I’m not sure whether it is possible to have a fruitful discussion about rape. But it might be possible to have a fruitful discussion about the very specific thing that the judge said about increasing the number of rape convictions. To do so, though, would require that one resist one’s reflex response, here represented by Brook’s claim that the judge’s comments are a form of “blaming the victim.” The tendency by society to blame victims of rape for their rape is a major part of why rape has gone under-prosecuted and even under reported, so it is right that people have made a campaign to resist blaming the victim, even to the point of the phrase “don’t blame the victim” becoming a formulaic phrase. But here that formulaic phrase interferes with hearing the judge’s point.*
The judge’s point is that the victim is not just a victim. The victim is also the chief witness to the crime, and if that witness’ capacity to take in information about the crime is compromised, the judge has found, it tends to make the conviction harder. Improving on this point is, as people here have already noted, certainly not the only thing that could make convictions more likely, so the judge’s word choice was unfortunate in that regard. It may not even be the chief thing that could increase the number of convictions. But she is speaking from years of experience, and she knows that victims having their wits about them could be a thing that could help secure more convictions.
If we phrase it that way, we can even minimize the reference to drinking, which, again, provokes our reflex reactions on such issues (since “oh, she was drunk” has been one of the main ways of blaming the victim). Instead, the emphasis should fall on being an alert observer of potential crime. In the wake of the Ferguson shooting (and Tim’s analysis of it), I’ve been toying with the idea of getting certified as a “trained observer” (if there’s a way civilians can do so), so that should I ever witness a crime, my observations of it would have that status (also I’d just like to become a more observant person).
As some here have said, if you tell women they can’t get as drunk as men, that will feel unfair. But if you encourage people to be alert potential witnesses, some might, on those grounds, voluntarily curtail their own consumption of alcohol. If that means that one victim notices one thing that helps secure one more conviction, we can all celebrate that. (While working on the other things that would secure more convictions and decrease the incidence. It needn't be an either/or).
*we've already slipped into it, as I was composing this response. Mise is trying to keep us on track. Again, that will help us have a more productive discussion, which was the OP's other concern.
