In Minnesota, if a woman goes out clubbing and has a few drinks, it’s her own fault if she gets raped. Likewise, if she steps out to the parking lot for a few hits on a joint, she can no longer hold any would-be attackers liable. The state’s Supreme Court, in a recent ruling, decided that women should keep better control over their actions, and if they don’t, they’re fair game.
The law states that sexual penetration by a person who “knows or has reason to know that the complainant is … mentally incapacitated,” is not rape. By their definition, mentally incapacitated means that “a person under the influence of alcohol, a narcotic, anesthetic, or any other substance, administered to that person without the person’s agreement, lacks the judgment to give a reasoned consent to sexual contact or sexual penetration.”
So if a woman in Minnesota willfully consumes alcohol or puffs on a bong, it’s their own fault if they get taken advantage of. They should know how some men are. Residents of the state are up in arms over this antiquated law being used to reverse the felony conviction of a guy named Monulu Khalil four years after he received it.
A new trial is scheduled and he’ll probably get let off with third-degree criminal sexual misconduct since his victim was too drunk to tell him whether she consented, or not. Residents are saying this is sending the wrong signal and it could result in any rapist being let go by simply claiming that they were too drunk themselves to know what they were doing.
Here’s how the crime went down. The 20-year-old victim admitted to having five shots of vodka on top of some prescription medicine. When she stumbled up to the front door of a club she was refused entry for being too inebriated. Khalil watched the scene unfold before swooping in to take full advantage of the situation.
He invited the girl and her friend to a party he said was going on at his place, but when they arrived, there was no party. The victim said she blacked at that point, and when she came to, Khalil was on top of her having his way. The court said that because the woman had willingly gotten rip-roaring-drunk, they could not call it rape. Her friend had left her there.
The woman was unconscious at the time of the attack and wasn’t capable of saying no, but she also was not capable of saying yes. Who sees a problem here? The first argument is that if Khalil possessed even one moral fiber, he should have known better. The second is the fact of how he stalked and mislead his victim for the sole purpose of raping her. It was his only intent.
Justice Paul Thissen’s followed Minnesota law to a tee and never wavered. He overturned the previous felony conviction by stating that since Kahlil didn’t pin the woman down and pour a bottle of vodka down her throat while she was still sober, it was her own damn fault. She was not raped.
At least one lawmaker in this highly liberal state spoke up about the ruling, and of course, it was a woman. Minnesota rep Kelly Moller said, “Victims who are intoxicated to the degree that they are unable to give consent are entitled to justice. Minnesotans who experience unthinkable trauma deserve to see the Legislature take action on this immediately.”
Lindsay Brice, the Law and Policy Director for the Minnesota Coalition Against Sexual Assault, Lindsay Brice was not in the least bit surprised. She said this is a know “statutory problem” they’ve been fighting against for years. She said they fully expected this to happen. “The opinion itself is not surprising at all — it simply reflects the need for change at the legislature.”
This is not over by any means. In fact, most Minnesota residents didn’t realize a law like this even existed. They do now, and there are bound to be some raging battles over it in the near future. Stay tuned…