Did you miss the part where she was blind drunk and underage? California doesn’t have a Romeo and Juliet exception for statutory rape.
Is this accurate?
If Occidental has a practice of expelling 18 and overs for sleeping with 17 year olds, then I’d love to hear about it. I live in LA, and have known a few Oxy students and profs. To the best of my knowledge, sexually active 17 year olds are quite common there.
I mostly agree with this, ecept for the fact that in California the age of consent is 18. If she was a year older I would be on your side here.
Why do you guys keep mentioning the condom?
Some people seem to think that if a woman expresses a desire for sex one day, that means she automatically consents, or something, the next time. They may not understand that consent that can be withdrawn, even if it was given before.
So you’re taking a series of events that took place over a few hours on one night, and extending it over a series of days?
You figure that if you talk enough, no one will notice that you’re not saying anything.
???
It doesn’t matter. If she planned on nookie that night, but then got so blind drunk that she was unable to consent in the moment, she did not consent in the moment. The issue here seems to be whether she was sufficiently intoxicated that her ability to consent was removed. Whether she wanted sex earlier in the evening when she was sober does not seem to be relevant.
Not to restart the hijack, but in California can someone who is “intoxicated” legally consent to sex?
Can we substitute the phrase “falling over vomiting drunk” for intoxicated? I think that might help us clarify this particular case.
Also, the link provided addresses campus policy, which defines sexual assault in part as “having . . . sexual intercourse with another individual . . . [w]here that individual is incapacitated.” It goes on to talk about how alcohol consumption affects decision-making ability etc. and whether the accused “knew, or should have known, that the Complainant was incapacitated.”
And, if she was under 18, it doesn’t matter if she was stone cold sober and screaming “do me now” while texting the kama sutra. In California, she can’t consent. If he were under 18, he’d be fine, but he wasn’t.
If that’s the case in California then it is extremely puzzling that the police declined to prosecute.
I wasn’t asking a moral question. I was asking a legal question. Can someone in California who’s intoxicated due to alcohol or drugs legally consent to sex.
I’m pretty sure the answer is no because it’s believed their judgement is compromised and they can’t make an informed, rational decision.
I understand. I suggested the substitution so we didn’t get into another silly argument about .08 BAL and whether that was intoxicated: the question is really whether someone so drunk she’s vomiting and staggering around can legally consent to sex in California.
If he is within three years, its only a misdemeanor offense. But she still isn’t legal to consent. The school can take disciplinary action even if the state decides not to.
Wow, that’s incredible.
I would have thought the American Enterprise Institute would be incredibly progressi… oh, huh.
What the fuck does the American Enterprise Institute care about rape?
ETA: sort of ninja’d.
Errrr…no.
That’s not the issue I was bringing up on this thread at all.
I was pointing out that AFAICT, the law in California is that if you’re intoxicated you can’t consent to sex.
The only way your post would make any sense is if California law held that intoxicated people could consent to sex, but there was made distinctions between people who were intoxicated but capable of consenting to sex and those who were intoxicated to such an extent that they weren’t considered capable of consenting to sex.
So far as I know, there’s no such ruling in any US jurisdiction. If I’m wrong, I’ll be happy to be corrected.
Perhaps you feel there should be a distinction. I, for the record do, but it doesn’t seem like the law does.
That said, obviously jury nullification is a real thing and police and DAs keep that in mind when determining whether to prosecute or not.