• 'Too drunk to consent' - footballer jailed for rape
    707 replies, posted
[QUOTE=James*;35697380]There was evidence [B]I was pretty clearly talking theoretically. If I meant this case I would have said "why was HE assumed guilty" etc.[/B] why is it only rape cases where the victim is always assumed to be lying [B]It isn't. This happens in a lot of different crimes actually, but people are only aware of the problem with rape cases because of feminists. Doesn't mean it's right, but it does mean you're wrong.[/B] [editline]24th April 2012[/editline] it is different, as there is another party involved when drunk you are responsible for your own actions but not responsible for others [B]What if they are encouraged to do the action by others? If you look up cases of this you suddenly find very inconsistant rulings because then it's difficult to pin down who was actually responsible.[/B][/QUOTE] What I'm getting at is, you can't put the full blame on a guy. What if the girl is throwing herself at a guy all night, and he finally gives in and takes her to bed? Still rape. Why? She suddenly gets a pass at being responsible because she was drunk? This is like saying it's ok to steal because you're poor. I personally expect better from people who claim to be adults, and you should too.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;35699031]What I'm getting at is, you can't put the full blame on a guy. What if the girl is throwing herself at a guy all night, and he finally gives in and takes her to bed? Still rape. Why? She suddenly gets a pass at being responsible because she was drunk? This is like saying it's ok to steal because you're poor. I personally expect better from people who claim to be adults, and you should too.[/QUOTE] i don't understand where you are getting the idea that this stuff happens to men, and that most rapes are girls throwing themselves at guys. surely if a girl was throwing herself at a guy there would be enough evidence to substantiate this (previous encounters of her being intoxicated, witnesses, her own testimony) and the trial would unfold accordingly. it is not at all like saying it's okay to steal because you are poor that analogy does not make literally any sense please stop using analogies i personally expect better cognitive thinking skills from someone who expects to be taken seriously
[QUOTE=Boxbot219;35696776]So that means it's OK for someone who gets drunk without the intention of having sex to be taken advantage of?[/QUOTE] Taking advantage of someone is a dickish move but imho it shouldn't be illegal. Guys are always taking advantage of girls for sex without even realising it most of the time, it's part human nature and part being a douchebag. Taking advantage =/= rape. When you're taking advantage of someone, you're normally doing something that logically shouldn't be illegal but that you shouldn't be doing anyway if you have any level of morality. This includes going after someone who's emotionally unstable. These are personal issues and conflicts that should be resolved by those involved, the legal system should quite rightly keep their noses out of stuff like that If someone feels they need to take it court maybe because of other factors involved that's fine, but sex with a drunk person shouldn't be illegal by [i]default[/i] for as long as the law says that being drunk doesn't void responsiblity for your actions and decisions for everything else. The less law actively gets involved in people's personal affairs the better. You just don't realise how many people are fucked over by the current law and how many lives it ruins by unfairly convicting people of something that really shouldn't be rape in the first place. I will say it's a grey area between rape and consensual sex at the most, but as the law is at the moment it has too much potential to be taken advantage of I'll just sum up what's wrong with current law... - Consenting to sex is the only thing that being drunk legally voids responsibility for -A man will be convicted of rape if he has sex with a drunk woman even if he himself was also equally drunk How hard is it too see that current law is both unfair and unbalanced? If you have any logic or common sense, that realisation should instantly hit you in the face
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;35697268]After considering both sides of the argument, I still can't find reason for why male "rapists" are guilty and must prove themselves innocent, even with a complete lack of evidence and when just about all other crimes don't carry such a stigma of assumed guilt. That needs to change.[/QUOTE] [b][url=http://www.rainn.org/statistics]EXCEPT[/url] [url=http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/myths-of-the-manosphere-lying-about-women]NO[/url][/b] Jesus christ, for someone who "expects better from people claiming to be adults", you sure don't know much about the subject.
[QUOTE=RobbL;35699158] How hard is it too see that current law is both unfair and unbalanced? If you have any logic or common sense, that realisation should instantly hit you in the face[/QUOTE] you seem to think the law is really rigid and considers all drunk sex rape, that's not the case. and i don't see how you think taking advantage of someone is not rape.
