Formerjudge:rape conviction rates will not improve until 'women stop getting so drunk

AudreyHepburn

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/former-judge-says-rape-conviction-rates-will-not-improve-until-women-stop-getting-so-drunk-9691911.html

Now I know AH may not be the best place for this but I thought it was interesting piece and warranted some discussion.

Knowing how these things usually end up, can I strongly urge everyone to actually READ the article and do so BEFORE you comment!

Me personally, I can see where the judge is coming from.

She's certainly not saying that if a woman gets legless she deserves to be raped, although I know that's how it will probably be read.

I agree though that if you get so wasted you can't remember anything how can you possibly say for sure whether you consented or not? And how can you expect that a judge or jury would be able to convict the accused if all you can say is you know you wouldn't have consented?

Again I stress no woman, or man for that matter, ever asks to be raped.

I think the most important part is the next bit:

I’m not saying it’s right to rape a drunken woman, I’m not saying for a moment that it’s allowable to take advantage of a drunken woman.

“But a jury in a position where they’ve got a woman who says ‘I was absolutely off my head, I can’t really remember what I was doing, I can’t remember what I said, I can’t remember if I consented or not but I know I wouldn’t have done’. I mean when a jury is faced with something like that, how are they supposed to react?”

If this is what's happening, maybe she has a point

AudreyHepburn

IrishFeeney92 wrote: »

A woman should be able to get drunk without the fear of rape

Of course she should, that's not the point.

The point is how can you possibly say you were definitely raped if you can't actually remember anything about that day/night?

cletus van damme

IrishFeeney92 wrote: »

A woman should be able to get drunk without the fear of rape

well done captain obvious.
now read the article

Santa Cruz

Defence Barrister. You were very drunk on the night.
Witness. Yes. I was
Defence Barrister. So it is possible that you gave consent but were too drunk to remember.
Witness. That is possible, yes.

End of story. Not guilty.
And of course it is not only a male female issue. There have been cases of females being sexually assaulted by other females.

RoboRat

A woman should be able to get drunk without the fear of rape

A man should be able to go out without the fear of being randomly attacked
A shopkeeper should be able to open his shop without the fear of being robbed
A child should be able to go to school without the fear of being bullied...

I agree with your sentiment but the bottom line is this is the world we live in, there are opportunists and predators and we need to safeguard ourselves.

I actually think what the judge said is extremely enlightening and hopefully it might save some women from such a horrible ordeal.

hairyprincess

This quote for me is important; “But a jury in a position where they’ve got a woman who says ‘I was absolutely off my head, I can’t really remember what I was doing, I can’t remember what I said, I can’t remember if I consented or not but I know I wouldn’t have done’. I mean when a jury is faced with something like that, how are they supposed to react?”

In this situation a woman has to exercise personal responsibility. Many people who have gone on a bender have woken up the next morning with regrets of what they said or done the night before. And one of these acts is often sex with a randomer. It's pretty inevitable the odd woman is going to call rape.

Of course personal responsibility must lie with men too in these same situations.

I have feeling she's going to garner a lot of backlash, it's no wonder she spoke out after retirement.

AudreyHepburn

hairyprincess wrote: »

This quote for me is important; “But a jury in a position where they’ve got a woman who says ‘I was absolutely off my head, I can’t really remember what I was doing, I can’t remember what I said, I can’t remember if I consented or not but I know I wouldn’t have done’. I mean when a jury is faced with something like that, how are they supposed to react?”

In this situation a woman has to exercise personal responsibility. Many people who have gone on a bender have woken up the next morning with regrets of what they said or done the night before. And one of these acts is often sex with a randomer. It's pretty inevitable the odd woman is going to call rape.

Of course personal responsibility must lie with men too in these same situations.

I have feeling she's going to garner a lot of backlash, it's no wonder she spoke out after retirement.

I think in the UK she already has and I think it's because people haven't or won't read/listen to the section you highlighted.

