# Being drunk is no excuse for anything. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 3, 2005, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-drunk-is-no-excuse-for-anything/297499 "2005-04-03T06:16:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2005, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-drunk-is-no-excuse-for-anything/297499/81 "2005-04-12T12:56:43Z")
> [@Sublight](#): > > :shrug: the thread had already been revived before my post, and this was this was the first time Id seen it. > > In any case, I think my point is still valid. Ability to consent and ability recognize consent as given are two separate things, and regardless of gender, the burden of responsibility is on the one seeking to receive consent, not on the one from whom consent is sought. The subtle distinction you’re missing is that if both persons are hammered, then neither of them has given consent, and one should be as guilty of rape as the other, or as innocent of it as the other. Currently, there’s an imbalance - one that Campion seemed to embrace. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2005, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-drunk-is-no-excuse-for-anything/297499/82 "2005-04-12T14:13:34Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > The subtle distinction you’re missing is that if both persons are hammered, then neither of them has given consent, and one should be as guilty of rape as the other, or as innocent of it as the other. Going from New York law as cited by **doreen** above, provided both were voluntarily drunk, they’d only both be too drunk to consent if both were “unconscious or for any other reason is physically unable to communicate unwillingness to an act”. I have a hard time imagining how two people in that condition would be capable of engaging in a sex act in the first place. They’d both be perfectly innocent because nothing would have happened. If someone can quote a law saying that explicit consent does not count if the person giving consent is drunk, I’d sure be curious to see it. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2005, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-drunk-is-no-excuse-for-anything/297499/83 "2005-04-12T14:19:06Z")
> [@Lamia](#): > > If someone can quote a law saying that explicit consent does not count if the person giving consent is drunk, I’d sure be curious to see it. Did someone not just detail a case in Canada that actually had a conviction on this basis? ---
**Author:** ![Greenback](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/2bfe46/32.png) [@Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Greenback)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2005, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-drunk-is-no-excuse-for-anything/297499/84 "2005-04-12T14:35:49Z")
> [@Lamia](#): > > Going from New York law as cited by **doreen** above, provided both were voluntarily drunk, they’d only both be too drunk to consent if both were “unconscious or for any other reason is physically unable to communicate unwillingness to an act”. I have a hard time imagining how two people in that condition would be capable of engaging in a sex act in the first place. They’d both be perfectly innocent because nothing would have happened. > > If someone can quote a law saying that explicit consent does not count if the person giving consent is drunk, I’d sure be curious to see it. Canadian law holds that consent can not be given when intoxicated. [summary](http://sexualassault.aloak.ca/SACrimlaw.html) [Actual law. Specifically 273.2](http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/42801.html) ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2005, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-drunk-is-no-excuse-for-anything/297499/85 "2005-04-12T16:43:20Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > Did someone not just detail a case in Canada that actually had a conviction on this basis? No, **Greenback** summarized his brother-in-law’s case, but he did not provide an actual legal cite until just now. I don’t doubt **Greenback** ’s honesty, but without seeing the actual text of the law I can’t trust that his account of the grounds on which his BIL was convicted accurately reflects the law. Looking at the law, the section **Greenback** specifies (273.2) doesn’t say anything about the complainant being drunk. It says that if _the accused_ was voluntarily intoxicated, the accused cannot use “This is all a misunderstanding, I was so drunk I _thought_ I had consent!” as a defense. Maybe I’m skimming over something crucial, but in looking at the Canadian law I’m not seeing anything about intoxication in regard to the complainant at all. The closest thing is 273.1(2b), “No consent is obtained…where…the complainant is incapable of consenting to the activity”. That looks to me like a law designed to prevent a “But the complainant didn’t actually say _no_” defense in cases where the complainant was incapable of expressing any opinion one way or the other. The linked summary, which says consent cannot be obtained if “the complainant is incapable of consenting to the activity, i.e. blacked out, impaired by alcohol or narcotics, unconscious, sleeping”, seems to support this interpretation. A good lawyer might be able to use this same law as grounds to argue that the explicit consent of a drunken complainant didn’t count, but that’s what good lawyers are for. I’m not seeing that the actual letter of the law agrees that a person can be sober enough to say “Sure, let’s have sex” but too drunk to mean it. If someone with legal experience believes otherwise and would like to explain things I’d be interested to hear it, but it looks like the law just says that if a person is too impaired to express consent then they cannot be assumed to have consented by default. ---
**Author:** ![Sublight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@Sublight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sublight)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2005, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-drunk-is-no-excuse-for-anything/297499/86 "2005-04-13T01:23:32Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > The subtle distinction you’re missing is that if both persons are hammered, then neither of them has given consent, and one should be as guilty of rape as the other, or as innocent of it as the other. I’m not missing it, I’m disagreeing with it, or at least saying it’s an oversimplification. The burden of responsibility is on the person asking for consent, not the person it’s being asked of. In a situation where both parties are actively seeking sex, then yes, the responsibility lies equally on both. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2005, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-drunk-is-no-excuse-for-anything/297499/87 "2005-04-13T02:28:19Z")
> [@Sublight](#): > > I’m not missing it, I’m disagreeing with it, or at least saying it’s an oversimplification. The burden of responsibility is on the person asking for consent, not the person it’s being asked of. In a situation where both parties are actively seeking sex, then yes, the responsibility lies equally on both. This is not how it works in other cases where the ability to consent is in doubt. For example, a minor who actively seeks sex from an adult is still considered a victim; the burden of responsibility is on the adult to determine that the person asking him for sex is legally able to consent. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/being-drunk-is-no-excuse-for-anything/297499.md?page=4)