Topic: Insane felony rape precedent set

[bgmnts]

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/03/30/us/minnesota-rape-conviction-overturned/index.html

This is utterly fucked and I dont get it at all.

[Poirots BigGarlickyCorpse]

Yeah, that tracks. "Stupid bitch shouldn't have got drunk, she just regrets being a drunken slut, she should've known better" same bullshit as came out after a woman was gang-raped by rugby players in Northern Ireland a few years back. I'm so glad the blue tick brigade on Twitter are focusing on women's bathrooms AND NOT THIS SHIT.

[bgmnts]

"Stupid bitch shouldn't have got drunk, she just regrets being a drunken slut, she should've known better"

Not even that, she was lured to a place by a man under false premises, passed out and woke up mid sexual assault and refused consent.

So, no consent given and refused consent yet its not rape/assault because she was drunk. I just dont understand this planet.

[Mister Six]

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/03/30/us/minnesota-rape-conviction-overturned/index.html

This is utterly fucked and I dont get it at all.

It's a legislation issue. The law (it would appear) is written in such a way that a victim must be unwittingly or unwillingly plied with alcohol (or, presumably, some other substance) to count as mentally incapacitated. Ie. the definition of mental incapacitation[1] specifically describes it as coming from unwillingly or unwittingly consuming a substance.

Because the law specifies that, the defence lawyers were able to argue the the victim here could not have been mentally incapacitated to the standard required by the law, regardless of whether consent was in actuality knowingly given, and therefore the case has to be retried.

Pretty much the definition of Lawful Evil.

Interpreting the statute, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled, "The legislative definition of 'mentally incapacitated,' as set forth in (the law), does not include a person who is voluntarily intoxicated by alcohol."

"We hold that a person is mentally incapacitated under the definition adopted by the Legislature ... when that person is 'under the influence of alcohol ... administered to that person without the person's agreement,'" the Supreme Court decision said.

1.	Presumably there's a separate one for mentallly disabled people.

[El Unicornio, mang]

Not even that, she was lured to a place by a man under false premises, passed out and woke up mid sexual assault and refused consent.

So, no consent given and refused consent yet its not rape/assault because she was drunk. I just dont understand this planet.

Yeah her being drunk is surely irrelevant, she didn't consent so he definitely raped her. I guess this is one of those awful legal loopholes which is being taken advantage of.

[Mister Six]

It's going for a retrial so hopefully the prosecution takes a different tack and doesn't rely on the alcohol angle. That is, doesn't base the case on being mentally incapacitated, but on her general lack of consent.

Fucked up in any case, though, especially the victim having to go through the trial again.

Also hoping that this spurs action to change the wording of that law.

[icehaven]

Funny how if you're drunk, yes still means yes, but no doesn't necessarily mean no.