7 ms·

>Drunk consent isn't consent Legally it is. >people leave themselves open to accusations of, and convictions for, rape if they have sex with drunk people. Pe

by asdasf 13y ago

>Drunk consent isn't consent Legally it is. >people leave themselves open to accusations of, and convictions for, rape if they have sex with drunk people. People are always open to accusations. I can't find evidence of a single conviction for someone consenting to sex while intoxicated. Only when causing the intoxication in the first place, without consent, does further consent get negated.

DanBC 13y ago
> >Drunk consent isn't consent > Legally it is. Not where I live.
- asdasf 13y ago
  Where do you live? Can you cite a law or case that demonstrates you are correct in your belief?
  - anon1385 13y ago
    Incase he doesn't reply, I'm fairly sure DanBC lives in the UK. Here is a recent widely publicised case: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/aug/21/ched-evans-loses-rape-appeal http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/aug/21/ched-evans-loses-ra... In April, the 23-year-old striker was jailed for five years for raping a teenager who was too drunk to consent to sex with him
- sk5t 13y ago
  Just out of curiosity, is drunk driving not driving in your jurisdiction?
  - thwest 13y ago
    The analogy you're looking for here is drunk being-run-over, not drunk driving. Consider this illustrative example: Driver: "Hey man, mind if I run over your leg?" Drunk Person: "mfamhhhhmmhaha sure lesh pud it on youtubes" Driver: looks at camera "You hear that judge and jury?! Consent! Yeeehaw!"
    - hackinthebochs 13y ago
      That's not what he was asking. The question is if someone can be "too drunk to consent" (assuming they are conscious enough to verbally consent, but too drunk for that consent to be valid in the eyes of the law), then why are people held responsible for drunk driving incidents? If the law finds them incapacitated to the point of not being held responsible for their decisions (in this case to have sex, or sign contracts, etc), why are they held responsible for their decision to drive drunk? It's a valid question and I don't think I've ever seen it answered sufficiently.
      - VLM 13y ago
        Puritanism, pure and simple. Note you can kill all the people you want in a plain ole traffic accident with practically no punishment compared to using any other weapon... as long as you're not drunk. Heck they don't even municipal cite people for killing bicyclists around here, sometimes. Needless to say I don't ride on the roads or let my kids ride on the roads, that would be pretty dumb to do, given the prevailing conditions.
      - thwest 13y ago
        Because the drunk driver's lack of consent isn't the problem with drunk driving: it's the lack of consent from everyone else on the road. The issue with consent while drunk isn't about what you do to yourself while drunk: it is about hurting other people. You have the right to get drunk to the point of passing out in front of the stereo with The Cure's worst album at full blast, the dishes undone, leftovers on the stove and that still doesn't give anyone the right to steal your stereo, sharpie your face or fuck you (even if they shake you hard enough to get some vague affirmatory groan out of your body).
        hackinthebochs 13y ago
        Your answer implicitly casts the drunk person being acted upon, rather than an actor. I see this a lot and I have a feeling this stems from society's sexist views regarding sex that we've all internalized (men are always the actor, women passive). The point is assuming the drunk person (lets assume a women) is giving "enthusiastic consent", and thus is a "drunk actor" in this situation, why is responsibility invalidated in the case of sex, but not in the case of drunk driving?
steveklabnik 13y ago
http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/pub_prosecuting_alcohol_facilitated_sexual_assault.pdf http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/pub_prosecuting_alcohol_facilitated_... references Arizona: A.R.S. §§ 13-1401 and 13-1406; Illinois: 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/12-13; Kansas: K.S.A. § 21-3502; Maine: 17-A M.R.S. § 109; Missouri: R.S.Mo. §§ 566.040 and 566.061; and Wisconsin: Wis. Stat. § 940.225. And claims these as case law for > • Either statute or case law specifically outlaws having intercourse > with a person who is too intoxicated to consent. > In these states, > the victim’s intoxication negates the element of consent, thereby > showing that the sexual act occurred without consent. IANAL.
- asdasf 13y ago
  They appear to be begging the question. The statutes in question do not say that drinking negates consent, they say that it is rape if someone is too drunk to consent. You have to look at precedent to try to determine what constitutes "too drunk to consent". It is not a simple case of "oh I was drinking so nothing I say counts" as some like to portray. The law has to be careful because claiming "I was drunk" to get out of consent would also have significant repercussions on other cases, not just rape.
- theorique 13y ago
  Interestingly, while the statute uses the term too intoxicated to consent, it doesn't define it. Is an unconscious person too intoxicated to consent to consent? Most people would say yes, and I imagine the law would concur. Is a person drifting in and out of consciousness too intoxicated to consent? Most people would say yes. Is a person who's able to walk, but obviously drunk, too intoxicated to consent? What if you ask them to come to your place to have sex and they agree with a drunken "uhhh yeah uuuhhhh cooool... uuuhhh ok". This is sounding more like real consent but a lot of people would proceed with caution to avoid a bad situation and/or regret. Is a person who's had a couple of drinks and is exhibiting increased outgoingness and reduced inhibitions too intoxicated to consent? This is where a lot of dates and hookups end up. Most people would say this is OK, but a zealous prosecutor with an axe to grind might be able to make charges stick. And finally, one presumes that if you're below the legal limit for operating a motor vehicle, you are also able to consent to sex.
peterwwillis 13y ago
There is no legal definition of "drunk consent". It's up to a jury to decide if a person was too intoxicated to consent. It's also extremely hard to prove, which is part of why rape convictions are rare. There are definitely laws about surreptitiously intoxicating someone, however, which may quickly lead to conviction if proven.

