Statutory Rape

[liam88]

Another massive problem is that idot judge over here in the UK who dropped a case against a rapist because the girl was drunk! She was lying outside her room and he took her in and had sex-because she can't remember all the details apparently it's not rape! So it seems that girls have no right to get drunk without some animal raping them. The law should protect you whether you are drunk or not end of.

[John83]

...I have to say though -if I'd a 15 year old daughter and she arrived home with a 19 year old boy ...frankly I'd assume malevolence, deviance and sexual retardation on his part and would quite possibly arrange for him to have a very nasty accident.

It's too big a gap at that age...
Damn media. You've made the same mistake as everyone else - she was 15 at the time, he's 19 now. I still haven't picked up the actual age difference.

[sadloserkid]

Another massive problem is that idot

It take a big man to highlight their mistakes like that Liam, I applaud you! ;)

[superfrank]

The law should protect you whether you are drunk or not end of.
Can't agree with you. Does that mean drink-drivers should be protected too??

[liam88]

Can't agree with you. Does that mean drink-drivers should be protected too??
No no i obviously put my point across wrongly!
Case of rape/murder/assult-jsut because you are drunk it doesn't mena people can do what they like to you!
Drink drivers are breaking the law and subsequently endangering others lives. This girl was drunk and passed out outisde her hotel room. The point I was trying to make is that just because a girl is drunk it shouldn't mean animals are allowed to rape her which is what this judge is effectivly saying!!

[sadloserkid]

I'm totally unfamiliar with the case you're referring to Liam so feel free to metaphorically slap me on the back of the head if I'm wrong here.

I presume that the verdict was because the girl couldn't consciously remember saying 'no'. In that case there's no way to prove that the sex was non-consentual and as such there's no way of proving that the lad was guilty.

A similar case here a couple of years ago with Kerry footballer Declan Quill. There he seemed to get off more or less because he couldn't remember anything that had happened until he woke up to a screaming girl with a bloody face... the legal system here is no better... :rolleyes:

[anto eile]

Another massive problem is that idot judge over here in the UK who dropped a case against a rapist because the girl was drunk! She was lying outside her room and he took her in and had sex-because she can't remember all the details apparently it's not rape! So it seems that girls have no right to get drunk without some animal raping them. The law should protect you whether you are drunk or not end of.
"drunken consent is still consent" was what the judge said, or at least alluded to. agree with him, not that id take advantage of a drunken girl though

[liam88]

"drunken consent is still consent" was what the judge said, or at least alluded to. agree with him,
The point is though-as slk said-no one knows if conesnt was given!
Should drunken consent really be consent though?
I mean surely you can judge it on each case.....if a long-term couple are together and have had a couple to many wines then maybe fine, but if a boy fidn a girl passed out in a doorway, drags her into a room, wakes her up, she says yes-not knowign what she's saying or who she's saying it to (and he knows that because he's just drageed her in there!) then that is rape; plain and simple. I know this is dodgy ground but.....the fact she has taken it to court anyway implies that she didn't want to/didn't know what was going on-she stands nothing to gian by him going to prison considering she never knew him before that night! I don't know how compensation etc. work but it'd be a bit far fetched to suggest that a gril would put herself through the trauma of a rape trial/DNA test/STD test/story all over the papers for a bit of money or just for a laugh!

[Macy]

the fact she has taken it to court anyway implies that she didn't want to/didn't know what was going on-she stands nothing to gian by him going to prison considering she never knew him before that night! I don't know how compensation etc. work but it'd be a bit far fetched to suggest that a gril would put herself through the trauma of a rape trial/DNA test/STD test/story all over the papers for a bit of money or just for a laugh!
It does happen liam - people can do it to cover themselves from partners finding out or embarrassment. I know one guy who was accussed, but cleared by DNA evidence straight away. She confessed all once he was cleared -turned out the woman had got píssed, had sex with two different blokes, and was using the rape as cover for her husband. All the accused had done was help out after seeing her collapse in a ditch whilst she was walking home.

It's got to be beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction. If someone is too píssed to remember what actually happened, how can you convict on that basis?

[liam88]

It's got to be beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction. If someone is too píssed to remember what actually happened, how can you convict on that basis?
That's true but stil the judge is setting a precednt that it is acceptable to rape drunk girls-when it clearly isn't.

[superfrank]

No no i obviously put my point across wrongly!
Case of rape/murder/assult-jsut because you are drunk it doesn't mena people can do what they like to you!
Drink drivers are breaking the law and subsequently endangering others lives. This girl was drunk and passed out outisde her hotel room. The point I was trying to make is that just because a girl is drunk it shouldn't mean animals are allowed to rape her which is what this judge is effectivly saying!!
In my experiences of being drunk, you don't remember everything that happens. If she was really drunk, as she said, then how can't she be one hundred percent certain that she didn't consent. I don't condone rape in any way but in this case it's impossible for there to be any definite answer. Maybe the lad is lying but he was sober, she wasn't, therefore his testimony is more believable imo.

[gael353]

You sure it was dropped to 17? When did that happen?

it was a few years ago. I think the labour guy was in charge Mervin Taylor Quinn i think his name was. it was around te mid 90s with a labour/ff gov. The church got on bored and did a deal that if the gay and lesbian groups got what they were looking for ie equality with straight persons then theyd get their spoke in and get the legal age raised to 17. The catholic churce argued for an all ireland lagal age and had already got 17 in the north (16 in the rest of the UK) I felt this was a token effort by them to cover over the fact that they wanted the catholic kids to breed like rabbits to outnumber other religions up there. (northern ireland has the highest teen preg rate in the world so we're following a bad example set by the churce me thinks) So if you were 16 and this law was passed at this time you would have to stop till ye both hit 17 :o As the contraception laws were not changed to coincide with this change we now have only the best law ever which says you can buy condoms at 16 but cant use them till your 17. expiry date anyone lol

[hamish]

It does happen liam - people can do it to cover themselves from partners finding out or embarrassment. I know one guy who was accussed, but cleared by DNA evidence straight away. She confessed all once he was cleared -turned out the woman had got píssed, had sex with two different blokes, and was using the rape as cover for her husband. All the accused had done was help out after seeing her collapse in a ditch whilst she was walking home.

It's got to be beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction. If someone is too píssed to remember what actually happened, how can you convict on that basis?

Something almost exactly similar happened here a few months ago too.