Let's talk about rape and alcohol

[kgswiger]

It's become axiomatic in our justice system that being drunk doesn't excuse committing a crime. And I don't have a problem with that.

However, it's also become easier to charge a guy with rape if he has sex with someone who's too drunk to realize what they're doing. This double standard has always bothered me.

If I get so drunk I can't remember setting fire to that orphanage, that doesn't let me off the hook. I'm still responsible for my actions. But if I get so drunk I can't remember agreeing to have sex with someone, I don't bear any responsibility, because I was too drunk to consent. This is a horrible double standard.

Mind you, this only applies if I chose to drink. If I was drugged, or was unaware that the other person was slipping vodka into my Shirley Temple, then I was robbed of my ability to consent.

 

[Corruptbuddha]

"Rape, Murder, Arson and Rape."

[video=youtube;2_urvjCXg6c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_urvjCXg6c[/video]

 

[gabriel]

so if someone is asleep?

 

[Friday13]

I don't bear any responsibility, because I was too drunk to consent

I don't see it as a double standard. It becomes a he said/she said, and the circumstances deserve consideration. It has to be a case-by-case basis with all the facts being known.

 

[NightSwimmer]

Rape?

If there's no violence involved, then it's just sex - maybe with a side of embarrassment. Our laws regarding sexuality still reflect Puritan paranoia.

 

[Citizen]

It's become axiomatic in our justice system that being drunk doesn't excuse committing a crime. And I don't have a problem with that.

However, it's also become easier to charge a guy with rape if he has sex with someone who's too drunk to realize what they're doing. This double standard has always bothered me.

If I get so drunk I can't remember setting fire to that orphanage, that doesn't let me off the hook. I'm still responsible for my actions. But if I get so drunk I can't remember agreeing to have sex with someone, I don't bear any responsibility, because I was too drunk to consent. This is a horrible double standard.

Mind you, this only applies if I chose to drink. If I was drugged, or was unaware that the other person was slipping vodka into my Shirley Temple, then I was robbed of my ability to consent.

You're right, it is a B/S standard.

I once actually saw a drunk chick, jump in the sack with a guy & have sex. Then when it was done & she realized everyone knew what she did, then she started crying that she didn't agree ti have sex. Which was B/S because we all saw her willingly go screw the dude. I think the fact that we all saw her doing the deed was what got to her when she & dude were done. So rather than just deal with what she did, she cried rape.

 

[Friday13]

I see that I'm the only woman here. As I said, each case is individual...you cannot generalize in this.

 

[gabriel]

did she say it was rape because she was drunk?

 

[Citizen]

did she say it was rape because she was drunk?

Nope she just said she didn't consent, which was a lie that was witnessed by at least a dozen other party goers.

She never used the word rape, just said she didn't consent.

 

[Havelock]

It goes to my intent and your capacity, doesn't it?

It's become axiomatic in our justice system that being drunk doesn't excuse committing a crime. And I don't have a problem with that.

However, it's also become easier to charge a guy with rape if he has sex with someone who's too drunk to realize what they're doing. This double standard has always bothered me.

If I get so drunk I can't remember setting fire to that orphanage, that doesn't let me off the hook. I'm still responsible for my actions. But if I get so drunk I can't remember agreeing to have sex with someone, I don't bear any responsibility, because I was too drunk to consent. This is a horrible double standard.

Mind you, this only applies if I chose to drink. If I was drugged, or was unaware that the other person was slipping vodka into my Shirley Temple, then I was robbed of my ability to consent.

I hear what you're saying, but there are after all (at least) two people making choices and taking action in your scenario, are there not? Leave sex out of the equation for the moment. If I see that you're intoxicated to the point of significant incapacitation, then it's wrong for me to take advantage of you, isn't it? I can't (or shouldn't) cajole you into co-signing a loan and an ethical loan officer wouldn't allow you to do so while you're drunk as a skunk. Right?

Seems to me that a sexual liaison is much the same. You may have chosen to drink to excess, but that doesn't mean I can take advantage of your altered state to have my way with you. Now, certainly there's a grey area here and I wouldn't suggest that drunken sex is tantamount to forcible rape either legally or ethically (as long as no force or undue coercion was involved and as long as the intoxicated party was in fact able to signify consent in some intelligible manner). But if you're clearly not in your right mind for whatever reason, I'm guilty of something if I knowingly and willfully turn that to my advantage, no?