by asdasf 13y ago

DanBC 13y ago

> >Drunk consent isn't consent > Legally it is. Not where I live.

asdasf 13y ago
Where do you live? Can you cite a law or case that demonstrates you are correct in your belief?
- anon1385 13y ago
  Incase he doesn't reply, I'm fairly sure DanBC lives in the UK. Here is a recent widely publicised case: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/aug/21/ched-evans-loses-rape-appeal http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/aug/21/ched-evans-loses-ra... In April, the 23-year-old striker was jailed for five years for raping a teenager who was too drunk to consent to sex with him
sk5t 13y ago
Just out of curiosity, is drunk driving not driving in your jurisdiction?
- thwest 13y ago
  The analogy you're looking for here is drunk being-run-over, not drunk driving. Consider this illustrative example: Driver: "Hey man, mind if I run over your leg?" Drunk Person: "mfamhhhhmmhaha sure lesh pud it on youtubes" Driver: looks at camera "You hear that judge and jury?! Consent! Yeeehaw!"
  - hackinthebochs 13y ago
    That's not what he was asking. The question is if someone can be "too drunk to consent" (assuming they are conscious enough to verbally consent, but too drunk for that consent to be valid in the eyes of the law), then why are people held responsible for drunk driving incidents? If the law finds them incapacitated to the point of not being held responsible for their decisions (in this case to have sex, or sign contracts, etc), why are they held responsible for their decision to drive drunk? It's a valid question and I don't think I've ever seen it answered sufficiently.
    - VLM 13y ago
      Puritanism, pure and simple. Note you can kill all the people you want in a plain ole traffic accident with practically no punishment compared to using any other weapon... as long as you're not drunk. Heck they don't even municipal cite people for killing bicyclists around here, sometimes. Needless to say I don't ride on the roads or let my kids ride on the roads, that would be pretty dumb to do, given the prevailing conditions.
    - thwest 13y ago
      Because the drunk driver's lack of consent isn't the problem with drunk driving: it's the lack of consent from everyone else on the road. The issue with consent while drunk isn't about what you do to yourself while drunk: it is about hurting other people. You have the right to get drunk to the point of passing out in front of the stereo with The Cure's worst album at full blast, the dishes undone, leftovers on the stove and that still doesn't give anyone the right to steal your stereo, sharpie your face or fuck you (even if they shake you hard enough to get some vague affirmatory groan out of your body).
      - hackinthebochs 13y ago
        Your answer implicitly casts the drunk person being acted upon, rather than an actor. I see this a lot and I have a feeling this stems from society's sexist views regarding sex that we've all internalized (men are always the actor, women passive). The point is assuming the drunk person (lets assume a women) is giving "enthusiastic consent", and thus is a "drunk actor" in this situation, why is responsibility invalidated in the case of sex, but not in the case of drunk driving?

steveklabnik 13y ago

http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/pub_prosecuting_alcohol_facilitated_sexual_assault.pdf http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/pub_prosecuting_alcohol_facilitated_... references Arizona: A.R.S. §§ 13-1401 and 13-1406; Illinois: 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/12-13; Kansas: K.S.A. § 21-3502; Maine: 17-A M.R.S. § 109; Missouri: R.S.Mo. §§ 566.040 and 566.061; and Wisconsin: Wis. Stat. § 940.225. And claims these as case law for > • Either statute or case law specifically outlaws having intercourse > with a person who is too intoxicated to consent. > In these states, > the victim’s intoxication negates the element of consent, thereby > showing that the sexual act occurred without consent. IANAL.

asdasf 13y ago
They appear to be begging the question. The statutes in question do not say that drinking negates consent, they say that it is rape if someone is too drunk to consent. You have to look at precedent to try to determine what constitutes "too drunk to consent". It is not a simple case of "oh I was drinking so nothing I say counts" as some like to portray. The law has to be careful because claiming "I was drunk" to get out of consent would also have significant repercussions on other cases, not just rape.
theorique 13y ago
Interestingly, while the statute uses the term too intoxicated to consent, it doesn't define it. Is an unconscious person too intoxicated to consent to consent? Most people would say yes, and I imagine the law would concur. Is a person drifting in and out of consciousness too intoxicated to consent? Most people would say yes. Is a person who's able to walk, but obviously drunk, too intoxicated to consent? What if you ask them to come to your place to have sex and they agree with a drunken "uhhh yeah uuuhhhh cooool... uuuhhh ok". This is sounding more like real consent but a lot of people would proceed with caution to avoid a bad situation and/or regret. Is a person who's had a couple of drinks and is exhibiting increased outgoingness and reduced inhibitions too intoxicated to consent? This is where a lot of dates and hookups end up. Most people would say this is OK, but a zealous prosecutor with an axe to grind might be able to make charges stick. And finally, one presumes that if you're below the legal limit for operating a motor vehicle, you are also able to consent to sex.

peterwwillis 13y ago

There is no legal definition of "drunk consent". It's up to a jury to decide if a person was too intoxicated to consent. It's also extremely hard to prove, which is part of why rape convictions are rare. There are definitely laws about surreptitiously intoxicating someone, however, which may quickly lead to conviction if proven.