"Rape," as defined by Mirriam-Webster dictionary:
1: an act or instance of robbing or despoiling or carrying away a person by force
2: unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent — compare sexual assault, statutory rape
3: an outrageous violation
Definition of "incapable of valid consent" (according to New York State Law):
A person is deemed incapable of consent when he or she is:
(a) less than seventeen years old; or
(b) mentally disabled; or
(c) mentally incapacitated; or
(d) physically helpless; or ... (paragraphs of material irrelevant to this post)
Being intoxicated to the point of black out is undoubtedly mentally incapacitated. If it wasn't, drunk driving wouldn't be such an issue. Even beyond that, being that drunk also renders one physically helpless.
So why is that, while the jurors on the infamous Rape Cops Case all apparently agreed that "the accuser may have consented to sex, then blacked out about it" (New York Post) did they find the defendant not guilty? Videos, testimonies on both sides, all the evidence pointed to the accuser being drunk to the point of being ill, and definitely to the point of black out.
Yet she was mentally and physically capable of lawful consent? Whether she begged Moreno to do it, or whether Moreno physically forced himself on her - either way, with the accuser in the state that she was, could not have consented. Any sexual contact, therefore, in unlawful.
And if they had sex, as the jurors believe they did, then he raped her.
Maybe the jury of her peers should have received an education prior to the trial.
Maybe everyone should.
No comments:
Post a Comment