Responsibility for ones actions

In the first case the person they decide to have sex with can realize they are drunk and refuse.

Can you provide an example even close in the second case.

You really think the victim in the second case can say...
"I'm sorry, you can't kill me because you are drunk."

We arent discussing the responsibility of the other party, we will get to that after you answer the first question are intoxicated individuals capable of making accountable decisions.

and your assuming that the other individual in case A isnt drunk as well. In said case where the other individual is drunk you are now discriminating saying that while both people are drunk one is not capable of giving consent while the other is capable of making the decision to be a perp.

1st accountable by law meaning that by law they should be held accountable to the actions they made while intoxicated

2nd because its a complete contradiction, a contradiction based on stereotype that woman need protection while men dont deserve that same protection. woman are weak and deserve to be stripped of the right to make choices while intoxicated yet a man doesnt get the same protection.

It sure looks to me like you are discussing the responsibility of the other party.

Lol which was already clarified earlier that even if your drunk if you both wake up in the morning the first one filing a report becomes the victim

When people consent to things, we want to make sure that they're actually consenting. That's because, in general, it's a good thing for people to consent to do things that they want to do. Conversely, it's a bad thing for people to do things that they never consented to. That's why intoxication can vitiate consent, and why the level of intoxication necessary to vitiate consent is relatively low. The standard is whether the person is so drunk that she can't make a reasonable judgment about what she's getting herself into.

In contrast, we believe that it's a bad thing for people to commit crimes. That's why the level of intoxication necessary to mitigate criminal intent is fairly high -- because we don't want to encourage people to get drunk before they go out and commit crimes. The standard is whether the defendant was so drunk that he didn't know what he was doing. That's a pretty high threshold. And that only applies to specific intent crimes. For general intent crimes, intoxication is no defense at all.

So, should a person be held accountable for their actions while drunk? That depends a lot on what their actions are.


On the contrary. A man gets the exact same protection.

just a lil confused... you stated its a bad thing for people to do things that they never consented to... could you clarify

wouldnt doing something using your body be consenting. I thought sending the brain signals to your hand to move was consenting for it to move. However if you meant that its bad for people to be forced to do something that they never consented to... then I can see your point but the challenge is still, what happens when the so called perp is intoxicated as well. men are alot less likely to report a rape even when the wake up regretting the night before, therefore the "first person to report" rule is obviously imposed to favor women.

and I also think you got confused on my point... at no level does alcohol excuse murder... a defendant can only request diminished responsibility if there was a pre existing condition which when combined with alcohol could have caused the lapse in judgement, such as head trama, depression, momentary rage.

I don't think so. That's already pretty clear.


No, that's not "consent."


Are you talking about a situation where the rapist and the victim are both drunk? Are you suggesting that they both were raped?


That may be the law where you are, but it's not the law in the US.

Lol its not the U.S law but it is a new article in the uniform code of military justice which is stated in the very first thread. and its not clear its bad to do things that they never consented to.. you dont consent to sweat, or for your heart to beat. What the hell are you talking about. I dont even know how that would work would you be telling yourself no as your fondeling yourself... or saying sorry I dont want to do this as your pulling the trigger. And finally

to permit, approve, or agree; comply or yield (often followed by to or an infinitive): He consented to the
this is the dictionary definition... so how do you say that by permitting, approving,or agreeing, allowing your hand to move that this is not consent?

LOL I'm talking about "consent" in the legal context, which is the only context that makes sense in a discussion about consent and sexual assault. LOL As for you -- I have no idea what sort of "consent" you're talking about. LOL And I suspect you don't either.

LOL

I'm no lawyer but I wonder about this part

I know of men I served with in the army who woke up to find some gyy taking advantage as the ladies say.

The other guys were declared dead by accidental discharge of fierearm. Case closed. Maybe mlilitay code is fifferent.

That's a pretty fair description of "military justice".

Just like "military intelligence", another oxymoron.

It sounds like a whole lot of GI's are going to have to find another way to get laid.

You are confusing several factors, besides the concepts of "consent" and "intent".

I think it would be helpful if you separated criminal from non-criminal actions when discussing the issue of responsibility and accountability. You also have to separate the victim of a crime from the person who commits the crime. We do not hold the victim legally responsible for crimes others commit against them.

Voluntary intoxication does not excuse an individual from accountability if that person commits a criminal act while impaired by alcohol.

If you get drunk and then drive, and cause an accident that results in a fatality, you will be held legally accountable for the decision to drive while impaired and the death of another person. That is a criminal act committed while intoxicated.

Similarly, if you rape someone when you are intoxicated, you have committed a criminal act while intoxicated. It is, in effect, no different than the drunken driving scenario.

Generally speaking, sexual intercourse between two adults is a legal action.

The crime of rape is generally described as engaging in sexual intercourse without consent of the other party.

In deciding whether the sexual act is criminal, the issue of "consent" does become crucial. The law defines how the term "consent" is to be understood, and, most often, it includes a description to the effect that "fully aware, knowing agreement was given". In other words, the person has to be aware of the situation and what they are agreeing to do--their judgment has to be relatively unimpaired by mental defects, mental illness, or by substances that would cloud consciousness or cognitive functioning. They would probably also have to be physically capable of indicating non-consent in some way, verbally or behaviorally, if the act was something they didn't want to do.

The person who is indicating consent or non-consent is not engaging in any sort of criminal act. Regardless of whether they agree or disagree to the sexual intercourse, they are not engaging in criminal behavior, and the fact that they might be drunk does not make their behavior criminal.

