The lord chancellor and the director of public prosecutions are to be asked to look into a rape case which collapsed yesterday after the alleged victim told the jury she was unconscious from too much drink and could not remember what happened.
The prosecution dropped the case after the woman's cross-examination, saying "drunken consent is still consent". The judge directed the jury to find the defendant not guilty "even if you don't agree".
So, to recap - the judge in this case told the jury to find the defendant not guilty because the victim was drunk and couldn't remember what happened. This is blaming the victim to the nth degree. She was drunk so it's alright. This is one of the most disgusting arguements I've ever heard - "personal responsibility" which basically states if the victim is drunk, it's his/her fault but if the defendant is drunk, s/he didn't know what s/he was doing. How does that work? How does that make any sense?!?
One giant leap backwards for humankind.
1 comment:
Wow...that's just absurd. So, what's next? "The victim had GHB in her drink rendering her unconscious and, thus, capable of nothing but consent." This is a bunch of crap, and somebody in that justice system needs to take a damn lesson on victim's rights.
Sam is pissed.
Post a Comment