View Poll Results: Do you agree with the ruling, in cases like these is "drunken consent" still consent?

Voters
54. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    48 88.89%
  • No

    6 11.11%
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 51
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    London, Britannia.
    Posts
    3,077

    Arrow News : Rape case collapses, High Court judge rules "drunken consent" is STILL consent

    Article extract >> SOURCE : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/mid/4464402.stm

    A rape case has collapsed after a 21-year-old student said that she had been too drunk to remember whether or not she had agreed to have sex.
    The woman had alleged she was raped by fellow student Ruairi Dougal in a hall of residence at Aberystwyth University.

    But High Court judge Justice Roderick Evans directed the jury to reach a not guilty verdict, on the basis that drunken consent is still consent.

    Mr Dougal, 20, had told the Swansea court that the sex was consensual.

    The woman said she passed out after drinking too much.

    Swansea Crown Court heard on Wednesday, that the woman alleged that Mr Dougal, from County Donegal in the Republic of Ireland, had raped her in a corridor outside her room in the halls.

    She told the court that she was sure she would not have consented, and if she had wanted sex she would have opened her flat door and taken the man into her bedroom.

    But defence barrister Stephen Rees argued it was impossible for her to be sure she had not consented because she could not remember.

    After she gave evidence, Huw Rees for the prosecution said he was abandoning the case.

    Judge Mr Justice Roderick Evans then instructed the jury to find Mr Dougal not guilty.

    During the case, the jury had heard how the female student drank vodkas before attending a party at the arts centre on the university's campus.

    She became ill and a member of staff asked Mr Dougal, who was working as a security guard, to walk her home.

    She told the court she could remember little else apart from lying on the corridor floor and briefly emerging from unconsciousness to be aware "that something was happening".

    Drunken consent

    The woman complained to police two days after the alleged attack, but it was not until police interviewed Mr Dougal that she was told that she had had full sexual intercourse, the court heard.

    "The prosecution has taken stock, in light of the evidence revealed in cross examination," said Huw Rees.

    "The question of consent is an essential part of the case. Drunken consent is still consent.

    "She said she could not remember giving consent and that is fatal for the prosecution's case."

    End extract <<

    Also see :: http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...468607,00.html


    I know we ahd a thread on a related issue earlier in the week but this came close on its heels and could avhe far reaching implications for the way that similar cases are dealt with in the future.

    Obviously, not everyone is happy with the ruling but what do you think of this specific type of incident??


    Opinions?? Comments?~?

    Critic,
    The 9 words of life quote -
    "Act with honour, seek justice, die true, remembered well."
    GO LDN 2012 ~ AIM = Critic News Info

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,569
    you cant say yes drunk, and then say no sober. it just doesnt work like that! if you cant control your actions, and they get you into trouble when you're off your face, then perhaps you need to be a bit more controlled..


    'if id been sober, i wouldnt have done it there'

    bit of a technicality, but i dont think you could argue justice would be served by finding the guy guilty after a comment like that.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    562
    I agree with the judge. She gave complete consent, and it was her own fault she was drunk.
    Need C Class Diversity For Your SEO Campaigns?

    Get SEO Hosting From Arctic Hosting

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    London, Britannia.
    Posts
    3,077
    Quote Originally Posted by TomorrowHosting
    I agree with the judge. She gave complete consent, and it was her own fault she was drunk.
    Well we just don't know about the first bit, and taht is where the problem/debate arises. Although i agree, unless we are dealing with some kind of "date rape" situation and then the verdict is far more clear cut and obvious, her "state of mind/well being" at the time is her responsibility.

    If she was aware enough at the time and did consent, thenthis ruling is correct. However with it being her word against his and not knowing for certain what actually occurred from her perspective, generally it is an absolute legal quagmire and has to be looked at on a case by case basis.

    If it were to be drunken consent, there cannot be any doubt or question as to her wishes IMO, in the affirmative for definite, otherwise it is rape.

    Regardless of the ruling, you've gotta wonder about thsi guy, legally innocent but questions surround his character at the very least i'd say.


