There are different levels of being drunk. She was so drunk she blacked out and had trouble walking. He As drunk but can supply a recollection of what happened. There’s nuance like I said, but someone who can recollect events and relies on his rational actions where he called her friends can logically be considered to be more responsible for not taking into consideration she was too drunk to be able to consent.
Regardless of why he got suspension of penalty, if you read anything about the case it wasn’t because he or his parents are rich. Personally I think there’s more nuance than the clickbait headlines. I think he should not have gotten the penalty suspended but I can understand why that happened. The shortened motivation for this does read like ragebait ofcourse. His future should not have been as important as his cooperation, verifiable truthfulness and the fact he did abuse the state of someone who could not consent. Where that balance ends for punishment ends I find hard to say. But to reduce it to that he’s rich is just populist nonsense.
Oh wow, something from Belgium showed up here. Obviously most reactions are the same here. But I would urge everyone to read more details about this. As there much more uncomfortable nuance here. One of those being that the dude is also in agreement he did something wrong. He also gave a relatively accurate description of the events of that evening that got proven with phone records and CCTV at different locations. Making his account of what happened at the least somewhat reliable.
Obviously the woman could not consent because she was drunk as fuck. And she’s allowed to get drunk as fuck without being taken advantage off. CCTV showed them kissing at the bar they met. Phone records show he tried to call her friend she was supposed to go home with. CCTV shows them going to that friend’s dorm and not getting in and waiting there for half an hour. Then they walk back to his place while kissing on the way there. The morning after his messages to her indicate he wants to continue seeing her. (https://m.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20250402_95297572?journeybuilder=nopaywall but it’s in Dutch)
Again, she could not consent, and he as the least drunk of both of them bears the responsibility of this. I do think he should have had some form of punishment above of what he got and for the woman’s feeling of safety a restraining order like she asked. And something that would have made mandatory counselling and follow-up possible. Not to mention that although justice in Belgium isn’t supposed to be revenge, it should also cause some sort of satisfaction for the victim.
This situation just shows that the definition of rape over the decades has become more complex and nuanced, but unfortunately the tools to deal with this have not. This dude definitely did something wrong, but he’s not just a vicious predator.
Because of the fallout about this the entire ruling was made public. It’s clear that the wording used everywhere is rage bait. Again I think he should not have gotten the sentence suspended but it’s not like the judges said it got suspended because he’s such a bright boy…