Citation

Finch E, Munro VE. Soc. Leg. Stud. 2007; 16(4): 591-614.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2007, SAGE Publishing)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Previous studies have illustrated the existence of a double standard in the attribution of responsibility in contested sexual consent scenarios whereby intoxicated defendants tend to be held less responsible for subsequent sexual events than their sober counterparts while intoxicated complainants tend to be held more responsible. This study examined the extent to which the means by which the complainants' intoxication was secured would influence this process.1 Mock jurors, having been exposed to a trial reconstruction in which intoxicated sexual consent was at issue, deliberated towards a unanimous, or failing that, majority verdict on whether rape had occurred. Across the trial scenarios, the only variables related to the type of intoxicant ingested and the means of its administration. In a context in which the Sexual Offences Act 2003 purports to restrict reliance in the jury room on questionable stereotypes about socio-sexual behaviour, this article considers the extent to which participants' views about responsibility for intoxication shaped their conclusions on the occurrence of, and liability for, rape. It also examines the ways in which the social acceptability of some intoxicants (alcohol) and the social unacceptability of others (Rohypnol) supported the construction of 'drug-assisted rape' as distinguishable from more mundane instances of intoxicated sex.