Why do people do this? I did not once say or even indicate that it was "ok". In fact I specifically said this does not excuse Turner's behavior. I couldn't possibly have been any clearer.
We also need to remember that he was drunk as well - BAC twice the legal limit. His judgment was as impaired as hers was. Which begs the question: why can't he say she raped him? For real, think outside your little box for a minute because that's a real question. He was as drunk as she was, sexual contact took place, so why is she the victim and he's the rapist? If someone can explain to me why this isn't just sexist bull####, I'll gladly change my opinion.
Yes, he was drunk as well. But he's still responsible for his actions just as she's responsible for hers. The issue is what actions did they respectively take and what does being responsible for those respective actions mean?
The assertion here - and apparently what the jury determined - wasn't that they were both drunk and both pretty much didn't realize what they were doing and had sex which she later regretted therefore he's guilty of rape and she isn't. The assertion is that he did something to her when she was incapable of consenting. Had she done something to him while he was incapable of consenting, she might be the one guilty of rape.
I'm not familiar with all of the elements (under California law) of the 3 charges he was convicted on. But at a minimum he would not have been guilty of those charges if he reasonably believed that she was capable of consenting. The state would have had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't reasonably believe that - not just that she wasn't capable of consenting or that she didn't consent. The state would have had to prove, in effect, that he knew or should have known that she was unconscious or otherwise incapable of consenting. (He was convicted both of sexual penetration of someone who was unconscious and of someone who was intoxicated, I'm not sure what the precise proper name of those charges would be.)
Now, we can argue over whether the jury got it wrong - whether there was or wasn't enough evidence to make the findings of fact that it was required to make. I'm not familiar enough with the evidence in this case to provide much input in such an argument. But this isn't just about 2 people being drunk and having sex and the guy being the one considered guilty of a crime. This is about him - and not her - being the one who committed a crime, who did something to the other one. Had she, e.g., stuck her finger up his ass while he was unconscious then she likely would have been guilty of much the same crime.
She is absolutely responsible for her actions. She should absolutely be judged for what she did - judged as irresponsible or worse or whatever. But she is not, apparently and as far as I'm aware, responsible for raping someone because she did not rape someone. She didn't do something to him. If he thinks she did, he should make that allegation. (He, btw, apparently claims to remember everything that happened.)
He is similarly responsible for what he did. And that - apparently, at least according to the jury - includes raping her. That is, at a minimum, sexually penetrating her (it's not clear to me whether that was with a finger or with his penis because the penetration with a foreign object charge can apparently be used even if it might have been his penis if it isn't known whether it was his penis or something else) when he knew or should have known that she wasn't capable of consenting. In this case it seems that was because she was unconscious - again, that's what the jury apparently determined to be the case.
I think you're absolutely right in the bigger picture. People who get drunk are responsible - and should be seen as responsible - for what they do. If two people are drunk and #### each other then neither one is guilty of rape (or they're both guilty of rape I guess). But if one does something to the other without the other doing anything, and the other is, e.g., unconscious and unaware of what's happening... then that's not a situation where they both did the same thing and are equally responsible. What they each did, and therefore what they each are responsible for doing, is different. And that potential difference in what respective parties did - and are thus responsible for - is true whether the parties involved are drunk or stone cold sober.
