Is diminished responsibility close enough to excuse?

Academic studies have shown that if the female complainant is portrayed as drunk, she is perceived as less credible and the defendant is seen as less likely to be criminally culpable compared with a sober victim (Stormo et al., 1997; Wenger and Bornstein, 2006)

Stormo KJ, Lang AR, Stritze WGK. (1997) Attributions about acquaintance rape—the role of alcohol and individual differences. J Appl Soc Psychol 27:279–305.

Wenger AA, Bornstein BH. (2006) The effects of victim substance use and relationship closeness on mock jurors judgments in an acquaintance rape case. Sex Roles 54:547–55.

In mock jury trials [...] some tended to believe that so long as a person was conscious they were capable of expressing resistance to unwanted sexual contact and that a non-consenting person would struggle even when intoxicated (see Finch and Munro 2005).

http://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/documents/publications/Joe_St...

However, inebriated females were assigned more responsibility when they consumed alcohol than sober females. In addition, sober males were assigned more responsibility for the rape than inebriated males.

So if a woman has been drinking she's held to be more responsible for the rape than if she were sober and if a man has been drinking he is less responsible for the rape than if he were sober. Furthermore it has a recorded effect on mock juries. Is drunkenness an excuse for rape? It does change the burden of responsibility greatly and affects culpability.