I wrote a massive comment to this post here
Here's the comment. I'm not cutting for 'tis important.
OK, here I go. Let's get a couple of things straight before I start:
1) I was once raped by a stranger walking home at midnight. I've been through police examination. I've testified in court. He was found guilty.
2) In an unrelated incident, I was once assaulted by the male flatmate of an acquaintance after becoming so drunk at a house party that I physically could not fight him off. This was before being raped, and I never went to the police about that.
Rape and sexual assault are serious crimes and should be treated seriously, and any person who falsely claims to be a victim of such is little better than a rapist themselves.Can she prove she didn't consent? A woman's default state is presumed to be consent: if she can't prove she didn't, then it's simply assumed that she did.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is a fundamental tenant of our society, and has a sound moral backing. In a case of something as serious as rape, this is even MORE imperative than otherwise. It is VITAL that the case is clearly seen through, which is where the prosecution failed us in this case.
Of course, as I would much much rather have a guilty man walk free that an innocent man jailed, I guess I'm biased on this one.
The case fell down because she couldn't remember giving consent. This is my mind is bullshit because the security guard admits she was very very drunk. but, without that, the burden of proof is always on the accuser, no matter what the crime.
Her testimony that 'she could not remember' in itself is worthless because she might be lying. It's too easy to sympathise with someone you want to believe just to make a point. IF she was lying, she is doing more harm to rape victims than good.We don't, for example, ask the victims of muggings whether they chose to give away their mobile phone and ipod, because we understand that it's completely implausible that they might have.
False analogy. While most people I know are not in the habit of giving their mobile phone and iPod away to random strangers or their friends, I know lots of people, male and female, who enjoy sex and like to have it with their friends and with people they just met. Sex is not something a man takes from a woman. It's something that happens between two people. Most of the time it's by mutual consent. It's not a thing to be taken from ANYONE.
Where this case falls down is that he a) was in a position of authority as the security guard and therefore shouldn't be having sex, and b) ADMITTED she was barely conscious, and anyone at that stage of drunkenness, IMO, is incapable of giving consent. But we don't know that she didn't, in her drunken haze, beg him to shag her all way from Sunday. The only argument is that even if she did, she wasn't in her right mind when she did so, and therefore is about s capable of giving consent as a thirteen year old or a mentally disable person.
And while we're bringing up the Amnesty International survey - One in three people say that in certain circumstances the victim has partial responsibility for the actions, not that the rapist is absolved from all. In fact, only 8% said that the victim has complete responsibility in cases where she was dressed inappropriately/flirted outrageously/walked home in a darkened alley etc etc. Yes, this is too too much, but it ain't 30%. It's almost certainly even further skewed by the survey's wording anyway.
It's pretty hard to deny that it's safer getting a licensed black cab home than walking the quick route through the back alleys of the red light district. Anyone who chooses the walk is taking the risk and by taking the risk takes on some responsibility for the consequences. This is a long way from absolving an attacker of rape.
I've already voiced my opinion here
. I think the guy's an asshole and a rapist, but not because of the reasons other people have stated.