As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Rape, Consent, and the Presumption of Innocence

11012141516

Posts

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Julius wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    The whole point is that the victim (or whatever) would never consent if they knew what they consented to.

    This sentence is confusing. What do you mean by it?

    It was a thought experiment a couple pages back about rape being in the mind of the victim or the attacker. If a 100 percent hetero guy who would never have sex with a man has sex due to not understanding the question when asked about sex, would it be rape?

    It seems strange to think that a person would have sex as a result of some linguistic confusion.

    I'm pretty sure they'd still know what sex is when it happens though.

    Yeah, that's what I was saying.

    "I thought he was asking me for a turnip. i said, 'you may have my turnip.' and then he started taking his pants off. But I was like 'well, i guess i was just confused' so i bent over."

    I hope I'm misunderstanding what rockrnger was talking about.

  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    You can kill somebody or commit fraud out of ignorance, which is no excuse in the eyes of the law - it's your fault for not thinking your actions through, whether you premeditated harm or not

    Wait...how do you commit fraud out of ignorance?

    You don't. You can't. Silly goose is both silly and a goose.

    Disagree.

    My father is under investigation on federal disability fraud charges because he wasn't aware he couldn't work under the table while filing a disability suit against a hotel chain's security. (Someone forced the lock in his hotel and assaulted/robbed him).

    I mean, everyone else was aware you couldn't do this, but apparently he wasn't.

  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    Lot of double negatives in that post there, sorry.

    The point is, you can commit fraud out of ignorance.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    Arch wrote: »
    Lot of double negatives in that post there, sorry.

    The point is, you can commit fraud out of ignorance.

    Ignorance of the law perhaps. But not ignorance that your intent was to defraud.

    You can't "accidentally" work under the table. You know you're doing it. Your intent is to work under the table, which is a bad intent.

    mcdermott on
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    The reason ignorance is not an excuse for a crime is that it's impossible to discern true ignorance from feigned ignorance, and on that dilemma we've decided that locking up the latter is more important.

    I think at least there are rapists who also happened to be ignorant. Like, they didn't say "ok, I'm going to commence the act of rape now" and may have even been genuinely surprised that the act they commited was classified as rape after the fact

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    However, if the defense can't show that your intent in working under the table was to commit the fraud as to the disability claim, then yes ignorance could be an excuse. You may still be on the hook for working under the table if that act is illegal in and of itself, but it would be on the prosecution (to my knowledge) to prove the criminal intent linking the two to show the fraud. Like you said, he's "under investigation." Presumably this means they need to show more than "was working under table" and "was pursuing disability suit" to obtain conviction.

    Though I think there are some financial crimes that operate on strict liability (again, apologies if I'm using that term wrong).

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    The reason ignorance is not an excuse for a crime is that it's impossible to discern true ignorance from feigned ignorance, and on that dilemma we've decided that locking up the latter is more important.

    I think at least there are rapists who also happened to be ignorant. Like, they didn't say "ok, I'm going to commence the act of rape now" and may have even been genuinely surprised that the act they commited was classified as rape after the fact

    I'm not arguing ignorance of the law. I've covered repeatedly that this is not what I'm talking about.

    I'm arguing ignorance of the fact that the other person's active affirmation of consent for penetration at the time such penetration is to commence was not necessarily of fully sound mind and judgment. That's the ignorance of which I speak. rockrngr wants to make that ignorance (of another's internal mental state, not the law) criminal.

    Do you understand the difference between the two? Because I honestly can't explain it any more clearly than that.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    Paladin wrote: »
    The reason ignorance is not an excuse for a crime is that it's impossible to discern true ignorance from feigned ignorance, and on that dilemma we've decided that locking up the latter is more important.

    Also, you may have decided that locking up the latter is more important. I'm unconvinced. Though make sure we're talking about the same ignorance, as per the above post.

    mcdermott on
  • NamrokNamrok Registered User regular
    There is a difference between ignorance that something was a crime, and ignorance that a crime was being committed at all.

