NEWS: Maybe She Wanted to be Raped

CULTURE: Maybe She Wanted to be Raped

You may or may not have heard the story about the UK barrister who argued that a 13-year-old girl was "glad of the attention" when she was gang-raped by three boys -- because, after all, she was fat.

Well, now we've got a California DA who refuses to prosecute a gang rape, apparently because

Now, admittedly witness testimony can be challenged. But does this sound like a hard-to-prove case?

Forensic tests determined that the vomit wasn't hers. Bet she consented to that too.

The victim isn't capable of testifying, on her own behalf, that she didn't consent to being gang-raped and vomited on?

I'm not a lawyer. And I accept -- celebrate, even -- that DAs and judges and juries have to operate within the boundaries of reasonable doubt. But in what fucking universe is it "reasonable" to believe that a young woman consents to being raped with a pool cue or vomited on? That a 13-year-old would agree to fuck three guys because, you know, she's fat and girls nowadays dress slutty?

Anyone who thinks that shit is reasonable is a suck fuck and should be locked up themselves, as a preventative measure.

In any discussion of a case like this, some asshole will argue that hey, some chicks are kinky. And since we also know that kinky chicks are lying sluts, it's totally reasonable to believe that a girl would not only consent to this crap, but then file a false rape report afterwards.

The motives of guys who would fuck a woman in such a state that she'd "consent" to such a thing, on the other hand, never seems to come up.

Bitch_PhD knows some guys and girls who are into pretty kinky shit--and for the record, people like that believe more strongly in the importance of explicit consent than the general population. As they damn well should.

i hope those eight assholes get thrown in jail for a long, long time.

what kind of people do these things? i dont want to meet them, ever, and it scares me that they're out there.

, into a toilet, where it belongs.

holy crap. something better be done, or i'll punch someone out.

I hate the world a lot sometimes.

Holy shit.

I'm pretty sure you can't consent to rape.
And the girl in the first story was 16, it was the three boys that were 13. Your PhD wasn't in anything that requires reading comprehension clearly.

For once I'm not going to argue with you on your main point though, I find it very hard to believe those 8 guys were doing anything other than taking advantage of a girl that was so wasted she didn't realise what was going on. Kinky girls don't need to be unconscious to fuck 8 guys. And I worry about the kind of person that doesn't believe they're raping someone just because she's not conscious enough to say no.

Why are there ten pairs of legs but only three guys being accused of raping this poor girl?

The vomit is the topper. Fucking disgusting!

This leaves me speechless. It's just sad.

How is there a question about whether or not this was a rape? Doesn't their intuition say that this was rape? They don't seem to be discussing the amount of evidence for trial, but if what happened was itself rape. I don't understand how anyone could possibly think something like that.

That's fucked. It'd be pretty fuckin sweet if castration could be worked into criminal punishment for rape trials.

Welcome to Earth. This kind of thing happens all the time here.

Do you like living on this planet? I sure don't.

Well there is this.

This is just sick.

Although this sort of thing happens all too often, I can't wrap my mind around the possibility of anyone I know, even casually, participating in something like this, and my definition of "participating" includes being a prosecutor and hesitating even for a fraction of a nanosecond to prosecute a case like this.

Exactly. I don't even have any other words for this.

I want to know from the girl herself, this is all speculation the boys opinion, if she was raped i believe an eye for an eye rape all those assholes then cut off their penis, if use it to hurt someone u dont disurve to have it, plain and simple. But in a world where sadly the least prized aspect of the human body is its virginity, people are having sex eirlyier and eirlyer, the presure is scary. basicly what does she have to say about the what happened??

The problem is, how do you prove someone was too drunk to consent?
Drunk people do stupid things, they actively consent to things they wold never, ever, do sober. I'm not just talking about sex, drunk people put their lives in danger - often managing to kill themselves - every day. Incredibly stupid, and incredibly deliberate at the time. Juries know this, so when they're asked to rule beyond a reasonable doubt, that's hard, they think back to all the stupid shit they've done when they're drunk, they look the person that's accused of a terrible crime, who'll be labelled for life as a rapist and spend a long time in prison, and they often can't say hand on heart that they have no doubts. Ask that same person when they're sitting at home in their chair, with nothing riding on it, and they'll tell you to castrate the fucker, but it's different when you're on a jury.
Sadly prosecutors know this, and somewhere down the line it falls to someone to make a decision based on the likelihood of them winning. And that's when assholes get off scott-free.

Saddly the criminals have already figured out a way around this. By taking a large amount of testosterone, they can counteract the effect of chemical castration.

I read this to my wife and we were both horrified by the story. Though this doesn't mention it, at least in the one posted here, but I wonder how much the sports angle plays into this. It would seem this countries fascination with sports allows DA's and police to overlook things 'for the good of the team'.

I don't know how it works in the UK, but in all the US law I'm familiar with if you are drunk, and it sounds like this girl was certainly drunk, you cannot actively consent to sex. That's not the hard part to prove.

However, it remains the burden of the state to prove criminal conduct, not the burden of the defense to prove innocence. I'm just a first year law student, so I don't know much about it, but I do know that the conflicting testimony (and it seems like witnesses for the prosecution would be conflicting with one another, based on the article) of a bunch of drunk college kids isn't going to go a long way towards proving anything. So, while this is an absolutely heartbreaking story and at face value it seems like the DA really fucked this one up, I'm willing to presume she had a better idea about the chances of success than I do. If any of the other legal people out there wants to correct this take on it, feel free. I am but an egg.

I'd definately like to second the motion that the three soccer players are fucking heroes and ought to have a statue built for them.