Actually in the majority of jurisdictions in the US this is not the case (though it should be, IMHO). Most require penetration, absence of consent, and force. New Jersey, since In the Interests of MTS, 609 A.2d 1266 (N.J. 1992) has held that the act of penetration itself is sufficient force to satisfy that requirement. Pennsylvania, on the other hand, ruled that a woman who said no through the entire experience of being raped by her boyfriend’s roommate was not raped under the criminal law of the Commonwealth (Commonwealth v Berkowitz 641 A.2d 1161 (Penn. 1994)). Otherwise I agree with your analysis.
And guess what the law says. If they have consented, it isn’t rape. The law just states that in some situations you cannot consent.
OK, you are really taking all the fun out of this.
Come to think of it I’ve generally just pounded a lot of water to avoid the nasty dehydration effects of too much imbibing, it’s been a while since I took any painkillers to try and head things off.
Thanks for the headsup. Liver seems to be in good shape and will hopefully stay that way.
Where’s the double standard? You’re not comparing equivalent situations.
If a woman gets too drunk to know when someone is or isn’t consenting to sex, and forces herself on that person, then she has done something just as illegal as when a man does it, and should face the consequences. The only difference in this situation is that men are far less likely make a complaint afterwards.
I think Loopydude’s point, which I agree with, is that the presence of alcohol shouldn’t make a difference. The Klansman who beats up a black guy in his favorite bar, the robber, and the rapist are all criminals, no matter what mental state their victims are in.
By the same token, if you say “yes” to sex and don’t withdraw your consent at any time during the entire experience, you are not a rape victim, whether you’re drunk or sober. Getting drunk voluntarily doesn’t remove your ability to consent unless you’re literally unable to express an opinion one way or the other, and any law that says otherwise should be changed immediately, IMO. (But if what I’m reading in this thread is true, the existence of those laws has been greatly exaggerated.)
Wow. Just wow.
Can I borrow your time machine? I have a couple things I’d like to have done last week. 
I am sure that one does not need a time machine to reach an era when men would be reluctant to come forward with a rape complaint against a woman. Treatment of female rape victims is bad enough; I think a male victim could reasonably fear that his complaint would not be taken seriously. This is unfortunate, but it isn’t Sublight’s fault and I don’t think he should be criticized as some sort of Neanderthal for saying so.
My apologies if I have completely misinterpreted you here, but when one makes these kinds of “jokes” in a debate it’s not always easy for others to gauge the true intent of the post.
No, I was joking about the fact that Sublight was quoting and responding to a post I made last week. I’d given up this thread for dead and buried.
Not that your tirade wasn’t lovely.
From my personal observation: assholes are still assholes whether drunk or sober; and people of low moral values live by those values whether drunk or sober.
The impairment defense is just a lawyer’s tool to provide the most vigorous defense possible for his client - but to me it is a dog ate my homework excuse.
I ask again, what about someone who is truly impaired?
Alchol has side effects that reduce your ability to judge right from wrong, but not to remove this ability entirely. This has been clinically proven.
Some drugs (I am thinking of methamphetamines, or crystal meth specifically) have this effect but in much greater degree. Sustained users of crystal meth have reported god-like complexes, feelings of invulnerability, and total impairment of judgement. Same can be true of other drugs, such as ketamine and PCP (Cecil just did a column on this, or reprinted it recently)
How does this work with regards to legal responsibility? Is someone responsible for their own actions if they have suffered a psychotic break due to extensive drug use?
Another big-ass disclaimer - I am not talking about personal experiences, and am not looking to defend myself in advance! I am asking merely for information! I am also explicitly NOT suggesting to anyone to try or use these drugs!
Being drunk is no reason to for someone to do things that are morally or legally wrong. The Bureau of Justice keeps statistics on crime related events and in 1998 (and probably have published more recent numbers) published a report (caution, PDF file) that goes into detail about how many crimes were committed under the influence of alcohol. I do not believe it’s generally been the case that many were successful in excusing their criminal behavior because they were drunk or high.
On the issue of rape, consent and alcohol: The hysteria on both sides is sometimes sickening. The feminists stand on one side screaming that only 2% of all rapes reported were false reports. The other side screams that as many as 40% of all convicted rapists have been falsely accused. (No links to either of these hysterical points of view will be provided by me.)
The truth is that the law is not perfect in cases of rape. There are some jurisdictions where one cannot claim to have been raped if one did not “fight back” even if under duress. Simply saying no is not enough in many jurisdictions. Should it be? That’s a different debate, I suppose.
