Responsibility for ones actions

Forums: Legal, Rape And Alcohol
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Just came out of a military briefing that informed me that you can and will be prosecuted for rape for having sex with an intoxicated individual.
Then not even 1 hour later I see on cnn that an intoxicated man is requesting man slaughter instead of murder for killing his girlfriend in a drunken fight.
This leads me to ask the question when did the notion of being responsible for your actions die.
I was brought up in an era that held people accountable for their actions, and it seems that time is passed us.
If you, being of sound mind and body, "choose!" to become so intoxicated that you cant control your actions. why does that excuse you from them. In my opinion if you choose to give up your sound mind by clouding it with alchohol then any actions you take after that should be considered "willing" meaning if you kill someone its murder, and if you choose to have sex with someone thats consent any thoughts?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 10 • Views: 2,842 • Replies: 55

@lockeWiggins,

Quote:

Then not even 1 hour later I see on cnn that an intoxicated man is requesting man slaughter instead of murder for killing his girlfriend in a drunken fight.

I didn't realize manslaughter absolves you of your actions and imposes zero penalties.

You are confusing reasons for a crime with not being responsible.

1 Reply

@parados,

I never said that manslaughter absolves the individual of their actions, Im contemplating the use of intoxication as a reason for dropping the charges.
Manslaughter is an extreme downgrade from murder especially for an individual who forced his way into her room and repeatedly bashed her head against a wall.
Motives are not in question here, whats in question is state of mind
My point is that state of mind should not be a factor barring mental illness. which alchohol does not fall under

2 Replies

@lockeWiggins,

alcohol* sorry

0 Replies

@lockeWiggins,

State of mind often is a factor in charging crimes. It's why we have several degrees of murder and manslaughter to chose from. It's also why we allow killing in self defense.

1 Reply

@lockeWiggins,

you also have two very different situations in your post, one is an assault (sexual) on a drunk person, the other is assault (deadly) by a drunk person

1 Reply

@parados,

Im sorry for the confusion because your still missing the point.
Yes state of mind should be a factor. memory loss due to rage, traumatic injury, medical condition yes all which the individual has no control over

getting inebriated is a choice and by that logic i believe that the individual should be held to the actions that they commit after they become drunk. charge this guy with murder and send a message that you will be held accountable for your actions and that getting drunk is not an excuse

0 Replies

I think that the military is trying to tell you that even though the woman is drunk, that is no reason to take sexual advantage, by force, of her. You COULD be charged with rape.

All she has to do is accuse you - and you are done.

So ...don't get involved with drunken women.

The other case is a guy who hit his girl when he was drunk. He is saying that he did not mean to kill her. The alcohol clouded his judgment.

Let's see what the jury says on that one.

1 Reply

@PUNKEY,

Yeah I feel you.

recent case airman goes to a club with another airman theyre drinking its her 21st birthday he buys her drinks for her b-day after that she tells his friend that shes going to sleep with him that night. After the party they go back to his dorm. two weeks later she calls him on rape because everyone at her workplace found out. it was decided that because he bought her a drink it was indeed rape. and he was processed as such.

I dont know why but I cant wrap my mind around how that is ethical. help

1 Reply

@djjd62,

Yeah i get where your coming from.
but the excuses are the same and thats the question im posing
is it general consensus that alchohol is an excuse to in one case absolve one of their actions (sexual), and in the second one severely reduce the severity of said actions (deadly) they may be different, but the excuses used are the same.

and if this is the consensus then my original statement stands what happened to people taking responsibility for their actions?

0 Replies

@lockeWiggins,

Quote:

recent case airman goes to a club with another airman theyre drinking its her 21st birthday he buys her drinks for her b-day after that she tells his friend that shes going to sleep with him that night. After the party they go back to his dorm. two weeks later she calls him on rape because everyone at her workplace found out. it was decided that because he bought her a drink it was indeed rape. and he was processed as such.

What does "he was processed as such mean"?

1 Reply

@JTT,

apologies, military lingo he was charged under the UCMJ (uniform code of military justice) under the terms of rape, as well as civilian law for rape.

1 Reply

@lockeWiggins,

You've reached a conclusion and want everyone to agree with you.

No need for me to respond further since you can't see the difference between acting while drunk and taking advantage of someone that is drunk.

2 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

You've reached a conclusion and want everyone to agree with you.

I don't think that the case, Parados. He's putting forward his case, admitted that his judgment has been made with the information he possesses at the moment. All in all, I think he's being pretty fair.

You argue with Okie and Ican when they can't see for nothin'.

0 Replies

@parados,

Im playing devils advocate. Yes part of my mind says that it is immoral to have sex with a drunk individual but I cant logically grasp why this is. Therefore I made an opinion on the side of logic rather than gut. I started this thread to have someone supply a logical counterargument that broke my argument apart and forced logic and morality to work hand in hand. If you are incapable of this then yes there is no need for you to respond further. However if you can please do so.

1 Reply

@lockeWiggins,

Person A is drunk and someone takes advantage of them because Person A is not in their normal state of mind.

Person B is drunk and kills someone because Person B is not in their normal state of mind.

You don't see that your argument actually supports Person B should be able to argue for manslaughter. Who is the drunk in each situation?

3 Replies

@parados,

If we follow your logic, then a person that defrauds another has committed no crime because the person they defrauded should be willing to take personal responsibility.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

Person A1, the female is drunk and someone takes advantage of them because Person A is not in their normal state of mind.

What if Person A2, the male, is also drunk, and we must acknowledge, not in their normal state of mind, and everything proceeds normally in the relationship/tryst, they have consensual sex,

"Do you wanna do it?

"Yup.",

"Do you wanna do it?"

"Yup.",

and two weeks later the male says he was raped?

1 Reply

@parados,

your confused
Person A is drunk and someone takes advantage of them because Person A is not in their normal state of mind. therefore person A should accept responsibility

Person B is drunk and kills someone because Person B is not in their normal state of mind. Therefore Person B should accept responsibility

Getting drunk is a choice and my argument is that if you get drunk that does not excuse your actions. Do you agree or no

0 Replies

@JTT,

Then the same rules apply the woman would be charged for rape if and only if she supplied him with alcohol.

the ruling is whoever files charges first is the victim

0 Replies

Responsibility for ones actions

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know