Responsibility for ones actions

It seems to me that in a rape case there is a responsibility upon the "perpetrator" to not take advantage of someone who is less capable of making a sound decision. ie the so called drunk victim.

If both have consumed alcohol to an extent that it impairs the judgement of both parties then i think some determination of who is most capable of making a sound decision.

Asume i am drunk and walking unsteadily. It is obviouse I am drunk. Someone robs me. They sneak up behind me puunch me to the ground and take my wallet. Am i to blame?
Perhaps I am if placed myself in a situation where this could happen ie walking home instead of taking a taxi.

Explore further.
A girl (not drunk) walks across a deserted park at night and is dragged into the bushes and assulted. Is it the victim who is at fault for being in the wrong place at the wrong time?
I think not.
So... placing herself in a dangerouse situation does not make her more responsible for the crime. If she was drunk and the same thing happened is she more responsible for the crime?

For the record I personally dont believe "I was drunk" to be a basis for defence of any action.

I sure as hell hope you are not Australian Defense Forces given current events.

Actually, you were brought up in a time where being drunk was a complete legal excuse for any action, you just didn't realize it. The whole MADD, drunk driving campaigns over the last three decades were in response to a typical legal defense that said that drunks were not responsible for their actions. Only recently have those who commit crimes or have accidents while drunk been held to almost the same standards as those who are sober and as your example shows, that is still not always the case.

From what he has posted, it SEEMS like consensual sex between two adults. Drunk or not.

So . . . was there force involved? At ANY time did she say Stop, or that she was not willing to go thru with the act? Was she injured during this time? Were there witnesses? Was she of age? Is sex between military personnel even permitted?

There is a back story to this.

From what you have told us, the conviction against the male would not have happened. Discipliary measures for BOTH maybe, but not rape charges.

the report, as well as the training that came from this case... the trainging I had just come back from when I first posted this. Said that the reason he was prosecuted even though they where both drunk was because he provided alcohol to her. So falling under the same rules as the "bartender assumption" by providing alcohol to an already intoxicated makes the provider responsible for the individuals actions. There were no defensive marks, as well as the witnesses which where his friends where considered biased and were basically disregarded.

Rightfully so! Due to their genetic disposition, women get intoxicated faster
than men. If the perpetrator started buying her drinks with the intend to take advantage of her, then you have a premeditated criminal action here. Any time you take advantage of someone who cannot defend themselves, i.e. child abuse, elder abuse, sexual abuse, you are held responsible for it and not the person who is unable to defend herself.

However, if you're intoxicated and commit a crime, you can plead for a lesser sentence, depending on your crime, it does not relieve you from your responsibility.

If you commit a crime intoxicated, you take advantage of someone else and be held responsible. If you are intoxicated and you are the one who is taken advantage of, the blame is with the other person.

In essence, it doesn't matter if the person is intoxicated or not, the minute
they're taken physically and mentally advantage of, they become victim of a crime.

Fotheringham, R v (1989) CA - rape
Allen, R v (1988) CA- assault
Beard, DPP v (1920) HL- murder
Hatton, R v [2005] (CA) - murder

and probably the most important precedent Gittens, R v (1984) CA
In where the ruling stands that there must be

(i) Where a defendant suffers from an abnormality of mind arising from arrested or retarded development of mind or inherent causes or induced by disease or injury and has also taken drink before the killing, the abnormality of mind and the effect of the drink may each play a part in impairing the defendant's mental responsibility for the killing.



(ii) Therefore the task for the jury is to decide whether, despite the disinhibiting effect of the drink on the defendant's mind, the abnormality of mind arising from a cause specified in subsection 2(1) nevertheless substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his fatal acts.



(iii) Accordingly it is not correct for the judge to direct the jury that unless they are satisfied that if the defendant had not taken drink he would have killed, the defence of diminished responsibility must fail. Such a direction is incorrect because it fails to recognise that the abnormality of mind arising from a cause specified in the subsection and the effect of the drink may each play a part in impairing the defendant's mental responsibility for the killing.

added a case from the 60's and the 20's just so you know this is new.
its not hard just google it.

Im sorry mam. I think your confused as to the nature of this forum, your talking about taking advantage, while im talking about consensual sex between two drunk parties that is determined as rape at a later date.
Also another point was that it is aprehensible to think that in the case of voluntary intoxication an individual such as George Huguely can plead diminished responibility due to intoxication.
In the recent military case I described she obviously took advantage of a system instated to help actual victims, and because it is so easy to take advantage of I think the system needs to be revised

I must say your post is the closest to what I came here to find, It makes sense. So i must ask, in the case where it is decided that you would not have been taken advantage of if the voluntary intoxication was not a factor. Does that then put the responsibility on the "victim" because in their right state of mind their victimization could have been averted.

ex. military case stated earlier, in her right state of mind she would have been able to stop the relations. In her intoxicated state she gave consent, hours before the act but still consent. Had she not been intoxicated this "crime" would never have happened.

also under the same logic if it is determined that a crime would not have been commited had the individual had a sober mind then should that be adequate reason to excuse the individual of the crime?