    I find a more analogous example would be if someone was getting paid, and completely unaware that their employer hadn't filed any of the appropriate paperwork at all. This I find more appropriate a comparison to someone sleeping a woman, who says yes to sex, but who unbeknownst to them, had reached the magic BAC level, which is different for everyone depending on metabolism, body mass, and just sheer tolerance, that renders them unable to legally consent to sex.

    And thats bullshit.

  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    I think knowing you need the other person's active affirmation of consent for penetration at the time such penetration is to commence while sound of mind and judgment sounds basically like knowing the law, and it's unfortunately complicated enough that you can be ignorant of the law and therefore ignorant of the mental state and therefore guilty of rape.

    I think that's more likely than being ignorant of the law and not being ignorant of the terms of consent. I think it's possible that people who just know about "no means no" can perpetrate a rape based on ignorance of both the law and the validity of the consent under the requirements of the law.

    I think some of us are now the wiser regarding terms of consent and will probably conduct ourselves in a better legal fashion should we encounter this kind of dilemma.h

    Paladin on
    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • JuliusJulius Captain of Serenity on my shipRegistered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Arch wrote: »
    Lot of double negatives in that post there, sorry.

    The point is, you can commit fraud out of ignorance.

    Ignorance of the law perhaps. But not ignorance that your intent was to defraud.

    You can't "accidentally" work under the table. You know you're doing it. Your intent is to work under the table, which is a bad intent.

    Perhaps filing your taxes incorrectly could count as innocent intent, like not realising that you have to check one box or another.

    But true ignorance probably only goes for minor cases anyway. You don't run a ponzi-scheme unaware.

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    I think some of us are now the wiser regarding terms of consent and will probably conduct ourselves in a better legal fashion should we encounter this kind of dilemma.h

    Indeed.

  • JuliusJulius Captain of Serenity on my shipRegistered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    I think knowing you need the other person's active affirmation of consent for penetration at the time such penetration is to commence while sound of mind and judgment sounds basically like knowing the law, and it's unfortunately complicated enough that you can be ignorant of the law and therefore ignorant of the mental state and therefore guilty of rape.

    I think that's more likely than being ignorant of the law and not being ignorant of the terms of consent. I think it's possible that people who just know about "no means no" can perpetrate a rape based on ignorance of both the law and the validity of the consent under the requirements of the law.

    I think some of us are now the wiser regarding terms of consent and will probably conduct ourselves in a better legal fashion should we encounter this kind of dilemma.h

    I think mcdermott is talking about when active consent is given but we're supposed to determine whether the person is too drunk or something to actually make such consent valid.

    As in, he's explicitly arguing against "sound of mind and judgement" needing to be a consideration for the accused with a few exceptions. (underaged and mentally disabled for example.)

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2012
    Julius wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    I think knowing you need the other person's active affirmation of consent for penetration at the time such penetration is to commence while sound of mind and judgment sounds basically like knowing the law, and it's unfortunately complicated enough that you can be ignorant of the law and therefore ignorant of the mental state and therefore guilty of rape.

    I think that's more likely than being ignorant of the law and not being ignorant of the terms of consent. I think it's possible that people who just know about "no means no" can perpetrate a rape based on ignorance of both the law and the validity of the consent under the requirements of the law.

    I think some of us are now the wiser regarding terms of consent and will probably conduct ourselves in a better legal fashion should we encounter this kind of dilemma.h

    I think mcdermott is talking about when active consent is given but we're supposed to determine whether the person is too drunk or something to actually make such consent valid.

    As in, he's explicitly arguing against "sound of mind and judgement" needing to be a consideration for the accused with a few exceptions. (underaged and mentally disabled for example.)

    If only because it means that the other person's opinion doesn't matter.

    I think it's interesting that some people are arguing, "She might say 'yes', but the guy ought to know that she really means 'no'." But we don't find people arguing for the reverse.

    Edit: If we admit that a person's linguistic utterance doesn't necessarily mirror their inner state, that ought to work both ways, with respect to both "yes" and "no".

    _J_ on
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    She might say "no," but the guy should understand she means "yes?"

    That could happen, but the risk/benefit analysis is then between "pleasant surprise" and "life ending felony"

    why take the chance

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    She might say "no," but the guy should understand she means "yes?"

