SHARE THIS SHOW:
RELATED CONVERSATIONS:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
If a woman becomes drunk, blacks out and is raped, should prosecutors be allowed to charge rape or first degree sex abuse? Or should the current law be retained, which only allows a defendant to be charged with sex abuse in the second degree?
Specifically, the bill deals with the concept of mental incapacitation.
The Attorney General's Sexual Assault Task Force says the bill "removes the question of how a person who is assaulted became incapacitated, and focuses instead on the person's ability to consent to sexual activity and the defendant's knowledge of that state of mental incapacity."
Other advocates of the bill have called it a "no-brainer" that would bring Oregon in line with a majority of states --like California and Washington -- where how a victim became incapacitated is not an issue.
But people like Gail Meyer say, it's not so simple. She has a 13-year-old daughter and says she can appreciate the concerns of the bill's authors. But she says this bill leaves innocent people vulnerable to prosecution and shifts the burden of proof to the defendant.
She says that under this bill, two people could get drunk at night, wake up in the morning and only one could be charged with rape. It's entirely possible an innocent man could end up serving years in prison under Measure 11, the state's mandatory minimum sentencing law
Is this change to Oregon law appropriate? Have you or someone you know been the victim of rape? What questions do you have about the impact of this proposed change to Oregon rape law?
GUESTS:
- Sara Gelser: Oregon state representative (D-Corvallis) and sponsor of HB 2343
- Christine Herrman: Executive director of the Attorney General’s Sexual Assault Task Force
- Janet Hoffman: Criminal defense attorney with the firm Hoffman Angeli
Tagged as: alcohol · law · rape
Photo credit: ilkin/ Flickr /Creative Commons
-
It doesn't matter what mental state the victim was in--they are still the victim! If 2 people end up drunk at night, and one person forcibly imposes themselves on the other, there still was an illegal action involved! If one person robbed the other, killed the other, or maimed the other, they would be guilty. What makes rape different?
How can I convey the dizzying horror of waking up with someone on top of me? I did not give consent! Nobody deserves to be harmed in such a way, in any way, regardless of their mental capacity.
-
This will probably go over poorly, being rape is obviously a touchy subject---perhaps as it should be. But, there are degrees of rape, as far as I am concerned. There is definitely a difference in severity between walking down the street and being assaulted, pulled into an alley, and raped by a masked stranger---versus, being at a party and getting drunk by your own doing and blacking or passing out and being raped probably by someone you know. Or for that matter coming home drunk with a partner and them having sex with you, when for all intents and purposes you are passed out.
I actually speak from experience on this subject, because it happened to me when I was younger. Can't believe I'm saying this... . Yes, I was upset and didn't really know for certain who it was although I suspected one person. I never pressed charges---it actually never occurred to me until now. But I put it in perspective: I didn't really experience it consciously and it's effect on my life was minimal. I was mostly concerned about STDs---I got tested and was fine.
A lot of the horror of rape is largely your response to it and how you view sex in general. Probably you are thinking I am a slag. As much as we say (PC Police) the persons lifestyle isn't relevant, in some ways it truly is. Not necessarily in the severity of the crime, but certainly in how the victim is able to handle the recovery and/or its lasting impact.
-
I completely agree with you. Rape is a terrible crime. So is being charge with rape when its not altogether clear the person is guilty. A person being assaulted by a stranger on a street or a situation where the victim is unconsciousness or mentally disabled is one thing. Two people getting drunk and waking up in bed is a different story. How can either person really know what happened, whether consent was given or honestly thought it was given. Why is one person excused from accountability because they voluntarily had diminished mental ability while the other person who also may have had voluntarily diminished mental ability is held accountable. In the absence of an admission, evidence of force or witness it comes down to one person's perception of what actually happened against another person's perception of what actually happened.
I believe this proposed law goes too far by placing the burden of proof on the accused. Simpley being accused of rape leaves a stain on the reputation of the accused not to mention the financial and emotional damage. Creating another victim is not justice.
Given the lack of backbone in political leaders and the horrors of rape and the need to punish someone I have little doubt this law will pass. No politician wants to be accused of voting against punishing someone for rape, even the innocent.
