Is it rape for a man to get drunk and have sex with his wife in the wrong room?

Wang returned to the hotel to rest after celebrating his birthday with his friends. At this time, he drank a lot of wine. When he arrived at the hotel, he found a door open, thinking that his wife had left it for himself. After going in, he took a shower first, then went to bed and had sex with that woman.

At this time, the woman was also drunk. She thought her husband was back and had sex with him willingly. Both sides mistook one for another. The next morning, the man found out that he had mistaken me, and the woman quickly hid. She angrily reported that she had been raped.

First of all, I'll tell you something about popular science. Drunk can be divided into physiological drunkenness and pathological drunkenness. The stipulation that the crime of drunkenness should bear criminal responsibility in Article 18 of the Criminal Law is only aimed at physiological drunkenness.

In practice, there is an extremely rare drunkenness called pathological drunkenness. In this case, Wang was not specifically accused of pathological drunkenness. Then, should Wang be criminally responsible for the illegal acts committed after drunkenness?

A man who commits a crime after being drunk does not constitute rape and should bear criminal responsibility. In this case, after Wang was drunk, he had sex with a woman without knowing or being able to resist. Why does it not constitute rape?

Criminal law should condemn illegal acts committed under intentional or negligent control. Without responsibility, there is no crime. If criminal law wants to punish irresponsible behavior, it is objective imputation, which is not adopted by modern criminal law. Objectively, an act that infringes on legal interests can only show that it is not advocated and encouraged by criminal law.

Criminal intent is all the elements of the constitutive requirements. If the actor doesn't realize one or more elements in the constitutive requirements when he carries out the act, there will be no criminal intent and he can only be regarded as a negligent crime.

The object of behavior is the constituent element of rape crime, and Wang has a wrong understanding of the object of sexual relations with him (non-object misunderstanding). In this case, Wang mistakenly thought that it was his wife who had sex with him. Wang doesn't know the object of rape, but the object is the intentional content of rape, so he doesn't have the intention of rape.

The criminal law stipulates that those who intentionally commit crimes shall bear criminal responsibility; Those who commit a crime negligently shall bear criminal responsibility only if the law provides for it. The criminal law does not stipulate that negligent rape constitutes a crime, so Wang does not constitute rape.

According to the above analysis, those who commit crimes after being drunk should bear criminal responsibility; Pathological drunken crime, except for free reasons, does not bear criminal responsibility. The criminal law stipulates that those who intentionally commit crimes shall bear criminal responsibility; Only when the criminal law has provisions on negligent crime can criminal responsibility be borne.

Rape is a deliberate crime, and negligent rape is not stipulated as a crime in the criminal law. Therefore, in this case, Wang was not criminally responsible for the crime of rape, not because he was drunk, but because Wang did not intentionally rape and did not bear criminal responsibility.