MN Supreme Court reverses rape conviction because woman.....

Post Reply New Topic

Unfortunately, point e) is the problem in this case - It seems the legislature loosened the law and so created the loophole in 1974/1975 to require the intoxication to be caused by the defendant without the victims knowledge or consent (prior to then, the source of intoxication was not relevent, merely the state of intoxication)...Subsequent legislative bodies also share responsibility in this case for not having reviewed the laws to ensure they met society's expectations.

Judges don't make (or change) the laws, they simply apply them as written by the legislative branch. If the legislative branch make (or neglect to update) a law that results in this outcome, it is their fault and not that of the judges...

Fairly sure - I never studied any law courses either at school or uni, for example... Though one of my father's friends (a retired magstrate) suggested I should look into a career in law while I was at secondary school due to my good memory (which sadly only works for things I am interested in at the time - My former ability to know which Lego sets rare pieces came from has since gone, but will hopefully return one day).

I just find (at present) law to be an interesting area to explore - both in how it works, and as an explanation as to why certain publicly "expected" outcomes don't occur (such as happened here).

Without knowing anything about the case, here's a hypothetical that will no doubt annoy everyone.

If you get caught drink-driving after a voluntary drinking session, is there any validity, moral or legal, in saying you only chose to drive because you were mentally impaired by alcohol?

I don't get it.

If a person willfully becomes intoxicated, passes out on a couch and someone kills him or her, is that the victim's fault?

Not according to me!

If that logic is followed, every homeless person would be killed without penalty.

The justices ruled that the state's definition of "mentally incapacitated" does not include voluntarily inebriated victims.

This is quite reasonable and should not be changed for a whole host of reasons.

The problem seems to be that he was convicted of the wrong crime.

a jury in Hennepin County convicted Khalil of third-degree criminal sexual conduct involving a victim who was impaired.

Different crimes, different laws:

In this case, it appears in 1974/1975 the states legislators ammended the law regarding rape from the previous condition of "mentally incapacitated" meaning (under the law) being intoxicated (regardless of cause) to the new (legal) definition where the intoxication needs to have been caused by an intoxicant being introduced without the victim's knowledge.

In the case of murder, the victim's degree of "mental incapacitation" isn't a factor, so has no bearing on the charge.

Unfortunately, as the community's understanding of various terms change, the laws often fail to keep up, because the legislature seem to rarely revise existing laws to look for instances such as this where the law doesn't match what society expects...The judges are limited to applying the laws as written by the legislative branch, not the laws as the community understand\wish them to be.

Forget the incapacitation here, was there any evidence of actual consent? I suppose that here, that is why it is a new trial and not acquittal. The jury was instructed that if the complainant is found to be intoxicated like that, then this necessarily means "no consent"... without going any further. That what should have happened was that this shortcut not be presented and rather the jury be asked if they can reasonably believe there was consent in this situation... which seems less than certain here.



If the jury accepts this beyond a reasonable doubt then it's guilty. They just can't do it via the "mental incapacitation" shortcut.... what is called a deeming provision....

The question this brings up for me is... Who were the MN state legislators who came up with this revision in 1974/5? It seems very specific to me, like they knew they were creating a loophole. Wonder if it was for themselves, or for someone's brother/cousin/friend who was in jail.

What if you deliberately run over someone who is drunk? Were they too inebriated to act in time and get out of the way? Were they "asking for it?"

Who would say that? Why is this different?

Hard not to notice that, isn't it. Then again, they might just be stalwart misogynists straight out of the 18th century.

That decision should be considered an atrocity.. The judge should have been recalled from the bench .
Permanently .

OK...so back in the seventies the legislature messed up constructing the law.

The judge has to go by letter of the law, even if it violates the spirit of the law.

So he was forced to make the legal, but unjust decision that he made.

When you consider that the Minnesota attorney general is a misogynist and a racist it's not surprising that this is happening.

The law is fine, the problem is how this case was prosecuted.

They were probably trying to prevent a loophole. If voluntarily getting yourself drunk makes you mentally incapacitated, you can theoretically not be held responsible for anything you do while drunk due to diminished responsibility.