Drunken Consent.

Great Debates
21

[QUOTE=athelas]
I think he means that feminists are very aggressive in pushing that scenario as “rape,” not that they’re hyping the idea that it’s a fatuous ploy.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, that is what I meant.

I’m talking about the stereotypical scenario that college students are told is “rape”:

You meet a girl at a bar. You both have had a few too many. You dance, drink more and make suggestive looks at each other. You go back to your place (or her place) doesn’t matter. You have a couple of more drinks, more flirting, kissing, heaving petting, and then have sex like weasels.

When you wake up the next morning, the girl doesn’t deny anything that happened. She says that she wanted sex then, but still feels it is rape because she was too drunk to give true consent.

I’m not talking about a scenario where she lies and says that she told you no, and you did it anyways. I’m not talking about her passing out and you having your way.

If you could just provide one link to a man who was even arrested or charged with rape based on the above scenario, I would love to hear it..

22

Would this be the thread to challenge the notion that criminal prosecution and/or conviction is an accurate indicator of occurrence, or shall I take that to another thread?

23

[QUOTE=jtgain]
Yes, that is what I meant.

If you could just provide one link to a man who was even arrested or charged with rape based on the above scenario, I would love to hear it..
[/QUOTE]

I’m sorry, jtgain, I completely mistook what you meant.

As for the just one man..

“Likewise the case in Wales of the student whose claims of rape were dropped by a court because she was supposedly too drunk to remember whether she had consented to sex with the security guard who had been entrusted to get her home safely.”

For charges to have been dropped, they must have been brought, no?
It seems the UK is seriously examining this. They decided not to pass a law that would address this very issue.

It would be very interesting if a woman’s BAC being over .08 would be added to the category of ‘statutory rape’.

Pardon me, while I run out to buy breathalyzer stock.

24

[QUOTE=Tracy Lord]
Would this be the thread to challenge the notion that criminal prosecution and/or conviction is an accurate indicator of occurrence, or shall I take that to another thread?
[/QUOTE]

It’s probably the best issue to challege that notion on. I would think that most women, waking up after a bender with a strange man in their bed, aren’t going to immediately think “My god, I’ve been raped” and call 911.

So, yes. I would also wager that most ‘taken advantage of whilst impaired’ (not unconscious) incidents don’t make statistics, let alone criminal charges. Some would argue it’s what alcohol is for.

25

[QUOTE=The Sonoran Lizard King]
Not confusing, I’m comparing diminished capacity to give consent to sex to diminished capacity to form criminal consent by driving intoxicated to examine the legal concept of diminished capicity by intoxication.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t understand what you mean by “criminal consent.” All crimes are made of two parts: the actus rea, or criminal act, and the mens rea, or culpable mental state.

Under New York law, which follows the Model Penal Code, voluntary intoxication is a defense to the mental states of “knowingly” and “purposefully” but not “recklessly” or “negligently.” What this amounts to in terms of “protection” is actually very little – while in a state of voluntary intoxication, you can be charged with any crime for which “recklessly” is the required mental state – including the “extreme reckless indifference to human life” flavor of murder.

A person is guilty of Murder in the Second Degree when under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, he recklessly engages in conduct which created a grave risk of death to another person, and thereby causes the death of another person.

A guy in Nassau County was recently convicted of 2 counts Murder 2 under this theory; while intoxicated he drove the wrong way down a highway, passing several oncoming cars before striking one fatally.
http://www.nassaucountyny.gov/agencies/DA/NewsReleases/2006/10-17-06.html

26

[QUOTE=The Sonoran Lizard King]
I’m sorry, jtgain, I completely mistook what you meant.

As for the just one man..

“Likewise the case in Wales of the student whose claims of rape were dropped by a court because she was supposedly too drunk to remember whether she had consented to sex with the security guard who had been entrusted to get her home safely.”

For charges to have been dropped, they must have been brought, no?
It seems the UK is seriously examining this. They decided not to pass a law that would address this very issue.

It would be very interesting if a woman’s BAC being over .08 would be added to the category of ‘statutory rape’.