Ms. Herrman dismissive statement that only 2-3% of accusations of rape are false does not take into account the percentage of innocent accused who actually go to jail based solely upon the accusation of a victim. Ms. Herrman asserts a perfect system of justice in which only the guilty are convicted. But then, she seems to be on a mission and this little detail is unlikely to give her pause or prick her counscious.
-
rape does have different degrees and the way you r raised does make a difference in how you feel about it. but it does not make it right or ok. no the burden of proof should not fall on just the accused but for so many years if a woman or girl was raped she was put on trial not the jerk who did it. questions were asked like how many rolls of fat did he have or not have, how many scars did you see, what size was his ...., why did you decide to pick on him. even when talking about an 11 year old child and a forty three year old man. so maybe its time they have to defend themselves when they rape someone instead of the victim having to defend themselves against the rapist over and over again.
-
Sex without consent IS rape. Doesn't matter if you are drunk or helpless by your own actions or just helpless and unable to resist.
What if a rock fell on your head, you passed out, and someone seized the opportunity to have sex with you. Is that rape? YES!
What if you had a seizure and someone decided that'd be a great time to have sex with you? Is that rape? YES!
What if you were paralyzed and could not speak? Just because you didn't say "no", is it rape when someone forces themself on you? YES!
What if you are a child...to take it to extremes, what if you are a child, someone plies you with alcohol and has sex with you? Is it rape. OF COURSE!
Sex without mutual consent is rape. I can't imagine believing there are degrees of this crime. You either take advantage sexually or you don't.
-
What if you are so drunk you can barely stand up? What if you are kissing and touching each other, and the suggestion is made to have intercourse, and you agree. You were wondering when he would finally ask! What if afterward you feel like a slut, the guy calls you a drunken whore in front of everybody, and your friends ask... did you really want to sex with that guy?
The answer is, "I was too drunk to know what I was doing."
Now the DA has a case, and we're talking first degree rape with a mandatory minimum prison sentence of 8 years and four months. All you have to do is tell the bastard defense attorney, shout it in tears, NO! I did not want to have sex!
I'm not talking about the new law. This happens today, with the current law.
-
The OR House did the right thing. Hopefully, the Senate will, too. Just in case, people should email their state senators and let them know we're watching this one.
This merely brings Oregon law into line with the majority of other states that do not consider HOW a women became incapacitated. Does that mean being charged with first degree rape will dissuade some rapists? Highly unlikely. If they had the capacity for that type of thought process, would they be raping women?
Is the mandatory sentence enough?
It's not as if a rapist steals your car or takes your money. A rapist violates another human being. In my opinion, there is NO penalty harsh or severe enough on that one.
Thank Rep. Gelser for her hard work on this one. The women of Oregon thank you! Best regards - Sue Castner
-
Sue,
My son was charged with first degree rape, due to mental incapacity. My son's crime? Getting drunk and having sex with a stranger. It started out as kissing, progressed to intimate touching, and finally he asked her if she wanted to have sex. They discussed birth control.
So when does a boy, who had consensual sex with a stranger, find himself locked in jail and facing a mandatory minimum 8 years and four months?
It is a long and sad story that involves a history of mental illness on the part of the young woman, a very stressful home situation for her, and a mother on a crusade to take down my son. How can a young man like that protect himself from police, prosecutors, courts, prisons, and an angry public that cannot believe a young woman would ever, ever press charges unless they were true?
The emotional toll this has had on him, and on our whole family, cannot be measured and will never go away. Who pays for that? I have no interest in seeking "justice", I just want my life to go back to normal.
Please consider the unintended victims of this bill, since the current law has plenty already.
-
It is of course all rape, but all rape isn't the same. And, I guess if you view all rape as the same---everything allegedly black and white, with no degrees, variations, or shades of gray---then all murder is also the same murder. With no degrees or shades. If you take this stance it is incredibly hard to take a pro-choice stand on abortion. Because being pro-choice, and I most certainly am, is all about degrees.
Realizing distinctions, doesn't mean you find the behavior acceptable or justify it, it just means you realize every crime is not the same, and every instance doesn't deserve the same minimum sentence.