[QUOTE=Trogdon;35698939]you are comparing driving drunk to getting raped you are saying that you instigate driving while drunk, and you also instigate getting rape. congratulations you are a horrible person[/QUOTE] Good thing your avatar fits so well in this case. The point of my argument is that she isn't getting raped, not that she's 'instigating it' And yes I was comparing consciously choosing to drive drunk with consciously choosing to give consent.
[QUOTE=RobbL;35699158]Taking advantage of someone is a dickish move but imho it shouldn't be illegal. Guys are always taking advantage of girls for sex without even realising it most of the time, it's part human nature and part being a douchebag.[/quote] "People do it all the time, so it's fine and we should let it keep happening, even though I understand that it's wrong." [quote]Taking advantage =/= rape. When you're taking advantage of someone, you're normally doing something that logically shouldn't be illegal but that you shouldn't be doing anyway if you have any level of morality. This includes going after someone who's emotionally unstable.[/quote] "If you have any level of morality, you shouldn't be doing it. But it shouldn't be illegal, because... uh..." And taking advantage of someone to gain their 'consent', where they normally wouldn't give consent, is rape. If you take advantage of your somewhat-similar appearance to someone, and someone's poor sight / the darkness of the room, in order to have sex with them (by making them think you're someone else), that's rape. You're deceiving them. [quote]These are personal issues and conflicts that should be resolved by those involved, the legal system should quite rightly keep their noses out of stuff like that[/quote] "Dad hitting mom is a personal issue, and they should resolve them themselves, no need to get the police involved, because... uh... I'll get back to you on that part" "Sure, someone did something that nobody with any moral compass would do, but they don't need rehabilitation or punishment because... hey look, a distraction" [quote]If someone feels they need to take it court maybe because of other factors involved that's fine, but sex with a drunk person shouldn't be illegal by [i]default[/i] for as long as the law says that being drunk doesn't void responsiblity for your actions and decisions for everything else.[/quote] Except that if you're drunk and commit a crime, generally you [I]are[/I] less responsible, and there's a higher focus on rehabilitation. Besides, in sex with a drunk person, [I]one person is sober and knows what's going on, and has the power to stop.[/I] That doesn't happen with drunk driving or drunken violence. [quote]The less law actively gets involved in people's personal affairs the better.[/quote] Why? What all do you consider to be "personal affairs", anyway? If someone you don't know taking advantage of your state and having sex with you, even though you don't remember anything in the morning, is "just a personal affair", what else is? Stealing something from a neighbor? "Just let them sort it out!" [quote]You just don't realise how many people are fucked over by the current law and how many lives it ruins by unfairly convicting people of something that really shouldn't be rape in the first place. [/quote] You mean roughly 5% of the 3% that ever actually go to prison? Hell, let's make it roughly 5% of the 5% who ever actually get a conviction. That's how many people are unfairly punished. Roughly 95% of the 95% who [I]don't[/I] see any punishment for their rapists, on the other hand, is how many people get raped but don't get any justice, with their rapists possibly going on to rape or abuse again. [quote]I will say it's a grey area between rape and consensual sex at the most, but as the law is at the moment it has too much potential to be taken advantage of[/quote] You know what else at the has too much potential to be taken advantage of? [I]Drunk people.[/I] [quote]I'll just sum up what's wrong with current law... - Consenting to sex is the only thing that being drunk legally voids responsibility for[/quote] As well as legal contracts. And there isn't really much legal responsibility for killing yourself. And you aren't as responsible for most crimes you commit when drunk. You're still responsible, but less so. But yeah, all of that is the only thing you legally void responsibility for. oh wait that's everything [quote]-A man will be convicted of rape if he has sex with a drunk woman even if he himself was also equally drunk[/quote] Even though one guy in this case [I]wasn't[/I] convicted, partly [I]because[/I] he too was drunk? And he even admitted that he was less drunk than her? But still wasn't convicted? [quote]How hard is it too see that current law is both unfair and unbalanced? If you have any logic or common sense, that realisation should instantly hit you in the face[/QUOTE] The only realization I'm getting is that you need to think this through a bit more.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;35699031]What I'm getting at is, you can't put the full blame on a guy. What if the girl is throwing herself at a guy all night, and he finally gives in and takes her to bed? Still rape. Why? She suddenly gets a pass at being responsible because she was drunk? This is like saying it's ok to steal because you're poor. I personally expect better from people who claim to be adults, and you should too.[/QUOTE] Another person who doesn't understand the law
