the man sheepishly just walked away.

I guarantee she wouldn't remember a thing in the morning. She was a mess. Yet she was very into this man, at one point she was nearly dragging him into an alleyway. Enthusiastic - Yes. Too Drunk to consent - Yes.

Dear God.

So men, if you fancy getting your kicks and you don't want to ask permission and risk being turned down, do it with a drunk girl. She was clearly asking for it by enjoying a night out with her friends. We won't do a thing about it.

That makes me so fucking angry.

Exactly.

Absolutely anonynonny

"if only women didn't do it, they wouldn't get raped"

The "it" of course is actually just "being a woman"

Great post anonynonny

"....I was trying to establish if it would still be considered rape if BOTH were drunk and the man believed the woman WAS giving consent due to her responses and his clouded judgment of the situation due to him being drunk...."

If the man believed she was consenting and his belief was reasonable (that's the key bit), then no, it isn't rape. How do we decide on the reasonableness of his belief? By whatever evidence we have of the circumstances.

This why I think the recently trumpeted change in CPS policy is quite frankly a bit of a red herring. Any accused man whose defence is "..she consented, or at least I thought she was consenting..." would always have to say in his evidence WHY he believed this, otherwise, his defence would look a bit iffy shall we say. It isn't a change in the 'law' - he isn't being asked to prove his innocence to the Jury - and the investigators would only be doing something that ought to be blindingly obvious anyway.

Well we gave the rapey lawyer a #NotNorman and we also gave the Saudi man who looks like that bloke from Tintin a NotNorman as well today.

Saleh Al-Saadoon's NotNorman

The interesting thing about Saleh Al Saadoon is that all the Western liberals are pissing themselves laughing about how idiotic his argument is - women can't drive in case they break down and need to stop at the roadside, they'll get raped. But his argument is essentially the same as Osborne's - women shouldn't get drunk in case they get raped.

It's just a random thing a woman does - get drunk, have her car break down, wear mini skirts, go out without a man - it doesn't really matter what the actual thing is, it can be as far fetched or sensible as you like, the whole point of it is to say that if only women didn't do it, they wouldn't get raped. IE by doing it they are provoking rape. Which means that by definition any woman who gets raped except in really exceptional circumstances, is responsible for it - because it wouldn't have happened if she hadn't done x or y or z.

And men are nowhere to be seen. Rape just happens. Without men's input it seems. It's only women who can stop it.

this Osbourne pill

I do like "pill" as an insult.

What he's saying isn't the law and won't be the law. The Ched Evans ' jury understood this.

Thanks, EhrichLovesTheBhrothers Your post explains it clearly, without being aggressive and sounding like an attack....appreciated and understood.

Thank you for the flowers, Youbetter.

I agree, Hooty, this Osbourne pill is deeply, deeply misogynistic. And a wanker. I was/am being garbled in what I write because his comments are so infuriating. Reading them made me shake and my heart race. Thick is probably the wrong word. There is nothing wrong with being 'thick', and I think people can be ' thick' and also very nice. People cannot be misogynistic and also very nice. This barrister might have intellectual or career 'achievements' but the misogyny is such a brick wall it eclipses any other quality he might have and I do not know how it would be possible ever to get through to him or those like him.

Does he think if he has had a drink it's fine for men to rape him?

I see he doesn't.

Quelle fucking surprise.

What an absolute cunt.

So on the prog was the man saying if a woman has had a drink it's fine to rape her?

Or was he giving it all this grey area bollocks? Around this idea that women are red hot keen on rushing to the police the moment they have ill advised sex after a few snifters?

Because it's sounding like the former and that is godsmacking. The latter is entirely wrong obviously and a great excuse for rapists but it's the former just what?

FWIW I don't think people like this should be given a platform either. It shifts the overton window - shows their ideas as worthy of consideration and important to include in a "debate". When their views are patently ludicrous unless you really really hate women and think men are brainless neanderthals - ie that women are crazy harpies who like to brazenly seduce men and then lie about it in order to make trouble for them (for reasons that are never adequately explained) - while men are poor innocent things who simultaneously just can't help themselves and are driven to rape when they don't really mean to poor loves.