to think "being drunk" is no defence for raping someone

[SmashingNarcissistsMirrors]

i'm absolutely shocked by this case where a man has been acquited of raping a woman because he was so drunk he thought she was his girlfriend and didn't realise he was in the wrong bedroom.

this is so so wrong. how many men will now use "being drunk" as a defence?

not only this but according to the article the girlfriend had earlier said she was too ill for sex. plus the victims phone was found dismantled in the mans sock when he was arrested.

how can this happen?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1363964/Haydor-Khan-cleared-rape-said-thought-I-BRUNETTE-girlfriend.html

In the Telegraph report it says she touched him in such a way as to make him believe the woman consented.The DM have conveniently excluded that bit!I think that is the reason he wasn't convicted and the whole being drunk/wrong woman stuff is a bit of a red herring.

Stealth I don't think you can be tried for different things that relate to the same crime, no.

You used not to be able to be tried for the same crime twice, but that has been changed recently.

I agree, you feel there ought to be a verdict for the victim of: "you were definitely raped but there isn't enough evidence to prove that your rapist meant it."

I was brought up to think that rape was the second worst crime ever - second only to murder. I believed - maybe it wasn't the case - that "life" imprisonment was only for murder and rape. It seems to be on a much lower footing - sentencing wise - nowadays.

I wonder if anyone would have accepted his excuse if it had been an old woman, over 70, whom he had "accidentally" raped.

Or a very young girl of 6 or 7.

Or a boy or man of any age.

I find it really depressing. How come if I accidentally forget/don't check/ whatever, what the speed limit is and I do say 42 miles per hour in a 40 I will get punished if court. Even though there has been no victim.
Yet here we have a case where a man admits he raped someone (rape as I know it is a man penetrating a woman without her consent)and he walks away free.
The jury ought to be ashamed.
Why make excuses for the man. Rape is rape.
seems to me some people think it is only a crime if the man holds a knife to the woman's throat and drags her down a dark alley.

"In this case the man behaved recklessly - he was drunk and didn't check who he was getting into bed with - and the consequence of that was that he raped someone. Whether he intended to or not - I don't see why it is treated differently to the case of the reckless driver."

It's not, it's being treated in exactly the same manner.

No it's not.

94% of reckless drivers aren't given the benefit of the doubt.

People who kill someone by running them down, when they're drunk driving and not paying due care and attention, don't usually get off scot free do they?

Do they?

"No it's not.

94% of reckless drivers aren't given the benefit of the doubt."

that has nothing to do with how they are treated by the law. What juries decide and adjudicate as the deciders of fact is a completely seperate matter.
As far as legal reasoning is concerned they are treated exactly the same.

mq I think you may be missing the point here.

If a man got in a car, drunk, drove dangerously and killed a pedestrain, he would be unlikely to be let off by the jury.

In this case a man has got drunk, gone in to the wrong room, acted without due care and attention and raped someone. He has been let off by the jury.

The women on this thread read this case in conjunction with other cases where people are found not guilty for rape for the most tenuous reasons. They read it and understand that juries will accept the most preposterous stories from defendents and let them off. Recently a man got off a rape charge as the accepted that as he was foreign he "didn't understand the word no". I mean come off it.

Saying that each case is treated in exactly the same way by teh courts overlooks the fact that it isn't treated in exactly the same way by juries (and frankly the CPS, police, and some judges) and overlooks the fact that only 6% of rapes reported to teh police result in a conviction, and that most women never report their rapes.

People need to be allowed to look at patterns, and comment when they see a case which demonstrates that pattern, otherwise the total failure of the system when it comes to rape will never be noticed.

I think others are missing the point by claiming that the offences are somehow treated differently by the law.
They are treated exactly the same, there is no difference in legal reasoning as to how they are treated.
The fact that juries appear to apply different standards to the seperate offences has nothing to do with how they are viewed by the law.
That's my only point, which is in agreement with yours, and people claiming that the man has gotten off due to a failing of the law or some loophole are missing the point. the offences are treated exactly the same but for some reason juries happily accept explanations they may not if it were a different offence.

There is a failing in the law - when it comes to rape, it was designed to ensure that rapists get off in all but a tiny number of cases.