[QUOTE=zakedodead;35699313]Good thing your avatar fits so well in this case. [/QUOTE] [img]http://facepunch.com/avatar/117899.png?garryis=awesome[/img] Case closed. MY AUTOMERGE
[QUOTE=zakedodead;35699313]Good thing your avatar fits so well in this case. The point of my argument is that she isn't getting raped, not that she's 'instigating it' And yes I was comparing consciously choosing to drive drunk with consciously choosing to give consent.[/QUOTE] so you are saying that when you drive drunk, your car approaches you and asks you if you want to drive, and saying yes means that you will then drive drunk and be fully responsible for doing so. i don't even understand how ethically you can compare driving to sex but whatever
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;35697268]After considering both sides of the argument, I still can't find reason for why male "rapists" are guilty and must prove themselves innocent, even with a complete lack of evidence and when just about all other crimes don't carry such a stigma of assumed guilt. That needs to change.[/QUOTE] On the contrary rape cases have a both a stupidly low report rate, and conviction rate. Probably the biggest reason for this is that the woman/man in question often has to submit to humiliating interrogation in court that essentially attempts to establish them as sluts for their previous sexual relationships. While I understand a criminal case has to be somewhat bias towards the defendant, I feel it has gone too far in rape cases.
[QUOTE=Trogdon;35699248] and i don't see how you think taking advantage of someone is not rape.[/QUOTE] If that's the case about at least 1 in 3 men are officially rapists then God forbid you ever stray away from your goodie-two-shoes attitude and make even the tiniest mistake in your life, because that mistake will be twisted and blown out of all proportion by the legal 'loophole' in rape law that you seem all to happy to blindly endorse, and will ruin your life [editline]24th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Trogdon;35699494]so you are saying that when you drive drunk, your car approaches you and asks you if you want to drive, and saying yes means that you will then drive drunk and be fully responsible for doing so. i don't even understand how ethically you can compare driving to sex but whatever[/QUOTE] Deciding to consent to sex is the same as deciding to get in a car. Decisions are decisions, something that impairs your ability to make decisions affects all decisions equally. Pressuring people into making decisions isn't illegal. Forcing people against their will is a different matter though.
[QUOTE=RobbL;35700486]Deciding to consent to sex is the same as deciding to get in a car.[/QUOTE] ... Does someone have a spare 10$?
[QUOTE=RobbL;35700486]If that's the case about at least 1 in 3 men are officially rapists then God forbid you ever stray away from your goodie-two-shoes attitude and make even the tiniest mistake in your life, because that mistake will be twisted and blown out of all proportion by the legal 'loophole' in rape law that you seem all to happy to blindly endorse, and will ruin your life [editline]24th April 2012[/editline] Deciding to consent to sex is the same as deciding to get in a car. Decisions are decisions, something that impairs your ability to make decisions affects all decisions equally. Pressuring people into making decisions isn't illegal. Forcing people against their will is a different matter though.[/QUOTE] i wouldn't doubt 1 in 3 men are rapists. and rape is not a tiny mistake. it doesn't ruin many peoples (note i mean guys here) lives because MOST rapes are not even reported! why do you assume having sex is at this person's will? because they said yes? do you really think that deciding to get into a car and deciding to have sex are comparable decisions when under the influence? A car is an object, it does not have influence. Sex is between two people, and if one of them is drunk and the other is sober then it is more than pressure, it's coercion enough to consider force
[QUOTE=Trogdon;35700606]i wouldn't doubt 1 in 3 men are rapists. and rape is not a tiny mistake. it doesn't ruin many peoples (note i mean guys here) lives because MOST rapes are not even reported! why do you assume having sex is at this person's will? because they said yes? do you really think that deciding to get into a car and deciding to have sex are comparable decisions when under the influence? A car is an object, it does not have influence. Sex is between two people, and if one of them is drunk and the other is sober then it is more than pressure, it's coercion enough to consider force[/QUOTE] But the problem is it's still seen as rape whether she's pressured or not. Even if the girl was coming onto the guy. I'm just saying if you're unable to consent to one thing while drunk, logically you should be unable to consent to anything while drunk. It's either all or nothing.
