I found it strange that the person was not too drunk to consent to sex with one person, but without drinking any more became more intoxicated to consent later on. I work in an environment where I come in contact with a lot of drunk people. The videos of the complainant where she got out of the vehicle and went back etc were a revelation to say the least.
I was in two juries involving involving sex related crimes. In one case, two jurors were abused when they were young and despite the evidence contradicting the allegation, they had to pass a guilty verdict no matter what. I feel for them, but punishing someone and their family because of what someone else did to you is wrong! The others among us based our decisions based on the evidence as delivered in front of us.
In another case, it was historic one so was bound to be difficult. There was no evidence other than the accusation. The guy got convicted because of a majority vote. In a nutshell this was because "he must be guilty, why would someone make it up?"
I have not named anyone nor made reference to the cases.
Looking at the case and implications for everyone in general. A person meets someone, s/he says yes. They have sex. Later on after the sex, s/he says I did not consent. Is/was this rape?
The guy's family had money and could employ someone to gather evidence and pursue their view that he did not rape anyone and it was consensual sex. What happens to those who cannot afford such endeavours? Surely liberty is not only for the wealthy/privileged?
Rape is an abhorrent crime. There must be checks in place to protect people and also means to report it without hindrance.
There seems to be a push to secure more rape convictions. Surely, the push should be to convict more rapists?