Upon reading that again, Bricker, I think we’re in agreement.
Yep.
The only other comment I’d make is that the standard for criminal conviction is, at least here in the U.S., beyond a reasonable doubt. So it’s not enough to think it’s maybe a 50/50 shot that the guy is guilty. The evidence must be clear enough to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis except guilt. That’s a high standard: we can say, “I think the guy is probably guilty,” and still vote to acquit.
It’s not uncommon, hence it isn’t an unreasonnable assumption. There are many women who are willing to have sex, there are women who are out precisely seeking for sex, and it’s particularily not uncommon with women who hang out in bars and drink in excess. I’ve been bugged more than once by a drunkyard. Don’t assume that a drunk woman is necessarily a poor victim of lustful men. Sometimes, since we aren’t raised to slap women in the face when they become really obnoxious, you’ve to actively flee drunk lustful women.
Of course, these are never the ones making you lustful 
. Though it hapenned once 
. But she changed her mind once we were already in bed . But fortunately she changed her mind again the following day and we stayed together or two years .
It’s not uncommon, hence it isn’t an unreasonnable assumption. There are many women who are willing to have sex, there are women who are out precisely seeking for sex, and it’s particularily not uncommon with women who hang out in bars and drink in excess. I’ve been bugged more than once by a drunkyard. Don’t assume that a drunk woman is necessarily a poor victim of lustful men. Sometimes, since we aren’t raised to slap women in the face when they become really obnoxious, you’ve to actively flee drunk lustful women.
Of course, these are never the ones making you lustful . Though it hapenned once . But she changed her mind once we were already in bed . But fortunately she changed her mind again the following day and we stayed together or two years . She just called me to remember me we met exactly nine years ago (we’re still friend).
I might be misinformed, but it was my understanding that GHB caused blackouts: i.e. memory loss, even for periods in which the individual was walking and talking.
Well I’ve done it more than once.
It’s not really all that unusual unless you hang on to the misguided notion that women are all about saying no and men are all about getting them to say otherwise.
I have to second that it happens pretty often. More than one girl has headed out to a bar or party thinking “I’m gonna get laaaaaiiiiddd tonight.” Plenty of women have sex drives that could put a fifteen year old male to shame and have no qualms about doing something about it (hopefull in a safe situation.)
You were misinformed, which is common for lots of drugs in these “war on drugs” days. Although probably not acceptable as a trustworthy (i.e., scientific) cite, this seems pretty accurate to me.
Unfortunately, as you and others have pointed out, imho rightly so, since she doesn’t remember. LEGALLY there is reasonable doubt and I can’t see how they could find the man guilty, of a crime that is.
I still think that someone taking advantage in that way, even if the girl got herself drunk in the first place, is pretty damn sleazy.
I’m as anti-rape as the next self-righteous smarmy prick, but this is beyond flimsy.
She doesn’t remember if she gave consent. She doesn’t remember if she had sex. And she’s filing charges?
What’s next? Should I file burglary charges against random people on the street because they MAY have broken into my house and taken something when I wasn’t there?
Just think about legitimate rape cases being dragged down just a little bit by this woman…
-Joe
I’m not as naive as some of that last made me sound. A woman may well go out looking to meet someone for a one-night stand, but when her search is unsuccessful and she winds up not with any of the guys from the bar or the party but with the security guard who is walking her home because she can’t make it home safely herself, who she has known for maybe 15 minutes, I do hold that is still not real likely, especially with the whole no protection, public place thing.
I really need to stay focued, though, because that whole thing was completely tangential to the point I was trying to make when I got derailed by agreement with Bricker. :smack:
I originally joined the thread to make the point that poor judgment by the victim doesn’t excuse the perpetrators of crimes. This goes for the woman walking home through a bad neighborhood, people who fall for the Nigerian email scam, or people buying defective counterfeit electronics from the back of some guy’s van. The criminal act of theft, fraud or counterfeiting is still a crime, in spite of the bad judgment of the victims. And I would argue that it means the argument that “a woman showed poor judgment by getting drunk means that illegal acts against her are excusable,” needs to be dismissed from deciding this issue.
If we can dismiss that line of reasoning, I’m certainly willing to open up the line of discussion on what is and isn’t a reasonable assumption, but that will depend on the facts of the individual case.
On the reasonable assumption thing, I’d like to posit this for the straight males. If you got so drunk you blacked out, and the last thing you remembered was sitting on your porch with some guy who drove you home from a party, finishing his bottle of Southern Comfort and discussing the meaning of life, then you woke up in the morning with evidence you’d had anal sex, how reasonable would the assumption be to you that you’d consented?
Hi Harriet, coupla things:
It’s not that illegal acts against the woman are excusable, but that the circumstances make it impossible to establish conclusively that an illegal act occurred - given that all that distinguishes the putative illegal act from a legal one is a question of consent, which she can’t even remember whether or not she gave - and that the court can’t convict in the absence of such.