[QUOTE=Boxbot219;35697302]Zakedodead said so himself that these kinds of conscious decisions should be held to the same standard. The mentally retarded are capable of making conscious decisions such as driving a car or buying things. If he disagreed that the mentally retarded should be allowed to be taken advantage of for sex that would be a double standard from him, who is using the very argument that we shouldn't use double standards for sexual consent while mentally impaired. And why should it be any different if someone chose to make themselves mentally impaired? Choosing to get drunk does not automatically mean that you have chosen for anyone to take advantage of you.[/QUOTE] You need to stop with "mentally impaired". That law has it specifically written "effect of alcohol or any other substance of consenting to it". It is written for those intoxicated, not those that are retarded. Stop trying to villainize zakedodead over that.
[QUOTE=Phsykotik;35702413]You need to stop with "mentally impaired". That law has it specifically written "effect of alcohol or any other substance of consenting to it". It is written for those intoxicated, not those that are retarded. Stop trying to villainize zakedodead over that.[/QUOTE] This is where education comes in handy. You see, if someone is under the influence of alcohol that is effecting their central nervous system, they are considered mentally impaired (since it's effecting the functioning of the CNS). Alcohol is a CNS depressant and an anesthetic, which causes [B]MENTAL IMPAIRMENT[/B]. So no, "mental impairment" does not just refer to those who have mental illnesses/retardation. It also refers to those under the effect of any psychoactive substance.
[QUOTE=Phsykotik;35702413]You need to stop with "mentally impaired". That law has it specifically written "effect of alcohol or any other substance of consenting to it". It is written for those intoxicated, not those that are retarded. Stop trying to villainize zakedodead over that.[/QUOTE] Someone who is inebriated is literally mentally impaired. What were you trying to accomplish with this post?
I am aware that one becomes impaired, but you miss the most important part: this impairment was made choice. It is an entirely difference concept from mental retardation. The law is not written about mental impairment, at least not what is being discussed, it's about being specifically impaired by alcohol or other drugs. You bring mental impairment and then change it to mental-tards, [i]but that isn't, and will never be the scenario[/i]. It's about being under the influence of drugs, not under the influence of impairment. The whole ordeal is, was it taking advantage of, therefore rape? A large part say no, and others say yes. The judge ruled yes, so that's that. I disagree with the judge. But what does that matter? Anyway, end of discussion from my end. There really isn't anything more to say, everyone is arguing from ignorance, and it is, if you step back and look, an argument similar to whether or not there is a god: without answer.
[QUOTE=Phsykotik;35704641]I am aware that one becomes impaired, but you miss the most important part: this impairment was made choice. It is an entirely difference concept from mental retardation. The law is not written about mental impairment, at least not what is being discussed, it's about being specifically impaired by alcohol or other drugs. You bring mental impairment and then change it to mental-tards, [i]but that isn't, and will never be the scenario[/i]. It's about being under the influence of drugs, not under the influence of impairment. The whole ordeal is, was it taking advantage of, therefore rape? A large part say no, and others say yes. The judge ruled yes, so that's that. I disagree with the judge. But what does that matter? Anyway, end of discussion from my end. There really isn't anything more to say, everyone is arguing from ignorance, and it is, if you step back and look, an argument similar to whether or not there is a god: without answer.[/QUOTE]Again, [b]it doesn't matter whether or not someone chose to be inebriated[/b]. The point is if someone takes advantage of someone's inebriation with full knowledge of that inebriation for sex and that person would not have given consent if sober then it was rape.
