Would you consider this Rape?

Would you consider this Rape?

Yes.

Is this considered rape?

I don't know what the authorities will consider it or how the law where you live is written to define rape, but as far as I am concerned it's rape.

Yes. Asleep isn't a "yes".

I agree with both of you. I am very displeased about what my daughter has told me. She has talked to the commonwealth attorney and she said if the case goes to the grand jury it will be a she said he said case. Even though everyone that has been interviewed said that my granddaughter was drunk to the point she was falling down and didn't know what she was doing. The boy said that she wanted to have sex. She says she was passed out in the bed and the boy started having sex with her and she knocked him off. Our state law says that if your drunk to the point you don't know what your doing you can not consent. The commonwealth attorney said that the grand jury might look at the case as if they were all drinking, and in so many words "things happen" .
If the law states that you can not give consent if incapacitated I don't understand why the grand jury would look at it like that. What can my granddaughter do to help her case? How can she prove that he is lying and she is telling the truth? I think it is sin that the boy can lie about what happened and may get off. Why don't they believe the victim? Why should the victim have to be the only one to have to prove what happened? If this goes to the grand jury they could just throw the case out. Why do we have laws if we are not going to go by them? Please give me some advice about what they can do? My granddaughter is so upset to think the boy might get off because of his lying. He violated my granddaughter and may walk away to be able to do it to someone else. If any one has any advice or has been in this type of situation please let me know what to do or what you did as soon as you can. Thank You.

She should sue the boy, then the onus is on HIM.

She also needs to tell the commonwealth attorney to pursue the case anyway. He is just trying to intimidate her into not pressing charges.

Just another waste of human flesh filling a job that he's not willing to do.

Deffinitely!

Rape? Yes, most definitely.

Take the bastard to court...go as far as you can with it. He deserves no mercy for such a despicable act.

Absolutely she was raped. You can't consent when you are asleep. I hope you found a counselor for her. I'm sure this is very traumatic for her. They may also have advice about pursuing criminal charges.

I agree that you should push the D.A. to pursue the criminal case and press charges. A good prosecutor should be able to get an indictment. It is on them to investigate and find witnesses from the party that can testify to your grandaughter's state.

This is such a tragedy and I believe the worst thing is that there was ever even a question in someone's mind whether this really constituted rape or not.

Not that it is any way right, but I can see how it would be a tough case.

1) there was under aged drinking involved.
2) the boy was probably also drunk
3) she was drunk enough that she doesn't know what happened before she woke up

It will be a hard case to prove.  Best thing to do is to sue him and force him to defend himself.  At least it will bring him into court under oath.  If they have DNA evidence, he can't deny what happened. And, if he admits that he knew she was drunk, then you have a better case.

It won't be an easy case at all.  I also hope that she is in counseling, as she will need to get closure on this in case he walks away free of charges.

If she was asleep or passed out there was no consent. Get the swine for rape.

Here they say, "if you don't hear a 'yes,' it's not consent. It's rape."

I hope they get him good.

They don't "believe the victim", because they don't know who the victim is. The jury are supposed to find out if there was a victim and if so, who the victim was. Believing "the victim" would make a mockery of the concept of a trial.

We could just execute all the criminals on sight based on the theory that we can "believe the victim".



I believe the worst thing is that everybody "knows" exactly what happened and condemned one of the parties based on nothing but the word of someone who loves her.

From what we know there were two people involved, none, one, or both of whom might have been drunk, one or both of whom might have wanted to have sex, and one of them now claims to have been raped.

I am sure YOU think you know enough to condemn a person, but I don't. The question of whether it was rape as asked here already assumes that we have perfect knowledge of the exact events.

You cannot assume as read whatever facts you can feel best being angry about.

And if the American legal system started convicting people based on "believing the victim", half the nation would be in prisons.



If they have DNA evidence that'll simply prove that they had sex, which I take nobody is denying. But you only have a better case if the jury agrees with the original assumption that it could only be one of the two who initiated everything.

If the jury agrees with that idea from the beginning, I cannot see how the trial can be fair.

I can see why her grand father believes her and wants to protect her. But I cannot understand why everybody else has made up their minds also without knowing what really happened.

