Drink and rape laws in Ireland

IrritatedMuchly

Hi, doing research at the mo. Does anyone know what rights exist for a person under the influence of alcohol in the court of law when accusing someone of rape?

The Irish Statute is clear as mud and I need an answer quite rapidly. How does the law work in favour of victims here?

Does anyone know of anyone who's been raped when drunk (or a well publicised case) or have their own estimate? Personally I think it's in the thousands if I know my Dublin guys and gals like I think I do but I'm looking for other people's opinions on this.

Yes this is a very macabre post but if Ireland had any useful websites on this non-discussed subject, I wouldn't have to use Boards.

Many thanks in advance

gandalf

Moved from Politics

IrritatedMuchly

*Sigh*

Yep, this place won't be much help either.

It was put in politics because of the amount of posts that board generates.

Nevyn

That is not the reason to post in a forum, read the charters or else you will end up banned.

I suggest that you constult the rape crisis centre ask there or a barister for a legal opinion.

Each case is judged on it's merits and circumstances.

There was a mention in a recent ruling about deminished responsibilty and persons having to take responsibilty if they drink to much.

But that is not a law or in the legal statutes about rape or sexual assult.

Why the quiery ?

Many rape cases are never officaly reported and then out of those that are many of them are never
took to court by the dept of public prosecutions due to a wide range of circumstances.
The abiltiy of the victum who is only a witness in the dpp case to give good testomeny and to stand up to cross examination esp when there is little phyiscal evidence to a tramatic physical assulat along with the rape is tantamount.

If the defense can muck sling and use the ammount of alchol consumed by the victum to lessen the dpp case they will do along with what the victum was wearing, thier behaviour and previous sexual histroy.



A person should be entitled to get plaster wearing as little as a bikini and only suffer a hangover and exposure from passing out some where;
then again we should be able to leave our frount door open and never be rob or have a stranger walk into our homes.
This does not mean either is a wise thing to do.

http://www.rcni.ie/
http://www.drcc.ie/

http://www.rcni.ie/NATSTATS.htm

is the recent stats published by the rape crisis network.

dermot_sheehan

Rape is sex without consent. If someone is too drunk to give consent, then consent is not given and it is rape.

The state has to prove that the defendent was reckless to the existence of consent. The mental element for rape is intentionally having sex and knowing or being reckless as to the lack of consent.

If the victim was intoxicated it could have a bearing on the recollection of events.

IrritatedMuchly

Thanks for the links but they were already checked and I found it doesn't give info on those who were drunk when attacked.

It's rather baffling considering the amount of binge drinking in this country. I just wanted some idea of the drink-rape connection.

England are considering changing their rape laws for those who are drunk while supposedly giving consent to sex, so the accused can still be convicted.

I was looking for cases where a drunk person failed in their case because they were inebriated.

But I guess if people aren't reporting such crimes, we won't know exactly.

So how many people are actually going around with this on their conscience??

Nevyn

Again if such stats are recorded the rape crisis network is your best bet.
They usually co operative with those doing legimate research.

TempestSabre

IrritatedMuchly wrote:

... I just wanted some idea of the drink-rape connection....

Why?

IrritatedMuchly

"Why?"

For an article.

As a woman, I'm also interested in highlighting the issue and maybe getting a campaign started for sexual awareness, particularly for girls.

I find it very frightening.

Nevyn

The lack of stay safe programs for people is pretty bad tbh.
Rape and sexual assult effects both men and women.
There should be as part of a sexual health program in secondary schools
a module on consent and how not to put yourself in a comprimised situation for both young males and females.

IrritatedMuchly

It's utterly amazing that in a country with the most binge drinking women in the world according to a new study (wouldn't dispute it at all) that we aren't aware of the rape-drink correlation too well.

I can't believe that we don't have better sex-ed, awareness programmes and organisations to tackle such problems - head on full force and effectively!

Just how many depressed people do we have in this country? Drink related or otherwise. The numbers must be shocking.

The suicide issue isn't being dealt with either.

Shambles.

kelle

gabhain7 wrote:

Rape is sex without consent. If someone is too drunk to give consent, then consent is not given and it is rape.

The state has to prove that the defendent was reckless to the existence of consent. The mental element for rape is intentionally having sex and knowing or being reckless as to the lack of consent.

If the victim was intoxicated it could have a bearing on the recollection of events.

Sorry if it sounds like I'm coming off the subject, but if drunken consent was regarded as no consent in a rape case, does that also mean that somebody who gets blind drunk, gets into a car and drives recklessly causing a fatal accident is not responsible for their actions, because they could be regarded as "reckless to the existence of knowing what they were doing"?

TempestSabre

IrritatedMuchly wrote:

"Why?"

For an article.

As a woman, I'm also interested in highlighting the issue and maybe getting a campaign started for sexual awareness, particularly for girls.

I find it very frightening.

I didn't think people were so unaware. But its a good idea if they are.

Nevyn

IrritatedMuchly wrote:

I can't believe that we don't have better sex-ed, awareness programmes and organisations to tackle such problems - head on full force and effectively!

