Monday, June 16, 2008

Rape Of Unconscious Can't Be Prosecuted Because Victim Unconscious

From KTVU:

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

Technorati tags:


Bookmark and Share
posted by Marcella Chester @ 8:09 AM   5 comments links to this post


At June 16, 2008 2:32 PM, Blogger JENNIFER DREW said...

Or to put it another way, women can never ever refuse 'consent' to a man intent on raping them. Why even if the woman is unconscious she must have consented because there is no proof she did not!!! Does this mean I can rob a man if he is drunk and unconscious because he didn't refuse consent? Of course not - but when men are accused of rape, unless there are at least 4 male bystanders who categorically state the woman did not consent, the logic tells us she must have consented.

Likewise here in the UK male rapists are routinely acquitted (that is if they are unlucky enough to be charged) if the rape survivor was either drunk or unconscious at the time the man decided 'she had consented.' Now you see it now you don't and it is called male privilege or male sexual entitlement to women's bodies. Women cannot 'consent' because 'consent' is always automatically presumed. Evidence - well this case is a good one.

At June 17, 2008 6:49 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have left comments on this blog, and I have disagreed, sometimes rather vehemently, with Ms. Chester. I have commented once on this issue and I sincerely wish, as a caucasian male, it were possible to comment more forcibly.

Any male who would take sexual advantage of a helpless woman is SCUM!!! of the worst kind and is not worthy of being called a man.

A real man who encountered an unconscious helpless woman would do everything he could to keep her safe, not endanger her just to gratify himself.

At June 17, 2008 11:30 AM, Anonymous m Andrea said...

See, here's the thing. If a man can get away with raping a woman and this happens frequently, then why would any woman want to be alone with any man, ever?

That's the question I asked myself a long time ago. Which is just one reason why I won't have anything to do with men. MEN SUCK.

Dude, is it theoretically possible that some men rape -- yes or no? Is it theoretically possible that some men get away with rape -- yes or no? Does every country in the world have a pattern of making excuses for men who rape -- yes or no? Does every country in the world have a pattern of blaming the rape victim -- yes or no? Does every country in the world have a pattern of NOT blaming the victim when the crime is anything besides rape -- yes or no? Does every country in the world have a pattern of attacking rape victims in a manner which is far more vicious and then not doing the exact same thing when the crime is anything besides rape -- yes or no?

Sorry, dude, we have an unmistakable pattern here. And that pattern proves that MEN SUCK.

Marcella, it has ocurred to me that there's a mathematical equation in there somewhere. The more men, as a class, are likely to treat women like shit, the greater number of members within that class are likely to insist that ALL or the VAST MAJORITY OF men are noble creatures and so of course would never do such a thing.

They're covering up for each other. If you have no intention of fixing a problem, then you won't even acknowledge that the problem exists. Instead, you deny the problem and make excuses, which is why they keep blaming the rape victim. That's why they keep minimizing the problem by saying that rape is rare and most women are lying whores.

Incidently, when you phrase it just that bluntly ("men think all women are lying whores about rape") it forces them to deny how often women "lie" about rape, because they realize it makes men look really awful. Which is why I use that phrase when having a co-ed conversation.

God do men piss me off.

At June 17, 2008 11:45 AM, Anonymous m Andrea said...

Gee, isn't it amazing that so many women are lying whores when the subject is rape, but on any other subject they tend to be more honest then men? We must have a "lie about rape" gene in our DNA.

If women really do lie about rape in the purportion that men claim, then you would expect women to lie about other things as well, in a similar purportion. Wish I could find the study that I read a few months ago on honesty -- men lie about crap far more then women.

At June 18, 2008 5:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It took about a half a second for my twelve year old daughter to wrap this one up. "So if they knock you out and rape you, it didnt happen". Right.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home