Minnesota Supreme Court Rules Women Are Still Less Valued than Men - by Greer Clem

***TRIGGER WARNING*** sexual assault, issues of consent, and the topic of rape are discussed below.

Last week, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that, if a rape victim voluntarily got drunk before being assaulted, her perpetrator cannot be found guilty under the law. The Court’s decision hinged on its interpretation of “mentally incapacitated” as set forth in the relevant Minnesota statute, which reads: “‘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” (emphasis added). The Court interpreted this statute to mean that, if you voluntarily become intoxicated, then you cannot be mentally incapacitated. Whether or not you have the requisite capacity to give consent evidently holds no meaning to this Court.

I couldn’t let this case go by without writing about it. Every woman knows someone who has been sexually assaulted. The abduction and murder last month of Sarah Everard in London created a ripple effect across the world, prompting trends such as "#TextMeWhenYouGetHome and #ReclaimTheStreets. It also brought forth renewed debate about the “not all men” defense. I feel similarly towards the “not all men” movement as I do towards “all lives matter.” No one is diminishing the value of human life by standing up and saying “Black lives matter.” They are merely speaking truth to the fact that we live in a society that places less value in a Black life than a white one. Similarly, no one advocating for the safety of women is saying that all men are predators. But the fact remains that women continue to be prayed upon by men and society continues to let them off and value our lives less. The Minnesota Court’s decision is a stinging reminder of this. Despite the fact that a woman is legally entitled to get just as drunk as a man, if she does so voluntarily her attacker cannot be convicted of third-degree sexual conduct under Minnesota law. Yet no one stops to consider the man in that situation too became intoxicated voluntarily, stripped an unconscious woman voluntarily, did not ask for consent voluntarily, and penetrated an unconscious body voluntarily.

The Minnesota Court’s decision particularly perturbs me as someone entering the legal profession. It is indisputable that there are times where the law’s rightful interpretation leads to immoral or unfair results. The Court in this case attempts to wash its conscience by claiming this is one of those instances. They write, “We do not look at the ordinary, commonsense understanding of mentally incapacitated because the Legislature expressly defined the term in the general definitions section of Minnesota’s criminal sexual conduct statutes.” In essence, they implore the reader that they had no choice but to read the statute as it was written and to hold that mental incapacitation cannot be met via voluntarily intoxication. They kick the problem back to the Legislature, saying that in so defining the law of mental incapacitation, the Court’s hands are tied. They balk, “If the Legislature’s intended meaning is clear from the text of the statute, we apply that meaning and not what we may wish the law was or what we think the law should be.” I don’t dispute that the origins of this problem stems from the Legislature; I hope none of them have slept since this decision came down and are working quickly to propose new wording, though I doubt that is the case. The issue I take with the Court’s decision is that the deference the legal interpretation provides underlines the deference we give men in our society. The common sense interpretation of mentally incapacitated is tossed aside and we are left with twenty-plus pages picking apart the intent of the statute, with the end result being unworthy deference to the perpetrator of the crime. The victim becomes an afterthought, the circumstances of her attack long forgotten.

The point I wish to make with all of this is that the deference is misplaced, not just in this case but in society. When a woman is attacked, we ask what she did wrong, what she was wearing, did she have headphones in. By all accounts Sarah Everard did everything she could to keep herself safe, but why were we asking that of her? Why do we still defer to “not all men” when, quite literally, all women live with this fear to a certain degree? Whoever drafted the Minnesota statute clearly did not provide the same deference to the victims it was intended to protect, and despite the Court’s insistence that they were bound to interpret the law the way it was written, the end result is the same: women get left behind.

I walked home from the grocery store the other evening after picking up ice cream, keys between my fingers, headphones out of my ears and I thought of Sarah. I thought of my friends. I thought of my sister. I thought of stupid college decisions I made and the close calls that could have resulted. I thought how my male friends probably never second guessed those same decisions. I’m so tired of living among those thoughts. So tired of not being surprised when they seem to mean so little to people in power. So, as always, I turned here, hoping that maybe, just maybe, writing would help and someone would listen. I promise to always listen and to give deference where it is truly deserved - to all women and to all survivors.