Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know if this came out the way you wanted it to.
If you sign a contract to purchase a vehicle while you are severely intoxicated, the contract is null and void because most courts will rule that you did not have the mental capacity at the time to enter into a legally binding contract.
The casino's may fair better in keeping your money, but the car dealership sale will usually be reversed. Yes, a poor choice to get drunk, and being drunk may cause additional poor choices, but the law does not permit taking advantage of people with severely impaired mental facilities.
If you're functional enough to affix your signature, chances are the courts are going to let the contract stand. It is uncommon for courts to void a contract based on an intoxication claim. The burden is on the party attempting to disclaim the contract to prove they were so intoxicated that they did not understand the legal ramifications of entering into the contract, and that's a difficult burden to prove.
Yes, in general it is OK. The exception would of course be if it were a child or had a mental disability. In the 20ish crowd, one of the main reasons women drink is to hook up and then be able to claim they were drunk so it doesn't count. Its sad that that is whats required to allow them to fill insecure about it, but its been that way for hundreds of years, likely longer.
You already cited it, so I'll just repeat it back to you with the relevant language bolded:
Nowhere does the statute cite impairment as negating consent. It does, however, cite incapacity. They are not synonymous despite your unfounded belief to the contrary. While getting busy with drunk strangers is fraught with peril, people really need to get over the layman's misconception that intoxication alone negates the ability to legally consent. If you can still function, you can still give or deny consent.
You do realize that incapable is not the same word of incapacitated, right?!
Apparently the defense lawyers in this state do, because they all say the same thing that i'm saying........
In AZ someone who has a cognitive impairment for a multitude of reasons, is incapable (unable) to provide consent.
Really nothing more to go over on here .... i've provided the law, educational material, attorney perspectives, etc
So how are people convicted of drunk driving? So how is it people are expected to show consent when driving drunk? Drunkin sex you have no clue what your doing but drunk driving you have the capacity to know what your doing even though a person wakes up and ask where am I?
Now before people go off I was just making an example about the drunk driving.
?????
Since when did you need to have consent to drive?
DUI laws are something completely different - the same cognitive impairment that can lead to the incapacity to give consent for sexual contact can also make you a criminal on the road
Capacity is a term that means the legal ability to do something when used in laws
if someone is incapable they by law do not have legal ability to do something
It has nothing to do with being incapacitated or what a person has the functional ability to accomplish, say, etc
Hope that makes sense, could clear up some of the confusion here
You do realize that incapable is not the same word of incapacitated, right?!
Apparently the defense lawyers in this state do, because they all say the same thing that i'm saying........
In AZ someone who has a cognitive impairment for a multitude of reasons, is incapable (unable) to provide consent.
Really nothing more to go over on here .... i've provided the law, educational material, attorney perspectives, etc
Believe what you will .... can't educate them all
Uhm... I'm pretty confident I have considerably more formal legal education than you do, proffered by far more accomplished legal scholars than you.
I'll believe what the law actually is. You go ahead and believe what you want the law to be, but it won't change what it is. The one authoritative source you cite describes when consent is negated by way of coercion (Hint: if you are a willing and active participant and you know what you're doing, you are not being coerced).
If you are interested in being educated, here's a handy paper from the American Prosecutors Research Institute and the National District Attorney Association advising prosecutors on how to proceed with alcohol-facilitated sexual assaults. Notice the very first step in the process of determining whether to bring charges is "Analyzing Consent and Distinguishing Rape From Drunken Sex." As in -- there is a distinction between rape and drunken sex. As in, they are not one in the same.
I almost slept with a drunk girl once. We met at a party my friend was having next door she was sober when we started got buzzed as the night went on and wanted to have sex. So we walked to my place and she started to drink a bit more. Boy let me tell you it was the BEST night of my life. I got to see a 21 yo woman act like a temperamental child. As she downed the tequila I got to listen about her old bf who she loved. Very very mush. Very mush. More than anytin in this worl. She still didn't know WHY he LEFT her (insert tears here)( I had a pretty good idea WHY he left but I didn't get to voice my opinion). Then she proceeded to vomit all over my coffee table. Didn't even make a effort to get up or attempt to race to the kitchen sink or RR. . She apologized profusely farted a few times and then vomited some more. She decided to move to the bedroom in that oh so sexy way only a really drunk woman can do. At this point something told me I was not gonna get to have sex. She farted all the way down the hall did a small dry heave and with a flourish fell face first on my bed where with a belch she passed out. Did I know how to pick them or WHAT.