    Critic,
    Last edited by Critic; 11-24-2005 at 01:44 PM.
    The 9 words of life quote -
    "Act with honour, seek justice, die true, remembered well."
    GO LDN 2012 ~ AIM = Critic News Info

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    562
    Sure, I wouldn't want to have anything to do with a guy who tries to take advantage of a girl like that. What he did was shrewd an inapropriate, but it was still legal.
    Need C Class Diversity For Your SEO Campaigns?

    Get SEO Hosting From Arctic Hosting

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    London, Britannia.
    Posts
    3,077
    Yes, maybe put him on some kind of watch list or if he appears in court for a similar offence in the future, his past record in regard to this case should be made known to the jury.

    He was supposed to be escorting her back to her room afterall, although i am inclined to agree with the judge on this one and that drunken people should take more responsibility for their actions, it still doesn't sit right with me this case, this scenario, his actions e.t.c.

    Critic,
    The 9 words of life quote -
    "Act with honour, seek justice, die true, remembered well."
    GO LDN 2012 ~ AIM = Critic News Info

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    5,525
    In the U.S. (most states at least, CA being one of the exceptions i'm aware of) when one becomes intoxicated he/she is consenting to become intoxicated and therefore accepting responsibility for his/her actions thereafter. As such, consent can still be rendered while intoxicated.

    I personally do not have respect for someone who conciously drinks and does not take responsibility for their own actions or tries to pass the buck.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Toronto, ON
    Posts
    3,446
    The woman complained to police two days after the alleged attack, but it was not until police interviewed Mr Dougal that she was told that she had had full sexual intercourse, the court heard.
    Ouch, maybe that guy won in court but a girl not remembering the sex is not a good sign at all even while drunk.
    Jean-Pierre Abboud / I'm the TekGURU
    www.Gotekky.com / Managed hosting solutions / AS63447
    Web Hosting, VPS Hosting, Dedicated Servers

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    252
    I agree that you have to take responsibility for your actions when you're drunk. But I also think what Mr Dougal did was despicable. Consent or not, he clearly took advantage of the young lady while carrying out his duties as a security guard for the collage. I would hope that the collage took disciplinary action against him.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Tas, Australia
    Posts
    2,487
    So, if I kill someone when I am drunk, I don't have to be responsible cause if I am not drunk, I would surely have not killed that guy? Doesn't make sense to me...

    I think you have to take actions for what you did after you become drunk, if you know you can't, don't get drunk. Simple.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    6,896
    Theres a reason people go to jail for drinking and driving, prime example. Its commonly recognized that you're responsible for knowing your limits in regards to alcohol, and that you're responsible for your actions should you exceed your limits. If she cant even remember whether or not she gave consent, she was obviously not drinking within her own personal limits, and can only hold herself responsible.

    Remember, "Beer, helping ugly people have sex since 1869!"
    Myles Loosley-Millman - admin@prioritycolo.com
    Priority Colo Inc. - Affordable Colocation & Dedicated Servers.
    Two Canadian facilities serving Toronto & Markham, Ontario
    http://www.prioritycolo.com

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,887
    Critic - Innocent until proven guilty? As he was not found guilty in the trial, the record of this "accusation" has been expunged. otherwise I get a group of people, and each of us could accuse the Queen of rape in turn over a period of a year, and she'd be found "guilty" according to your idea.

    I think that one of her "friends" could easily have taken her home, why ask a security guard?

    1 in 3 girls in University Halls will be raped during their stay. Shocking figures really, but so many girls get drunk in the pubs & bars around the uni then can barely stand, I've come home from uni and seen people struggling to even make the step into the bus and talking incoherently, no doubt they can't remember any of it the next morning!

