LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quotei would think the first man should at the very least be charged with sexual assault...
Assault?.or just stupid
I need some advice in formulating my approach to a case. A woman in her mid-thirties; probably with an "alcohol" problem; meets a "friend" and two other men at a hotel room. All are drinking heavily. Her "friend leaves but she remains and continues to drink heavily and at some point begins "dancing like a stripper" rubbing her backside against the two men. She then "blacks out"; it is unclear if she actually "passes out" or just doesn't remember her actions. Her next memory is of one of the men being on top of her still clothed but she feels herself penetrated (testing shows it was his finger not his penis). She protests he gets off of her and the other man then climbs on and penetrates her with his penis (lab results are clear this did happen). The second man is convicted of CSP in the Third Degree ( non forcible rape). Is the first man guilty of rape?
The law in the relevant state says that "voluntary intoxication" is not a defense if you commit a crime. How does that play out when the "victim" gets voluntarily intoxicated and takes actions implying consent? It is clear that the second man who engages in intercourse after she specifically says no is guilty. What about the first man? All three appear to be so intoxicated that they cannot effectively testify as to what exactly transpired. What do you women make of these fact
i would think the first man should at the very least be charged with sexual assault...
This kind of stuff can drive you nuts. This is a no win situation for everyone involved. I am strongly opposed to any forced sexual interaction but this is iffy. Personally I do not accept alcohol as an excuse or justification or inappropriate behavior. People choose to drink to excess. It becomes an excuse to do things that you would not otherwise do or that you know you shouldn't do.
There should be a way to charge all three. No should always mean no, but when you set up a situation that just about begs sexual response, you have to take some responsibility. Dressing "provocatively" is a judgement call, even running around naked should be OK in my opinion, but a strip tease and rubbing up against someone and engaging in behavior that is specifically and directly intended to arouse creates some degree of responsibility. If she can claim that she did so unknowingly because she was drunk, then the men's behavior is equally excusable up to a point. People who engage in overtly sexual behavior and then don't want to own any responsibility for it really bother me.
I hate to say it but there are women who claim rape when it is really a case of second thoughts or it-was-Ok-until-other-people-found-out-I-did-it. This is just not something to mess around with, there is too much forcible rape in our society as it is. Attitudes of repression, of sex being "bad" certainly don't help anything.
Everyone, male and female, should understand that there must be limits with sexually charged behavior unless you are intending to engage in sex. I've been gang raped. I did NOTHING in any way to entice or encourage that. There was no grey area. I still dealt with quite a few comments "you must have done something..." .
We need REAL sex ed and that should include something that is required in the positive sex community - not NO but YES, before Any sexual activity. May I touch you? May I enter you? Not push it as far as I can until I get a forceful enough NO. If this was drilled into people's heads we would save a lot of trouble in our world.
This is such a case by case thing that it i guess it would difficult to write an effective law. Given the poor quality of many laws we have, its really a judgement call and that depends on who is "judging".
We can only learn to love by loving. - Iris Mudoch, British writer
Pretty much have to agree with WC...
Two girls went to a Hotel where there were two men, and drank, one left the other partied and in that stripteazed, and rubbed herself up against the men.
Is that a sign of something to a man? Usually.
Seems she was almost passed out and realised at the end that something was occuring...However, did he "ask" to get a yes or no? Not from the sounds of it....
No does mean no...unfortunately if he agrees he heard that, then alcohol is not an excuse, he can cuss her for leading him on but that's where it ends.
Unfortunately, women are either stupid, nieve, or want attention just still reserve to say no, in situations like this..And, it stands to reason alcohol makes a person weaker, consequently vulnerable to act when it's there in his / her face as it was in this instance.
I imagine a Judge would have no choice, if she can prove she still said the word no.. the guy then had two choices and opted not to listen....
Regardless that she gave all the seeds of the Devil to him:-
Do we not realise that in order to find a soul
It doesn't happen over night
if truth were to be told.
Like everything in life that's hard to achieve
you must believe!
Intoxication makes determining what happened very hard and maybe to the level of reasonable doubt. When on a jury, I reached into my engineering background on signals as to 10% certainty being the same as it did not happen and a 90% certainty passing the threshold of no longer having reasonable doubt. In between the doubt is reasonable, but to varying degrees.
The fact is that the first male did penetrate her with a finger. So sexual penetration took place. The next question comes as: did she have enough control of her faculties to make a contract to either consent or not consent. If she did not consent and the penetration took place, it is CSP. If she could not consent due to lack control it is the same as she did not consent and it is CSP. However, if she did have control to consent and she did, but later changed her mind after the penetration or later passed out and forgot that she consented, then it is not CSP.
This hinges on her ability to consent before the penetration took place. If you can show that she was so intoxicated that she couldn't consent, its CSP. Otherwise it it hard to say her actions when she became aware of what was happening were what she would have done before, that is there is reasonable doubt as she had continued to escalate the situation before. It can be argued that any consent was withdrawn when she was no longer in control. Under that theory, for almost everyone, all action has to immediately cease on orgasm as control is lost. Further, you are expecting a drunk guy to make what is essentially a split second medical determination that she has passed out and just hasn't closed her eyes. When a woman closes her eyes during penetration, should the man immediately start resuscitation? Show she was so intoxicated she couldn't enter in a contract and you won't have to jump this high hurdle. Or convince the judge and jury with you words so completely that they ignore reasonable doubt.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience.
