3 ms·

> It doesn't matter what the perpetrator thinks. I think it may be the only thing that can decide the difference between a crime here or not. If the other pers

• dmit 6y ago
  > So the victim has no responsibility if blood alcohol level is too high for good judgment, but the perpetrator is responsible no matter their blood alcohol level and judgment? Exactly. That's why they're called 'victim' and 'perpetrator'. If the victim got triple blackout drunk, the only person they'd hurt is themselves. But the rapist, in addition to physical damage, inflicts deep, lasting psychological damage upon their victims. It's not just "regret".
  • eloff 6y ago
    Ok, let's say it's a man and a women, she's the "perpetrator" and he gives consent. She's his boss and they're on a business trip and drank too much at the bar. In the morning he feels taken advantage of and deeply regrets it because he's married. Do you still stand by that?
    • dmit 6y ago
      > she's the "perpetrator" and he gives consent If "he gives consent", then she isn't a perpetrator. By definition. If one of the parties gets drunk, they can't give consent. Again, by definition.
      • eloff 6y ago
        > If "he gives consent", then she isn't a perpetrator. By definition. > If one of the parties gets drunk, they can't give consent. Again, by definition. Say she comes on to him, and he responds enthusiastically. But he's too drunk to give consent by your definition. Then she's just committed a rape? From her POV, also drunk, she made a move, he reciprocated, all in all it was a pleasant evening. She clearly didn't mean to commit a crime in this case, and both their judgment was impaired. Whose fault is it? I don't think it's fair to say it's all her fault - and I don't think a court of law could find fault here, fairly, with no witnesses and no evidence.
      • tasuki 6y ago
        > If one of the parties gets drunk, they can't give consent. Again, by definition. So drunk people should never have sex? What if they're in a stable relationship?
• dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Intent matters in a lot of crimes, I don't think it matters in rape cases As in other forms of battery, intent matters in rape, but it is thr defendant’s intent to commit the requisite form of physical interaction, not the defendant’s intent with regard to the absence of consent by the alleged victim. > > > Is the perpetrator less guilty of rape depending on his blood alcohol level? Interestingly, legally, the answer (in the US) is yes if the intoxication makes him incapable of being cognizant of the nature of the act, because it makes him incapable of thr requisite mental state. But there is a huge caveat: in general, voluntary intoxication has been specifically adopted into law as not defeating the mental state requirement for a crime (or, equivalently, as satisfying it for any mental state up to and including specific intent). > So the victim has no responsibility if blood alcohol level is too high for good judgment, but the perpetrator is responsible no matter their blood alcohol level and judgment? That seems self-contradictory. Well, no, its not self-contradictory. If your voluntary intoxication causes harm to yourself, you suffer the consequences as much as if you had chosen the outcome (and that’s true whether or not someone else is punished for their role). If your voluntary intoxication causes unlicensed harm to someone else, society has decided that you suffer the consequences as much as if you had chosen the action, as well. No inconsistency.