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.
“Men” made those laws. To be honest most sex laws are too lax for me. You get in deeper trouble robbing the casino in Vegas than rape or sexually hurting a minor .
Or dealing drugs. A drug possession can carry a more stiffer sentence than rape or child molestation.
At issue here, is whether she was unconscious, or "blacked out". "Black outs" are periods of time where a person who is drunk but conscious, functioning on some level and able to have a discussion, but the brain doesn't remember that period of time the next day.
She says she was unconscious, the court records say "blacked out".
And at that point it's his word against hers. For someone who has blacked out the memory, it would appear to them it must have happened while they were unconscious, since they have no memory of it.
I don't think any modern court would rule - unanimously - that a woman who was unconscious could consent to sex. But after getting voluntarily black out drunk - that makes sense that the man isn't responsible for the bad decision she made - either by drinking too much, or deciding to have sex with someone she wouldn't normally consent to.
Good points and you probably explained the lost memory and backward in time rationalizing where a lot of false rape claims arise from. Some of these intoxication rape laws don't consider the points you made which I agree with and just consider someone who had a few drinks on their own "incapacitated". Unless the person is completely unconscious, and that would have to be proven, still the circumstances leading up to it matter in determining consent.
Apparently, in this case the state is still claiming a sex crime was committed even though she wasn't unconscious.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 7 days ago)
35,630 posts, read 17,968,125 times
Reputation: 50652
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitey
HER actions weren't criminal. HIS were.
I believe possession of vicodin in Minnesota is a felony, and there's the misdemeanor consumption by a minor, and likely possessing fake ID if she was trying to get into a bar.
It can be implying consent when you are asking me to determine someone's real state of mind at the time and for the purposes of convicting someone for rape.
You just came up with a new legal concept --- implied consent for sexual activity when you go to someone's home. I suppose he she wore revealing clothes that would make it double implied consent, or I want it bad.
How does anyone really know if someone is too intoxicated to consent? I've definitely heard stories of women getting drunk and having sex. I mean I think that's pretty common...it can't be rape every time a drunk woman has sex.
Obviously not all states define mental incapacitation the same way.
Reportedly, several state have similar or the same definition as Minnesota.
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.
