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

I really hope she takes a civil case against him.

zzz - basically, unless you are very lucky, it seems that it's never rape. Random men have the right to fuck you whether you want them to or not and you are wasting police time and resources if you complain about it.

I really would like to know what the conviction rate for reported rape is in Afghanistan. I bet it's not much lower than here.

yes I agree with you. I hope so too and that she is given support with it. Have just asked to gt that last post of mine deleted though - unnecessarily graphic, perhaps offensive...

"Technically, therefore, rape cases cannot be successfully defended on the basis of intoxication. My feeling is that something else went wrong."

But he didn't use a defence of intoxication did he? (or am I reading it wrong). He has used his intoxication as an explanaton of how he made a mistake as to the rooms/women to form part of his reasonable belief of consent so as to prove he lacked the mens rea.
That would be the difference from my reading of it. while it seems implausible to me and has resulted in a terrible judgment, but he has not plead intoxication as his defence. He has used his intoxication however to make his lack of mens rea for the crime of rape more reasonable in the eyes of the jury.
It's a subtle but distinct difference. (in terms of examining the legal arguments, it makes fuck all difference to his victim or what a scumbag I believe him to be)

mayorquimby, I understand what you're saying. However, I don't get from any of the accounts (and I realised they are not reliable) where it shows he had reasonable belief in the consent of any woman to have sex with him.

This is what gets me about rape trials. The defendent needs to demonstrate that he had a reasonable belief that the woman consented. Stop me there if I am wrong. Most trials that I have read about where the defendent is found not guilty and there is incredulity regarding that decision, there is precious little in the reporting on that point about consent. One or all of the CPS lawyer, the judge in their directions, the jury or the reporter are failing massively. I concede it could well be the latter.

Or am I misunderstanding the mens rea part? I really need to get this because otherwise I (and many others) are getting really angry about this issue and there are plenty of other things to get worked up about and we could be focussing our attentions on those.

Am too tired to take this in, but found an interesting but disturbing article that looks relevant Barristers perspectives

Will check it out properly tomorrow.

(I should add something to my previous post: I realise that it is the Crown that needs to prove its case against the defendant, though how you prove a negative (i.e. did not give consent) is opening another can of worms)

It's all very messy.

"I don't get from any of the accounts (and I realised they are not reliable) where it shows he had reasonable belief in the consent of any woman to have sex with him."

No neither do I, have absolutely no idea how the jury convinced themselves that his story was believable and that he had a reasonable believe that the woman he was having sex with was a consenting participant. But they did.
My point was not that I felt his belief as to consent was reasonable, it was to seek clarification (as I may well have read or interpreted the account wrong myself) with regards to posters saying he employed a defence of self-induced intoxication, which as has been pointed out is not available for crimes of basic intent. I was merely putting forward my interpretation that he did not use a defence of intoxication, but rather his defence was that he lacked the necessary mens rea and his intoxication merely formed part of his explanation as to his lack of mens rea rather than being employed as his defence.
As I said above it may seem a subtle difference but it is important when analysing the legal basis of his defence.

"Or am I misunderstanding the mens rea part?"

No you seem to have it about right.
Mens rea simply means "guilty mind" or the mental part of a crime.
So in Ireland (just using this as an example, as I'd need clarification for english law and have gotten certain differences wrong in the past due to the lebgth of time since I studied criminal)
the actus reus (guilty act) of rape is having non-consensual sex with a woman by a man.
The lack of consent is taken as a fact and part of the act, but the sex being non-consensual does not in itself mean the man is automatically guilty of rape in law.
The mens rea (guilty mind) is that the man, at the time of the act, knew or was reckless to the fact that the woman was not consenting.

Once again just using this as an example to highlight the differences between mens rea and actus but it's been a long time since I've studied it so I both apologise for any mistakes or ommissions and would thank anyone who could correct or clarify what I've said,

no, I think that's fine.

I was in court today, opposing someone who had commited a pretty awful act but his defence was the 'guilty mind' re his purpose. it will go to trial, but underlined again how tricky it can be to secure a conviction in many instances of sexual misconduct.

sorry to post 3 times in a row, it's just late so i keep missing things.
The reasonable belief part comes with regards to recklesness. For a man to be guilty of being reckless as to whether or not the woman was consenting it would have to be proved that he did not at the time of the act have a reasonable belief that the woman was consenting.

In the case at hand I have no idea how they found a reasonable belief but they did.

Once again this is Irish law, I'm aware that new legislation has come out in England in recent years which may (I am told)have used language which looked to put more of an onus on the accused but I am unsure of (a) the exact language employed (b) if it has had any effect judging by this case

Sexual Offences Act England puts the onus on the accussed to have secured consent, though this doesn't seem to have increased the conviction rate for rape offences.