-
So - scottmil - please tell me when rape isn't rape?
-
WomenVote,
Why would I tell you that? I never said or suggested it. Rape is rape. Murder is murder. Not much to argue. What is up for dispute are the degrees or levels of severity and our response to them.
Why didn't you actually respond to the point I made about being pro-choice? I think it was a good, strong and relevant comparison. Because abortion is murder in a sense, but it is a sense that a good portion of the population finds to be less offensive then other forms, which directly compares to this issue. I am not suggesting they are entirely equivalent but the logic behind the two is similar, and worth considering.
-
What an absurd question! I can't believe the State is asking it via the legislature. If someone is murdered in their sleep is it 'murder' or 'second degree manslaughter'? Well, if someone slipped into the room, pulled out a knife and stabbed the sleeping victim repeatedly I'm not sure how it could be anything else BUT murder! The 'act' of rape is the 'ACT' - not the condition of the victim. Is anyone really going to try to 'argue' that it can only be 'rape' if the victim is conscious and verbalizes their displeasure over the act? I guess then we can assume that the murder victim may not have minded having their life snatched from them too.
Come on Oregon...
-
Last time I was murdered, he didn't ask for my permission. What bad manners!
Last time I was euthanized, he asked for my permission---actually I suggested it.
They are different situations, murder and rape. Besides the above, most people have sex in some form, but most people don't kill. With rape the lines are often not as clear. These distinctions don't ever make rape acceptable, but they mean we should use caution when deciding the degree of punishment.
-
Rape is not rape when sex is consensual. Rape is not rape when there is reasonable doubt it was not rape i.e. both individuals suffered from disminished mental capacity.
-
MeanMachine,
Even according to the current Oregon law, a man can be charged with rape in the first degree if he and his sex partner both suffered from diminished mental capacity.
This new law will be a nightmare is it passes.
-
It is sad that this would even be a question, but it brings up an interesting idea, that M.A.D.D.'s successful campaign to criminalize drunk driving has raised public awareness so that many other acts committed while drunk (I assume both parties in this hypothetical have had something to drink) are actionable crimes. What I don't understand is why only male on female rape is mentioned.
I'm male, but in 1964 the local pharmacist and the son of the owner of the drug store in the little Ozark town where I was raised set me up---got me drunk, drugged me unconscious, and the pharmacist (at least) raped me. Young, trusting and naive as I was, it had never occurred to me that these young men I'd grown up with, gone to Sunday school with, would do such a thing.
I remember the pharmacist giving me a couple of yellow and white capsules, saying "This will help with the hangover," and the next thing I knew I came partially awake when he was raping me, then afterward in pain, with him smirking and saying, "That's how it is after the first time."
There was nobody to tell what had happened; after me he apparently victimized others and was finally caught. But he was simply told to leave town, as far as I know he was never prosecuted. For me, even walking down main street became a fearsome ordeal, and although I suppressed the memories for decades they never stopped affecting my perceptions, my ability to trust. I still see their sneering smirks.
That experience has afflicted my life ever since. After long consideration, I told my father about it back in the '90s to confirm what I thought would be the response, and sure enough he replied, "Why didn't you fight back? Why did you let him do it?" THAT is why I couldn't report it back then, but to this day it hurts and negatively affects my relation to authority figures.
It has also provided me a great fertile field to grow compassion, for others so injured and for myself. I am deeply grateful to have found the teachings of Thich Nhat Hanh, the Vietnamese monk who has led so many of us to deeper peace and acceptance. For, if he and his colleagues could find peace, work for peace, when they were being persecuted by both sides during the Vietnam War, he has provided us the means to find it for ourselves.
-
I am sorry but there are different levels of everything. But simply the way this question was posed to on the blog is biased if a person is durnk and is raped? is it rape?........ C'mon you guys can do better than that when posing a debatable question. I would say niether party was in there full functioning state of mind and if she was drunk enough to pass out she could have said yes even earlier in the night and not remember. Does a man or woman deserve to go to jail in that event?
-
I think the most important issue here is that of burden of proof.
Personally, I think we really need to take a hard look a laws related to sex crimes because it is far too easy to permanently ruin the lives of innocent people, even in the event of acquittal, with our current laws.
