Category: Let's talk
This week a case against a rape defendant was dropped because the woman who had accused the man of raping her admitted to the defence that actually, she was so drunk at the time of the incident, she couldn’t remember whether she had consented to have sex with him or not. The prosecution therefore deemed that even drunken consent is consent and the case against the man was dropped. After this, a review of the law has been ordered, to establish just when consent is consent and when it isn’t. currently it is illegal to have sex with a woman if she is unconscious due to drink or drugs, but being so drunk she can’t remember apparently does not fall into that remit. But if the law was changed, could we potentially be creating male victims of rape here? After all, if a woman gets smashed and then goes on to have sex with a guy and then regrets it in the morning, could she then cry rape anyway? And what happened to innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t we perhaps hold off naming men accused of rape until they are actually found guilty? After all, mud sticks, and even if someone is found not guilty, people will always wonder … any thoughts?
The law should remain as it is. Afterall, if people used common sense, they wouldn't have a chance of ending up in such situations. If I was a woman and I was going out to get drunk, I'd want to be with my friends, and I'd definitely not wish to be on my own, with noone I knew and rusted. People need to behave more responsibly, and then the chances of them been attacked would not be so high. If the law was changed, then if I was a woman who hated a man, I could just get drunk and come on to him, get him to have sex with me, and it'd be rape. How can that be right? We've already got too many people making falce rape claims in this country.