Hacker News Reader

Comment by analog | Hacker News Reader

Maybe it's different in Canada but in the UK being that drunk would be very strong evidence that you were in no state to give consent. If you have sex with someone who's so drunk they don't know what they're doing that's rape.

View on HN

In Canada, there is certainly a point where intoxication makes people unable to legally consent. Presumably the police and/or prosecutors felt there was not sufficient evidence of that level of intoxication.

She was vomiting in the photo, that's pretty good evidence of that level of intoxication. The accused was also clearly recognisable[1] in the photo so it beggars belief that they could think there wasn't sufficient evidence.

[1] “because he is easily recognizable in a photograph showing him raping the victim while she is visibly ill… why the RCMP decided these photographs aren’t evidence of rape is beyond us.” http://www.salon.com/2013/04/12/anonymous_on_rehtaeh_parsons...

Vomiting certainly does increase the Bayesian likelihood that she was intoxicated; whether it is enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was intoxicated to the point of being unable to consent is a different question. I have not, of course, seen the photo in question, nor do I know what witness statements may have indicated.

I'm not saying that Rehtaeh Parsons was not raped; only that when the police and prosecutors say that they do not think they could secure a conviction, I'm inclined to trust their expertise and knowledge of the case.

Well, what if both were drunk? Then who raped whom? Keeping aside the widely accepted stereotype that only men can rape women.

PS. A generic question. Not related to the crime mentioned in OP.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com