Those drunk on their own can't be considered 'mentally incapacitated' in rape cases

[GMDino]

I'm be lying if I said this decision surprised me at all.

https://www.businessinsider.com/court-says-incapacitated-doesnt-apply-person-got-drunk-on-own-2021-3

Quote:Those who get drunk on their own can't be considered 'mentally incapacitated' in rape cases, Minnesota Supreme Court says
Sarah Al-Arshani 
7 hours ago

[/url]





Justice Paul Thissen in a Feb. 25, 2016 file photo. AP Photo/Jim Mone

• Rape victims who get drunk on their own aren't "mentally incapacitated," Minnesota high court said. 
• "Mentally incapacitated" applies when someone gets drunk without their consent, the court said. 
• Sexual assault survivors and advocates decried the ruling but said they weren't surprised. 
• [url=https://www.businessinsider.com/?hprecirc-bullet]See more stories on Insider's business page.
  

An individual who gets drunk on their own can not be qualified as "mentally incapacitated" in a rape case, the Minnesota Supreme Court said in a ruling released Wednesday.


The ruling comes in the case of man who was accused of sexually assaulting a woman he met following an incident where she was denied entry to a bar for being too drunk.

Francois Momolu Khalil was appealing the 2019 case in which he was convicted of third-degree criminal sexual misconduct because the woman was considered "mentally incapacitated." 

Court documents from the appeal said Khalil and two of his friends invited the woman and a friend to a party but instead took them to a private home where the woman, who was only identified by her initials, blacked out.

She woke up to find Khalil raping her. After telling him to stop, she then passed out again.  
In a decision written by Justice Paul Thissen, the state's supreme court said that the definition of "mentally incapacitated" – which was used by the lower court – "does not include a person who is voluntarily intoxicated by alcohol," meaning that the designation only applies when the alcohol was given to someone without their knowledge.

This "unreasonably strains and stretches the plain text of the statute," they added.

The ruling has garnered criticism from sexual assault survivors and advocates, including Abby Honold, who told MPR News that the language of the statute has always been a loophole that makes it difficult for sexual assault survivors to bring cases forward. 

"There are a lot of people who are told when they report now, and when their case is referred to a prosecutor that essentially their sexual assault was technically legal. It's always so heartbreaking to have to hear that from yet another survivor who came forward and reported," Honold told the outlet. 

In response to the ruling, state rep. Kelly Moller said she is sponsoring legislation that says consent can't be given if a victim is incapacitated, even if they voluntarily took drugs or alcohol. 

"Victims who are intoxicated to the degree that they are unable to give consent are entitled to justice. Our laws must clearly reflect that understanding, and today's Supreme Court ruling highlights the urgency lawmakers have to close this and other loopholes throughout our CSC law," Rep. Moller said.

"Prosecutors, survivors, and advocates have identified the problem and the CSC Working Group did incredibly tough work to identify the solutions. Minnesotans who experience unthinkable trauma deserve to see the Legislature take action on this immediately."


Khalil is serving a five-year prison sentence but his lawyer, Will Walker, told MPR News that he anticipates he will be released soon. 

Insider has reached out to Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison's office for comment. 

That this "loophole" even exists is a farce.  That it was never closed when people KNOW it exists is worse.

But I'll wait patiently for the "real men" to defend raping this woman passed out drunk because they didn't break the law.

[Belsnickel]

This is quite possibly the most stupid thing I've seen out of a court.

[fredtoast]

It is simple when the victim is unconscious. That is obviously rape.

It is simple when the victim is drugged without knowing it.

But what if a woman makes her own decision to get drunk and then agrees to have sex with you? That is where the law gets tricky. Should you be charged with rape when the victim agreed to have sex?

[NATI BENGALS]

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/27/732852170/supreme-court-affirms-police-can-draw-blood-from-unconscious-drivers

The gov can probe you and steal your blood too

[Benton]

(03-27-2021, 10:51 AM)fredtoast Wrote: It is simple when the victim is unconscious.  That is obviously rape.

It is simple when the victim is drugged without knowing it.

But what if a woman makes her own decision to get drunk and then agrees to have sex with you?  That is where the law gets tricky.  Should you be charged with rape when the victim agreed to have sex?

Yeah I'm not seeing why this decision was made. If they're unconscious, it's rape. If they're awake and say no (which she did), then it's rape.

[Dill]

(03-27-2021, 12:39 PM)Benton Wrote: Yeah I'm not seeing why this decision was made. If they're unconscious, it's rape. If they're awake and say no (which she did), then it's rape.

Maybe the judge is thinking along an analogy to drinking and driving.

