When reading an article in the Spectator this week, I came across this case. With my current reading material including 'Everyday Sexism' by Laura Bates, and 'Eve Was Framed' by Helena Kennedy, it all seemed incredibly relevant and completely built on what I have been seeing more and more: there needs to be more clarity in the law regarding rape and sexual assault.
The main vein of the article revolved around the fact that implying that all rape is the same cheapens the incredibly violent or degrading experiences of some women, when comparing with other situations where perhaps the woman consented - but only after consuming a large amount of alcohol. This seems to make sense: not only might it help for courts to take some rape cases more seriously, but it would allow even women who are in the situation of having been plied with alcohol know where their case stands in the eyes of the law.
Basically, the issue of alcohol and consent is always going to plague us. Alcohol is a drug that lowers inhibitions, and we have to decide whether or not that should act as a mark against the victim (for making themselves vulnerable) or whether it should be a mark against the perpetrator (for taking advantage). Personally, I'm in the camp that 'no' means 'no', and that it's frankly a little insulting to men in general to argue that men can't help themselves if a woman is looking particularly attractive. If a woman is drinking (of her own volition) and then says 'yes' - then any later regrets are her fault, not the man's. If a woman says that she's not interested, but then the man hangs around until she is drunk and then propositions her again, then maybe it's a bit more murky. For me, it hinges on whether the man knows that if she was in her right mind, she would have said no.
There's a reason that such a small proportion of rapes are taken to court, and it's not just because the subject - to many - is taboo. The system needs clarifying for women to be fully protected by the law - any ambiguity leaves wiggle room for guilty people to be released on a loophole. For me, I think this could be done to some extent through case law - if a few standout cases are looked at, where the case is a clear example of a scenario, then this could be used as something to gauge the guilt of people in similar situations. Difficulty arises when different judges have such polarised views - and ideally, I would argue that perhaps a panel of judges might be appropriate - but I don't really know whether that would be feasible.