The comments here are pretty typical. Sex crimes are probably the worst crimes imaginable. But, the absolutist views used to write the laws are damaging as well.
I think it is actually quite awful that a person can even be convicted of a crime at all in the situation described above. If a woman blacks out by her own actions and cannot remember whether she consented to sex, there is essentially no case (unless maybe there is evidence of a struggle).
Unfortunately, the way our system works now, an accusation of rape usually comes with a presumption of guilt and the defendant ends up being forced to prove innocence.
It gets even worse with sexual crimes against children. A student can make up an accusation of molestation by a teacher, admit later to making it up, and that teacher's life is still permanently destroyed.
This is dangerous and corrosive to a democratic society.
-
What a question and does it really need an answer?
Shame on us for what representative(s) we elected to allow our attorneys to pursue this line of "defence" in court!
When you are impaired are there any questions about the choices that you make?
Paul
-
ok paul is there any question about the decisions you make..... so the decision the person commiting the act is not valid either so that person could use that as a defense
-
Imagine you are in a store and the salesclerk leaves the counter for some reason. No one is watching you so you steal something. Does the fact that the sales clerk was absent ,or was otherwise incapacitated, mean that it is not stealing? It is still a crime for which you can be prosecuted if you are caught. The same is true with raping an incapacitated person. A crime is still a crime. Just because someone is drunk and passed out does not mean they have given you permission to take advantage of them. The person has also not given you permission to steal their wallet, their car, all of which would be seen as crimes. I agree with the first comment that this is a no-brainer. It is sad to learn that legislation is needed to make the Oregon judicial system acknowledge that this is indeed a crime.
-
Stealing generally requires someone not observing, actually I think people prefer not to get caught stealing. Stealing generally occurs with objects not humans. Stealing also doesn't require consent or permission, if it did, it wouldn't be stealing.
-
I am not saying its a crime but what i am saying is if that person is so far out of it how can they remember to PROVE they were raped..... Remember innocent until proven guilty? The problem is it becomes a he said she said argument
-
If you were drunk and someone stole your car or your wallet or if you left your keys in your car and someone took it, the law does not take into consideration your state of incapacitation/intoxication. You are not blamed for lacking the state of mind to prevent the crime, thereby forcing the charge against the car thief to be reduced to criminal mischief. It does not, in effect, blame you for making yourself a victim.
If you are not home to defend your property and someone breaks in, the law doesn't say "You should have BEEN there."
There is still a burden of proof and these cases will not be a slam dunk. Unless and until this country values its women as much if not more than it values its property or money, we are lost.
-
WomenVote,
That is an off-kilter comparison! Because stealing has no variable of potential consent---in fact it would not be possible to steal if you had consent. So they are indeed very different.And yes, the stealing is still (probably) the same stealing, because you could not have had consent in either possible version.
-
Of course it would be a guy who would think its "off-kilter" and that there MAY be cases where there are "distinctions" of rape!
I am not talking about abortion or "degrees" of consent. Sex without consent is rape. If I had consensual sex with someone last week, that doesn't mean consent in perpetuity. Again, I am at a loss as to grasping when "with rape lines are often not as clear." When it is not clear?
No consent = rape.
Consent earlier in the evening but currently passed out = rape.
Consent when married but not today = rape.
When does non-consensual sex equal something less than rape? Please enlighten us?
-
WomenVote,
This is not a women's issue. I think it is a disservice to frame it as such. Thinking, or simply questioning, whether the law should have nuance is not a slight against women. I would be the first person to defend the rights of any-and-every-one. I find your comment offensive and impertinent---that it is because I am a guy. You've lost a lot of your credibility on this topic, with this type of statement. I am not your enemy---I'm a believer in equity and clear thinking, and in defending the rights of all people to be treated with integrity and acuity.
I clearly said rape is always rape---if it is rape. Just as I said murder is always murder. So I've already answered that question. When the issue of rape should be considered with greater depth is when consent is possibly not clear do to mental incapacity---this is what I believe we are all talking about. Rape is a complex issue, because it very much requires a lack of consent (whatever the form) for it to be rape. Is it rape if I am passed out and my boyfriend has sex with me, and I am not mad about it, or perhaps even found it appealing after? Perhaps it is, which is not really what this about anyway---what this is about is our response to it, how we punish it and should all instances be treated exactly the same.
