Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

Showing Original Post only (View all)

DonViejo

(60,536 posts)
Sat Mar 27, 2021, 12:36 PM Mar 2021

MN Supreme Court throws out rape conviction because intoxicated woman willingly consumed alcohol [View all]

Source: USA Today


Minnesota Supreme Court throws out rape conviction because intoxicated woman willingly consumed alcohol

Sarah Elbeshbishi
USA TODAY

The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that a person can’t be found guilty of sexually assaulting someone who is intoxicated if that person willingly ingested drugs or alcohol.

The ruling was released Wednesday after the case of Francois Monulu Khalil, who was convicted of a third-degree criminal sexual misconduct by a jury because the victim was drunk and mentally incapacitated. Khalil, a Minneapolis man, met his victim after she was denied entry to a bar for being too intoxicated.

The court’s unanimous decision was written by Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Pail Thissen. Thissen writes that the lower court’s definition of mentally incapacitated regarding the case "unreasonably strains and stretches the plain text of the statue" since the victim was intoxicated before she met Khalil, her attacker.

In order to be considered mentally incapacitated under Minnesota law, the alcohol must be given to the person without that person’s agreement, according to the court. Because the original case did not meet the standard for a victim to be mentally incapacitated, the state's high court granted a new trial for Khalil.



Read more: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/03/27/minnesota-supreme-court-drunk-rape-victim-not-incapacitated/7027981002

74 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
And if a man was raped under the same mzmolly Mar 2021 #1
Then the good justices would have decried "sodomy" and kept the guy in prison. RVN VET71 Mar 2021 #54
I can barely believe I just read that. BobTheSubgenius Mar 2021 #2
The law is illogical. mzmolly Mar 2021 #3
by spiking a drink dsc Mar 2021 #26
One would have to spike several mzmolly Mar 2021 #31
if one used ever clear that could do it dsc Mar 2021 #34
Yikes. mzmolly Mar 2021 #44
This ain't about the fuckin' ALCOHOL. Texin Mar 2021 #53
I'm not arguing in favor mzmolly Mar 2021 #63
Given the unanimous decision, I'm thinking the law was pretty poorly written GregariousGroundhog Mar 2021 #6
Or the law was written to Bettie Mar 2021 #21
have to agree. but also have to acknowledge stopdiggin Mar 2021 #17
So because she was drunk enough to not say NO. usaf-vet Mar 2021 #38
The "logic" just legalized rape Warpy Mar 2021 #66
Great line! re: "consenting to getting hammered is NOT consenting to getting nailed" n/t thesquanderer Mar 2021 #69
so women, if you drink, you can be raped, legally? RussBLib Mar 2021 #4
Yes. If you dare to have a beer mzmolly Mar 2021 #5
Yep... Claire Oh Nette Mar 2021 #10
Even if they buy them drinks Bettie Mar 2021 #22
RIght? Claire Oh Nette Mar 2021 #23
NO! Not at all. That's a misunderstanding of the ruling. CaptainTruth Mar 2021 #35
Thanks for clarifying. mzmolly Mar 2021 #47
Thanks, Captain RussBLib Mar 2021 #51
Bingo! eom Karma13612 Mar 2021 #70
That law needs to be re-written or voted out of existence. Texin Mar 2021 #74
It's a bad statute. It requires intoxication to be involuntary Ocelot II Mar 2021 #7
... by this standard a patient under anesthetic can't be 'raped' when unconscious Dorn Mar 2021 #9
Only if they were involuntarily anesthetized. But it's still a bad statute. Ocelot II Mar 2021 #13
OMZ: This is crazy, this is terrible, this is unbelievable. Dorn Mar 2021 #8
Can this ruling be appealed to SCOTUS? Hope it becomes a rallying cry for 2022-24. Nt Fiendish Thingy Mar 2021 #11
Probably not, because the court only followed the language of a bad statute, Ocelot II Mar 2021 #15
Well, then amending the statute should be THE issue for the next MN election cycle. Nt Fiendish Thingy Mar 2021 #37
Guess I'm gonna be contacting my state rep. Aisha Gomez, a Dem. Ocelot II Mar 2021 #39
I am most definitely not a lawyer HuskyOffset Mar 2021 #12
What we do is contact our state representatives and demand that Ocelot II Mar 2021 #16
JFC! elleng Mar 2021 #14
A woman has the god-given constitutional right to run drunk and naked through the streets ancianita Mar 2021 #18
Not the court. It's just an incredibly sh**ty law. stopdiggin Mar 2021 #19
Four of the seven Justices are women. jalan48 Mar 2021 #20
Not that getting it wrong isn't the problem, I'm surprised 4 out of 7 at least couldn't ... marble falls Mar 2021 #25
They did get it right. They are stuck with the law as it's written. Ocelot II Mar 2021 #40
And five of the seven were appointed by Democrats FBaggins Mar 2021 #28
Exactly. Ocelot II Mar 2021 #41
So the consumption of intoxicants makes one a victim with no justice. That'll never stand ... marble falls Mar 2021 #24
Seriously? ananda Mar 2021 #27
Check again FBaggins Mar 2021 #29
No, not even close. Courts don't have the power to rewrite bad statutes. Ocelot II Mar 2021 #42
And the WAR ON WOMEN continues apace. Would you consider cross-posting this in niyad Mar 2021 #30
War on women? According to some its actually more along the lines of a poorly cstanleytech Mar 2021 #62
I understand that. This applies to that dreadful law. What would you call that law but part of the niyad Mar 2021 #64
"What would you call that law but part of the War on Women??" Stupidity? cstanleytech Mar 2021 #68
Time to update some of these badly written laws nt IronLionZion Mar 2021 #32
This is still 2021,right? Swede Mar 2021 #33
These people call themselves judges? Legal experts? SpankMe Mar 2021 #36
That's what the statute says. Courts don't have the option of rewriting statutes, Ocelot II Mar 2021 #43
Does anyone here understand how statutes vs. court decisions actually work? Ocelot II Mar 2021 #45
It looks like the problem with the law is being corrected... CaptainTruth Mar 2021 #46
I don't think you can try someone under a law that was put in place after the crime was done. patphil Mar 2021 #48
Isn't that an ex-post-facto law? RVN VET71 Mar 2021 #56
You're probably right. CaptainTruth Mar 2021 #57
No Ex Post Facto laws Marcuse Mar 2021 #60
Mens rights... dlk Mar 2021 #49
I had NO idea this was a "thing" in so many states. nt oldsoftie Mar 2021 #50
No self respecting man would take advantage of a drunk woman. Aussie105 Mar 2021 #52
I read somewhere elsewhere KT2000 Mar 2021 #55
Precedent for defense for robbery, dui, and other crimes? keithbvadu2 Mar 2021 #58
1+ keithbvadu2 Mar 2021 #65
Dangerous precedent. GETPLANING Mar 2021 #59
Such bullshit. Get a female drugged or drunk and it's her own fault?? Never changes. nt Evolve Dammit Mar 2021 #61
Sounds like it's the original prosecutor's fault for not applying the law correctly madville Mar 2021 #67
Boy, they hate women. Joinfortmill Mar 2021 #71
They? FBaggins Mar 2021 #73
This message was self-deleted by its author malthaussen Mar 2021 #72
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»MN Supreme Court throws o...