    That could happen, but the risk/benefit analysis is then between "pleasant surprise" and "life ending felony"

    why take the chance

    But apparently this is no less true if she says "yes?"

    So, fuck it I guess.

  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    I think knowing you need the other person's active affirmation of consent for penetration at the time such penetration is to commence while sound of mind and judgment sounds basically like knowing the law, and it's unfortunately complicated enough that you can be ignorant of the law and therefore ignorant of the mental state and therefore guilty of rape.

    I think that's more likely than being ignorant of the law and not being ignorant of the terms of consent. I think it's possible that people who just know about "no means no" can perpetrate a rape based on ignorance of both the law and the validity of the consent under the requirements of the law.

    I think some of us are now the wiser regarding terms of consent and will probably conduct ourselves in a better legal fashion should we encounter this kind of dilemma.h

    I think mcdermott is talking about when active consent is given but we're supposed to determine whether the person is too drunk or something to actually make such consent valid.

    As in, he's explicitly arguing against "sound of mind and judgement" needing to be a consideration for the accused with a few exceptions. (underaged and mentally disabled for example.)

    If only because it means that the other person's opinion doesn't matter.

    I think it's interesting that some people are arguing, "She might say 'yes', but the guy ought to know that she really means 'no'." But we don't find people arguing for the reverse.

    Edit: If we admit that a person's linguistic utterance doesn't necessarily mirror their inner state, that ought to work both ways, with respect to both "yes" and "no".

    Not exactly. The persons linguistic utterance (and actions) dont mirror the inner state when the inner state is "what the hell is going on?"

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2012
    rockrnger wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    I think knowing you need the other person's active affirmation of consent for penetration at the time such penetration is to commence while sound of mind and judgment sounds basically like knowing the law, and it's unfortunately complicated enough that you can be ignorant of the law and therefore ignorant of the mental state and therefore guilty of rape.

    I think that's more likely than being ignorant of the law and not being ignorant of the terms of consent. I think it's possible that people who just know about "no means no" can perpetrate a rape based on ignorance of both the law and the validity of the consent under the requirements of the law.

    I think some of us are now the wiser regarding terms of consent and will probably conduct ourselves in a better legal fashion should we encounter this kind of dilemma.h

    I think mcdermott is talking about when active consent is given but we're supposed to determine whether the person is too drunk or something to actually make such consent valid.

    As in, he's explicitly arguing against "sound of mind and judgement" needing to be a consideration for the accused with a few exceptions. (underaged and mentally disabled for example.)

    If only because it means that the other person's opinion doesn't matter.

    I think it's interesting that some people are arguing, "She might say 'yes', but the guy ought to know that she really means 'no'." But we don't find people arguing for the reverse.

    Edit: If we admit that a person's linguistic utterance doesn't necessarily mirror their inner state, that ought to work both ways, with respect to both "yes" and "no".

    Not exactly. The persons linguistic utterance (and actions) dont mirror the inner state when the inner state is "what the hell is going on?"

    How can one legally prove that one's sexual partner does not know "what the hell is going on"?

    And why do we only apply this reasoning to an utterance of "yes" that we are supposed to understand to mean "no"?


    Edit:

    To clarify. If it is possible for a person to say "yes" but mean "no". Then it is possible for a person to say "no" but mean "yes".

    So, it seems best to not permit this line of reasoning.

    no means no.
    yes means yes.

    _J_ on
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Whichever act leads to sex should be suspected and tread with caution

    Sex is basically a criminal act already anyway

    loaded and legally ambiguous slang, performed at night, away from witnesses and paperwork

    People feel guilty afterward, and you have to clean up the evidence

    Don't talk about it to polite company and especially the authorities

    just as likely to be a CSI cold open as anything else

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Sex is basically a criminal act already anyway

    That does seem to be our conclusion, yes.

    Well, that was a productive conversation.

  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Sex is basically a criminal act already anyway

    That does seem to be our conclusion, yes.

    Well, that was a productive conversation.

    So, outside of the Socratic method MRA stuff, can you articulate your positions on what we have talking about?

  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    That could happen, but the risk/benefit analysis is then between "pleasant surprise" and "life ending felony"

    why take the chance

    Interesting that your risk/benefit analysis includes "life-ending felony" but not "raping somebody".