[QUOTE=Boxbot219;35704731]Again, [b]it doesn't matter whether or not someone chose to be inebriated[/b]. The point is if someone takes advantage of someone's inebriation with full knowledge of that inebriation for sex and that person would not have given consent if sober then it was rape.[/QUOTE] Again, [b]I fucking understand what the current situation is.[/b] I am saying I disagree with it. How damn hard is it for you to understand that? Whether or not their drunk, if a person says yes, they say yes. Or should be able to be held to that yes. [i]In my opinion.[/i] I understand that isn't the law. Hell, [i][b]everyone[/b][/i] in this thread understands that is the law: everyone that is speaking against it is saying it [i]should[/i] not be this way, not that it [i]is[/i] not this way. If a person, who is under the influence, agrees to supply minors with alcohol, is he good to go, or is he able to be charged with providing minors in possession? If you answer yes, I hate you. My argument is not that it isn't this way, it is that it should not be this way. Sorry I came back, but you seem to have misunderstood, so I needed to clarify. Maybe this time I can stay away?
[QUOTE=Trogdon;35699096]i don't understand where you are getting the idea that this stuff happens to men, and that most rapes are girls throwing themselves at guys. surely if a girl was throwing herself at a guy there would be enough evidence to substantiate this (previous encounters of her being intoxicated, witnesses, her own testimony) and the trial would unfold accordingly. it is not at all like saying it's okay to steal because you are poor that analogy does not make literally any sense please stop using analogies i personally expect better cognitive thinking skills from someone who expects to be taken seriously[/QUOTE] You're putting words in my mouth Trogdon, like you have done to every single person you disagreed with so far. I never said "most rapes are girls throwing themselves at guys". The majority of reported rapes are legitimate, but you cannot assume that, because 9/10 cases are truly guilty, it is safe to assume guilt every time. As they say, Justice is blind. And Trogdon, you are one of the last posters that should be lecturing people on thinking skills, let alone debating skills...
[QUOTE=Last or First;35699400] "If you have any level of morality, you shouldn't be doing it. But it shouldn't be illegal, because... uh..." And taking advantage of someone to gain their 'consent', where they normally wouldn't give consent, is rape. If you take advantage of your somewhat-similar appearance to someone, and someone's poor sight / the darkness of the room, in order to have sex with them (by making them think you're someone else), that's rape. You're deceiving them. [/QUOTE] Morality and laws do not completely mix. If you think that your set of morals is the right one and everyone should be forced to live by your morals at risk of jail, you are an arrogant fool. I think it is immoral to verbally bully someone because they made a mistake, yet this should not be illegal. I think it is immoral to disregard the feelings of others, only think of yourself and to help yourself at the misfortune of others, though this should not be illegal. I do not believe taking advantage of someone is grounds for illegal actions, afterall, is it not taking advantage of someone if you give them a loan because they don't have the money and you charge them interest? Their judgement is being clouded by risk of many things, going bankrupt, becoming homeless, etc. Yet this isn't illegal. Is it not taking advantage to pay an employee minimum wage because you know they cannot get another job? This is taaking advantage of their situation for your own gain. [QUOTE=Boxbot219;35697302]Zakedodead said so himself that these kinds of conscious decisions should be held to the same standard. The mentally retarded are capable of making conscious decisions such as driving a car or buying things. If he disagreed that the mentally retarded should be allowed to be taken advantage of for sex that would be a double standard from him, who is using the very argument that we shouldn't use double standards for sexual consent while mentally impaired. [/QUOTE] Are you suggesting that the mentally retarded should not be able to have sex? Ae you seriously so arrogant that you believe their decisions are worthless and that you know what is best for them? "Oh you said yes? So what, your decision is worthless. You are impaired and so I must decide for you."