If you are driving while drunk you are still responsible if you hit someone with a car.
You can't plead "I was incapacitated." YOU took the risk and assumed responsibility for it when you started drinking.

Same in this case: the woman assumed the risk of drinking and therefore the responsibility for what happened after she got drunk.
If you fudge over some differences between perps and victims of crimes, the analogy is perfect.

I don't see how the legal argument can be limited to forced sex.
For anyone who has been accused of robbing someone who's drunk, this looks like a good precedent,
as the drunk person is now responsible for letting you do whatever you do to him/her.

[BigPapaKain]

The GoP plays life like Dungeons and Dragons - if you're unconscious, you're considered willing (that's an actual rule in D&D; it's mostly used for resisting magic but you can probably figure out the joke).

[*Nately120*]

Better stay sober when those Mexican rapists get here, ladies.

[SunsetBengal]

(03-27-2021, 12:39 PM)Benton Wrote: Yeah I'm not seeing why this decision was made. If they're unconscious, it's rape. If they're awake and say no (which she did), then it's rape.

Blacked out and passed out are two different things.  Regained consciousness could mean anything from awaking from a sleep, to suddenly coming to one's senses while in a drunken state.  The way that the article is written, it seems to lead one to believe that she was perhaps passed out, but they didn't say that, they said "blacked out", which could mean something different.

From my own college experiences, I know that I drank until I couldn't remember, then walked about 2 miles to my girlfriend's place, had relations;  Then woke up the next morning asking "Did you come and get me?".  She told me, "No, you got here on auto pilot".  Thankfully her and I got along, and all was harmless.

However, just because someone willingly got drunk or took drugs should not entitle them to blanket protections.  I mean, when you drink and drive, commit acts of violence or other crimes while inebriated, you're still responsible.  Why protection for a drunken sexual escapade?

[Belsnickel]

(03-27-2021, 10:51 AM)fredtoast Wrote: It is simple when the victim is unconscious. That is obviously rape.

It is simple when the victim is drugged without knowing it.

But what if a woman makes her own decision to get drunk and then agrees to have sex with you? That is where the law gets tricky. Should you be charged with rape when the victim agreed to have sex?

It's definitely difficult. I deal with these cases for my university and we often find students "not responsible" because of this sort of issue, and we're using a preponderance level rather than beyond-a-reasonable-doubt. We ask a lot of questions related to what the responding party (the suspect) saw. Did they see the reporting party (victim) drinking? How much? Did they observe outward signs of intoxication? Could they have reasonably known the reporting party was inebriated to the point where consent could not be given?

That's a lot to figure out and we fall short on saying yes to all of those more often than not. All of that being said, just because a reporting party chose to drink or chose to do drugs, that doesn't mean they consented to sexual activity. Consent for one action does not, and should not, equal consent for another, separate action.

[Dill]

(03-27-2021, 07:27 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Blacked out and passed out are two different things.  Regained consciousness could mean anything from awaking from a sleep, to suddenly coming to one's senses while in a drunken state.  The way that the article is written, it seems to lead one to believe that she was perhaps passed out, but they didn't say that, they said "blacked out", which could mean something different.

From my own college experiences, I know that I drank until I couldn't remember, then walked about 2 miles to my girlfriend's place, had relations;  Then woke up the next morning asking "Did you come and get me?".  She told me, "No, you got here on auto pilot".  Thankfully her and I got along, and all was harmless.

However, just because someone willingly got drunk or took drugs should not entitle them to blanket protections.  I mean, when you drink and drive, commit acts of violence or other crimes while inebriated, you're still responsible.  Why protection for a drunken sexual escapade?

The article uses the term "blacked out," but then "woke up." That implies she lost consciousness or was at least incapacitated enough not to give consent. Then "passed out" again after withholding consent.

Would you say a drunk and incapacitated person falls outside of legal protection then? 

I'm just wondering why, in the above case, the protection is for the person committing the crime rather than the victim

--i.e., the "driver" following your drink-and-drive analogy, not the person who was run over.

[SunsetBengal]

(03-27-2021, 08:18 PM)Dill Wrote: The article uses the term "blacked out," but then "woke up." That implies she lost consciousness or was at least incapacitated enough not to give consent. Then "passed out" again after withholding consent.

Would you say a drunk and incapacitated person falls outside of legal protection then? 

I'm just wondering why, in the above case, the protection is for the person committing the crime rather than the victim

--i.e., the "driver" following your drink-and-drive analogy, not the person who was run over.

Article also says she was denied entry to a bar, for being visibly intoxicated.  Are people allowed to be in public while visibly intoxicated?  I can't say in this case, but everywhere I've ever lived had laws against public intoxication.