The fact of the matter is that it is generally obvious when someone is tipsy and when someone is nearly incapacitated from being drunk. Most of us have experienced both of these states of mind and can describe the differences between the two. Liberal usage of common sense can tell you what you need to know about these types of situations. If the girl you are taking home is one that you believe would not go home with you sober, you likely shouldn’t be taking her home drunk. You men worry that we will regret our actions the next day and accuse you of rape. We women know that the real concern for us is that a man will intentionally overfeed us alcohol in the hopes of “scoring”. I ask you this: if you feel that a woman will not go to bed with you without being drunk, do you really want to take that woman home? I’m not excusing the woman in this story - as long as she’s not been drugged or intoxicated against her will - but it’s a shady situation at best. Why open yourself up for that type of problem? It’s fairly obvious to me that there’s a significant difference between being tipsy and being on the verge of passing out or actually passing out. I have seen other people in this state and know the signs. A man should be aware that if his date is on the verge of passing out, she’s incapable of giving consent even if she says yes. It may not be fair in your mind, but really the person being protected here is you.
On preview…Gomiboy, I think it’s pretty clear that everyone in this thread believes that you cannot use drug or alcohol use/abuse as an excuse to commit a crime. Your legal responsibility should not be diminished because it is well documented that doing drugs/drinking alcohol can affect your inhibitions. However, that does not relieve your obligations to be an upstanding citizen.
The person made a conscious decision to get drunk to begin with. He isn’t born that way. He should be held accountable for his actions even when he has decided to drink too much.
The only exception I would make regarding drug/alcohol impairment is if a person is slipped something without their knowledge.
What about addiction? Doesn’t that take away some of the element of choice?
Kinda, sorta.
In Texas, the penal code specifically states:
However, earlier in the penal code, we have this definition:
Now, to my way of thinking (and yes, this is MNSHO), a drunk driver has committed murder, a first degree felony. However, the Intoxication Manslaughter offense only gives him a second degree felony. That might be quibbling and nitpicking on my part, but it seems to me that we’ve basically given them a pass on killing somebody because they were drunk.
And I think it’s murder because 19.02(b).2 states “A person commits an offense if he intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual”. I think that the act of getting behind the wheel of a car drunk proves the intent to cause serious bodily injury. Why else would you do it? I mean, it’s not like people over the age of 8 don’t know that DWI is dangerous; you can’t watch TV or listen to the radio or read newspapers/magazines without hearing PSAs to that effect or hearing stories about gory wrecks caused by drunk drivers.
It apparently is possible in Canada. My BIL has been charged and convicted of exactly this. he plead guilty to get a lesser sentence (house arrest) and now the girl has filed an appeal to get the sentence upped to jail time. The thing is, my BIL has no use for this girl and they were at a party with booze and drugs and ended up doing the nasty.
Not in my book. Just as one can choose to use whatever substance one is addicted to, one can also choose to seek treatment for one’s addiction. I used to date a guy who would knock back a six pack of beer after work with a coworker until one day he realized that every adult male on his father’s side of the family was an alcoholic. At that point, he decided that maybe knocking back half a six pack every day wasn’t such a great idea.
Yes, addictions can be incredibly strong and over powering. That doesn’t change the fact that indulging in those addictions remains a choice.
CJ
Personal examples aside (and I happen to agree with you), what about the legality of what I describe? Am I legally responsible for my actions if I cannot tell right from wrong?
Sorry for abruptly ending the post.
My BIL said it was consentual but the defense lawyer said it didn’t matter because they were both plastered and therefore she could not have consented. So, while by BIL was too plastered to care about my sister and their kid, he apparently was able to consent to sex while the girl, in the same situation, could not.
On the other hand, maybe his lawyer is an idiot for not trying to fight.
And in the eyes of the law in many jurisdictions that is not a valid excuse either. The reasoning is that if someone is slipped something they will still realize that something is not right. If you were sober, drinking water, and suddenly began to feel a bit tipsy wouldn’t you wonder why? Again, it’s a grey area.
Remember though that this is dependent on many factors, including the DAs willingness to pursue a certain sentence based on the evidence at hand. A jury can be given more than one possible sentence to recommend based on the charges that DA actually presents in court. I would say that juries would tend to be fairly unlenient on drunk drivers. I know that I would be.
: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.