Using the Rape Culture to Defend a Rapist

[Trigger warning for sexual violence, rape apologia, victim-blaming.]

In what might be the most perfect, clear, hideous example of how rape culture interacts with actual acts of rape, an appellant brief (pdf) was filed last March in the Montana Supreme Court on behalf of Duane R. Belanus, who had been convicted (pdf) of "of sexual intercourse without consent involving the infliction of bodily injury, aggravated kidnapping, burglary, tampering with or fabricating physical evidence, and misdemeanor theft" after beating and anally raping his then-girlfriend. The brief, which bases its appeal almost entirely on the premise that Belanus was drunk and therefore should not be held responsible for his actions, begins thus:


Yes, you're reading that right. A legal brief in defense of a convicted rapist was submitted quoting real-life convicted rapist Mike Tyson's character in a movie in order to argue that if real-life convicted rapist Mike Tyson's character in a movie can forgive a bunch of drunk characters in a movie for stealing his pet tiger, then a real jury in the real world should be able to consider, and forgive, a real-life convicted rapist who really raped someone in the real world.

Can you not see the perfect logic?

In the rape culture, this all makes sense. As does the fact, as the brief goes on to mention, that the victim was drinking and taking drugs, too, which is presented as though to create reasonable doubt about whether she could have consented and forgotten, as opposed to treating it like the damning evidence Belanus raped someone who could not possibly have given informed and enthusiastic consent that it actually is.

And it gets even more absurd.

Or possibly just stays exactly as absurd as it began, depending on your feelings about quoting a fictional Mike Tyson character vs. quoting Mel Gibson in defense of a convicted rapist. Yes, for real, this is how the brief concludes:


Classic. Dancing on a table with a lampshade on one's head is exactly the same as shouting anti-Semitic rants, which itself is exactly the same as beating and raping someone.

It is, of course, true that alcohol lowers inhibitions, but that doesn't translate into "making people do something for which they can't be held responsible." What it means is that alcohol removes the self-censoring or self-containing mechanisms that keep people who hold racist thoughts (for instance) or have violent desires (for instance) from shouting epithets or punching someone in the face.

Alcohol lowers inhibitions; it doesn't remove accountability.

Fortunately, the Montana Supreme Court agrees, and was unconvinced by the poignant arguments of Messrs. Tyson and Gibson. They upheld Belanus' conviction.

[H/T to Shaker Erin W, who found it at Lowering the Bar.]