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    6,623
    Quote Originally Posted by IRCCo Jeff
    In the U.S. (most states at least, CA being one of the exceptions i'm aware of) when one becomes intoxicated he/she is consenting to become intoxicated and therefore accepting responsibility for his/her actions thereafter. As such, consent can still be rendered while intoxicated.
    On the contrary, the situation is the U.S. is in general that a person who is intoxicated is not capable of giving consent. While it's usally not specified in the law, the precise language of which varies from state to state, state codes regarding rape generally read that a person is incapable of content if he or she is below the legal "age of consent," or is mentally disabled, mentally handicapped or physically helpless. Case law has extended that to include incapacitation due to intoxication.

    The other test that would come into play would be that a "reasonable person" would be able to judge either that the victim's actions or words constituted a lack of consent, or that the victim was incapacitated. So having a couple of drinks wouldn't put this into play, but a victim "lying on the corridor floor and briefly emerging from unconsciousness" would almost certainly be found to have been incapable of offering consent in U.S. courts.

    As is apparently the case in general in the U.K., which is why this story is newsworthy.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    1,582
    "She said she could not remember giving consent and that is fatal for the prosecution's case."
    I'm surprised this ever went to trial to begin with.

    This is a sad case of the folly of drinking to the point of blackout. It's kind of proverbial that bad things happen to you when you pass out.

    Seems if the court ruled otherwise about "drunken consent" they might set a precedent that a person is not responsible for anything they did while intoxicated and open the door to whether or not murder or theft or DWI or a host of other crimes committed while intoxicated could be challenged on similar grounds that the person is not really responsible.

    In this case the girl may not have given consent so that is particularly tragic if so. I have known alchoholics in my life who stated they were completely different people when in a blackout so it is entirely possible she fully consented and would think to herself later: "I would never do that...." We'll never know for sure but it is a great example to demonstrate to young people the danger of drinking with abandon as if such activity carries no consequences.
    Rich
    Husband, Father, Retired Marine, Geek

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    The South
    Posts
    5,408
    How can you holler rape if you can't even remember if you said yes or no? If there were any witnesses who saw her try to say no, then the guy should get convicted but if it's merely "he said she said" it leaves a shadow of a doubt and that's enough to let him off. If there were NO shadow of doubt then off to jail he goes.

    If this worked, then fellas would need to carry breathalyzers around with them "before we have sex please blow in this and sign this waiver" kinda ruins the mood...
    Gary Harris - the artist formerly known as Dixiesys
    resident grumpy redneck

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    London, Britannia.
    Posts
    3,077
    Quote Originally Posted by Joseph_M
    Critic - Innocent until proven guilty? As he was not found guilty in the trial, the record of this "accusation" has been expunged. otherwise I get a group of people, and each of us could accuse the Queen of rape in turn over a period of a year, and she'd be found "guilty" according to your idea.
    I must be a bit slow in the head this morning because youv'e lost me, well pretty much.

    Are you referring to these comments of mine >>

    Yes, maybe put him on some kind of watch list or if he appears in court for a similar offence in the future, his past record in regard to this case should be made known to the jury.

    He was supposed to be escorting her back to her room afterall, although i am inclined to agree with the judge on this one and that drunken people should take more responsibility for their actions, it still doesn't sit right with me this case, this scenario, his actions e.t.c.

    Thanks for humouring those whose brains seem to be in "neutral" this morning.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joseph_M
    I think that one of her "friends" could easily have taken her home, why ask a security guard?
    Agreed, you'd think that you could rely on a friend at a time like that to be there for you and take some time out. We can't possibly know all the details as to how this kind of situation might've been handled in the past but still [whether it was her or one of her friends who was ill or for some reason needed to go back to their room], you would think/hope that yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joseph_M
    1 in 3 girls in University Halls will be raped during their stay. Shocking figures really,
    I wasn't aware of that, that is a pretty alarming figure, shocking indeed.


    Critic,
    The 9 words of life quote -
    "Act with honour, seek justice, die true, remembered well."
    GO LDN 2012 ~ AIM = Critic News Info

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Northwest Colorado
    Posts
    4,636
    Would she have consented to having a complete stranger escort her home, had he not been a security guard? I wonder if she remembers if she was even asked about whether she wanted this guy to take her home. She could have lied in court and said, "I told him no again and again but he wouldn't stop" and gotten the easy conviction. Instead, she said she honestly didn't remember consenting (or not), and elaborated by saying the corridor of the dorm wouldn't have been her place of choice if she had.