Cheers.

 

[elsie003]

I see that I'm the only woman here. As I said, each case is individual...you cannot generalize in this.

I agree with what you say. You cannot generalize the case because the verdict of a particular case depends on the circumstances and the evidence presented of each party. Even if a girl says she was rape while the suspects was drunk or both of them were drunk but the evidences contradict her statement of course the suspect will be acquitted. Same as the case to the man, even if he constantly deny that he did not rape a girl when he was drunk or both of them were drunk but the evidences presented and the circumstances present on the case say other wise he will be guilty of the charged. Still it depends on a situation and on how each party of the case presents their evidences to the jury that will make their case strong. Oh well, these are just my opinion.

 

[BobbyT]

Well said Elsie!

 

[Huskyoverlord]

If you are drunk driving and someone else hits you , you are still at fault.

 

[NightSwimmer]

I agree with what you say. You cannot generalize the case because the verdict of a particular case depends on the circumstances and the evidence presented of each party. Even if a girl says she was rape while the suspects was drunk or both of them were drunk but the evidences contradict her statement of course the suspect will be acquitted. Same as the case to the man, even if he constantly deny that he did not rape a girl when he was drunk or both of them were drunk but the evidences presented and the circumstances present on the case say other wise he will be guilty of the charged. Still it depends on a situation and on how each party of the case presents their evidences to the jury that will make their case strong. Oh well, these are just my opinion.

You have described exactly how the justice system should work. Having served on juries and grand juries, I have witnessed the difficulty in establishing the facts of what truly occurred between two individuals in a private situation as well as the emotional reaction of jurists to these kinds of cases.

I am of the opinion that many false convictions occur. I have no intention to diminish the horror of the crime of rape, but it causes me great concern to know that these charges can so easily be brought and proven falsely. If I knew of a simple solution to this problem, I would certainly offer it. Frank public discussions of sexuality seem to trigger the "reptilian brain" in most of us and prevent rational discussion. I suspect that we harbor some urge to maintain the taboo status of sexuality within our society simply because the taboo itself is a fairly significant component of our sexual desires. It is a conundrum.

 

[Citizen]

If you are drunk driving and someone else hits you , you are still at fault.

In the eyes of the law, True. But if you are drink driving & someone runs a stop sign & hits you, they are the ones who caused the accident, even though in the eyes of the law you will be at fault.

 

[kgswiger]

so if someone is asleep?

Are we talking asleep or passed out?

I doubt anyone would argue that someone who was unconscious could consent, and it seems even more unlikely that someone who was passed out could commit a rape while passed out.

 

[kgswiger]

I don't see it as a double standard. It becomes a he said/she said, and the circumstances deserve consideration. It has to be a case-by-case basis with all the facts being known.

But it is a double standard. If both are drunk, both should be equally guilty. What I mean is, let's say I go out for drinks with someone from the office. We both get hammered, and end up in bed together. Which of us is guilty of rape? If we're equally drunk, then if she's too drunk to consent, so am I.

Of course, it has to be based on the facts, and has to be looked at individually. But once a guy is accused of rape, even if it's later determined to be a false accusation, it still stains his reputation.

I have no idea what can be done to make the process more fair. That's why I started the thread, to get feedback from a bunch of people.

 

[kgswiger]

I hear what you're saying, but there are after all (at least) two people making choices and taking action in your scenario, are there not? Leave sex out of the equation for the moment. If I see that you're intoxicated to the point of significant incapacitation, then it's wrong for me to take advantage of you, isn't it? I can't (or shouldn't) cajole you into co-signing a loan and an ethical loan officer wouldn't allow you to do so while you're drunk as a skunk. Right?

Seems to me that a sexual liaison is much the same. You may have chosen to drink to excess, but that doesn't mean I can take advantage of your altered state to have my way with you. Now, certainly there's a grey area here and I wouldn't suggest that drunken sex is tantamount to forcible rape either legally or ethically (as long as no force or undue coercion was involved and as long as the intoxicated party was in fact able to signify consent in some intelligible manner). But if you're clearly not in your right mind for whatever reason, I'm guilty of something if I knowingly and willfully turn that to my advantage, no?