[QUOTE=Phsykotik;35705215] Sorry I came back, but you seem to have misunderstood, so I needed to clarify. Maybe this time I can stay away?[/QUOTE] yes please do, and stop using analogies you cannot compare these things to rape. they simply aren't the same, the same set of laws should not exist for them. rape is a gender specific crime, one pretty much every time perpetrated by men, against another. rape is not just a slip-up, it is a serious issue. it's more serious than selling alcohol to minors, than driving drunk, or any other analogies used. it's not the same thing, and no matter how much you compare them, it will not be the same. if you do not understand why this difference should exist, then you do not understand the ramifications of rape. i'll admit it's a difficult concept, but it is not at all like other crime. there is a reason why law disparity exists and why you are responsible for the analogies you have used, and not responsible for engaging in sexual intercourse with someone in a much better state of mind than you. [QUOTE=FlakAttack;35705347]You're putting words in my mouth Trogdon, like you have done to every single person you disagreed with so far. I never said "most rapes are girls throwing themselves at guys". The majority of reported rapes are legitimate, but you cannot assume that, because 9/10 cases are truly guilty, it is safe to assume guilt every time. As they say, Justice is blind. And Trogdon, you are one of the last posters that should be lecturing people on thinking skills, let alone debating skills...[/QUOTE] you mean like, use trails or something so we can find out if a rape was legitimate??
[QUOTE=Trogdon;35706483]rape is a gender specific crime, one pretty much every time perpetrated by men, against another. [/QUOTE] I agree with the second part that the majority of perpetrators of rape are men, but to suggest that it is gender specific is wrong.
[QUOTE=Hobo4President;35706359] Are you suggesting that the mentally retarded should not be able to have sex? Ae you seriously so arrogant that you believe their decisions are worthless and that you know what is best for them? "Oh you said yes? So what, your decision is worthless. You are impaired and so I must decide for you."[/QUOTE] no i think he's saying if you approached a mentally retarded person you just met and had sex with them it would be taking advantage of them. because that's what happened here, it was someone they just met. surely mentally retarded can have sex if there is an actual mutual romantic interest, he's definitely not arguing that [editline]24th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Hobo4President;35706521]I agree with the second part that the majority of perpetrators of rape are men, but to suggest that it is gender specific is wrong.[/QUOTE] it's gender specific in that it is perpetrated by men. that's what i meant.
[QUOTE=Trogdon;35706540]no i think he's saying if you approached a mentally retarded person you just met and had sex with them it would be taking advantage of them. because that's what happened here, it was someone they just met. surely mentally retarded can have sex if there is an actual mutual romantic interest, he's definitely not arguing that[/QUOTE] Why would that make a difference? If this person used deception to get the mentally retarded person to sleep with them, then yes, it would and should be illegal, as it also is when a person is not impaired. I don't see how it is up to you to decide for the mentally retarded person "Your consent does not count unless you have gone on 5 dates with this person (or some other arbitrary number)."
[QUOTE=Hobo4President;35706569]Why would that make a difference? If this person used deception to get the mentally retarded person to sleep with them, then yes, it would and should be illegal, as it also is when a person is not impaired. I don't see how it is up to you to decide for the mentally retarded person "Your consent does not count unless you have gone on 5 dates with this person (or some other arbitrary number)."[/QUOTE] so wait now you're supporting consent in those with mental disorders but not in those who have substance induced mental disorders? quite the double standard pal.
[QUOTE=Hobo4President;35706569]Why would that make a difference? If this person used deception to get the mentally retarded person to sleep with them, then yes, it would and should be illegal, as it also is when a person is not impaired. I don't see how it is up to you to decide for the mentally retarded person "Your consent does not count unless you have gone on 5 dates with this person (or some other arbitrary number)."[/QUOTE] it has nothing to do with an arbitrary number, he is just saying if you use deception then it should be illegal. i'm sure he doesn't oppose mentally retarded people having sex, but th it's easier to deceive people with less mental prowess. just imagine the girl in this scenario being swapped with a mentally retarded girl, would that make your views on it different?
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;35706620]so wait now you're supporting consent in those with mental disorders but not in those who have substance induced mental disorders? quite the double standard pal.[/QUOTE] What? Where did you get that idea from? I'm saying that consent by a mentally retarded person is consent the same, as it is when from a person impaired by alcohol. If you're talking about the deceipt bit I believe that if any deceipt is used to get someone to give consent, whether sober, mentally retarded, or impaired by a drug, it is and should be illegal.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.