    I assume most people would feel pretty terrible to find out that they had sex with somebody who wasn't consenting, even if the other person didn't see it as rape, or forgave them, or otherwise didn't ever do anything to bring law enforcement into the picture.

    J, I don't really understand the "no means yes" argument. It is indeed possible for somebody to say something that is the opposite of what is going on in their head, but from the legal point of view, it is going to be very difficult to prove lack of consent (which as you recall is the prosecution's burden) if all evidence suggests that the accuser gave consent. "Yes, but deep down he REALLY meant no" is not going to overcome reasonable doubt - not only in an objective sense, but let's face it, in an environment where people are looking for excuses to blame the victim.

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    Namrok wrote: »
    Either a person is responsible for their actions or not. If they chose to drink, they are still responsible for everything that happens after. Period. End of discussion.

    Sorry, what? If you have a beer and I drop a roofie in it, you're responsible if I steal your wallet?

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • JuliusJulius Captain of Serenity on my shipRegistered User regular
    mythago wrote: »
    Namrok wrote: »
    Either a person is responsible for their actions or not. If they chose to drink, they are still responsible for everything that happens after. Period. End of discussion.

    Sorry, what? If you have a beer and I drop a roofie in it, you're responsible if I steal your wallet?

    Would I be responsible for someone stealing my wallet if sober?

  • LoserForHireXLoserForHireX Philosopher King The AcademyRegistered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    mythago wrote: »
    Namrok wrote: »
    Either a person is responsible for their actions or not. If they chose to drink, they are still responsible for everything that happens after. Period. End of discussion.

    Sorry, what? If you have a beer and I drop a roofie in it, you're responsible if I steal your wallet?

    Would I be responsible for someone stealing my wallet if sober?

    no

    "The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
    "We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
  • Death of RatsDeath of Rats Registered User regular
    mythago wrote: »
    Namrok wrote: »
    Either a person is responsible for their actions or not. If they chose to drink, they are still responsible for everything that happens after. Period. End of discussion.

    Sorry, what? If you have a beer and I drop a roofie in it, you're responsible if I steal your wallet?

    If I have a beer, I'm responsible for my actions after. If you drug my beer, that dramatically changes the situation. How is that hard to grasp?

    No I don't.
  • NamrokNamrok Registered User regular
    mythago wrote: »
    Namrok wrote: »
    Either a person is responsible for their actions or not. If they chose to drink, they are still responsible for everything that happens after. Period. End of discussion.

    Sorry, what? If you have a beer and I drop a roofie in it, you're responsible if I steal your wallet?

    That's not what I said or meant and you know it. Everything YOU CHOOSE to do while drunk, you are just as responsible for as things YOU CHOOSE to do sober.

  • LoserForHireXLoserForHireX Philosopher King The AcademyRegistered User regular
    Namrok wrote: »
    mythago wrote: »
    Namrok wrote: »
    Either a person is responsible for their actions or not. If they chose to drink, they are still responsible for everything that happens after. Period. End of discussion.

    Sorry, what? If you have a beer and I drop a roofie in it, you're responsible if I steal your wallet?

    That's not what I said or meant and you know it. Everything YOU CHOOSE to do while drunk, you are just as responsible for as things YOU CHOOSE to do sober.

    there's some epic level Satrean freedom going on here. this is a controversial position.

    "The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
    "We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
  • CliffCliff Registered User regular
    mythago wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    That could happen, but the risk/benefit analysis is then between "pleasant surprise" and "life ending felony"

    why take the chance

    Interesting that your risk/benefit analysis includes "life-ending felony" but not "raping somebody".

    I assume most people would feel pretty terrible to find out that they had sex with somebody who wasn't consenting, even if the other person didn't see it as rape, or forgave them, or otherwise didn't ever do anything to bring law enforcement into the picture.

    J, I don't really understand the "no means yes" argument. It is indeed possible for somebody to say something that is the opposite of what is going on in their head, but from the legal point of view, it is going to be very difficult to prove lack of consent (which as you recall is the prosecution's burden) if all evidence suggests that the accuser gave consent. "Yes, but deep down he REALLY meant no" is not going to overcome reasonable doubt - not only in an objective sense, but let's face it, in an environment where people are looking for excuses to blame the victim.