At the end of the day it's about being safe and minimizing the risks you expose yourself to.

El Guapo!

Makes perfect sense to me.
If you're going to get absolutely legless to the point where you won't remember anything, the least you can do is make sure you're with friends who'll see that you get home safely.
A jury's hands are tied if you were too drunk to remember anything. It's not your fault that you got raped, but it is your fault that no one can be convicted.

Dravokivich

It's not even a question of whether or not the rape victim gave consent. It creates a blur around identification of the rapist as well, depending on what level of evidence can be gathered when examining the victim.

sbsquarepants

IrishFeeney92 wrote: »

A woman should be able to get drunk without the fear of rape

Of course.
The problem is that it is all to easy when drunk to agree to allsorts and then have no recollection or even point blank deny you agreed in the first place come the morning. We've all been there.
We've all slept with people we wouldn't have or shouldn't have when we've had a few too many. That doesn't mean they raped you. It means your lower inhibitions / beer googles or whatever have led you astray. Regretting your drunken decision is not the same as not having consented at the time. You could say when you're drunk you're not in a position to consent (I'd say it depends how drunk you are, and there's another subjective minefield) What if both parties are drunk? How can one be expected to make clear legally informed and binding decisions while the other is absolved of any and all responsibility for what they say and do.
There is an enormous grey area, it's not at all as black and white as a lot of people will say it is.

kylith

I have to admit that it's a point. If you have to admit that you can't remember whether you gave consent or not then that is Reasonable Doubt in the mind of a jury. And if you're so drunk that you consent and can't remember, and he's so drunk that he doesn't realise you're too drunk to give informed consent then how can he be at fault?

lolosaur

bluewolf wrote: »

I think the most important part is the next bit:



If this is what's happening, maybe she has a point

Schroedingers Pussy.

whats inside? who knows? you cant remember.

Judge has it spot on. Taking responsibility for your actions.

0O0

If you're routinely hooking up with "legless" & "out of it" females then maybe there's something more sinister to it.

& I don't mean tipsy/drunk fumbles or one night stands but ones were the other party is obviously not able to give informed consent.

All normal, red blooded males would love it served up on a platter but there's a line to be drawn if she's in a vulnerable frame of mind.

seamus

Aside from the obvious fact that if you were too drunk to recall whether you consented or not, you will probably be destroyed in court, there is a second pertinent idea, that's touched on by a different commentator:

Katie Russell said: “The point that she and other influential people within the criminal justice system should be making clearly and publicly is that the legal responsibility is with the defendant in a rape case to evidence how they sought and received consent.

Which, in reality, is the correct way to look at it. We shouldn't be teaching young people that "no means no", we should be teaching young people that "yes means yes and anything else means no", and instruct them on ensuring that both (all) parties involved have indicated their consent. As it stands, the attitude is still prevalent that "If they don't resist, they must want it".

kylith

seamus wrote: »

Aside from the obvious fact that if you were too drunk to recall whether you consented or not, you will probably be destroyed in court, there is a second pertinent idea, that's touched on by a different commentator:



Which, in reality, is the correct way to look at it. We shouldn't be teaching young people that "no means no", we should be teaching young people that "yes means yes and anything else means no", and instruct them on ensuring that both (all) parties involved have indicated their consent. As it stands, the attitude is still prevalent that "If they don't resist, they must want it".

'Yes means yes' isn't workable though. Women will consent because they're being pressured, or because it's easier to lie there and let him do it than to try talk your way out of it. What needs to be taught is "Informed and enthusiastic".

Dravokivich

seamus wrote: »

Aside from the obvious fact that if you were too drunk to recall whether you consented or not, you will probably be destroyed in court, there is a second pertinent idea, that's touched on by a different commentator:



Which, in reality, is the correct way to look at it. We shouldn't be teaching young people that "no means no", we should be teaching young people that "yes means yes and anything else means no", and instruct them on ensuring that both (all) parties involved have indicated their consent. As it stands, the attitude is still prevalent that "If they don't resist, they must want it".