So, it she was publicly intoxicated, and got that way on her own volition, how does that deserve protections over a sober person?  For all we know, she may have completely agreed to sex, and then was shocked when she came to, and saw who it was with.

[Belsnickel]

(03-27-2021, 08:26 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Article also says she was denied entry to a bar, for being visibly intoxicated.  Are people allowed to be in public while visibly intoxicated?  I can't say in this case, but everywhere I've ever lived had laws against public intoxication.

So, it she was publicly intoxicated, and got that way on her own volition, how does that deserve protections over a sober person?  For all we know, she may have completely agreed to sex, and then was shocked when she came to, and saw who it was with.

If she was visibly intoxicated, though, then the person who slept with her should have known she was incapable of informed consent to sex. So why should the sober person get protections for taking advantage of someone like that?

A child will get charged for a crime if they go joy riding in a car, and an adult will get charged with a crime for having sex with a child. Both of those are because the child lacks the cognitive abilities to drive or give consent. The same is true for an intoxicated person. They are unable to reason at the level of a sober person. So just like a child, it is illegal for them to drive and it is illegal for someone to have sex with them because informed consent is not possible.

[SunsetBengal]

(03-27-2021, 08:53 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: If she was visibly intoxicated, though, then the person who slept with her should have known she was incapable of informed consent to sex. So why should the sober person get protections for taking advantage of someone like that?

A child will get charged for a crime if they go joy riding in a car, and an adult will get charged with a crime for having sex with a child. Both of those are because the child lacks the cognitive abilities to drive or give consent. The same is true for an intoxicated person. They are unable to reason at the level of a sober person. So just like a child, it is illegal for them to drive and it is illegal for someone to have sex with them because informed consent is not possible.

Perhaps the male was drunk too, thus impairing his decision making ability, as well?

[Belsnickel]

(03-27-2021, 09:04 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Perhaps the male was drunk too, thus impairing his decision making ability, as well?

And in those cases I don't think they can be charged. How we look at it with our policies is that if the responding party was also intoxicated, then it wasn't likely that they could have known the reporting party was incapacitated. Just like when two kids have sex, there generally aren't any charges filed.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-27-2021, 05:33 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: The GoP plays life like Dungeons and Dragons - if you're unconscious, you're considered willing (that's an actual rule in D&D; it's mostly used for resisting magic but you can probably figure out the joke).

Is that just a reflex response? What does the GOP have to do with it?

[*michaelsean*]

Sounds like someone is going to try to change the wording at least.

Unconscious is rape. One drunk and one sober I guess would need more details. If they are both drunk then it’s mutual rape or nothing.

[Benton]

(03-27-2021, 07:27 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Blacked out and passed out are two different things.  Regained consciousness could mean anything from awaking from a sleep, to suddenly coming to one's senses while in a drunken state.  The way that the article is written, it seems to lead one to believe that she was perhaps passed out, but they didn't say that, they said "blacked out", which could mean something different.

From my own college experiences, I know that I drank until I couldn't remember, then walked about 2 miles to my girlfriend's place, had relations;  Then woke up the next morning asking "Did you come and get me?".  She told me, "No, you got here on auto pilot".  Thankfully her and I got along, and all was harmless.

However, just because someone willingly got drunk or took drugs should not entitle them to blanket protections.  I mean, when you drink and drive, commit acts of violence or other crimes while inebriated, you're still responsible.  Why protection for a drunken sexual escapade?

Agreed on the bla let protections but in this instance: if someone is no responsive, that's rape. Also, if they wake up and say no, still rape.

Dude is rapey.

Granted, maybe I'm biased. I've got a daughter. 

[*michaelsean*]

(03-27-2021, 09:24 AM)GMDino Wrote: I'm be lying if I said this decision surprised me at all.

https://www.businessinsider.com/court-says-incapacitated-doesnt-apply-person-got-drunk-on-own-2021-3



That this "loophole" even exists is a farce.  That it was never closed when people KNOW it exists is worse.

But I'll wait patiently for the "real men" to defend raping this woman passed out drunk because they didn't break the law.

I don’t think it’s a loophole as much as their just wasn’t a law about it on the books. The law probably wasn’t written with this in mind. I guess you could say they were slow to create a law that covers intoxication.

[BigPapaKain]

(03-27-2021, 11:04 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Is that just a reflex response?  What does the GOP have to do with it?

With this particular case? Minimal input.

With women's rights and normalizing rape in general? They're at the front line spewing this kind of bullshit, giving it footholds to build on.