    What's wrong with that? That's just the sort of emotional outburst defense attorneys are trying to get from rape victims with their "turn the table" tactics of putting the victim's behavior on trial. This must be much easier to do in British courts than American, over here this trial tactic used to be commonplace but we have gotten a bit more enlightened about it. Was her skirt too short, too? If she was too drunk to remember, she was too drunk to remember, but this shouldn't excuse his actions.

    The security guard, when asked by a member of the University staff to take home a student who had passed out and felt ill, should have agreed to do just that. He should not have been hitting on her in her drunken state, and trying to score. Indeed, that is not illegal (just morally reprehensible), but what came next? He decided to "have sex with her" outside her room, despite the fact that she was unconscious? Is this not rape? Was he not sober enough to know better than to have sex with an unconscious stranger he had agreed to escort home safely? WTF?

    Blaming this victim requires one to defend that guy's actions. Sure you want to go there? Let's see, a staffer determines that this girl has lost control of her actions and is not capable of getting home safely of her own accord, and is in fact sick. Worried about having her show up dead in a puddle of her own vomit or raped, the staffer asked a security guard to please see to it that she got home safely as she wasn't capable of doing so on her own, presumably explaining her diminished capacity. This was a rape, and it's a shame that a victim's failure to lie to a morally confused court has derailed justice.

    Regardless of whether or not she "consented", she had put her trust in a stranger to see her home safely. I don't understand the verdict, and I'm afraid it sends all the wrong messages, like raping drunk girls is OK because they're either asking for it or incapable of remembering whether or not they consented. Can someone fading in and out of consciousness really consent to having sex with someone they've met only minutes before? Had these two been out on a date and gotten drunk together, we'd be talking about something altogether different, in which case "drunken consent" may hold up. That would require evidence of flirting and kissing going on, particularly in a less-drunken state, over the course of the evening but I don't see any such case here.

    This was simply a matter of a guy taking advantage of an unconscious girl, which is reprehensible to me no matter what the situation. I love all the judgment flying around about being responsible enough not to get that drunk in the first place. In the resort area where I live, there has been an increasing problem in recent years with "roofies" and other drugs being slipped into girls' drinks at bars. Victims appear much more drunk than they should be for their consumption level, and have no recollection of what happened afterwards, including whether or not they consented to being raped. This girl waited two days to come forward, making it impossible (as I understand it) to test for such substances. So you can't rule out the possibility that she was someone else's intended victim.

    This shouldn't have been about holding the victim accountable for her behavior when drunk, anyway. It should have been holding the perpetrator accountable for his actions. Granted, she was drunk, but what the hell was his excuse?
    Eric J. Bowman, principal
    Bison Systems Corporation coming soon: a new sig!
    I'm just a poor, unfrozen caveman Webmaster. Your new 'standards' frighten, and confuse me...

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Twin Cities Area
    Posts
    5,649
    if she doesnt remember if she gave consent or not, then he should not be charged with rape.

    ridiculous case.
    if you haven't considered chapter 7 bankruptcy, maybe you should.
    eliminate your debt, keep the property you want, most people qualify.
    contrary to popular belief - no attorney is necessary!

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Northwest Colorado
    Posts
    4,636
    So raping unconscious girls is OK, then, since they won't remember not saying no?

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Twin Cities Area
    Posts
    5,649
    well if you dont drink, maybe you wont become supposedly unconscious!

    people really need to be responsible for their own actions!

    the chances of me ending up unconscious in a bar or some strange guy's bed are nil.

    this reminds me of the old lady who sued mc donalds for the hot coffee burning her!

    ridiculous!
    if you haven't considered chapter 7 bankruptcy, maybe you should.
    eliminate your debt, keep the property you want, most people qualify.
    contrary to popular belief - no attorney is necessary!