    Rape is horrible, but as far as I know, no poster has made any claims to the contrary. So maybe we could cool it with the sexism witch hunt just because the sentiment isn't explicitedly repeated in every single post. Analysing a problem/situation from one perspectives does not diminsih the importance of another.

  • NamrokNamrok Registered User regular
    You know, looking it from another perspective, since we are getting all sorts of crazy legal and philosophical on this issue.

    Someone is non-obviously drunk and says yes to sex they can't consent to on account of the non-obviously drunk state. Did they obtain sex via fraud? There was a rather racially charged case in Isreal not long ago where a man was charged with rape when he obtained sex from a woman via fraud by claiming he was Jewish when he was actually Muslim.

    So if

    -Obtained sex via fraud can be rape, as has already been legally proven
    -Entering into a contract under false pretenses is fraud (since we are taking the contract angle to consent)
    -Does that mean if you obtain someone's consent, while unable to consent yourself, but pretending you can
    you committed fraud?
    -Does that mean if drunkie who is drunk, and says yes to sex, is actually raping their consenting sober partner, since if that sober partner knew that drunkie was unable to consent, they never would have had sex with drunkie.

    I don't actually believe this argument. It's complete and utter bullshit. However, as the fact and opinions people have gathered stand, it sadly makes sense.

    That being the case, perhaps we should rethink some of the premises.

  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    Namrok wrote: »
    You know, looking it from another perspective, since we are getting all sorts of crazy legal and philosophical on this issue.

    Someone is non-obviously drunk and says yes to sex they can't consent to on account of the non-obviously drunk state. Did they obtain sex via fraud? There was a rather racially charged case in Isreal not long ago where a man was charged with rape when he obtained sex from a woman via fraud by claiming he was Jewish when he was actually Muslim.

    So if

    -Obtained sex via fraud can be rape, as has already been legally proven
    -Entering into a contract under false pretenses is fraud (since we are taking the contract angle to consent)
    -Does that mean if you obtain someone's consent, while unable to consent yourself, but pretending you can
    you committed fraud?
    -Does that mean if drunkie who is drunk, and says yes to sex, is actually raping their consenting sober partner, since if that sober partner knew that drunkie was unable to consent, they never would have had sex with drunkie.

    I don't actually believe this argument. It's complete and utter bullshit. However, as the fact and opinions people have gathered stand, it sadly makes sense.

    That being the case, perhaps we should rethink some of the premises.

    I'm not sure what position you are trying to disprove here.

    Under even the strictest definition of consent you would lose the ability to pull off a complex fraud before you would lose the ability to consent.

  • NamrokNamrok Registered User regular
    I find it fascinating that you think a drunk person isn't responsible for fraud they commit while drunk. If we were talking about any other possible scenario where a drunk person committed fraud, you'd hold them criminally liable. But if we talk about sex, oh, no, they were too drunk to commit fraud.

  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    Namrok wrote: »
    I find it fascinating that you think a drunk person isn't responsible for fraud they commit while drunk. If we were talking about any other possible scenario where a drunk person committed fraud, you'd hold them criminally liable. But if we talk about sex, oh, no, they were too drunk to commit fraud.

    No they are still responsible for fraud until they don't know it's fraud (because fraud requires malice) but your whole premise is flawed. A person who is too drunk to consent, even under the strictest definition, is going to lose the physical ability to con a person. If a person can walk and talk well enough to fool a person then they aren't drunk enough for their consent to be invalid.

    I suppose you could make the point that this is possible if we draw some line where we say like 1.5 bac is too drunk to consent and the person says "well they said they only had enough for 1.4 bac" but again I don't think anyone has proposed something like that.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    mythago wrote: »
    Namrok wrote: »
    Either a person is responsible for their actions or not. If they chose to drink, they are still responsible for everything that happens after. Period. End of discussion.

    Sorry, what? If you have a beer and I drop a roofie in it, you're responsible if I steal your wallet?

    The law makes a distinction between voluntary and involuntary intoxication. And even if I meant to become voluntarily intoxicated in one manner (a beer), it still becomes involuntary intoxication if you increase it without my knowledge (the drugs).