There's a slight issue with that. Unsure about yourself, but I've no way to prove anyone I had sex with consented to it.

mylefttesticle

It is not really taking into account being spiked though is it? where your memories and actions are seriously compromised as a result although the sentiment is correct sexual assault or rape is a complex thing when it comes to conviction.

Furthermore alcohol is a strange thing sometimes that can effect you in very different ways, I have often had a couple of pints and genuinely felt locked or I could have drank 10 pints and have had no effect.

I think her words were ill chosen to be honest as it places all the responsibility on the potential victim rather than the aggressor.

One of the major reasons for lack of convictions is the scaremongering to vulnerable victims and also the false rape claims that seem to get higher media coverage than actual rape convictions.

Plus the seed of doubt that comments like the judge made have a bearing on the mentality of a person who has been raped as in if that's what a judge thinks then whats the point of pursuing a conviction because I happened to have a few innocent drinks.

OldNotWIse

Sexual offences, by their nature usually lack witnesses and inevitably come down far more than other crimes to weighing the complainant's credibility with that of the accused. In the absence of forensic evidence (if the woman has washed immediately after as victims often do) or if she admits there was sex but claims a lack of consent) it may very well come down to one person's word against another's. I suppose the jury are only human and telling them you were twatted is not exactly going to tip the balance in your favour.

osarusan

I don't disagree with the comments really, but I wonder if there will be a new tactic (if there isn't already) of defense lawyers focusing on the amount the alleged victim had to drink and badgering them about how little they seem to remember about the night, with these comments being used to justify that kind of questioning.

woppi

Not only does getting drunk make one vulnerable to predators, getting drunk can release predatory behaviour in someone who would never behave such a way when sober. To me, this is the key message that most of us refuse to accept. It can still be seen in the courts and social situations were people consider being drunk as some sort of mitigating excuse.

Dravokivich

osarusan wrote: »

I don't disagree with the comments really, but I wonder if there will be a new tactic (if there isn't already) of defense lawyers focusing on the amount the alleged victim had to drink and badgering them about how little they seem to remember about the night, with these comments being used to justify that kind of questioning.

Time is just as much a factor in that.

mylefttesticle

woppi wrote: »

Not only does getting drunk make one vulnerable to predators, getting drunk can release predatory behaviour in someone who would never behave such a way when sober. To me, this is the key message that most of us refuse to accept. It can still be seen in the courts and social situations were people consider being drunk as some sort of mitigating excuse.

Being drunk doesn't release anything other than what is already there, rape is not a sexual thing its a psychological need.

kylith

mylefttesticle wrote: »

It is not really taking into account being spiked though is it? where your memories and actions are seriously compromised as a result although the sentiment is correct sexual assault or rape is a complex thing when it comes to conviction.

Furthermore alcohol is a strange thing sometimes that can effect you in very different ways, I have often had a couple of pints and genuinely felt locked or I could have drank 10 pints and have had no effect.

I think her words were ill chosen to be honest as it places all the responsibility on the potential victim rather than the aggressor.

One of the major reasons for lack of convictions is the scaremongering to vulnerable victims and also the false rape claims that seem to get higher media coverage than actual rape convictions.

Plus the seed of doubt that comments like the judge made have a bearing on the mentality of a person who has been raped as in if that's what a judge thinks then whats the point of pursuing a conviction because I happened to have a few innocent drinks.

I don't think that 'don't get so drunk you don't know what you are doing' is placing all the blame on the victim, it is expecting people to know their limits and take responsibility for their actions.

I've gotten so blotto on occasion that I have blacked out. I also know that there have been times when I've been well hammered and I've essentially offered myself to guys. If I got drunk, threw myself at a bloke who was too pissed to realise how pissed I was, we had sex, and I woke up in the morning not remembering anything it would hardly be fair of me to claim I was raped, would it?

ruthloss

What if she only had one drink but some bas%ard slips a Pill in it?.

