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

[ElephantsAndMiasmas]

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 all at once.

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.

Here is more about intent that I found:

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

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?

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

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.

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,

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?

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

She should have said she was drunk.

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.

Prolesworth Sat 26-Feb-11 19:16:46
It's funny you should say that (oh how I wish it were true ) because I noticed that the DM's reporting of the Assange case was remarkably free of rape myth peddling.

Yes, the right-wing Daily Mail are thrilled that a left-wing man is a rapist. It's got bugger all to do with supporting rape victims, though.

What a fucking lying rapist liar this man is.
What a gullible jury,
Rapists are such liars.

Unless I have missed it the source for this story is still only the Daily Mail. If the facts were as presented then surely other media outlets would have taken it up. After all if a man can use "I was too drunk to know what I was doing" defence it means no woman is safe. For the moment though forum posters seem willing to take just the Daily Mail's word for it in an article that doesn't tell us much about the case anyway.
I still find it hard to think what his defence could be but I would never convict anybody on "facts" presented only by the Daily Mail. Why aren't the feminist writers at the Guardian/Observer taking up this case?

Statistically women have little recourse in law for this inde.

Why would a man getting away with rape be news? It happens hundreds of times every day.

The point I am making is that twelve jurors have listened to all the facts presented to them by defence and prosecution and found him not guilty. OTOH Some forum members are finding him guilty having only read a DM article. It could be the jurors were stupid or biased but at the moment they seem to be in possession of the facts and we are not. If the facts are as presented in the DM article then I would agree that it is a shocking case but am I then to change the habit of a rather long lifetime and believe a story that is only in the Mail?

This sort of thing happens all the time with rape cases though, which is why many people have gone stright to outrage.

Many of us have been through the process of - well that doesn't sound right - there must be more to it - the law would never allow this to happen - there was a jury they know what they're doing - etc etc and then found out that it actually was as shocking as presented. After about the 6th time of that happening your faith in the legal system vis a vis rape falters, and you understand that in cases such as this it is very likely that the facts are, actually, just as they are presented in the reports.

"After all if a man can use "I was too drunk to know what I was doing" defence it means no woman is safe"

Er, well spotted.

Haven't you noticed that we're not safe?

90% of us don't even bother to report it when we're raped.

Of the 10% who do, 6% get a conviction.

And a few of the 94% who don't get a conviction, will be prosecuted for falsely alleging rape and sent to prison.

I can't understand why any woman should feel safe from rape - it may be technically illegal, but in reality, there is no legal redress at all, in fact, we are very heavily discouraged from expecting justice. Why on earth should we feel safe? We're not.

I'm surprised this story hasn't been posted yet. God help you if you are raped in Scotland and decide to prosecute....

"Bill Aitken, shadow minister for community safety, apologised to the woman after making the comments in an interview with the Sunday Herald.

Aitken has been a District Court Judge, Justice of the Peace and is a Deputy Lord Lieutenant of Glasgow. He is also convenor of the Scottish Parliament?s justice committee ? which helps formulates rape laws.

Police officers and women?s organisations reacted with outrage to his claims.

Detectives from Strathclyde Police are still hunting for three men of Middle Eastern appearance who dragged the 38-year-old woman off Renfield Street in the city centre and raped her in a lane as she headed home after a night out with friends just after midnight on Thursday. It is the fourth city-centre sex attack since Christmas. Police believe different gangs are responsible.

Asked to comment on the series of so-called ?lane rapes?, Aitken said: ?I really think we need to know a bit more about these. They are not always as they seem to be, put it that way.?

He disputed the location of the attack, and said: ?If this woman was dragged halfway through the town then it just couldn?t possibly happen. So has nobody asked her what she was doing in Renfrew Lane?

?Somebody should be asking her what she was doing in Renfrew Lane. Did she go there with somebody? ... Now, Renfrew Lane is known as a place where things happen, put it that way.?

Asked to clarify, he said: ?It?s an area where a lot of the hookers take their clients. Now that may not have happened in this case. But you know ... what was happening? There?s always a lot more to these city-centre rapes than meets the eye.?

Sandy Brindley, national co-ordinator of Rape Crisis Scotland, said Aitken?s comments were ?an extraordinary response to an awful crime? which created ?a culture where women are scared to come forward and report a rape?.

?We are shocked,? she said. ?His attitude is completely out of step with what the law says and what we should be thinking as a society. For far too long there?s been the attitude if you are involved in prostitution you cannot be a victim of rape. Women who are raped need support, not a climate that?s asking blaming questions about what they were doing.?

Aitken also said a lot of rape allegations are falsely made by drunk women ? but had no research to back this up: ?The police say there?s a lot of drunken carry-ons that result in rape allegations which are subsequently dropped, put it that way,? he said.

He added: ?I think there might be fear, if they are worried that somebody talks ?and the word gets back to the boyfriend.?

HerBe better point out that you're getting at the fact that some women will be unfairly/falsely accused of things as a result of their rape report which will land them in prison.

That awful case where the woman was being beaten and raped by her partner, reported him, was threatened, and withdrew her claims. So she got sent to prison for falsely withdrawing rape claims. The court therefore accepted that she had been raped, and sent her to prison. Meanwhile the partner was meant to hand the children over to her family, and didn't, and nothing was done about it.

So there you have it. You get beaten abused and threatened, you get sent to prison, your children left with your attacker, with the courts apparently unable to do anything about that. Or about the rape which they have admitted happened.

When that's the stuff women are up against is it any surprise when stories like this are reported, the response isn't "oh but there must be some mistake! This just can't be!" because it can be, and it is, frequently.

God that's such a sad post SQ, but so true :(

It doesn't take too long actually watching/ reading the news for the shock to wear off and the fear to set in WRT rape acquittals.