Considering that many issues regarding sexual misconduct on college campuses involve people who have been drinking, this decision could make it even less likely that sexual misconduct on college campuses in Minnesota will be addressed by the legal system, unless the law in question is changed.
The law in question:
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.344
What!?!
I feel bad for the judges here. They have to make a ruling based upon the law, and the law is clear. I am sure this is not what the legislature intended in this case, but they made a mistake in how the law was written.
This makes me want to vomit. 
So essentially, all a guy has to do is find a woman who is already drunk or high and he can do what he wants, because she won’t be able to accurately remember if she said yes or not. He can claim she did.
And it said MN isn’t the only state with a law like this. Anyone know what the other states are?
The only good here is that hopefully the state will recognize the error of this law and get it changed ASAP!
Good grief! This is sickening, really. Being facetious, I’ll assume that means if a man is drunk that allows anyone to take his wallet, jewelry or even assault him, because he “willingly consumed alcohol” - unreal.
Men can be raped or mugged as well. This is awful law!
I don’t think that is a facetious comparison. It makes perfect sense to me, if the ridiculous drunk-rape law stands.
Yup, any person voluntarily drunk is fair game for whatever anyobe wants to do to them, it sounds like. Awful!
I do think the law should be changed but This is much more complicated and somewhat less upsetting ( in this particular case) than the headlines let on. One absolutely can still be convicted of rape if there was a lack of consent. If victim is passed out drunk…still can be convicted. If they expressed lack of consent still can be convicted. So here on retrial very good grounds for conviction ,since both those things alleged. What can’t occur is conviction solely because the defendant knew the victim was intoxicated.
Fix the law, sure. Send people like this away for 100 years if you want. Serve justice. But the victim suffers forever. So how to prevent?
Teach men about respect, consent, etc. Absolutely. But does anyone truly think this will fix the problem? In our lifetime?
This situation was entirely avoidable. Underage drinking. Drinking in the car. Drinking while on narcotics. Trying to get into a club underage. Useless wingmate. Gets into a car with a stranger.
Drinking is toxic to everything about our well being. Don’t do it. Ever. Don’t hang out with people that have been drinking. And yes, this suggestion also applies to men. For your own mental and physical health, don’t do it. But a side benefit is that it can prevent a lot of rapes.
Victim blaming = not helpful.
Changing the law would likely put this guy away in prison and prevent him from raping someone else.
Teaching boys/young men about respect is a good way to start changing our current culture.
“The situation was entirely avoidable. Don’t rape women.”
When it comes to driving, we teach our children to be defensive drivers. Teaching them this makes it much less likely for them to be an accident. This is particularly important for those driving small and vulnerable vehicles.
Yet somehow, for many that logic doesn’t seem to apply when it comes to teaching our children to be defensive regarding sexual assault. I have a daughter and a son, and the lessons for them are the same: Don’t lose control, as bad things can happen if you do. But the lesson is particularly important for my daughter as she is smaller and less physically strong than men. I was very happy that when she was a freshmen that she and her roommates all went to parties together, and importantly, left together.
Agree with both of these points.
Good news is that they don’t need to change the law to put this particular guy away. Jury just needs to believe she blacked out or that she indicated lack of consent for the exact same charge to apply. He can also get a lesser charge even if they don’t change the law. There are other laws on the books that would apply.
The reason is because a car accident is nothing like sexual assault. Frankly, that is a lazy analogy.
An automobile accident is just that … an unplanned accident.
A rape is an assault carried out by a man with little NO respect for his victim.
To compare rape to driving might make sense if there were cretins on the road targeting random drivers and intentionally ramming their cars into them. That would be assault, not an accident.
I understand what you’re trying to say. I have two daughters and I will drill safe socialization skills into their heads. Heck, I did it with my son. But rape is not an accident waiting to happen. And we should never give rapists the reason to believe they can escape the truth of what they did just because the woman was drinking.
Rape is assault. Period. No excuse for the male whether the female is drunk or stone cold sober.
Not at all, and it’s unfortunate that so many people incorrectly think so.
If your are driving and have the the right of way, but a truck disagrees, it doesn’t matter what the laws of driving says. The laws of physics agrees with the truck, and most of us recognize this so instinctively that we give the truck a great deal of leeway. We see this type of situation so often that we don’t even think about it when it happens unless it is a particularly close call.
In fact, avoiding dangerous driving situations becomes second nature with experience. Those of us who drive daily (or used to, pre-covid) are pretty good at recognizing drunk drivers or likely street racers and give them plenty of leeway as well.
Nobody here is saying that.
To me, whether or not it’s victim blaming is pretty clear. When you talk to your kids about avoiding drinking too much at parties, or being careful about going out alone at night, respecting others, what constitutes consent, etc., that is being proactive and advocating for behavior that could lessen vulnerability.
So often however, AFTER a person has been raped, we hear, “why didn’t she…”, “why did she…” “what did she expect when she…” “this was totally preventable…” “if only she had…”
That’s victim blaming, pure and simple. And it focuses solely on the actions of the victim, almost never the actions of the perpetrator.
If you find yourself saying those things about someone who has reported a rape or other sexual assault, you might need to consider that you are blaming the victim or engaging in either conscious or subconscious judgmental thinking that has no place in a discussion about legal and criminal culpability of a rapist.
True, no excuse for the male. But do you really want to leave what happens totally up to the male?