Cheers.

I get what you're saying, but you're leaving your own drunkenness out of your hypothetical. If we're both intoxicated to the point of significantly impairing our judgement, then I should be just as responsible for what happens as you are, if I agree to it, or bring up the idea first. And, in your hypothetical, I expect we'd both be able to get out of the contract, on the grounds that the one who took advantage was the loan officer.

As for sex, remember, in my scenario, we've both drunk to excess. So, the question becomes, who's taking advantage of who?

I agree, in those cases where one party is significantly more intoxicated than the other, it's wrong of the more sober person to take advantage. My point is about those cases where both are seriously intoxicated. If we're both hammered, and we have sex, who took advantage? Should the role of rape victim go to the first one to call the cops? Because, from what I've seen, it's always the guy who's accused of rape. Now, maybe I just haven't seen enough, maybe a lot of the time, the accusation goes against the woman.

The thing is, once the accusation is leveled, especially in the age of Twitter, the damage to the accused person's reputation is difficult or impossible to repair. Even if the accusation is proven to be baseless.

I don't claim to have any answers, I just wanted to get some discussion of the subject going. We've got some bright people here.

And, Havelock, old bean, the chances we'll ever have sex are nonexistent.

 

[kgswiger]

If you are drunk driving and someone else hits you , you are still at fault.

What if the person who hits me is also driving drunk?

 

[Havelock]

Ah, I gotcha. Sorry...

I get what you're saying, but you're leaving your own drunkenness out of your hypothetical. If we're both intoxicated to the point of significantly impairing our judgement, then I should be just as responsible for what happens as you are, if I agree to it, or bring up the idea first. And, in your hypothetical, I expect we'd both be able to get out of the contract, on the grounds that the one who took advantage was the loan officer.

As for sex, remember, in my scenario, we've both drunk to excess. So, the question becomes, who's taking advantage of who?

I agree, in those cases where one party is significantly more intoxicated than the other, it's wrong of the more sober person to take advantage. My point is about those cases where both are seriously intoxicated. If we're both hammered, and we have sex, who took advantage? Should the role of rape victim go to the first one to call the cops? Because, from what I've seen, it's always the guy who's accused of rape. Now, maybe I just haven't seen enough, maybe a lot of the time, the accusation goes against the woman.

The thing is, once the accusation is leveled, especially in the age of Twitter, the damage to the accused person's reputation is difficult or impossible to repair. Even if the accusation is proven to be baseless.

I don't claim to have any answers, I just wanted to get some discussion of the subject going. We've got some bright people here.

It wasn't clear to me that you were talking exclusively about a scenario in which both parties were drunk. In that case I'd have to agree that there's no reason to presume that either party has taken advantage of the other. So, absent the use or threat of violence, we're back to rendering judgement on whether or not one party was unduly coercive, just as we would be if both parties were completely sober. Now, that judgement may get a little trickier when booze is involved, don't you think? For one thing, it might be tough to say in some cases who was more incapacitated than whom.

That aside, Lord knows I agree that there are double, triple, and possibly even quadruple standards that are employed to define "rape." I don't claim to have definitive answers either. It is something that's worth talking about, though, to the extent that we (as a society) can talk about it. We're of multiple minds, ideas are milled slowly, and sometimes innocent people are caught between the stones.

And yes, as technology renders privacy more and more a thing of the past and one's past more and more inescapable, we'll have to figure out new ways to handle accusations, peccadilloes, and skeletons that refuse to stay in the closet. Or else we'll become a society of registered offenders, pariahs, scallywags, rogues, person's of ill-repute, and insufferable prigs. Seems like we're well on our way!

And, Havelock, old bean, the chances we'll ever have sex are nonexistent.

Strictly hypothetical musings, my dear fellow, strictly hypothetical... A way to personalize the issues and address the questions without the baggage of gender role assumptions. And while one hates to say never, I'd have to agree that the chances are exceedingly slim.

Then again, if we were both hammered... Nah, probably not.

Cheers!