Comment by claudiawerner
4 years ago
>I don't want to victim blame here because this guy sounds like a grade A creep and predator. But does a person not have some responsibility here to not get so intoxicated when alone with a member of the opposite sex in a private space?
No. The idea that being around a member of the opposite sex (and does this apply to members of the same sex? e.g. men raping men, and women raping women?) in a private space while being intoxicated levies some kind of 'responsibility' to be on the lookout for rape is absolutely victim blaming. It's insisting that her non-sexual actions of literally just being around someone confers a responsibility of any kind pertaining to a sexual act on her.
> No. The idea that being around a member of the opposite sex (and does this apply to members of the same sex? e.g. men raping men, and women raping women?)
I specifically used the word person because I think this could happen between any two people of any sex. I'm certain it even happens to men, by women. Just men are much less likely to regret it the next day.
> levies some kind of 'responsibility' to be on the lookout for rape is absolutely victim blaming
If you gave consent because you were drunk, that's not really rape, it could be poor judgment. The perpetrator might reasonably think you're sober enough to make your own decisions. Especially if they are also inebriated.
Just calling it victim blaming is missing that this is a pretty gray area.
> If you gave consent because you were drunk, that's not really rape, it could be poor judgment.
No, it's lack of judgement. Total inability to judge, in fact.
> The perpetrator might reasonably think you're sober enough to make your own decisions. Especially if they are also inebriated.
It doesn't matter what the perpetrator thinks. And especially? Is the perpetrator less guilty of rape depending on his blood alcohol level?
> It doesn't matter what the perpetrator thinks.
It does matter in most jurisdictions. Rape is usually not a strict liability crime. Conviction requires both an act (actus reus) and criminal intent (mens rea) on the part of the defendant. (Statutory rape, on the other hand, often is strict liability with only an actus reus requirement).
Generally if an act can be legal or illegal and the defendant believes that they are doing the legal version, the mens rea requirement is not met and the defendant is not guilty. Many jurisdictions do require that the defendant's belief be in good faith and their mistake be one that a reasonable person could make.
For an example of the kind of thing the prosecution must typically prove, here are California's jury instructions for "rape of intoxicated woman or spouse" [1].
[1] https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/1000/1002/
1 reply →
> It doesn't matter what the perpetrator thinks.
I think it may be the only thing that can decide the difference between a crime here or not. If the other person gives consent, then how you judge their ability to make their own decisions here is the difference between having intent to rape or not having intent. Intent matters in a lot of crimes, I don't think it matters in rape cases - I could be wrong.
> Is the perpetrator less guilty of rape depending on his blood alcohol level?
So the victim has no responsibility if blood alcohol level is too high for good judgment, but the perpetrator is responsible no matter their blood alcohol level and judgment? That seems self-contradictory.
6 replies →