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Northwest Colorado
    Posts
    4,636
    That's a strange parallel. Coffee is expected to be hot, are you saying unconscious girls should expect to be raped? Men who have their way with unconscious women should be prosecuted for rape, it really doesn't matter that the victim shouldn't have been unconscious -- that's a straw-man argument. Shouldn't the security guard be responsible for his actions?

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Twin Cities Area
    Posts
    5,649

    *

    Quote Originally Posted by BigBison
    That's a strange parallel. Coffee is expected to be hot, are you saying unconscious girls should expect to be raped? Men who have their way with unconscious women should be prosecuted for rape, it really doesn't matter that the victim shouldn't have been unconscious -- that's a straw-man argument. Shouldn't the security guard be responsible for his actions?
    nothing strange about it at all really.

    the point is this... as the article states, she doesnt remember anything.

    how do you come up with a rape charge if you dont know anything?

    the law works like this... innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

    its the same reason why we all KNOW OJ did it, but they couldnt prove the case.

    for the record, obviously rape is a disgusting crime and should have a lot worse ramifications than it does. but if she didnt say no and also if she doesnt remember then you cant go and pin a rape charge on someone. how would you like it if it happened to you?

    hopefully the girl will be a bit more prudent next time with her drinking, or simply not drink at all
    if you haven't considered chapter 7 bankruptcy, maybe you should.
    eliminate your debt, keep the property you want, most people qualify.
    contrary to popular belief - no attorney is necessary!

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Top Secret
    Posts
    14,135
    The fact that this went to trial is just flat out disgusting. It's a clear waste of taxpayer's money (be it here or overseas). Unfortunately, the lawyer (or prosecutor) won't see it as such, they'll only see it as something to get their name in the paper.

    The woman decided to go out and get drunk. What she did when she was drunk became her responsibility. If it WASN'T, then you couldn't prosecute individuals for driving drunk, manslaughter while drunk (vehicular or not), assault while drunk, or anything else while drunk.

    Yes, the guy took advantage of someone who was drunk, which is pretty ridiculous, but she gave consent to it. Not surprisingly, she regretted it when she found out about it, but them's the breaks. You get drunk, high, stoned, whatever, you give control of your body to the substance, and in many cases will regret that decision later.
    Tom Whiting, WHMCS Guru extraordinaire
    Linux problems? WHMCS Problems? Give me a shout
    Check out my WHMCS Addons

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Northwest Colorado
    Posts
    4,636
    Quote Originally Posted by Geni-Site.com
    how would you like it if it happened to you?
    How on Earth could this happen to me? I would never have sex with an unconscious stranger I was supposed to be escorting home safely. Are you saying he didn't commit a crime, because she can't remember it? Sounds to me like this guy took advantage of the incapacitated state of a stranger, which is rape. Her lack of clear memory, doesn't change that fact. He should have known better, since he didn't, he should be in jail. Her memory of the exact sequence of events shouldn't be relevant. How long had he known her before she "consented" to intercourse? Even if she had, he shouldn't have done what he did. It showed poor judgment, and in most places he would have been convicted as the "drunken consent" bit is far from a universally accepted rape excuse.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Northwest Colorado
    Posts
    4,636
    Quote Originally Posted by linux-tech
    The woman decided to go out and get drunk. What she did when she was drunk became her responsibility. If it WASN'T, then you couldn't prosecute individuals for driving drunk, manslaughter while drunk (vehicular or not), assault while drunk, or anything else while drunk.
    Good Grief!!! This girl is a victim, not someone who perpetrated a crime while drunk. Had she seduced this guy while drunk, that would be her problem, yes. But she didn't. She regained consciousness to find a stranger on top of her, she later found out he had intercourse with her. This is rape by any sane definition, and prosecuting rapists is never a waste of tax dollars.

    You're saying that if someone leaves a bar drunk, it's OK for someone to mug them because they shouldn't be drunk? What crime did this girl commit while drunk? Let's not overlook the crime the guy committed while sober. Drunken girls are not "fair game" for sexual predators, despite the message this ruling sends.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •