I believe that many rape accusations are completely spurious and that women who falsely accuse men of rape should be thrown in jail, but I'm not sure what to make of the idea that "drunken consent is still consent".

WOMEN who are raped while drunk face losing the chance to bring their attackers to justice after a legal ruling on the eve of new licensing laws.

A High Court judge yesterday threw out the case of a student who claimed that she was raped while drunk and unconscious on the basis that “drunken consent is still consent”. ...

The prosecution in the rape case had said it could not go on after the woman admitted that she could not remember whether she gave consent or not or whether sex had taken place. The jury at Swansea Crown Court was told: “Drunken consent is still consent.” ...

She told the jury that she had no recollection of events but insisted that she would not have agreed to sex with the man.

If you have no recollection, and there are no other witnesses, merely insisting that you wouldn't have wanted to have sex with they guy shouldn't be enough to support a rape prosecution. However, it seems like there's a world of difference between being drunk and being unconscious. If a woman is drunk and gives consent, then that's consent and there's no rape, even if she regrets it the next morning. But an unconscious person can't consent to anything, and if it can be proven that the woman was unconscious at the time of sex then that should be considered rape (unless she gave consent beforehand or there are other unusual circumstances).



Email blogmasterofnoneATgmailDOTcom for text link and key word rates.

Site Info