The law was made by people who will never be raped and don't understand the dynamics of how rape happens and don't actually care that much.

I don't really give a shit about the angels on pinheads arguments you're putting forward MQ, bottom line is that I know if I got raped tomorrow, I would never get justice for it beacuse the sacred law has been set up to ensure I don't.

Following this, Idon;t think this is angels dancing on pin heads - it's clear, to my reading, that MQ is pointing to how juries interpret what they hear and how it is presented, NOT where the actual written law provides alleged 'loop holes'.
The whole bringing of a prosecution in the first place is a major obstacle. And that is based alot in societal 'attitudes' and the whole experience of appearing in a court room to pursue a finding of guilt.

"the sacred law has been set up to ensure I don't."

It isn't though. Juries are routinely finding them not guilty. That's a huge difference. There's nothing any legislator, judge, barrister or court in the land can do if juries due to societal attitudes continually make excuses for rapists.

Oh of course there is.

They could take rape seriously. They could acknowldged the cultural barrier to finding rapists guilty and they could tackle it.

1. they could ensure that all police officers receive training on rape myths and are taught about the actual figures, how rape victims are likely to respond to rape, etc.

1. they could ensure that anyone sitting on a jury of a rape trial is given special training to ensure that they are fully aware of the figures for rape, the lack of evidence for the widespread notion that loads of rape allegations are false and again, the rape myths that many of the jury may believe.

1. they could educate the jury on issues of consent and remind them what consent actually means.

1. they could change the law so that a rapist doesn't have the defence of beleiving that he actually had consent even though he didn't - in no other area, is ignorance of consent accepted as a defence. If I steal my neighbour's car I can't pretend I thought he wouldn't mind if I borrowed it for a while.

1. they could urge the govenrnment to set up public eduation campaigns and educational programmes (as part of PHSE) to tackle public attitudes on rape.

That's just off the top of my head.

"in no other area, is ignorance of consent accepted as a defence. If I steal my neighbour's car I can't pretend I thought he wouldn't mind if I borrowed it for a while."

completely wrong.
In all other consent based offences, such as theft, belief that you had consent is a defense.
If you took your neighbours car believing that you had consent to do so even though you did not, you would not be guilty of an offense. Once again it would be up to a jury to decide whether or not you had a reasonable belief of consent.
For example if I was sparring with another person in my boxing gym and due to a miscommunication I thought we were having a contact session but they thought it was a non-contact one then my belief that he had consented to a contact session could be used as a defence to a charge of assault even though he had not consented to my hitting him.

"they could ensure that anyone sitting on a jury of a rape trial is given special training to ensure that they are fully aware of the figures for rape, the lack of evidence for the widespread notion that loads of rape allegations are false and again, the rape myths that many of the jury may believe."

I'd imagine that there's be arguments that such a procedure would prejudice a jury. I'd have no complaints against such a process in theory but the details and practicalities may be very hard to ensure that the defendant is not prejudiced.

"they could educate the jury on issues of consent and remind them what consent actually means"

Juries are regularly given directives as to what the law is.

The other points have nothing to do with the law or legal system and everything to do with society at large and the government.

"I'd imagine that there's be arguments that such a procedure would prejudice a jury."

Yes I imagine so too. The fact that the jury is already prejudiced the other way, is seen as OK.

Could we suggest this to the next MWR march or International Women's Day organisers?

...After midnight he went downstairs to shower and, upon his return, drunkenly wandered into Miss Freeman?s room

VERY ODD !!!

MQ you have a touching faith in the good will of juries re: rape victims. If you 'borrowed' your neighbours car and that neighbour had ripped a chunk of your scalp out in the process, most jurors would consider that indicated that your neighbour did not consent to 'lend' you the car. You rightly point out these attitudes come from outside the courtroom. But nothing inside the courtroom counteracts them, so maintaining formal impartiality merely perpetuates those attitudes inside court too.

I did wonder if part of the disagreements on the latter part of this thread were because people were using the word 'law' slightly differently - MQ using it to mean 'the words written down', 'the legal code' and others to mean 'the legal code and the whole apparatus by which the code is implemented'.