I am writing in response to Sarah Morgan's "Being drunk/high is no excuse for rape" (SN 4/13). In her article, she says "I was drunk" shouldn't be used as an excuse for one's actions. However, the accuser's own excuse for not remembering what happened that night is "I was drunk."

How can you say that drug use by the accuser isn't relevant? It is highly relevant. The fact that both had been drinking and doing drugs affected both of their abilities to recall what happened that night. Also, how are we to know the accuser didn't consent and just does not remember it because she was so drunk? Just because she does not remember it does not mean she wasn't conscious at the time.

I also think that you are wrong in saying this verdict sends the message that being drunk and/or high means a person is not responsible for his own behavior. I feel in this case, it shows that you are responsible for your actions to the defendant and also to the accuser. I would also like to point out that both individuals are victims of this situation. The accuser is a victim because she had sex that she did not recall, and the defendant because he will forever be followed by the fact he was accused of rape which, according to the jury, he did not commit. He was found not guilty because the law states there must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which apparently there was not in this case.

It must be hard to get that level of proof in a case where so much evidence is a "he said, she said" testimony.

I do agree with Sarah on one point though. I do hope that just because this case ended in a not guilty verdict that it doesn't discourage future women from reporting crimes against them. Hopefully in the future, we will all behave more responsibly when it comes to drinking so that women won't have to.

Matt Katich
physics senior