    Also, might want to look at your verbs and actors there. I cannot be responsible if you steal my wallet, roofie or no. I could however be responsible if, while voluntarily intoxicated (no roofies), I were to give you my wallet, sure. Even if I didn't fully understand what I was doing.

    So we're back to the fact that consent given while heavily intoxicated is still an act of the "victim." It is a thing they do, not a thing that is done to them. But of course I'm not sure how productive this conversation can be if your dedication to your position is such that you cannot see the difference between voluntary and involuntary intoxication. Note the bolded in the post you were replying to; the person in question chose to drink, they didn't choose to ingest rohypnol.


    EDIT: Also, by my understanding, if the involuntary intoxication is due to the act of a third party (and the primary actor, in this case the sexual partner, was not involved) then some liability for the crime can be transferred to that third party. Essentially, if Joe roofies your drink and then you consent to sex with Jim (who does not know Joe, or what he did), then in theory Joe is the one on the hook, not Jim. Though I believe the burden in this case may be on Jim to show this. Which (going back to the OP) I can agree with, since the presence of involuntarily administered drugs is compelling forensic evidence that any consent actively given was not valid. Though even that requires the presumption that the rohypnol was involuntary.

    mcdermott on
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    mythago wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    That could happen, but the risk/benefit analysis is then between "pleasant surprise" and "life ending felony"

    why take the chance

    Interesting that your risk/benefit analysis includes "life-ending felony" but not "raping somebody".

    I assume most people would feel pretty terrible to find out that they had sex with somebody who wasn't consenting, even if the other person didn't see it as rape, or forgave them, or otherwise didn't ever do anything to bring law enforcement into the picture.

    I thought of that, but since the impact on the partner in the "no actually meant yes" scenario is also minimal and therefore excuses the need to include it in both cases, I deemed the selfish impact enough to get the point across

    moreover, not including the second harm broadens the audience

    Paladin on
    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    mythago wrote: »
    Namrok wrote: »
    Either a person is responsible for their actions or not. If they chose to drink, they are still responsible for everything that happens after. Period. End of discussion.

    Sorry, what? If you have a beer and I drop a roofie in it, you're responsible if I steal your wallet?

    Would I be responsible for someone stealing my wallet if sober?

    "I said 'Hey, I'mma take your wallet, all right' and you just kind of shrugged and let me do it."

    "But you drugged me! I had no way of meaningfully giving you consent to giving you my money!"

    "Hey, nobody MADE you drink a beer, pal. If you had a few Jagers and thought it would be fine to give me all your money because you thought I was cute, would that be theft? No."

    McDermott, I think you might want to take a look at the law in question (they vary somewhat as well). If you are unconscious from alcohol consumption, the law does not make it A-OK for me to climb on top of you because hey, nobody poured that tequila down your throat. Similarly, the poster who whom I was replying was making a rather silly argument that once you drink, whatever happens is on your head - since 'somebody spiked your drink' is certainly something than 'happens' to you, and y'know, something they couldn't have done if you'd stuck to 7-Up.

    If a pedophile asks a five-year-old to touch him, and she agrees, that is an "act of the victim", but none of us would say that is legally meaningful consent. Neither we nor the law would say, hey, she CONSENTED, there was no coercion so what's your beef; we all grasp that a five-year-old is not competent to give consent to engage in a sexual act. "The act of the victim" is not a magic spell, as it were.

    When somebody is so falling-down drunk that they can't even talk, or they're passed out, does it matter whether they were doing tequila shots or whether they didn't realize it would interact badly with some medication they were taking? I don't see how. And if the focus is on "act of the victim" rather than "ability to consent", then why do you care if the victim was drunk or the victim was drugged by the perpetrator?

    Where I think you and some others are getting hung up is that we all know intoxication, and the ability to consent while drinking, are not an either/or thing. Some people get drunk INTENDING to lower their inhibitions enough to say yes to sex. Some people think they're having one drink to loosen up and it hits them very hard. Some people deliberately encourage others to have alcohol, or slip them stronger drinks than those others think they're getting. I don't see how "you drank so STFU bitch" is any more useful an approach than "one drink and it's rape".