If random acts of consensual homosexuality by formerly straight guys were commonplace, I imagine the male rapee would be up against the same problem here. Perhaps the sexual history of the supposed victim ought to be a subject for discussion. :dubious:
And taking the homophobia out of the equation, a fair few male Dopers may have woken up sober next to someone they barely recognise from when they were drunk. It’s the old saying about never having gone to bed with an ugly woman… Heck, my own deflowering was under not too dissimilar circumstances. But I believe men are just meant to consider that they got lucky.
I dunno. If he was attractive to me and was walking me home, I might’ve taken a chance at it. Invite him in, see if I can get any. Course, I’ve also been known to not be very shy in public places, either.
I have a tendency to either think I got lucky, or that I did something dumb, depending on the attractiveness of the person I’ve found in the morning.
Beer goggles. Ugh.
If you’ll agree that the illegal acts are not excusable, I’ll agree that the determination of facts in the circumstances is difficult. Just because it’s difficult doesn’t mean to me that it’s dismissed out of hand as impossible, though.
I’m trying to get rid of the “well she shouldn’t have gone out drinking, what did she expect?” factor.
Regarding the second point, you can just always believe you got lucky if you want. I’ll accept that as your reaction. I’d be interested to hear other male Dopers’ reactions though, whether this scenario makes them think about burden of proof and the law any differently.
How could the facts possibly be determined in this case? Even if she remembers having sex, which she doesn’t, even if she remembers not consenting, which she doesn’t, then surely it’s still his word against hers?
I think it’s important to remember that the case wasn’t dismissed out of hand. It went to court, through the CPS, where a trial judge heard the claims and instructed the jury to find the defendent not guilty.
Of course illegal acts are not excusable, but we’re getting close to begging the question here, as I’m sure you know. Also, it’s not a question of “she shouldn’t have gone out drinking”, just “under the circumstances, it’s darned difficult to make a case for a conviction, which may well suck, but we’re stuck with it.”
Interesting that to try and turn it around, you had to pick such an extreme example. A man’s reaction in your hypothetical would be largely dictated by the fact that to a huge fraction of straight guys, homosexual acts are utterly repellent, and receptive anal sex will be nearly top of the list in terms of such. (This may be reasonable or not, but that’s another discussion.) I really don’t believe that sex, for hetero women, is quite such an automatic no-no as that.
(Forgot to remark on the great username, btw. It took a moment for the penny to drop!)
Why does getting drunk releive you of responsibility? Does this work for DWI? Hey yes I drove drunk, but I was drunk when I decided to drive, so It is not my fault.
But that’s the whole question being discussed: does getting drunk relieve you of responsibility or not, and if so, when? I (along with others, including you) brought up the scenario of driving drunk as a comparitive to fucking drunk when it came to assigning responsibility. Being drunk when you drive broadside into someone’s SUV and kill their children doesn’t excuse your behavior, so the question is why should being drunk excuse your behavior when you have sex with someone that you later regret?
Should they be held to the same standards? Should “I was drunk” be an excuse, or not? And if it should be sometimes, then when? And how to determine those occasions?
I should probably note that I don’t believe taking advantage of anyone’s incapacitated state is allowable, regardless of who we choose to “blame” for it (“Hey, she was drunk, so it’s her fault!”). At the same time, however, people (especially adults) should be accountable for their actions…which is what makes this whole issue such a contentious debate.
True, the jury decides if there’s a reasonable doubt, but only if the case reaches the jury. Both the Crown prosecutor and the judge have legal duties which may prevent the matter from going to the jury.
First, the Crown. The Crown prosecutor is not like a private lawyer arguing a civil case for the victim. In the English system, the Crown is exercises a public function for the public at large. The Crown has a duty not to let shaky cases go to court. The standard normally is expressed in terms like “the Crown must be satisifed that there is a reasonable likelihood of conviction”. If the Crown prosecutor conclucdes that this standard is not met, based on a professional assessment of the law and the facts, then the Crown has the duty to stay the charge. Proceeding in such a case could well be an abuse of process. Normally, that assessment is made before ever going to court, but if the evidence that comes out in court makes a conviction highly unlikely, it may be the Crown’s duty to withdraw the case. That seems to have been what happened here.
Second, the judge. Once the Crown closes its case, the defence can argue that even if all of the Crown’s evidence is believed, the Crown has not led evidence on all the necessary elements of the offence. If the judge agrees that there’s an unplugged hole in the Crown’s case, that’s the end of the case. The judge directs the jury to enter a verdict of not guilty, which is what happened here - once the Crown withdrew the case, there obviously was not evidence of all the elements, and the accused was entitled to be found “not guilty” by the jury.
This is precisely the problem. And that’s why I, and I think others, are phrasing this as a real dilemna.
Yes, we want to charge drunk drivers for their crimes. But to do so, we must make an argument that undermines something else we value: the idea that a drunken woman may not really be able to give meaningful consent to sex.
Do I have a good answer for this one? No. What’s your take on things?