-
WomenVote,
There are two issues here. One is the problem of sex crimes, including rape. The other issue is the prosecution of alleged sex crimes.
You could find yourself in handcuffs tomorrow, accused of a sex crime. Any one of us could. I know you would be innocent, but that won't help you once you are in the criminal justice system.
There is a large and growing problem of innocent people being charged with sex crimes, and a large number of them are women.
If you don't think this is a real issue, then let's have a Think Out Loud segment on this. The horror stories will astound you. The police and prosecutors, courts and jails, have enormous power and almost unlimited financial means compared to one, innocent citizen. America does not honor "until proven guilty" when it comes to crimes that have such high emotional impact.
-
I wonder how helpful it would be to look at CURRENT law?
The most serious rape offense is Rape in the 1st degree which is a person has sexual intercourse with another person and:
1) the victim is subjected to forcible compulsion by the person;
2) the victim is under a certain age (regardless of consent); or
3) the victim is incapable of consent by reason of mental defect, mental incapacitation or physical helplessness.
I kept hearing people talking about forcible rapes with victims who are drunk -- that's already Rape in the First Degree. Or, victims who are passed out -- that's already Rape in the First Degree.
-
Yes, the current law is far over-reaching and allows consensual sex to be cast as the most heinous of acts.
-
The fact of the matter is 1 in 4 women are raped in their lifetime - most don't report it. In fact, the "silent-rape" which is the question at hand here only has a 5% rate of report. There is an even lower rate of report for men who are attacked and the numbers are newer and less conclusive for men.
The majority of rape victims know their attacker and often trust the person who violates them. This is how most silent-rape occurs. The person assumes a level of personal safety when with a friend, to be able to drink.
This issue simply protects a victim from being blamed for being passed-out drunk and taken advantage of, assuming the person committing the act has the ability to determine said incapacity.
This is not a women's issue, this is an issue of defining to a greater degree how a rape can be prosecuted and defended. Concerning the shift in the burden of proof, one would hope that the prosecutors do their homework and bring reasonable charges that hold up to the standard beyond a reasonable doubt and avoid false claims. And if this doesn't happen, we have an appeals system.
Let's keep in mind that charges can't be brought without a victim coming forward. If a person feels like their claim will fall on deaf ears because they were passed out when raped, they won't prosecute. This bill will help victims maintain a level of credibility in instances of silent-rape/date-rape claims. It makes sense to me to introduce this bill.
-
This isn't about blame though, at least it doesn't seem like it. Women/men should never be or feel blamed in either scenario. It is really about the person committing the act (as you mentioned) isn't it? And whether the degree of their offense is at all related or relevant to the degree of the mental incapacity of the victim.
Can charges be brought by the parents of a minor without the minor willingly coming forward? I think it perhaps makes sense to change the law, but is this the way to do it?The unfortunate fact about drugs of any kind, if they alter your mental capacity, then they make it harder to inherently defend yourself verbally and physically. This doesn't mean you deserved it, are to blame, or that your actions led to the outcome, but it is possible to suggest they made it harder to give a reliable form of consent or non-consent, because you were incapacitated and how could you inherently be certain of your actions or memory of those actions? This doesn't make the rape acceptable, but it does make it harder to prove or prosecute for functional reasons alone. Because anytime you drink and are involved in most anything with risk, the drinking usually increases that risk. That doesn't mean you are to blame for any possible events, but it can potentially make there occurrence more likely. In some ways it can (unfortunately) be said that drinking/drugs increases the risk of being raped, otherwise why would date-rap drugs exist? Alcohol can make you more vulnerable to these crimes and it can also make your defense more complex---again, realizing this doesn't justify the behavior of a rapist, it just sometimes makes it harder to prove.