...
Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?
Patrick Henry
I agree with *sidneyalive*
Obviously being passed out, even if you voluntarily got drunk enough to pass out, is not consent for rape.
I think women also need to quit putting themselves in harms way. Really. Sure, a woman can go grind up against a willing stranger in a dark alley and legally... he should stop whenever she says no... but its still a really really bad idea to assume that he will stop, just cause he morally or legally should.
Men have also got to get it in their heads that messing around with a woman they don't know, while she is intoxicated beyond reason... is a risk, a risk that she may regret it bad enough or simply truly not remember having consented and truly feel she was violated. And they have to be able to walk away from a sure thing if that sure thing can't truly give coherent consent.
Scars remind us of where we've been...they don't have to dictate where we're going.
Yes WC it DOES drive me nuts. I've been both the prosecutor and the defense attorney in some very factually confusing cases. Because all involved were highly intoxicated- all their "REPORTS" of what happened are extremely suspect. The "facts" I gave are ones that all three agree on or are documented by lab results. The question is probably one of "consent"-actual or "reasonably" implied. Clearly the second man knew that she was not consenting to sexual activity. I was wondering how a "non-lawyer"audiance would view the first man. "Consent" may have occurred while she was conscious and still moving but "blacked out". OR NOT. However when the "lights came back on for her" she very clearly was saying NO. And at that point the first man stopped and ceased penetration. Does that indicate that he thought he had consent up until that point or is it a case of; as CW suggests, that the NO was just not sufficiently expressed- or even that she was "unconcious" and incapable of giving consent? And given the "alcohol" haze; could a jury find any scenario "beyond a reasonable doubt"? The State has offered a plea to Criminal Sexual Contact in the fourth Degree. Possible sentence of 18 months and 1 year parole but the defendant would then be obligated to register as a "sex offender" for up to 30 years. The new "scarlet letter". He would be a societal outcast. SO's are denied employment, housing and often threatened with extreme violence. I find myself waking up at 4 in the morning asking "Is this just"?
You know honestly law aside and I think this is your point?
She went there, she drinks, she parties, she knows what may occur and she cries wolf, is that fair to put yourself out there, to drunken men whom by nature, in any event in the cave men days, do as they do.
It's hard.
None of them I do not believe can remember anyone saying NO...
She has stated she woke up, didn't realise.
That's the problem...
Men are vulnerable as well .... And can think something is okay....when in retrospect later it appears it is not.
I feel sorry for this case...
It's a no win, and 50/50..
JNS Gave a great knowledge there of text book.
If I were a part of the jury I'd find a lesser crime is there one?
If there is play on that....
NO She didn't deserve that, ....but yes, she helped instigate it whether she wants to believe that or not....
People will shoot me now... But you can't do that. and not expect....
Do we not realise that in order to find a soul
It doesn't happen over night
if truth were to be told.
Like everything in life that's hard to achieve
you must believe!
1. How does one prove that 1) only digital (finger) penetration took place by the first individual? What type of test is this?Originally Posted by SaharaJim
I need some advice in formulating my approach to a case. A woman in her mid-thirties; probably with an "alcohol" problem; meets a "friend" and two other men at a hotel room. All are drinking heavily. Her "friend leaves but she remains and continues to drink heavily and at some point begins "dancing like a stripper" rubbing her backside against the two men. She then "blacks out"; it is unclear if she actually "passes out" or just doesn't remember her actions. Her next memory is of one of the men being on top of her still clothed but she feels herself penetrated (testing shows it was his finger not his penis). She protests he gets off of her and the other man then climbs on and penetrates her with his penis (lab results are clear this did happen). The second man is convicted of CSP in the Third Degree ( non forcible rape). Is the first man guilty of rape?
The law in the relevant state says that "voluntary intoxication" is not a defense if you commit a crime. How does that play out when the "victim" gets voluntarily intoxicated and takes actions implying consent? It is clear that the second man who engages in intercourse after she specifically says no is guilty. What about the first man? All three appear to be so intoxicated that they cannot effectively testify as to what exactly transpired. What do you women make of these fact
2. You don't say that she implicitly told the second individual NO, STOP, DON'T etc. Did this happen?
3. Were articles of clothing removed by the complaintant at any time during her dance etc?
4. Was anything said leading up to her "blacking out" which perhaps she doesn't remember and which might be construed as implied consent?
5. Of the men involved, how intoxicated were they?
I think there are too many unanswered questions in your recitation for me to form an opinion as to guilt or innocence of the parties.
I'd agree that No means No.
I'd agree that even if there was an implied consent at some point, the moment that she said No, or Stop, then her consent is revoked.
The men then have the onus and responsibility of stopping.
Is this an actual case? Has it been adjudicated? If so, I'd be interested in hearing the verdict.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks