Prosecutors say they believe the victim's story, but that because she was unconscious, details were not clear enough to secure a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.
Original charges against Ramirez included rape of a drugged victim, sexual battery and false imprisonment.
The evidence which proves the impossibility of consent (unconsciousness) is the reason the charges are dropped? I wish this were an unusual outcome, but it isn't.
What also isn't unusual is having people react to this move by labeling the charges "bogus." This labeling is not based on any objective logic and is instead based on the desire to find any excuse to label rape cases as "bogus."
Those who don't see this outcome as a serious problem are showing that they are fine with letting rapists ignore the law as long as those rapists pick the right victims at the right time and slander their victims boldly. Many of those who support the dropping of the charges against this taxi driver but who refrain from declaring the case "bogus" will blame the victim for becoming unconscious while declaring that they of course are against all rapes.
This victim blaming/denying and the handling of rape cases like this one are what gives many rapists the confidence to view their actions as morally acceptable and once that happens then most of these rapists will have the confidence to declare -- like their non-rapist allies do -- that they are against all real rapes.
These rapists can then declare with a straight face that they are the one and only victim when they are charged with rape. If the charges are dropped or the jury doesn't come back with a guilty verdict then they can lie and say that is proof that these rapists are victims and that the alleged victim is a perpetrator.
Those who aren't bothered by this outcome when the rape victim has been drinking likely would be appalled if they acknowledged that their standards are used against those who aren't viewed as having made foolish decisions. A 16-year-old hospital patient, for example.
Or maybe they wouldn't be appalled that a nurse who was charged with raping his patient was acquitted with the defense that the sex was consensual. Some people have an extremely high tolerance for victim blaming/denying and that tolerance communicates volumes about these people's flimsy ethical standards.
This bigotry uses a contorted logic where people speculate on how likely it is for someone to consent in a given situation. Women in bars are viewed as more likely to consent therefore rapists who target women who have been in a bar are viewed as likely to be falsely accused. And from there too many people assume that there must be reasonable doubt and all convictions of rapists in this type of scenario must be wrongful convictions.
The problem is that even if women in bars are more likely to give legal consent that doesn't make them more likely to give legal consent and then make allegations of rape. Often people who try to make these connections will turn a woman being in a bar into proof that she consented and therefore proof that she has made a false allegation. She's proved herself to be that kind of woman. And that kind of woman lies about being raped.
If enough people accept that all of these assumptions are true then they must be treated by the legal system as if they are true.
That type of reasoning means that if enough people believe that no one has made it to the moon then the claim that men have stepped on the moon must be false or at least there is reasonable doubt about that claim. No point in looking at the evidence of moon landings.
It doesn't take a genius to see that this type of reasoning is worse than meaningless. Yet so many people cling to this type of reasoning when they talk about rape cases.
Hat tip: Liz Seccuro