-
ScottMil,
As you say "it just sometimes makes it harder to prove" That's exactly why they are trying to develop a refined notion of what it means to be incapacitated for rape to occur. It helps clean up the blurred line of consent and non-consent, which I understand, you don't believe is possible because of the natural "he-said/she-said" factor with little accurate memory and often little if any physical evidence to back a claim.
You ask "whether the degree of their offense is at all related or relevant to the degree of the mental incapacity of the victim", This law says no...the offense is the offense, as you have also said "rape is rape." You have been contrary in this conversation when, in essence, you agree with it. Although maybe you question the validity of an initial claim of rape, as many do in these cases...Which is what makes it hard for people to come forward in the first place.
-
amy-OR,
I am not sure I am doing the things you have suggested---although it is certainly possible. I suppose in essence it is rape if you feel you were raped, but in some cases it would indeed be difficult to prove or really impossible when then the extent of incapacitation (of potentially two individuals) cannot be ascertained with any reasonable certainty---it is inherent that when drugs are involved, the certainty is generally lessened (unless there is a witness)---whether we like it or not. I don't think that is up for dispute. I find it odd that so many are unwilling to acknowledge this. Yet the same people (perhaps) would be inclined to suggest that being drunk and behind a wheel relates to whether you have an accident. When honestly, there are circumstances when drinking may not really cause the accident, but the proof becomes harder to determine, with another variable involved.
Yes it is harder, as it should be, to prove rape if you are incapacitated---it is harder to prove anything when you are incapacitated. I am not sure what the problem with that is? It certainly isn't fair or pleasant to have to prove anything when you are the victim of a crime, but that is all we can do, make the effort however daunting it is. We shouldn't lessen the burden so people will feel encouraged to come forward. We do that by having honest and open discussions about rape.From my perspective they are not fine tuning the law they are simply widening the definition of incapacitation, so there is less nuance or levels of offense.
-
Unfortunately, while most rape victims decide not to come forward and go after the rapist, there are many, many cases of non-victims coming forward due to anger, pressure from parents, or mental health problems. If the woman agreed to sex with the expectation of receiving love and attention, she will feel violated if the man turns out to be deceitful and self-serving. Young women discovered having sex may be reluctant to claim consent, when consent was enthusiastically given at the time. Remember with Measure 11, these crimes are handled in adult court, for most high school aged kids.
Finally, the sad fact is that mental illness is very common. Sometimes mental illness will cause a woman to make a rape claim due to her desire for attention, or from her inability to properly perceive reality. Most of us, however, are incapable of detecting mental illness in people we have met only casually.
This new law is very, very bad. In fact, the current law is bad. Too many innocent people have their lives ruined. The solution is to improve the Grand Jury system, so that rape charges are no longer rubber-stamped, but examined carefully and thoroughly before any indictments are written.
-
I am offended that no one seems to have seen the obvious outcome of this law. even the laws authors admit that it's a little vague. Certainly, it's important to protect women, but we must be crystal clear in writing laws, or else some one is going to pay for its vaguery, and guess who it's going to be? have the laws authors walked around a college campus, and seen the number of young white women dating black men? Now, rape is rape, no matter who perpetrates it, but what you have here is a law that shifts burden of proof on the the accused. when the laws authors talk about how they are going to prosecute case with merit, and assure us that this law will not be applied broadly, I shudder. In legalese, a case with merit means, prosecutable, ie, can I win this case. and guess what, you get a black guy in court, with a white girl saying she's been raped, and the burden of proof is on the black guy, You have a recipe for disaster, and blacks (as well as latinos like myself) will pay the price for this laws vagueness. Go back and write a better law, or else many innoccent blacks and latinos will pay the price, sacrificed for prosecutors with political aspirations and looking for easy convictions. I am incensed that no one has figured this out.
-
What if, earlier in the night, I had indicated that I might be able to give Joe $100.
I pass out on the couch and Joe takes $100 from my wallet. Is it theft?
-
There was a case where a waitress received a $1000 tip from a very, very drunk customer. She called a cab for him and sent him on his way. The next day his wife came after the waitress to get the tip back from her. This went to court but I can't remember how it was resolved.
Clearly there should be a difference in the laws between forcible theft (or rape), and drunk people acting like drunk people.
