So women who are raped while drunk are unlikely to see their attacker convicted, according to this report. A third of people believe it’s the woman’s fault if she gets raped while she was drunk. And, shockingly, fewer than 6 per cent of rape allegations result in a conviction.
Juries are reluctant to convict in these cases, giving the benefit of the 
doubt to the man, believing that a woman’s silence amounts to consent, even if it is caused by her intoxication.
Juries are ordinary members of the public, the man or woman on the street, yet now we learn they stereotype drunken rape victims in this way.
Under the current law in England and Wales, rape can only be established if it can be demonstrated that sexual intercourse took place to which there was no consent and that the defendant lacked a reasonable belief that such consent had been given. The 2003 Sexual Offences Act changed the criteria for the defendant believing he had consent from being a view he ‘honestly’ held to one that was ‘reasonable’ for him to hold - this was intended to ensure that defendants were held to a higher level of responsibility.
However, researchers have found that jurors often took the view that it was ‘reasonable’ for a man to assume that silence represented sexual consent, even if the silence was due to the fact that the woman was totally intoxicated.
Because it is unlawful to conduct research with real juries, researchers from The Economic and Social Research Council used trial and jury room simulations to find out how the legislation was working. These are its main findings, showing that gender stereotyping is very much evident:
- In situations where the woman had become involuntary drunk, many jurors continued to hold her partially responsible for what took place - either because she accepted drinks from the defendant, failed to stand her ground against pressure to drink more or did not take adequate care to ensure that her drinks were not ’spiked’ (by either extra alcohol or drugs) .
- Even when a woman had unknowingly drunk spiked drinks, juries were reluctant to convict defendants of rape unless they were convinced that the drink had been spiked with the specific intention of sexual assault, as opposed to ‘loosening up’ a reluctant partner.
- It also emerged that jurors were less inclined to equate ‘taking advantage’ of a drunken women with rape in situations in which the woman’s normal behaviour was to drink heavily in the company of men.
- By contrast, in cases where the date rape drug - Rohypnol - had been used, jurors were more inclined to hold the defendant responsible for rape, even though the effect of the drug on the woman was the same as if she were very drunk.
The festive party season is about to hit us, and girls do like to go out and have a good time. They are also at risk of having their drink spiked and being preyed on by men who know they can get away with raping them by saying he “reasonably believed consent had been given.
It would appear to me that there is a loophole in the law which benefits the alleged attacker and the law needs to be amended to take this latest research into account. The jury is guided on matters of law at the end of the day, and as the law stands, it does not help the alleged victim.
The law should protect all women, even if they make themselves vulnerable by getting drunk. As the law stands, it will deter even more women from reporting rape charges.
Whether an alleged victim is drunk or not, this will not encourage women to report rapes, especially knowing that they face an unsympathetic jury and traumatic court trial.