I didn't "wake up" fully during the 8.5 hours I was being raped....these things do happen.

For all and every point to above = why we have juries.

A Jury decides a guilty verdict or not. It is the Jury who decides(as a collective) is guilty or not. The "presiding" Judge is there to "insure the Law is understood".

End of.

A Jury decides what is acceptable in their worlds.

MQ is quite right, the defence isn't that he's drunk, it's that he genuinely believed the woman was consenting to sex.

The jury believed him - or at least, didn't care whether he was lying or not - because they are a reflection of society. And society's assumption is that women are available for men's use and that therefore, it is reasonable for an average man to assume that any passing woman is consenting to him fucking her, unless she fights him off so vigorously that either he or she is injured in the process. And even then, IMO due to the porn culture, juries are now under the impression that lots of women enjoy being physically hurt during sex so they are willing to give the rapist the benefit of the doubt even where there are injuries, because they have more empathy and sympathy with a rapist, than they do with a rape victim.

Basically, a man can say that he genuinely believed a woman was consenting to sex and the jury will give him the benefit of the doubt, because without realising they think this, they really don't think that women being raped is that big a deal. Whereas being sent to prison, is self-evidently a big deal. If you believe that a woman is there to be fucked, which is what our society believes about women and which is what the porn culture tells us all the time, it seems incredibly unreasonable of women to then complain when we are used for our function. And to then have the temerity to expect society to ruin a man's life for having used her for what she's there for - well how fucking unreasonable is that?

We are fucked.

Quite literally.

By whatever Tom Dick or Harry wants to fuck us.

There is simply no legal protection from rape. Except for a tiny minority because the state has to sent a handful of rapists to prison, to enable the rest of society to believe that we are more enlightened than the Taliban and to remain in denial about just how barbaric are our attitudes to women.

"the jury will give him the benefit of the doubt, because without realising they think this, they really don't think that women being raped is that big a deal. "

But if they have "reasonable" doubt, they can´t find guilty, can they?

No they can't return a guilty verdict if they have a reasonable doubt, but what a lot of people are suggesting (I've never practiced or been involved in any rape trials so can't know personally) is that juries in these cases are searching for doubt and expecting the prosecution to prove guilt "beyond all doubt" rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt."
So the suggestion is that due to endemic societal views towards rape (once again I don't think I'd personally agree with this) the juries are accepting unreasonable doubt and in this specific instance an unreasonable belief on the part of the man that he had obtained consent.

Thanks MQ. I needed to understand whether it was a flaw in the legislation, which I think might play a part becausejuries will introduce their own unreasonable doubt if they don't understand the law, or societal attitudes to rape that means that rapists are being let off. Because they are, in the most seemingly straightforward cases like this one and others that have been described on MN. And it seems that it is both of those scenarios.

This man was found not guilty. When, then, is it acceptable to continue to deny him any rights to privacy?

An actual comment off the website. un fucking believable

Well I for one know how unfair court cases can be towards the rape victim.

I was raped at the age of 17 on the way home from a party by a friend's ex-boyfriend.

I had physical injuries, had a drink but was not drunk (blood tests said I was just slightly over).

Went to court and ended up being found not guilty.

Worse experience of all was the court case as I was made to feel guilty. They even held up my underwear I was wearing that night in the room because apparantly it was "sexy" (Just a lilac matching set ,and he would not have seen it if he had not ripped my clothes off)

Oh, and after the initial fight off I did (pushing/shouting etc) I did shut up and let him get on with it. I was sort of in a trance, had detatched my mind from my body. This was after he hit me and threatened me so I was too scared to do much and thought it was best to let him do it so he would not keep hurting me.

So does this then mean I consented to it? As I shut up in the end and just let him do it? Cause this was basically what they decided in court (sad)

:(
and

don't know what to say. Why is it still like this?

so sorry about what happened to you Jester.

the situation is f*cking awful.

I'm confused at the diamantled phone in sock thing ..

O.T its pretty shocking a feeble excuse.

jester I am so angry on your behalf - on our all behalf

How could they hold up your underwear in court like that? I can't find words. Imagine it was your dd everyone? Can you imagine it?

Jesus that's fucking awful.
I'd love to hae a chance to read a transcript of a juries deliberations or even a rough account of the logic they employ in such cases, seems beyond me how anyone could reach a verdict of not guilty.

"I did shut up and let him get on with it."

Same here as I didn´t want to get (more) hurt.

Didn´t even bother to report it as we had been seen drinking together earlier-and chatting & getting along.

He was a friend´s husband.