You have been making an erroneous assumption that the state can remove the ability to consent to sexual intercourse from an otherwise competent adult person who is temporarily intoxicated--that the state can, after the fact, tell an adult intoxicated person, who sincerely felt they had given consent for sexual intercourse, that they could not legally consent to the act. Your assumption is incorrect. The state does not deprive competent adults of their rights to consent to sex while they are intoxicated. Intoxicated people can willingly engage in sexual activity. They believe their actions were willing and they do not regard it is being unwanted or against their will. They do not consider it rape. They do not report it as a crime.

When someone lodges a criminal rape complaint they are alleging that an act of sexual intercourse was performed against their will, either without their fully aware, knowing consent, or despite their indications of non-consent, or when they were unable to offer resistance. They are alleging that they did not consent to the act. They are alleging that an unwanted criminal act was committed against them. The state is not removing the right to consent in this case, the victim is claiming that legal consent was never given, and, therefore, the actions of the other person were criminal.

The legal defense to a rape charge is generally to claim that either the sexual intercourse never took place, or, if it did, that the act was consensual.

That the victim was intoxicated at the time of the crime is actually irrelevant to whether a crime has been committed. So, if an intoxicated pedestrian was killed in that drunken driving scenario I mentioned, it does not alter the fact that the driver of the car is responsible for driving while intoxicated and for killing a pedestrian while in that state. Drivers are generally responsible for having their cars under control at all times, which includes being able to stop, or swerve, to avoid hitting pedestrians. Alcohol impairs vision and judgment, as well as significantly slowing reaction times, all of which contribute to the pedestrian fatality and the driver's accountability. The intoxicated pedestrian victim is not legally responsible, in any way, for the drunken driver's criminal acts. Similarly, a drunken rape victim is not responsible for the criminal actions of the rapist. And, being drunk does not absolve the rapist of criminal responsibility for the rape. Just as the law requires a driver to know whether he is sober when he gets behind the wheel of a car, the law requires that you know whether you have the other person's consent before you engage in sexual intercourse.

Again, you must remember that, under certain circumstances, engaging in sexual intercourse is regarded as a criminal act. Therefore, you have considerable responsibility for knowing whether you are about to commit a criminal act before you engage in it. You must be sure that the legal conditions for consent are present before you have sexual intercourse. And this legal burden, to be sure of consent, falls on the person who is doing the sexual penetration of another person's body, since the law generally defines the sexual act in terms of penetration of the other's body. Disregarding objects, only males can penetrate the body of another person with their genitalia. Therefore, it is the male who must be sure that legal consent is present, or has been given, before engaging in intercourse with either a female or male partner.

I think it needlessly confuses your discussion to bring up issues like someone who changes her mind after the fact, because of regrets of one sort or another, and reports the act as a rape. Legally that is not rape.

The sole issue in determining whether rape took place is whether legal consent was present at the time of the act of intercourse.

Someone who is so intoxicated she is barely aware that intercourse is occurring, is not legally consenting. Someone who is sleeping, or passed out, during intercourse, is not consenting. Someone who is so intoxicated she cannot resist, is not consenting. And someone who was so drunk that she can't even clearly remember what happened the night before, but wakes up in the morning and finds her panties pulled down, and evidence of semen on her sheets, might well feel that an unwanted sexual act was committed against her, without her knowing consent, and feel angry enough about it to lodge a legitimate rape complaint. That isn't the same as post decisional regret. Being so intoxicated that you have memory loss for what happened the night before, would indicate that aware, knowing consent was not given for the sexual act. Being that drunk does not constitute an invitation for sexual intercourse--being drunk might make the female available for sex, but it does not mean she is legally consenting, or even able to legally consent. A person who has sexual intercourse with a female in that state should know that they might be engaging in a criminal act, and they can be held accountable for such criminal behavior whether or not they were also intoxicated.

It is the person who feels they have been the victim of a criminal act who decides whether to lodge a rape complaint. Whether or not they were intoxicated at the time of the alleged crime might affect their credibility with the police or a jury, but it does not alter the accountability of the other party regarding a possible rape. Rape doesn't become non-rape just because the victim was drunk, any more than murder becomes non-murder because the victim was drunk. It is the lack of legal consent that would make the crime rape, and a victim may rightly, and legitimately, feel that the act was done without legal consent if she was quite drunk.

When all is said and done, it is a D.A., and not the victim, who decides whether the evidence merits formal rape charges, and the final legal decision regarding whether a rape took place rests with a judge or jury. The jury would have to be convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that consent was not present when the sexual intercourse occurred. And, if they were convinced, the rapist would be held accountable, whether or not he was intoxicated at the time of his actions.

The question isn't that simple. It's not just about decisions, it's about actions. And you must differentiate criminal from non-criminal actions in terms of accountability.
People are held legally responsible for criminal actions they engage in while intoxicated.

They might well not be held legally responsible for non-criminal actions done while intoxicated--including actions which seemed to indicate agreement, or consent (i.e. signing a contract or a Will). In other words, you might not be able to hold someone to a contract he signed while intoxicated because he can seek to have the contract voided given his mental state at the time it was signed.

We are certainly seeing a broad move by the state to remove individual rights of self determination, which will not go well for the state, as we come to the conclusion that the state is oppressive. I have seen a huge increase in this sentiment over recent years ..it to a large degree drives the libertarian and Tea PArty movements.

Yeah, killing people because you don't like their sexual advances is always good for a laugh. You're lucky most women don't go around armed.