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • Death of RatsDeath of Rats Registered User regular
    mythago wrote: »
    McDermott, I think you might want to take a look at the law in question (they vary somewhat as well). If you are unconscious from alcohol consumption, the law does not make it A-OK for me to climb on top of you because hey, nobody poured that tequila down your throat. Similarly, the poster who whom I was replying was making a rather silly argument that once you drink, whatever happens is on your head - since 'somebody spiked your drink' is certainly something than 'happens' to you, and y'know, something they couldn't have done if you'd stuck to 7-Up.

    There's a difference between the actions of others when you drink and your own actions when you drink. If someone does something to further impair your judgement while you drink, those are their actions. The same rules apply if you drink vs if you don't. If someone spikes your rum and coke they're responsible for their actions, just as if someone spikes your 7-Up. The same applies to consent. If you drink and consent to sex, it's the same as if you don't drink and consent.

    What you're getting hung up on is the idea that the same rules applies to the victim if they choose to drink vs if they don't. The same rules also applies to the perpetrator. Drinking doesn't affect anything or change the rules.

    No I don't.
  • JuliusJulius Captain of Serenity on my shipRegistered User regular
    mythago wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    mythago wrote: »
    Namrok wrote: »
    Either a person is responsible for their actions or not. If they chose to drink, they are still responsible for everything that happens after. Period. End of discussion.

    Sorry, what? If you have a beer and I drop a roofie in it, you're responsible if I steal your wallet?

    Would I be responsible for someone stealing my wallet if sober?

    "I said 'Hey, I'mma take your wallet, all right' and you just kind of shrugged and let me do it."

    "But you drugged me! I had no way of meaningfully giving you consent to giving you my money!"

    "Hey, nobody MADE you drink a beer, pal. If you had a few Jagers and thought it would be fine to give me all your money because you thought I was cute, would that be theft? No."

    But he clearly didn't give the money, it was taken.

    I get where you're going but Namrok clearly means that any action taken when drunk is still something you're responsible for. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous.

    If a pedophile asks a five-year-old to touch him, and she agrees, that is an "act of the victim", but none of us would say that is legally meaningful consent. Neither we nor the law would say, hey, she CONSENTED, there was no coercion so what's your beef; we all grasp that a five-year-old is not competent to give consent to engage in a sexual act. "The act of the victim" is not a magic spell, as it were.


    Adults are competent to give consent though.

  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Basically we have been having a discussion about consent and alcohol and have split into three camps.

    The MRA camp says that a person is responsible for anything that is done to them when they choose to drink. (orthodox MRA thinking is that we should go back to meaningfull resistance being a prerequisite to rape)

    The "rape is in the mind of the accused" camp says that anyone who can say that they believed they had consent can not be a rapist so the cut off is basically unconsciousness.

    The "rape in the mind if the victim" camp says that a person looses the ability to consent as they get drunk the same way as they lose the ability to sign a contract (meeting of the minds, reasonable terms, mutual benefit)
    Just putting this here so we don't go back around the same old stuff

    rockrnger on
  • NamrokNamrok Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Namrok wrote: »
    I find it fascinating that you think a drunk person isn't responsible for fraud they commit while drunk. If we were talking about any other possible scenario where a drunk person committed fraud, you'd hold them criminally liable. But if we talk about sex, oh, no, they were too drunk to commit fraud.

    No they are still responsible for fraud until they don't know it's fraud (because fraud requires malice) but your whole premise is flawed. A person who is too drunk to consent, even under the strictest definition, is going to lose the physical ability to con a person. If a person can walk and talk well enough to fool a person then they aren't drunk enough for their consent to be invalid.

    I suppose you could make the point that this is possible if we draw some line where we say like 1.5 bac is too drunk to consent and the person says "well they said they only had enough for 1.4 bac" but again I don't think anyone has proposed something like that.

    So why do you insist on strict liability for the "rapist", who unbeknownst to him slept with a drunk person, but not strict liability for the "victim" who was too drunk to give consent, and in theory, committed fraud by pretending they could.

    Your at will application of strict liability does a lot to expose your bias.

    Namrok on
This discussion has been closed.