All things "Gray Rape", Date Rape, and Drunk Sex. . .

Well, this is just what the title says, stemming from this thread that continually changed from the OP. So, I figured i’d start a nice new debate about it, because it is debatable.

Great idea.

What’s your opinion?

from the other thread:

Cite? And dont give me some contractual capacity cite. I am talking about a criminal statute that says it is illegal to have sex with a person drunk at their own volition. Am I raping my wife if we have drunk sex? If you’re correct about the law, I am – IFshe’s drunk, and I’m having sex with her, by your understanding of the law, I’m raping her. I think you’re probably wrong.

It isnt a perfect cite, but i think it can suffice. It is easy to claim “mental incapacity” due to drunkenness. Rather than just say i was drunk you say “i wasnt in a mental capacity to consent due to inebriation” (i just tried to make it sound formal there)

as for my opinion:

I think its a crock that rape can be “retro-actively” decided. i.e. if i and a woman, who has consented she could be screaming “yes, give it to me!” during the act…wakes up and decides “crap i was drunk, i shouldnt have done that” and can then press rap charges.

now if she is passed out/unconscious because of said drunkenness thats a different story.

keep reading:

emphasis mine.

this is not referring to voluntary intoxication.

That is from the first few lines of that article, emphasis is theirs, I thought it said it pretty clearly… I don’t know how that affects ‘spousal rape’ which has its own set of laws/circumstances

Do you judges and DA’s cite articles on the internet or the law. The stauutes quoted in the article is clear – “Mentally incapacitated” means that a person is rendered temporarily incapable of appraising or controlling his conduct owing to the influence of a narcotic or intoxicating substance administered to him without his consent, or to any other act committed upon him without his consent. It does not mean voluntarily drunk.

I asked for a cite (the standing implication being “credible”) that says having sex with a voluntarily drunk person is illegal. Your cite ain’t it. In fact, to the extent that it acurately reproduces New York law, it says the contrary.

"do you think judges . . . " not "do you judges . . . " missed the edit window

California Rape:

and

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=261-269

The question then being what does it mean to be prevented from resisting by intoxicating substance?

I think we all agree that having sex with a woman who is passed out is rape, however…

Passed Out - Rape
Falling Down Drunk - Rape
Drunk (and acting Horny) - ???
Tipsy - ???
One glass of wine - ???

I made up this scale. Way back when I was in college this was being discussed, and there were some stating that if a woman had ONE drink, she no longer was giving consent and that made interourse = rape.

I’m not going to look up the rape laws of every state for you whole bean. I suggest you start your own investigation at a simple layperson’s page like this, which states:

or this , which says:

If you want specific answers about your state or your relationship, contact a lawyer in your state, please.

I am a lawyer in my state, and I don’t want you to look up the rape laws of every state and never said I did. I wanted one statute that said having sex with a voluntarily intoxicated person is rape. To the extent that the person is intoxicated to the point of unconciousness or stupor, Algher’s cite works. However, you have cited nothing that conclusivley supports your blanket contention that “Drunk PEOPLE (not women, PEOPLE) cannot give consent [to sex].” Given the many shades of “drunk,” you’ve simply yet to provide a satisfactory cite. About.com is not an enforceable statute. Back to you.

I think we can work off of Alghers cite/question… at what point is some one unable to resist from an intoxicating substance? He laid out a nice little chart complete with ??? to be nice and filled in :slight_smile:

assuming voluntary intoxication of someone legally allowed to consume alcohol

drunk and acting horny - no rape
tipsy - no rape
one glass of wine - no rape

In Virginia, the law defines rape as:

Voluntary intoxication as it pertains to mental incapacity was discussed in Molina v. Commonwealth, which set for the rule for Virginia as follows:

They go on to mention how other states have resolved the issue with this discussion:

So, in general, no – having sex with a voluntarily intoxicated person is not per se rape – but if the intoxication in question is serious enough to destroy the ability to understand the nature or consequences of the sexual act, it may be rape, and that’s a question of fact for a jury to reach.

What about those who aren’t of legal age to consume alcohol… seeing as this type of thing is mostly occurring at colleges, where most people probably aren’t of legal age.

Thanks. Would you not agree then that nothing you’ve cited supports WhyNot’s blanket statement: “Drunk PEOPLE (not women, PEOPLE) cannot give consent [to sex]” given the many shades of intoxication? Two beers and I am too “drunk” to drive according to the state of Georgia, but perfectly capable of making decisions and understanding consequences (e.g. deciding not to drive). WhyNot seems to operate under the concept that any degree of intoxication is enough to strip a peson of her ablity to consent. I think she is wrong, and I have seen nothing that has changed my mind.

I think you might have edited to answer my question as I was typing my post. You must have the ESPN. :wink:

poses more of a problem in my mind.

Bricker,
the *Molina * decision you cite gives" beyond the stage of merely reduced inhibition and has reached a point where the victim does not understand ‘the nature or consequences of the sexual act’" as the threshold. That’s seems pretty effing drunk to me. How has it played out practically? Apply it to Algher’s scale, if you don’t mind.

The Algher Scale? Will this become a new form of measurement (where 0 is no intoxicant in the system and 5 is Passed Out…)

“There I was, a total 3 on the Algher scale, working on hitting a 4 when in walks in this hottie…”

The only cases I’ve seen have involved an Algher 5, but I would be confident in the prosecution’s ability convict an Algher 4. 3? Not so much. 2 and below? Forget it.