According to appellate courts, there are two standards of demonstrating the use of force in rape cases. The first one is latter standard in which there is nothing apart from the physical force applied by the rapist. Concerning former standard, the rapist might have used extra action in addition to his physical force to do the act. These are correct two standards that the court in charge may use to identify whether the rape act took place or not. This is because the judges may be in a position to identify the force applied during the act.
The court in this case arrived at wrong determination as it relied more on the former than the latter standard. The fact that the defendant had taken some alcohol before leaving to the friend’s room, she was in her senses and that is why she did not resist.
According to statute rule (Fried& Mark, 1996), when a person is forced to have sexual affair with somebody who is not his or her spouse, this is described as a rape case. In this case, the roommate was not a spouse to this girl and he forced her to have sex with him thus qualifying this as a rape case.
The defendant had taken some alcohol which made her not to be in a position to make a sound resistance and this is the reason why the man took advantage of her situation. The defendant was mentally deficient and according to statute rule, the victim managed to do the act due to the mental situation of the defendant caused by alcohol.
The fact that the defendant never resisted does not mean that she was willing or gave permission to the man to harass her. The cat mainly happened because the defendant was in an unconscious condition and she could not free herself from this situation. In fact she realized when the act was over.