I've been around enough drunks to know I want nothing to do with them.
First and foremost, you realize that there is no nationwide standard for this right? Everything will be up to the local jurisdiction, so a national white paper would be generally worthless when analyzing AZ law unless they specifically cite to AZ.
Which is why attorneys here in AZ present it exactly as I've shown it
Now to your link
Quote:
Third, sexual assault can occur when the victim was too intoxicated to consent.
Regarding the latter cases, the victim’s level of intoxication must be proven; however,“rape law essentially dispenses with the force requirement by finding that the force necessary for penetration is sufficient.”
Thus, the issue at trial will generally be whether the victim was incapacitated to the point of not being able to consent.
They mention the best case is to prosecute under forcible rape as it can be difficult to establish level of intoxication and it's a harder argument - again all of this is broad and not state specific, some states spell it out better than others
Quote:
“[t]here is no bright line test that defines precisely how much alcohol or drugs result in a person’s inability to consent to sex.
Note that it didn't say anything about a person needing to be incapacitated
Quote:
Even where the measured values are reliable and accurate, substantial variability in tolerances for alcohol, absorption rates, and clearance rates, both among individuals and within the same individual from one situation to another, complicates efforts to deduce the true extent of intoxication at the time of an arrest or accident.
“Expert testimony would ordinarily be needed to establish that the party with the measured or inferred BAC was intoxicated during the period in question.”
Again - talking about the difficulties in these cases .... however, if it wasn't possible to charge someone for having sex with a person who is intoxicated by alcohol these notes wouldn't even exist
Quote:
Although intercourse with someone who is too intoxicated to consent always constitutes moral rape, it is only a crime if it meets the legal definition of rape.
In the Unites States, jurisdictions define this crime in various ways, which include the following:
* 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.
* Rape occurs when the defendant has sexual intercourse with a person who is “mentally incapacitated,” which is generally defined as being rendered temporarily incapable of appraising his or her conduct due to the influence of a narcotic, anesthetic, or other substance.
In these jurisdictions, the prosecution generally must show that the victim was “mentally incapacitated” or mentally incapable of resisting due to drugs, alcohol, or an anesthetic.”
* Rape occurs when the defendant has intercourse with someone who is “physically helpless.” In these jurisdictions, the prosecution can show that the victim was intoxicated to the point of being physically helpless because she was unconscious, unaware that the intercourse was occurring, physically powerless, physically incapable of resisting, or physically disabled due to intoxication.
Again - you can clearly see that your own source states it varies by jurisdiction, that while some require someone to be physically helpless others simply state the victim's intoxication negates the element of consent .... not intoxication, not blacked out, not unable to talk .... simply intoxicated
It also states in some jurisdictions it must be shown that the defendent knew the victim was intoxicated - that is the way it is in AZ
Quote:
there is not a bright-line test for showing that the victim was too intoxicated to consent, thereby distinguishing sexual assault from drunken sex.
There is no bright line - not to either prove or disprove .... obviously the prosecution must prove their case, but in some jurisdictions the fact that the person was in physical control of their body wouldn't be a defense that they weren't intoxicated to the point where they couldn't consent
Quote:
Most states do not recognize voluntary intoxication as a defense; however, some do
You posted an entire paper about distinguishing the different type of alcohol intoxication rape cases exist, things to look for, potential barriers, defenses you can face, questions you should ask in an interview, etc to show that you can't face charges for rape when having sex with a drunk person
it goes through very general challenges and says it's difficult - it is
however, some jurisdictions it's not as difficult as others - I'd rather not put myself in that situation to spend some time with 12 peers and a judge
Last edited by Finger Laker; 02-14-2014 at 10:50 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
