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.
Very interesting discussion, so with regards to omission under the law, if you force yourself onto to someone else, and the excuse could be "i was drunk" and the victim considers that rape, you cannot defend yourself, by saying I was too drunk to know.
That's like saying I passed the stop sign, because I thought it meant
"state trooper out pissin", tried this once, it didn't go over well
But on the other hand, if a victim is too drunk to use common sense and consenually engages in sex, that does not turn into rape later on.
Alcohol + sex does not =rape
But:
violence + sex = rape
Rape is not an act of sex, it is act of violence.
So in the fit of a drunken rage, one beats up one's spouse, spouse presses charges, one defends by sayng he or she was drunk, one still goes to jail, long after hangover wears off.
Regards
Pace