There is also a grant parent or parent of the boy who probably feel the same way about him as Secretcove feels about her. Why is their grandson or son automatically the bad guy and undeserving of similar love?

What would you do to the guy if you met him and had the upper hand?

I wish her the best of luck with proving her case and may the rapist be put into prison for good.

But how do you prove that you were very drunk AND didn't initiate?

Which is what will happen in a legal system that "believes the victim".

What's wrong with not getting drunk???

Theoretically, a law that says that drunk persons cannot give consent would also make it impossible to claim that a drunk person committed rape, wouldn't it? Or does the "too drunk to give consent" proviso only apply to girls?

Thats' the biggest problem with this situation.  Who is to say that they both weren't drunk enough to fall under the "too drunk to consent" law?  Couldn't he equally charge her with rape if that was the case?  If she was drunk enough to not wake up while somebody initiated sex, how can she say she knew what state he was in?

And, being that they were both under legal drinking age adds a whole other complexity.  Neither of them should have been drinking.  Who provided the booze? 

Being that she was under aged and passed out drunk doesn't help her case at all.  If she was that dunk, how can the jury even take her account as accurate even if she is indeed the victim?  Can somebody who is that drunk even recall all the "facts"?

Also, how is she going to look in court?  A 20 year old is old enough to know not to get passed out drunk at a party.  For all anyone knows (as I am sure the defendant will try to prove) she has a history of partying.  I had friends like that when I was younger, and if they said they were raped while passed out drunk, I wouldn't have believed them.  If she is a partier, and I am sure the defense would try to prove it, it isn't likely that the jury would believe her, either.

They can prove that they had sex.  They can't prove if it was consenting if both were that drunk.  Chances are, counseling is the best hope for closure.

The responsibility is on the boy because he's the one that put his penis in a unconscious woman.

I am not often this direct, but I feel it is necessary now.

How DARE you assign responsibility based on simply your anger at the situation as you happen to believe it took place, you self-righteous woman!

We were simply told that two drunk kids had sex and that one of them later claimed it was against her will.

Your self-righteous "knowledge" that the boy is a rapist and that the girl was obviously unconscious at the time is sexism in the extreme. I have met many sexists in my life, but you are the first whose sexism would cause someone to go to prison for life if left unchecked.

But while we are focusing on sexist statements, I would also like to make the point that a boy would PRESUMABLY not admit to having been raped by a girl, IF the story happened that way. (And yes, that does happen, but it's REALLY difficult for a man to come forward and be taken seriously, probably due to people like you.)

Either way HER word is _NOT_ in any way or form naturally better than HIS.

It's a pity the US have jury trials because people like you in the jury, I fear, might just send anybody to prison based on "knowledge" of what happened which is based solely on the "knowledge" that, of course, the man lies while the woman speaks the truth.

Your attitude disgusts me.

GIVEN THOSE FACTS, yes, it is rape, as no consent was given.

However, those facts are not considered 'given' to the justice system. You have to prove those facts.

yes, that's what I am responding to that the initial take on the topic is the true one. If she woke up with someone inside of her, she did not give consent. She was passed out or asleep but definately not giving consent.

I disgust you?! I was told that a girl was passed out and woke up to find a boy having sex with her. It wasn't two drunk kids had sex. It was a girl was passed out and a boy raped her. How am I being presumptuous to respond to that fact as it was presented to me by calling it what it is.

Rape is rape is rape is rape. If a girl drinks too much she doesn't deserve to be raped. If a girl was drinking underage it doesn't mean that was asking for it.

Is this rape? Absolutely. Should the young man be punished? Absolutely. Your grand daughter might not remember much of the incident, but the fact she woke up with the young man on her should be more than enough evidence of wrong-doing.



Let me just say you're assuming this incident took place in America. In places like England, Europe and Australia, the legal drinking age is 18.

Hence you conclude that she obviously didn't consent or gave the boy reason to believe that she did. You also concluded that it was the boy and not her who initiated. Plus you conclude that she was too drunk to give consent but that he was obviously not too drunk to make a decision.

Yes, that disgusts me.