Not liekly to happen the majority of school are on church land where church law applies and you can't teach anything on church land that goes against the churches stance on such things.

ANXIOUS

cant remember what case it was fairly recent, a rape case came before a judge and he through it out stating that "just because you were drunk doesnt mean it was rape" if that helps at all

IrritatedMuchly

I can't think of many girls (and guys) I know who take care of themselves adequately while drinking.

While most people do grow up eventually and learn their lessons, some mistakes cannot be reversed and I would love to do something constructive to prevent this somehow.

I think sex education in schools should go further than the "egg passes through the...blah blah blah" and concentrate on the full mental effects and advantages of preserving oneself adequately.

While some people may have proper parents to guide them and fall back on, alot of people don't. And I think that's where school should make up for that.

Yeah it sounds very idealistic but surely the government could be investing in doing something better than it already is?

IrritatedMuchly

Oh yes, the church. I actually forgot about that.
Hmm, the blood's boiling now. This is the same church that doesn't like Africans to use condoms??

Thanks Anxious for that. I'll sift through some papers for it.

horsesnout

IrritatedMuchly wrote:

England are considering changing their rape laws for those who are drunk while supposedly giving consent to sex, so the accused can still be convicted.

Insanity. Sorry but if it was consented it was consented, just because one party changes their mind in the morning and regrets what they did (and consented to) that does NOT make it rape.

Nevyn

In england is is a case of when some one is beyond drunk and has no idea what they are saying or is passed out.

So if you were a guy who is hetrosexual who went out and got that drunk and were taken advantage of by another guy would that be the same ?

seamus

Rape is one of those tough ones to legislate for. When it happens, it can be devastating for the life of the victim. When a false accusation is made (either intentionally or mistakenly), it's devastating for the life of the accused, regardless of the outcome of the case.

Clearly there cannot be a happy medium - people will always make mistakes. For rape, the entire scenario has to be looked at. If someone ends up too drunk, they have made that choice and to a certain extent must take responsibility for their actions. This doesn't mean that if you get robbed because you have passed out on the side of the street, that the thief isn't a criminal. However, if you meet some random guy who asks you for €200, and you oblige, you can't turn around when sober and accuse him of theft.

Inability to remember something occuring, doesn't mean it didn't happen - anyone who's ever been a little too drunk will attest to that. Convicting a person on the premise that the other party was passed out drunk has to rely on the testimony of others - witnesses who'll say how drunk someone was or wasn't.

Legislating so that people can use "I was drunk" as an excuse only opens up a whole world of inequality.

fly_agaric

Thaedydal wrote:

In england is is a case of when some one is beyond drunk and has no idea what they are saying or is passed out.

Just drunk (i.e. impaired judgement + not able to give proper consent) - not passed out with drink.
I don't think the law there has been changed yet, has it?
I'd expect it to have a large effect on casual sex + promiscuity in the UK. Laws like this should be much more effective than the church or other uptight people giving out about it:D

seamus wrote:

to a certain extent must take responsibility for their actions.

How idealistic of you!:)

Zombrex

kelle wrote:

but if drunken consent was regarded as no consent in a rape case, does that also mean that somebody who gets blind drunk, gets into a car and drives recklessly causing a fatal accident is not responsible for their actions

You don't consent to crash your car so the issue of consent is rather irrelivent to that point.

Being drunk does not remove responsibility for commiting a crime. Which is why if you rape someone who cannot give consent because they are very drunk you claiming that you were equally drunk isn't a valid excuse.

There is a difference between what you do and what you consent to have done to you.

If you are very drunk, or otherwise unable to properly consent to something being done to you the law protects you against that happening to you. If I am really drunk you can't take my wallet and go off and spend all my money just because you go "Hey, can I spend all your money?" and I mutter something along the lines of "sure" while I'm passing out on the bathroom floor. I am not in a fit possible to consent to you do that with my money, and therefore the law protects me from you doing that.

The law does not protect you against responsiblilty for things you yourself do to others when drunk.

hullaballoo

Thaedydal wrote:

In england is is a case of when some one is beyond drunk and has no idea what they are saying or is passed out.

So if you were a guy who is hetrosexual who went out and got that drunk and were taken advantage of by another guy would that be the same ?

No, if someone is passed out drunk, they can't give consent. Just like someone who is asleep cannot give consent. The law accepts that even if you have sex with your adoring wife when she is asleep, then that is rape. Obviously someone would have to make a complaint though.

However, if a girl gets drunk and has sex, then that isn't rape. And arguing that someone took advantage of your state isn't valid either.

It's like someone saying, "Ooh, I've a sore head, hulla" to which I'll reply, "that's because you keep banging it against the wall". If they continue to bang their head against the wall, they can't complain about the headache.

fly_agaric

hullaballoo wrote:

However, if a girl gets drunk and has sex, then that isn't rape. And arguing that someone took advantage of your state isn't valid either.

But it may become a valid argument under new laws in the UK...

see here for some article about it

I suppose the OP would like to see something similar introduced here.

