Responsibility

[andrewducker]

This is inspired by the comment here, where ladysysiphus says "If you have consumed enough alcohol to impair your judgement, I believe you then have to take at least some responsibility for putting yourself in a position where something like this might happen."

[Poll #619684]

Comments

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

Well, yes: The law quite generally insists on proof of a crime, rather than assuming that a crime has occurred until proof to the contrary has been presented.

The evidence a crime was committed:

-Her friends say she was drunk and incapable and they asked Rúairi Dougal to walk her home.
-Rúairi Dougal says he had sex with her in the corridor outside her room.
-She says she doesn't remember anything about it, but is certain (reasonably enough) that she'd never have wanted sex in the corridor with her own bed a few steps away.
-That she doesn't remember anything is backed up, presumably, by the testimony of the counsellor she went to.

The evidence no crime was committed:

-Rúairi Dougal says she consented and was conscious.

I can't think of any other crime in which the defendent's testimony that he didn't do it is allowed, all by itself and without any other supporting evidence, to be the "reasonable doubt" that permits acquittal.

Yet you're arguing that this is the default standard? That "I didn't do it" is sufficient defense?

[andrewducker]

-Her friends say she was drunk and incapable and they asked Rúairi Dougal to walk her home.
-Rúairi Dougal says he had sex with her in the corridor outside her room.
-She says she doesn't remember anything about it, but is certain (reasonably enough) that she'd never have wanted sex in the corridor with her own bed a few steps away.
-That she doesn't remember anything is backed up, presumably, by the testimony of the counsellor she went to.

This all adds up, absolutely to "Having sex with someone in a corridoor, which you'd never do when sober, and then not remembering it in the morning."

Which isn't a crime.

It _may_ also have involved rape, but those statements there don't make it so.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

"Having sex with someone in a corridoor,
which you'd never do when sober, and then not remembering it in the
morning."

So, again, you're arguing that the testimony of the man accused of rape - the only evidence that she was conscious and consenting - is sufficient by itself to clear him?

[marrog.livejournal.com]

I think there's more evidence to the contrary than that. You're taking an entirely one-sided viewpoint.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

I think there's more evidence to the contrary than that. You're taking an entirely one-sided viewpoint.

Are you claiming there's evidence, aside from Rúairi Dougal's unsupported testimony, that she was in fact conscious and consenting when he had sex with her? Any evidence?

[marrog.livejournal.com]

I think it's rather impossible to ignore the dearth of evidence that he did, either physical or circumstantial. You're forgetting what a serious charge this is - one I equate to being almost on a par with murder. A murder case would never convict on this evidence.

It's not even though I'm looking for much; just something beyond the testimony of someone who doesn't remember what happened.

On another note, there are also a couple of details which I realised I would dearly like to know that must exist somewhere. Can you tell me this: was this sex protected or unprotected? Furthermore, I was thinking about this 'corridor' thing. Was this the corridor to her room in a flat, ie: comparatively private and actually in her flat, or was it the corridor outside her flat/in a stairwell ie: comparatively public? The implication is very different to my mind. If it was in the stairwell, why the fuck, given that this is uni acommodation, isn't there surveillance camera footage? (And if there isn't, on a side note, why the fuck isn't everyone up-in-arms that there isn't said footage?) I know you're about to accuse me of taking the responsibility away from the rapist here, but please bear in mind that I take a Beccarian approach to criminal justice: Prevention. Deterrance. These are what we should be aiming for. And that, in fact, is part of the basis, as you'll have seen, for my more at-length answer.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

. A murder case would never convict on this evidence.

What: a man says "Yes, I killed her, but she wanted me to do it" and that would be sufficient to acquit him? You really think so?

It's not even though I'm looking for much; just something beyond the testimony of someone who doesn't remember what happened.

You've got Rúairi Dougal's own testimony. Why isn't that enough for you?

[0olong.livejournal.com]

You've certainly made a compelling case that excessively drunken sex happened.

A convincing case that rape happened requires more than that, though. The fact that someone remembers nothing the next day certainly suggests they're drunk enough that it would be wrong to take advantage of them, but it doesn't rule out that they may have consented at the time. For that matter, they may have consented enthusiastically, in a corridor; people do regrettable things like that sometimes when they're drunk. Clearly, if she consented, it wasn't rape.

If you want to argue that someone that drunk cannot give consent (I'm not sure if this is your position or not?), in much the same way as under-16s are deemed to be incapable of giving consent in law, and therefore any and all sex with them constitutes rape, then that's not unreasonable - but it does take us into very sticky territory. It's not always easy to judge how drunk a person is; you'd need to draw the line somewhere, obviously, but where?; also, many people are very much in the habit of having drunken sex - indeed, I am led to understand that going out, getting drunk in and hoping to get a shag is a popular pastime in this country, among members of both sexes and all sexualities.