It is because you declare it a fact that you are being presumptuous.



You are still assuming that everybody agrees that EXACTLY THAT happened. That is presumptuous.

NOBODY here claims that a girl drinking too much is "asking for it" (but thanks for implying that I did). I am just saying that we don't know what happened and that you are condemning a boy based on the word of a girl who was drunk at the time.

Again, it saddens me that the US use a jury system where you could be on the jury.



Yes, punish the young man! Why not execute a few other young men while we are at it. We can always find somebody drunk who "remembers" something they might have done.

I assume you know it is impossible for a girl to give consent and then wake up later? Because without that "knowledge" I cannot see how you can be so sure about it.

I would consider that the proper behaviour for the boy.

However, the mob here would consider anything else a crime worth of a long prison term.

Let's turn the scenario around:



And let's assume the girl acted in the way the boy might have acted if he wasn't a proper gentleman:



If the boy later says he cannot remember how it started (because he was drunk, and perhaps he really doesn't remember), would that be enough "evidence" for you to put the girl away for a good few years?

I will not discuss the original scenario any more. Let's discuss the scenario with genders reversed. If there is merit to the original case, there will be merit to this slightly different scenario, since only the gender of the victim and the gender of the perpetrator changed.

(If you like, we can also change the skin colour or nationality.)

Are you ready to condemn the girl based on the word of the boy who admitted he was drunk at the time and didn't remember what exactly happened?

That's an interesting take on causality.

I take it it's obvious that no girl ever gave consent and then fell asleep and that no boy was ever drunk enough to think that a drunk girl was capable of giving consent?

You clearly believe that a drunk boy is capable of giving consent (otherwise you wouldn't call it rape). How do you know the boy does not have your attitude and believes the girl was capable of giving consent (when perhaps she did)?

Well, let's just say it's an educated assumption.

I have an alcoholic Uncle, and he has had many conversations and has done many things that he can't remember.  He called my Mom from jail once and didn't know how he got there.  It happens.  I don't know why that is so hard to believe.  I mean, sleepwalking is the same way.  The person is awake, but doesn't know it.  It wasn't that long ago that people taking sleep medication were found driving their cars and didn't know how they did it.  I believe the legal term is "Automatism".  As a matter of fact, there have been cases of people killing others while asleep.  A couple come to mind, like this one: http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1992/1992rcs2-871/1992rcs2-871.html 

I can only assume that being drunk to the point of blacking out would fall in the same realm.  So, who is to say that she didn't consent and was too drunk to remember?  If the boy was also drunk, could he have the ability to even be able to tell what state she was in?  Considering that none of us were there, it's not possible for us to know or judge what happened, especially since we only know one side....and that is 2nd hand info, too.

Exactly.

But I do think this discussion brought to light a few interesting opinions and attitudes.

I want to thank everyone for you input. It has giving me a lot to think about and discuss with my grandaughter. I will also let you know that my granddaughter is not a big partier. She is a very shy person. She just happened to go to this party with a friend. She is not a big drinker. In fact she usually don't drink. Her boyfriend was out of town at the time and a friend ask her to hang out. Her boyfriend and her have been dating for almost 3 years. They don't even go to parties. She loves him very much. I know that some of you will say "you say that because she is your granddaughter" but I know my granddaughter very well. I know in my heart that she is telling the truth. She just has to prove it. She didn't even know the guy. She had been going to couseling but she don't like to talk about it. It just tears her up. She says she just wish it would go away. She has had nightmares and has trouble sleeping at night. She cries every time the situation is brought up. She has had to go on medication because of this. She freaks out if she has to go outside in the dark now. Even during the day she has problems. She called me one time and was freaking out because her window wouldn't roll up. She was afraid that someone would try to get in her car if she stopped anywhere. I know all this is going on because I live with her and her mother. My grandaughter and I are very close. She talks to me about things more than she does her mother. By the way I am the grandmother. I don't know what she is planning to do yet. She is so scared. The attorney has really upset her and he keeps putting her off. She wants it to go away but than again she wants the guy punished. I did tell her if he doesn't get punished in this life time that he will be punished by God. I really worry about her.