On March 26th, a Minnesota state court ruled that a man, Francois Momolu Khalil, couldn’t be charged with rape because his victim chose to drink before she was allegedly assaulted and raped. This recent Minnesota court ruling comes to show that there are many legal loopholes that relate to sexual misconduct and sexual violence. However, in this case the definition of rape is being bent due to the judge’s judicial interpretation of consent, due to the victim’s intoxication.
According to Brooklyn Law Review, Minnesota is included amongst a majority of states that treat intoxication as a barrier to consent only in regards to involuntary mental incapability, or most commonly known as involuntarily getting drunk. Minnesota rape survivors, advocates and lobbyists see this statute as a legal fault that needs to be amended. In 2019, legislators proposed to set forth a bill to make voluntary drunkenness a legitimate cause for a felony rape charge. The bipartisan bill is still being held under consideration in the Minnesota House of Representatives.
Kelly Moller, co-sponsor of the bill and a state prosecutor, argues that under the current Minnesota penal code, Khalil can only be charged with fifth-degree gross misdemeanor and that this charge can be interpreted as an offensive legal response to the victim’s mental and physical duress. This issue is generating much controversy not only in Minnesota, but also in states that have not yet changed their involuntary intoxication clause under their sexual criminal prosecutions and statutes.
Of the 10 million American women who have been raped while intoxicated, most became drunk by choice, and therefore weren’t able to pursue legal action due the voluntary intoxication clause that is currently in practice in over 40 states. While gathering and analyzing precedent for rape cases, Moller argues that there are many alleged offenders that seek ‘voluntary intoxicated’ women to become their victim, mostly because of this intoxication statute.
Legislators argue that if Moller’s bill to make voluntary drunkenness grounds for a rape charge is approved, that prosecutors will still have to explore the defendant’s knowledge of the victim’s mental state.
This particular kind of ‘legal manipulation’ demonstrates a blatant disregard for rape victims and the lack of action continues to promote controversies within Minnesota’s and other states’ legislatures and executive branches of government. I agree with Kelly Moller‘s elaboration pf consent for voluntary intoxication: ‘the consent to become drunk doesn’t extend to the consent of sexual activity, so the reformation of the intoxication bill should be affirmed as soon as possible in order for rape victims to be properly remanded and that justice can have a slight chance of prevailing.’