“She Shouldn’t Have Been Drinking in the First Place…”
By: Sophie Nelson
TW: The following piece involves topics surrounding sexual violence. Discretion is advised.
Towards the end of March 2021, the Minnesota Supreme Court unanimously overturned a third-degree criminal sexual conduct charge due to Minnesota’s loose definition of “mental incapacitation,” which indicates that a rapist cannot be found guilty of rape if the victim voluntarily chose to get intoxicated beforehand. This ruling and area of Minnesota law is founded on the assumption that the incidence of sexual assault is due to the decisions of the victim, not the perpetrator. According to the New York Times (2021), similar statutes are applied in about 40 states. Because April is Sexual Assault Awareness Month, I wanted to take the opportunity to address victim-blaming in our society, specifically when discussing sexual violence, using this most recent case to illustrate the injustice within our legal system.
It is appalling to me that in the 21st century, our laws still perpetuate false narratives about who is responsible for sexual assault. In terms of this Minnesota Supreme Court case, Minnesota Statutes, section 609.341, subdivision 7 (2016) defines “mentally incapacitated,” as a “person under the influence of alcohol, a narcotic, anesthetic, or any other substance, administered to that person without the person’s agreement,” which therefore means that the person “lacks the judgement to give a reasoned consent to sexual contact or sexual pleasure.” In other words, an individual cannot give consent if they are intoxicated unwillingly. According to the facts of the case, the victim (who is anonymously referred to as J.S.) voluntarily drank alcohol and took a prescription drug while on the way to a bar with a friend before being raped by defendant, Khalil (State of Minnesota, Respondent v. Francios Momolu Khalil, Appellant 2020). Since she was voluntarily intoxicated, she did not fit Minnesota’s definition of “mentally incapacitated.” This aspect of Minnesota law, in addition to the facts of the case, constituted the foundation of Khalil’s defense during the appeal of the earlier Minnesota District Court’s “guilty” verdict.
Furthermore, the facts clearly indicate that Khalil took advantage of an intoxicated 20-year old woman by inviting her to his apartment for a party when, in reality, there was no such occasion. This action indicates an intent to deceive and take advantage of J.S. and her friend in some capacity. Moreover, the facts state that the victim testified that she remembers the assault and explicitly said “No, I don’t want to.” If there was any room to question her mental incapacitation, there should be no excuse why saying “no” constitutes consent to engage in sexual intercourse. Interestingly, according to Minnesota Statutes, section 609.341, subdivision 4(b) (2016), a person who is “mentally incapacitated or physically helpless as defined by [Section 609.341] cannot consent to a sexual act.” The state of Minnesota does not mention that saying “no” means a lack of consent. “But she chose to drink and become intoxicated!” Yes, she did choose to drink, but she did not do so expecting to be sexually violated and emotionally traumatized by the experience and subsequent legal proceedings.
By supporting the later ruling that a perpetrator cannot be found guilty of rape if the victim is voluntarily drunk, the Minnesota statutes perpetuate “rape myths.” Rape myths are ways in which sexual violence is sustained and justified and are characterized by victim-blaming, perpetrator absolution, and minimization of sexual violence (Edwards et al., 2011). Examples of rape myths include: “women enjoy being raped,” “she was asking for it by wearing that outfit,” “women lie about being raped,” and “if you didn’t drink, you wouldn’t have been sexually assaulted.” As you can see, these popular rape myths are founded upon victim-blaming, rather than punishing the deliberate actions of the perpetrator. In terms of the Minnesota case, the language of the statute places the blame on a victim’s voluntary decision to drink. The inherent nature of victim-blaming in the law reinforces the rape myths that it was the victim’s fault that they were sexually assaulted.
Based on the facts of the case, it is clear that Khalil intended to take advantage of J.S., despite the victim’s protest and an explicit “no.” But Minnesota law still protected him. According to the logic of the statute, since J.S. voluntarily drank that night, she was not sexually assaulted and Khalil should not be charged with rape. Yet, if she involuntarily drank (e.g., forced or drugged), with the same following events, the Supreme Court of Minnesota would have maintained the District Court’s “guilty” verdict. The reality – whether or not she voluntarily or involuntarily drank – is that Khalil took advantage of and raped her. Why does this in itself not justify a criminal sentence? This inconsistent logic reinforces the idea that it is the victim’s fault, not the deceit and intentions of the perpetrator. And the law continues to allow for this to happen.
Moving forward, I hope that these laws are changed to prioritize punishing the actions of the perpetrator, rather than the decisions of the victim. Women are taught from a young age how to avoid being sexually assaulted, but the focus needs to shift towards educating young men (and every other member of society) to not sexually assault or reinforce rape myths. We have big strides to make in creating a society that is a safer place for women, and it is my hope that our laws can progress in giving victims of sexual violence the justice that they deserve.
References
Edwards, K.M., Turchik, J.A., Dardis, C.M., Reynolds, N., & Gidyez, C.A. (2011). Rape myths: History, individual and institutional-level presence, and implications for change, Sex Roles, 65, 761-773. doi: 10.1007/s11199-011-9943
Minnesota Statutes, section 609.341, subdivision 4(b) (2016)
Minnesota Statutes, section 609.341, subdivision 7 (2016)
Morales, C. (2021, March 31). Court overturns sex crime conviction because victim was ‘voluntarily intoxicated.’ The New York Times, Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/
State of Minnesota, Respondent v. Francios Momolu Khalil, Appellant (2020)