Pardon me, while I run out to buy breathalyzer stock.
[/QUOTE]

Well, I’m over here in the colonies, so I’m not familiar with UK laws, but a .08 law for consent would be silly.

Could a man also say that he was over .08, so that the woman raped him? Or if they were both drunk, then they raped each other? (Let that one sink in for a few minutes)

Well, that would sure add to romance. After dinner, you and your SO are gazing into each others’ eyes, kiss softly, and you start to slowly undress her.

Then you tell her to blow into your breathalyzer because she had two glasses of wine. Then, just to be sure you have consent, have her fill out a consent form, being sure that you keep a copy! and then have a notary on call to formalize it.

In the morning, if she wants another round before she leaves, repeat the above process. We wouldn’t want to break any laws..

27

What, you’re so callous as to not take sufficient measures to Make Sure that You Have Consent? Chauvinist pig!

28

[QUOTE=Chief Pedant]
There is no logical consistency to the handling of drinking alcohol and drunkenness. (snip) There is another, even thornier problem: the notion that alcoholism is a disease, not a chosen proclivity. In recent decades this idea has become ever more popular (along with many other diminutions in personal responsibility, but I digress). The logical extension of all of this is that, since we are products of our genes and our environments, none of us is personally responsible for any reprehensible behaviour. It may be the surly old geezer in me talking, but I see modern culture heading generally in this direction. Somewhere between the cutting off of hands and a hand massage for the perpetrator to raise their self-esteem is a happy medium of accountability and punishment.
[/QUOTE]
But if a person had epilepsy and knew it, chose to drive anyway, had a seizure and caused an accident, would that person be held responsible? We are hammered with the message, “Don’t drive after drinking,” as we are hammered with almost no other message. Disease or not, seems there has to be some threshold of responsibility.

29

Add my voice to the chorus of “Your hypo confuses consent with intent.”

A more transparent discussion of this issue is going on here

[QUOTE=athelas]
What, you’re so callous as to not take sufficient measures to Make Sure that You Have Consent? Chauvinist pig!
[/QUOTE]

I hope this is a joke.

30

Fear not, it was, as demonstrated by Ironic Capitals.

31

[QUOTE=Hello Again]
I don’t understand what you mean by “criminal consent.” All crimes are made of two parts: the actus rea, or criminal act, and the mens rea, or culpable mental state.

Under New York law, which follows the Model Penal Code, voluntary intoxication is a defense to the mental states of “knowingly” and “purposefully” but not “recklessly” or “negligently.” What this amounts to in terms of “protection” is actually very little – while in a state of voluntary intoxication, you can be charged with any crime for which “recklessly” is the required mental state – including the “extreme reckless indifference to human life” flavor of murder.
*
[/quote]

Some crimes, such as New Yorks’s version of driving while intoxicated are strict liability crimes, meaning that mental state doesn’t matter.

32

[QUOTE=athelas]
Fear not, it was, as demonstrated by Ironic Capitals.
[/QUOTE]

Sorry, I thought they were Doric.

33

Ionic. The classical orders of columns are doric, ionic, and corinthian.

34

[QUOTE=doreen]
Some crimes, such as New Yorks’s version of driving while intoxicated are strict liability crimes, meaning that mental state doesn’t matter.
[/QUOTE]

Right. But in addition to the strict liability offense of drunk driving, voluntary intoxication does not prevent the mens rea needed to be charged with other, much more serious crimes. That was the point I was trying to make, sorry if I wasn’t clear.

35

[QUOTE=Hello Again]
I don’t understand what you mean by “criminal consent.” All crimes are made of two parts: the actus rea, or criminal act, and the mens rea, or culpable mental state.

[/QUOTE]

I just caught this. I meant, of course, Criminal Intent. Sorry.

36

I posted a little about this in other threads. I was actually thinking of a woman I had dated, who had her driver’s license revoked for ignoring Tom Waits’ excellent advice: “Never drive a car when you’re dead.” She is someone who does not always stop moving and talking when she is beyond the point of intoxication. Sometimes she would start “strobing,” going in and out of blackout and finding herself in strange places doing strange things. While it’s hard to blame a guy for having sex with a willing partner, you can’t really call that consent in any meaningful application of the term.