Sleep And Consent: Understanding Rape Laws

The act of forcing yourself on a sleeping or unconscious person is a highly controversial topic. While some argue that it constitutes rape as the victim is unable to give consent, others believe that it depends on the relationship and prior consent between the two parties. In some jurisdictions, the law clearly states that a sleeping person cannot consent to sexual activity, making such acts criminal. However, there are also cases where the nature of the relationship and patterns of sexual conduct are considered, potentially allowing for inferred consent. The legal definition of rape often includes the element of intent, which may be absent in cases where the perpetrator is asleep or unconscious themselves, leading to further complexities in determining culpability.

Explore related products

Pattern Cross-Examination Questions for Sexual Assault Cases: A Trial Strategy & Resource Guide

$98

Sexual Assault: The Victims, the Perpetrators, and the Criminal Justice System, Third Edition

$46 $57

Shattering Silences: Strategies to Prevent Sexual Assault, Heal Survivors, and Bring Assailants to Justice

$24.99 $24.99

Brooklyn's Jane Doe: The Mishandling of a Sexual Assault Investigation

$30 $30

Sexual Assault: The Victims, the Perpetrators, and the Criminal Justice System

$17.01 $42

Campus Sexual Assault

$23.87 $32

Rape is defined as penetration or intercourse by force and without consent

Rape is legally defined as penetration or intercourse by force and without consent. Consent is a crucial element in determining whether an act constitutes rape. If an individual engages in sexual intercourse with a sleeping person, the question of consent becomes complex.

In a legal context, consent is defined as the voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. When a person is asleep, they are unable to provide consent as they are not conscious or aware of their actions. Therefore, forcing yourself on a sleeping person can be considered rape because the act occurs without the consent of the sleeping individual.

In some jurisdictions, such as Scotland, the law explicitly states that a person cannot consent to sexual conduct while asleep or unconscious. The Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 clarifies that consent must be continuous and cannot be assumed based on prior or antecedent consent. This means that even if there is a history of consensual sexual activity within a relationship, it does not constitute consent for future encounters while the individual is asleep or unconscious.

However, there are differing opinions on whether forcing yourself on a sleeping person should be classified as rape in all circumstances. Some argue that if there is a reasonable belief or prior consent, it may not constitute rape. For example, in the case of a long-term relationship, there may be patterns or negotiations within the relationship that indicate consent, even if the individual is asleep.

It is important to note that the legal definition of rape and the requirements for prosecution can vary across different jurisdictions. The interpretation of consent and the consideration of mitigating factors, such as the nature of the relationship or prior consent, may influence the outcome of legal proceedings.

A sleeping person is incapable of giving consent

In a legal context, the answer to this question is not black and white and varies across different jurisdictions.

In Scotland, for example, the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 states that consent must be continuous and ongoing. In this context, a sleeping person is incapable of giving consent, and sexual conduct with a sleeping person is therefore criminal. The court also ruled that prior consent does not apply when the person is asleep or unconscious.

In the United States, the definition of rape varies by state, but it is generally defined as penetration of the vagina or anus (or intercourse) by force and against the will of the victim. While some states may require proof of intent to commit rape, others do not, and the act itself is sufficient to constitute rape.

In a case where the defendant claims to have been asleep and thus not in control of their actions, they may be acquitted of the crime, but this does not mean they are not considered a rapist by the victim or in the eyes of the law.

The idea that a sleeping person cannot give consent is supported by the fact that consent must be given at the time of the act and cannot be granted in advance. This is further reinforced by the rejection of recommendations that would have expressly permitted advance consent.

While there may be arguments for exceptions in cases where the individuals are partners and have a history of sexual activity, the law currently stands that a sleeping person is incapable of giving consent, and sexual conduct with a sleeping person can be considered rape.

Prior consent does not apply when the victim is asleep

In a Scottish rape case from 2019, the court ruled that a sleeping person is not capable of consenting to sex. The appellant, GW, was charged with the rape of his partner while she was asleep and incapable of giving or withholding consent. GW's defence stated that he had his partner's consent to engage in sexual intercourse and that he "reasonably believed her to be consenting". It was submitted that the couple had a history of this type of intercourse and that the complainant had "consented in advance".

However, the court held that the consent must be continuing and given at the time of the sexual conduct, and that a sleeping person cannot consent. The judge refused to allow evidence that the complainant had consented to being woken by vaginal penetration as a facet of the relationship. The court's decision did not accept that there was a distinction between the protection the law affords to those in a continuing relationship and those in a chance encounter.

