Well Michael, here's the thing. A man having sex with a woman who is too drunk to consent is the fully active participant. He's the one who undresses her. He's the one who undresses himself. He's the one who gets the erection, gets on top and gets himself inside. They are not doing it together. He is doing all the doing. There is no equivalence between the pair's activities. It is all one way. No woman expects or Invites rape, no matter how drunk she is or how short her skirt is. To say, or imply, that she is in some way responsible, or part-responsible, for being raped is to do no more than make excuses for the man. That is not the kind of culture I wish to be a part of, thank you. I'm surprised that you seem to be supporting such a culture. Not so so surprised in the case of Akenaton, whose response to this was entirely predictable.
And I'm still waiting for someone to tell us what part of the legal process in this particular case was wanting in any way. Gave you the link to chapter and verse. Read it.