Should she be believed in that circumstance?.

OldNotWIse

Dravokivich wrote: »

There's a slight issue with that. Unsure about yourself, but I've no way to prove anyone I had sex with consented to it.

You only have to prove that you honestly belived consent was present.

No, wait... the prosecution has to prove that you didn't....or something Onus of proof lies with them. Help anyone?

mylefttesticle

kylith wrote: »

I don't think that 'don't get so drunk you don't know what you are doing' is placing all the blame on the victim, it is expecting people to know their limits and take responsibility for their actions.

I've gotten so blotto on occasion that I have blacked out. I also know that there have been times when I've been well hammered and I've essentially offered myself to guys. If I got drunk, threw myself at a bloke who was too pissed to realise how pissed I was, we had sex, and I woke up in the morning not remembering anything it would hardly be fair of me to claim I was raped, would it?

I said I agreed with the sentiment. What I don't think was wise to place the responsibility on to the potential victim by a high ranking judge it would make a genuine victim of sexual assault/rape think twice about pursuing a conviction if that's what they are hearing from a judge.

hairycakes

The judge is absolutely correct.

No one should ever have to be subjected to rape. In any circumstance. But obviously you can take steps to give yourself more protection from this happening such as not getting ossified.

The Rape Crisis message is a double edged sword I feel. I genuinely feel that sometimes they spend too much time pounding the message that the victim is never at fault (which is absolutely true) instead of speaking about how to increase your personal safety. This can sometimes lead to the attitude of I can go out and get out of it on drink or drugs, and walk home alone down isolated areas because I shouldn't be raped. Of course no one should be raped but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen and that you should not take steps to protect yourself.

Imagine how many people are walking free that should be jailed for rape because too many girls (and guys) are getting off their faces and can't give credible information because of that. That gives rapists a great incentive to go after very drunk people also. On the flip side, think of all the shame and pain brought on a person brought up for rape just because in the morning the person woke up and thought I wouldn't have done that.

Holsten

Judge is right.

Even situations where the person is so drunk and still says no, they might not be taken seriously if it went to court.

Yes women should be able to get drunk without fear of rape but it happens and that's a fact of today's society, the chances would be higher it would happen when drunk.

The chances also would be that any man who rapes a women would be already well known to them.

If you get that drunk bad things can happen to you.

Dravokivich

OldNotWIse wrote: »

You only have to prove that you honestly belived consent was present.

No, wait... the prosecution has to prove that you didn't....or something Onus of proof lies with them. Help anyone?

The quote in Seamus' post referenced the defence needs to prove that the defendant was under the impression there was consent.

I've no way of doing that. Honestly who does? It becomes speculation. It's not evidence.

AudreyHepburn

mylefttesticle wrote: »

It is not really taking into account being spiked though is it? where your memories and actions are seriously compromised as a result although the sentiment is correct sexual assault or rape is a complex thing when it comes to conviction.

Furthermore alcohol is a strange thing sometimes that can effect you in very different ways, I have often had a couple of pints and genuinely felt locked or I could have drank 10 pints and have had no effect.

I think her words were ill chosen to be honest as it places all the responsibility on the potential victim rather than the aggressor.

One of the major reasons for lack of convictions is the scaremongering to vulnerable victims and also the false rape claims that seem to get higher media coverage than actual rape convictions.

Plus the seed of doubt that comments like the judge made have a bearing on the mentality of a person who has been raped as in if that's what a judge thinks then whats the point of pursuing a conviction because I happened to have a few innocent drinks.

But she's not. She clearly states

“I’m not saying it’s right to rape a drunken woman, I’m not saying for a moment that it’s allowable to take advantage of a drunken woman

All she's saying is that we can't expect convictions when the best we can say is 'I remember nothing but I know I wouldn't have consented'.

That makes for a very unsafe conviction which could easily, and rightly, be appealed.