In this case, the court's ruling establishes that prior consent does not apply when the victim is asleep and incapable of giving or withholding consent. This decision aligns with the notion that consent must be ongoing and can only be granted by an individual with full agency and awareness, which is not possible during sleep.

It is important to note that the specifics of each case may vary, and different jurisdictions may have their own legal interpretations. For example, in some US states, rape is considered a general intent crime, meaning the state only needs to prove that the defendant committed the act, regardless of intent. However, consent given in advance or within the context of a relationship may be considered a mitigating factor or influence how the case is prosecuted.

While there may be nuances and differing opinions on this complex issue, the Scottish court's ruling sends a clear message that prior consent does not exempt an individual from committing rape if their partner is asleep and unable to consent at the time of the sexual act.

Explore related products

Investigating Sexual Assault Cases (Jones & Bartlett Learning Guides to Law Enforcement Investigation)

$76.95 $89.95

Investigating Sexual Assault Cases

$65.96 $115

Armies of Enablers: Survivor Stories of Complicity and Betrayal in Sexual Assaults

$24.95

The College Student Guide to Sexual Assault Prevention: Real World Stories and Advice From an Ex Cop

$12.97 $12.97

Sexual Assault Quick Reference 2E

$71.33 $85

Drug-Facilitated Sexual Assault: A Forensic Handbook

$123 $129

The defendant being asleep may negate intent but is a heavy lift legally

The act of forcing yourself on a sleeping or unconscious person is legally considered rape. This is because a sleeping person is not capable of consent, and consent given in advance does not count as valid consent in this case. In a Scottish rape case, the appellant argued that he had engaged in sexual intercourse "with the consent of" his partner and that he reasonably believed her to be consenting based on the nature of their relationship and past sexual conduct. However, the court ruled that consent must be given at the time of the sexual conduct and cannot be granted in advance.

Now, if the defendant in such a case is also asleep, it may complicate the matter of intent. Rape is a general intent crime, meaning the state only needs to prove that the defendant committed the crime, not that they intended to. However, the defendant being asleep may cast doubt on whether they committed the crime at all, as they were not conscious of their actions. In this case, the defendant's lawyer might argue that the defendant was sleepwalking and therefore not in control of their actions.

While this defence might be challenging to prove, it is not impossible. The lawyer would need to present strong evidence that the defendant was indeed asleep and not feigning sleep or consciousness during the act. Medical records, expert testimony, and witness accounts could all be used to support this argument. It is important to note that even if the defendant is acquitted of rape due to lack of intent, it does not erase the harm caused to the victim. The victim can still seek legal recourse for damages, including emotional distress.

The challenge of proving intent in such cases highlights the complexity of sexual assault and rape laws. While consent given in advance is not a valid defence, the nature of the relationship and past sexual conduct between the individuals involved may be considered in determining reasonable belief in consent. However, this does not override the requirement for ongoing and active consent.

In summary, while the defendant being asleep may negate intent, it is a challenging argument to make in court. It is a heavy lift legally, and even if successful, it does not diminish the harm caused to the victim.

The nature of the relationship may influence the ruling

The nature of the relationship between the accused and the complainant may influence the ruling in cases of sexual activity with a sleeping or unconscious person. While the law typically defines rape as penetration or intercourse by force and against the will of the complainant, the determination of consent can be more complex when the accused and the complainant are in a relationship.

In a Scottish case from 2019, a man was charged with the rape of his partner while she was asleep. The appellant argued that he had engaged in sexual intercourse "with the consent of" his partner and that he reasonably believed her to be consenting. The court heard that it was a practice within the relationship for the appellant to wake his partner by penetrating or attempting to penetrate her vagina with his penis, and that the complainant had consented to being awoken in this way. The appellant's defence team further argued that there was a distinction between the protection afforded to an accused in a continuing relationship and one who had been a party to a chance encounter.

The court, however, ruled that a sleeping person is not capable of consenting to sexual activity. Section 14 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 states that consent must be continuing for the conduct not to constitute rape. In this case, the court determined that consent could not be continuing when the complainant was asleep or unconscious, and therefore, the act constituted rape.

The nature of the relationship and patterns, accommodations, and negotiations within it can be considered sources of evidence from which a reasonable belief in consent can be "inferred." In some jurisdictions, prior or implied consent may be considered a mitigating factor, especially if the accused and the complainant are in a long-term relationship with a history of sexual activity. However, the law regarding this varies by jurisdiction, and in some places, any reference to consent is removed when the complainant is unconscious, regardless of the relationship.

Frequently asked questions