Zombrex

horsesnout wrote:

Insanity. Sorry but if it was consented it was consented, just because one party changes their mind in the morning and regrets what they did (and consented to) that does NOT make it rape.

Obviously ... the issue is if he/she consented or not. Appearing to consent is not the same as actually consenting.

Think of it this way. If a girl is drugged by a spiked drink and then appears to be wanting to have sex with the person who drugged her, is she consenting to sex with him?

If you cannot understand what is happening to your or understand what you are agreeing to, you cannot give proper consent to something being done to you. It doesn't matter if you are in that state because you drank 15 bottles of Ritz, if you snorted a bag of coke, if you were slipped rohipnol (sp?) or if you were in a car accident.

seamus

Wicknight wrote:

Think of it this way. If a girl is drugged by a spiked drink and then appears to be wanting to have sex with the person who drugged her, is she consenting to sex with him?

And what if she made the choice of taking the same cocktail, or consented to it being administered? Her condition would be the same.

I would think that consent is inheritable - that is, if you make a choice which may affect your decision-making later on, then the "righteousness" of any later decisions inherit their value from the initial decision (provided that you are sufficiently conscious to make a decision).

That is, if the girl chooses to get wasted on whatever, and then later consents to sex, then her condition is irrelevant. By consenting/choosing to get so drunk, she chose to accept any stupid decisions she might make later on.

If the girl did not choose to get wasted (or was not given the choice), any decisions later on while inebriated are treated as "I do not consent", even if at the time she does consent.

My 2c.

dK1NG

IrritatedMuchly wrote:

Thanks for the links but they were already checked and I found it doesn't give info on those who were drunk when attacked.

It's rather baffling considering the amount of binge drinking in this country. I just wanted some idea of the drink-rape connection.

check out NUI Galway - doing research on this!

only other place with the stats ur looking for is the dpp

mountainyman

Wicknight wrote:

Obviously ... the issue is if he/she consented or not. Appearing to consent is not the same as actually consenting.

Wrong. The appearance of consent means that the mental element of the crime is absent and therefore there is no crime.

I agree that sober guys shouldn't be allowed to shag girls who are so drunk that they don't know what is going on, but even in Canada the law really means that you can't shag girls who are asleep.

One could argue that in certain cases the apparent consent was so clearly invalidated that the man should have know that she wasn't able to consent, this presupposes that the man is much more sober than the woman.

Wicknight wrote:

If you cannot understand what is happening to your or understand what you are agreeing to, you cannot give proper consent to something being done to you. It doesn't matter if you are in that state because you drank 15 bottles of Ritz, if you snorted a bag of coke,

What about the fact that people take drugs and drink precisely because these are disinhibitors? In other words women get drunk knowing that they will more easily consent to sex.

MM

Zombrex

seamus wrote:

And what if she made the choice of taking the same cocktail, or consented to it being administered? Her condition would be the same.

Thats my point

Just because someone consents, or gets themselves, into an "altered state", doesn't mean they automatically consent to anything happening after that.

A lot of people (dare I say men, and yes I am one myself), would like to think it does with relation to sex, because a lot of men like and want to have sex (of course I'm sure women do this to, not being one I can't really comment)

But if the shoe was on the other foot they wouldn't.

If your mate took your wallet and spent all your money and ran up your credit card to max, smashed out all your windows and drove your car into the river, I doubt many people would be happy leaving it at "but you said I could last night"

Did you actually want your mate maxing out your credit card, smashing out all your windows and driving your car into the river? Or did you just say something stupid while drunk because you were too drunk to understand what was happening.

Would it be perfectly fine for me to go around to drunk people in Temple Bar on a Friday night and try and ask them to sign over the deed to their houses to me? If they do that does that mean they have actually consented to give me their house?

I was in hospital a few months ago and went under for an examination. If the nurse asked for the €50 in my wallet on the desk while I was slipping under (voluintarily btw) and I said "sure" as I was about to pass out, would that have been ok?

seamus wrote:

I would think that consent is inheritable - that is, if you make a choice which may affect your decision-making later on, then the "righteousness" of any later decisions inherit their value from the initial decision (provided that you are sufficiently conscious to make a decision).

For everything, or just for sex (see above)?

Zombrex

mountainyman wrote:

Wrong. The appearance of consent means that the mental element of the crime is absent and therefore there is no crime.

That isn't true. The mental state of the perp does not alter if a crime has been committed or not, only the type of crime commited (eg murder or manslaughter)

It is still a crime for a person who is legally insane to shoot up a play ground of school children, even if he does not understand what he is doing is wrong or illegal and it isn't considered murder.

mountainyman wrote:

What about the fact that people take drugs and drink precisely because these are disinhibitors?

What about it...?

mountainyman

Wicknight wrote:

That isn't true. The mental state of the perp does not alter if a crime has been committed or not, only the type of crime commited (eg murder or manslaughter)

Rape is a crime which depends on mental state for its existence. Therefore without the mental state there is no crime of rape.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA10Y1981S2.html

MM