What the OP is missing here is the difference between subjective and objective.
I tend to agree, as many states do, that if a woman voluntarily gets intoxicated to a point where consent is impossible to provide or deny... that declaring rape is also no longer possible.
So when you get too drunk to say "no" or understand what is happening, it is fine for someone -- anyone -- to stick his penis in your butthole.
You sure you wanna run with that?
What you describe is rape. Of course. No one is saying it isn't.
But you have to prove a crime in order to charge someone with it. You can't just go with the "she said" over the "he said" because you want to.
Again, if a woman VOLUNTARILY goes with a man to his home, or wherever to be alone with him. Gets so drunk she cannot remember what happened. She gets to claim rape if she can't remember whether she gave consent or not? You want to go with that?
You understand that in this case, the woman states "I woke up in the morning and my panties were down". She doesn't remember what happened. Who is to say
wasn't cooperative because she was stone cold drunk, then gets sobered up and wants to press charges because she doesn't think she gave consent.
Rape is a very serious crime that carries a very serious penalty. Under the subjective pretense of the OP - basically any woman who wakes up with regrets - should be able to charge the man with rape. How would you prove he didn't?
That is why the law is written that way. You can't put someone in prison for a crime when the victim isn't sure it happened, just thinks it did.
Ever heard of an exam, and rape kit?
Rape kits are only useful to prove intercourse occurred, and hopefully obtain evidence to prove the guy who said he didn't have sex with her - did.
Rape kits cannot distinguish between rape and consensual sex in many cases. People have "rough" consensual sex all the time. Fast pumping, deep thrusts... with the woman yelling "harder!"... if you haven't experienced that - than you are doing it wrong.
I can assure you that my wife of 33 years has no complaints...However, back to rape kits...They do far more than determine whether or not sex occured....It is not just collecting evidence, there is a head to toe examination involved as well, which can show certain injuries if the woman was not aroused during the act, such as vaginal tearing, and so forth...
So, unless we have access to the evidence provided the jury in this man's trial, we can't say what exactly the Medical professionals opinion was concerning consent...What we do know is what the OP provided, and based on that, the man took advantage of the girl being incompasitated.....
I disagree. We don't
know that.
I side with the justice philosophy that it is better a guilty person go free, than an innocent person spend years in prison for something they did not do.
We have to allow guilt assessment also.
For instance... 2 scenarios:
1) A woman get's drunk, a man forces himself on her that is verifiable by other circumstances, or evidence.
2) A woman get's drunk, voluntarily goes to his residence or where ever to be alone, passes out.. wakes up and does not remember what happened. But believes this man had sex with her while being passed out, or can't remember.
You cannot treat both circumstances as the same. One is a woman who did NOT volunteer to go with a man somewhere, one did. One remembers being raped, one does not. This is two VERY different circumstances.
My opinion on the man in the case of the OP - he is probably a douchebag. He was not nearly as drunk as she was, and most likely took advantage of her inebriation to have sex. But it is also entirely possible she gave consent, but doesn't remember. And because of that a fair system has to take into account the woman placed herself in this place voluntarily. As well as voluntarily got herself beyond just drunk... but absolutely plastered to the point she past out.