It's not possible to have consensual sex when you are drunk, because people who are legally intoxicated cannot legally give consent to something.

Cycloptichorn

Exactly,
so what your saying is that we have legally stripped a drunk individaul from the responsibility of making decisions. If you are legally incapable of giving consent to have sex while intoxicated how can you legally be responsible for murder, assault, or rape?

As far as I can see the two contradict each other please help!

This is incorrect. Drunk people are still responsible for their decisions, but they are not responsible for the decisions that others make on their behalf.

For example, if you get drunk and kill someone, you're still responsible. But if you get drunk and get mugged, its' not your fault for being drunk - it is the fault of the person who took the action. It may have been FOOLISH for you to be drunk, but that has no legal bearing.



See above.



The two are perfectly consistent. You are confusing foolish actions with ones that bear legal liability. This is all very clearly defined by our legal system.

Cycloptichorn

I hear what your saying but I dont think your hearing me.
I realise that it has no legal bearing but should it.

and the question is.... If you can legally make the decision to kill. Then shouldnt you legally have the ability to give consent... I dont see how your comment answers this. If ur drunk and you make a decision to kill you have to live with that choice as your own.... yet if your drunk and make the decision to have sex... that decision isnt your own?

still a question of taking advantage, but not in the same context that your giving it.

the way your putting it I completely agree i think that was the point made by Dad earlier.

Oh and im sorry didnt see the last half of your post


What I was hoping to imply without coming out and saying it is just how contradictory our legal system is.
I know they have differences as far as the legal system is concerned, but should they?

No, it shouldn't.



No, you shouldn't. When you say 'legally make the decision to kill,' you are actually discussing a complex topic; it's one of the reasons that there's a difference between Murder and Manslaughter.

Cycloptichorn

Yes but for a murder to be decided as man slaughter, you would have to determine that both alcohol and another extenuating circumstance where involved together which resulted in diminished responsibility as stated in

Beard, DPP v (1920) HL- (agreeably this is clouded by an incompetent defense attorney)
Hatton, R v [2005] (CA)- also accused of murder


Heres the synopsys of a british case which i think that the american legal system should take as a precident in their regards towards alcohol and its relation in crimes

Tandy, R v (1989) CA
[Diminished responsibility - abnormality of the mind impairing mental responsibility - effects of alcoholism - role of jury]
D, an alcoholic, had drunk nearly a bottle of vodka when she strangled her 11 yr old daughter. (She normally drank Vermouth or Barley wine),

Held: For a craving for drink to produce an "abnormality of mind" induced by the disease of alcoholism, there had to be grossly impaired judgement and emotional responses or the craving had to be such as to render the first drink of alcohol of the day involuntary.

But, if the accused had simply not resisted an impulse to drink she could not rely on the defence of diminished responsibility, and if D took the first drink of the day voluntarily, the whole of the drinking on that day was voluntary, and diminished responsibility was not available to her.

Watkins LJ:

"If the alcoholism has reached the level at which her brain had been injured by the repeated insult from intoxicants so that there was gross impairment of her judgment and emotional responses, then the defence of diminished responsibility was available to her ... if her drinking was involuntary, then her abnormality of the mind at the time of the act of strangulation was induced by her condition of alcoholism."

There's no contradiction. You're just confusing two different legal standards.

For your rape example, the standard is whether alcohol impairs a woman's ability to form consent. For your murder/manslaughter example, the standard is whether alcohol impairs the defendant's ability to form intent (mens rea). Those are two different things.

You asked:

That's comparing apples and oranges. The standard for consent isn't the same as the standard for criminal intent.

Really, I thought that intent was synonymous with consent
by giving consent a woman is forming intent to ingame in sexual activity. So basically our current legal standing is that word play and sexism dictates our judicial rulings

maybe im lacking something mentally because I dont see how you can refer too the two situations as apples and oranges. the concept is quite simplistic

either you are (as in the case of being prosecuted for murder while drunk) capable of making decisions while intoxicated.
or you are not (as in the case of not being able to consent while drunk)
the question is simple... legally can you or cant you make accountable decisions while intoxicated

You thought wrong.


The concept isn't simplistic, your reasoning is.

Lol statements without reasoning behind them. if its that difficult for you then by all means disregard the question. if not then answer the question should you or shouldnt you be held accountable for decisions made while your intoxicated.

two people blowing .18 one decides that they want to have sex the other one decides to go killing. you cant say that the first one was not of the right mind to make that decision while at the same time saying that the second one was.

Depends on what you mean by "accountable."


Why not?