-
Rape is such an egregious crime that I want to agree with HB 2343. But I don't. It is the duty of the lawmakers to pass laws that are clear and concise. The concept that a young woman could claim she was not in a state capable of making a good judgment could equally be the very defense for the rapist. It is not conceivable that only women could claim to not be in a state to make good judgments and exclude men from this concept. A young man could claim that he too was inebriated or too excitable to think clearly. Thus he is innocent also. This needs to be rewritten to perform the intent of the law.
-
I have only one question: Gail Meyer "says this bill leaves innocent people vulnerable to prosecution and shifts the burden of proof to the defendant.
"She says that under this bill, two people could get drunk at night, wake up in the morning and only one could be charged with rape."
This might have been answered on the program, which I have not heard, but not here on the web. So, on what basis does Ms. Meyer make this statement? I just went through the whole of ORS 163 and nowhere does it make a distinction between males and females in terms of rape.
Nor do I see any reason in the statute or the proposed amendment that would impose the burden of proof on the perpetrator.
Unless it can be demonstrated that there is some reason for her concern, this bill seems not only sensible, but needed. -
I have recent, personal experience with the current rape law.
My son was charged with first degree rape after having drunken sex with a stranger at a high school party. Her friends walked in on the activity and she became very distraught, not because of any kind of assault, but because of embarassment. Her friends, however, did not know my son and assumed something bad was happening.
The young woman stayed at the party for several hours after having sex. Several female friends of my son, who did not know the young woman, talked with her afterward. She described feeling ashamed and dirty.
When she arrived home, very late and very drunk, her mother was furious. Her friends then related the story of the supposed sexual assault, and suddenly the mother had a very different attitude. She took her daughter to the hospital and had a rape kit done. Her daughter also claimed to having had only a very small amount of alcohol, so the mother concluded that her daughter was drugged.
Several months later, my son was arrested and jailed, charged with first degree rape, and bail was set at $250,000. We spent all of our savings on the legal defense. You might be surprised how much a lawyer charges to investigate a serious crime like first degree rape. The bill came to $125,000.
But after much work and more than a year, the truth (or should I say the lies) came out, and the rape charges were dropped. But the DA could not let it go and my son spent 90 days in jail and will have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.
You cannot imagine the trauma and pain this has caused my son.
The financial ruin is bad, but the emotional toll is much higher. Everything in society that is there to protect us, the police, the prosecutors, the judges, the jails... they are now the enemy. They have no interest in protecting the person charged with a sex crime. Their only interest is to see you put away.
The young woman never claimed to be forced or threatened or in any way raped in the way you and I would think of it. She only claimed that she was not able to consent because of her intoxication.
This new law will be a nightmare for many, many innocent families.
-
I don't want to be the devils advocate but hey lets look at this as it is. circumstance is big on this situation. However the senario has been if two people went out got drunk ended up in bed togeather. Now one says they didn't want to do what was done. Im sorry but you end up in bed with someone You have a dam good idea what is going on. You get a women drunk she becomes less attentive to her fears and choice making. She becomes flirt and fun. Wakes up in the morning wondering what she done. And because she let down her gaurd is up set and decided she didn't want what already happened. Sorry you can't put the shirt back on the rack and get a diffrent one. From drink one decision making is changed. Anyway there is alot of grey area in this. I wouldn't want to be the judge. And as far as the one who wants to make the laws be careful. Circumstance lies and regrets tough one.
-
when i was a young teenager i like many other kids tried things i should not have. one of those being alchohl. when i was coherent again i had a naval recruting officer on top of me and found out i had had 2 others use me before him. i was embarassed and ashamed. but was told that since i hadn't said no it was my fault for being in the circumstance, never mind that i was passed out drunk and didn't know what was going on. that is not sex abuse no matter how you look at it it is never ok to take away someones right to choose whether they want to have sex with you or not. now many years later i still fear most men and don't trust them. rape causes damage that is hard to heal from and if you are not capable of consenting or say no it is rape.
-
This comment has been removed by the TOL staff.
-
Comments are now closed.
Argh! How is this even a question?
If a woman passes out and a man has sex with her (obviously without obtaining her permission) OF COURSE it is rape! Wow.