Doesn't it seem a bit odd that a person can claim that they didn't know what they were doing while drunk when they had sex, and therefore they were raped, but if a person gets behind the wheel while drunk he or she is fully liable for their own actions?
Does intoxication relieve you of responsibility for your own actions or not?
Doesn't it seem a bit odd that a person can claim that they didn't know what they were doing while drunk when they had sex, and therefore they were raped, but if a person gets behind the wheel while drunk he or she is fully liable for their own actions?
Does intoxication relieve you of responsibility for your own actions or not?
Seems like a double standard to me....
The law considers both to be "No intent" crimes.
If you get behind the wheel drunk, regardless of whether you meant to or not, you are on the hook.
Same with underage or drunk sex. If you have sex with someone who is underage or under the influence, regardless of whether you knew they were or not, you are on the hook.
Doesn't it seem a bit odd that a person can claim that they didn't know what they were doing while drunk when they had sex, and therefore they were raped, but if a person gets behind the wheel while drunk he or she is fully liable for their own actions?
Does intoxication relieve you of responsibility for your own actions or not?
Seems like a double standard to me....
The law considers both to be "No intent" crimes.
If you get behind the wheel drunk, regardless of whether you meant to or not, you are on the hook.
Same with underage or drunk sex. If you have sex with someone who is underage or under the influence, regardless of whether you knew they were or not, you are on the hook.
In the sex scenario Plindsey is talking about the GIRL'S culpability, not the guy's. So the guy gets drunk and has sex with the girl, it's rape. The girl gets drunk and they guy has sex with her, it's rape. If both are drunk, it's rape.
The guy can't seem to win there.
If the drunk behind the wheel is responsible for his actions, why isn't the drunk girl? That's what Plinds is saying.
Doesn't it seem a bit odd that a person can claim that they didn't know what they were doing while drunk when they had sex, and therefore they were raped, but if a person gets behind the wheel while drunk he or she is fully liable for their own actions?
Does intoxication relieve you of responsibility for your own actions or not?
Seems like a double standard to me....
The law considers both to be "No intent" crimes.
If you get behind the wheel drunk, regardless of whether you meant to or not, you are on the hook.
Same with underage or drunk sex. If you have sex with someone who is underage or under the influence, regardless of whether you knew they were or not, you are on the hook.
Wait a second... I'm talking about from the point of view of the drinker...
If a cop pulls you over drunk and says, "What the hell are you doing driving?"
And you respond, "I don't know... I'm drunk and didn't know what I was doing when I got in the car."
The cop is going to say, "Too bad. We don't care if you knew what you were doing or not. Intoxication does not relieve you of responsibility for you own behavior. You're under arrest."
Now, if that same driver happens to be a woman, but instead of driving home, she decides to stay at the party and bang a frat boy, and the next morning she gets up and calls the police to report a rape, the cop is going to show up at the frat house and say, "Mr. Frat Boy, we don't really care if she hopped into your bed, grabbed your package, and begged for it. She was drunk, and is therefore NOT responsible for her own behavior."
How does that work? It seems to me that in a legal system based on precedent, if we're going to apply the principle that a drunk person IS responsible for their own actions with regards to driving, that same person is ALSO responsible for their own actions with regards to sex.
Doesn't it seem a bit odd that a person can claim that they didn't know what they were doing while drunk when they had sex, and therefore they were raped, but if a person gets behind the wheel while drunk he or she is fully liable for their own actions?
Does intoxication relieve you of responsibility for your own actions or not?
Seems like a double standard to me....
The law considers both to be "No intent" crimes.
If you get behind the wheel drunk, regardless of whether you meant to or not, you are on the hook.
Same with underage or drunk sex. If you have sex with someone who is underage or under the influence, regardless of whether you knew they were or not, you are on the hook.
Wait a second... I'm talking about from the point of view of the drinker...
If a cop pulls you over drunk and says, "What the hell are you doing driving?"
And you respond, "I don't know... I'm drunk and didn't know what I was doing when I got in the car."
The cop is going to say, "Too bad. We don't care if you knew what you were doing or not. Intoxication does not relieve you of responsibility for you own behavior. You're under arrest."
Now, if that same driver happens to be a woman, but instead of driving home, she decides to stay at the party and bang a frat boy, and the next morning she gets up and calls the police to report a rape, the cop is going to show up at the frat house and say, "Mr. Frat Boy, we don't really care if she hopped into your bed, grabbed your package, and begged for it. She was drunk, and is therefore NOT responsible for her own behavior."
How does that work? It seems to me that in a legal system based on precedent, if we're going to apply the principle that a drunk person IS responsible for their own actions with regards to driving, that same person is ALSO responsible for their own actions with regards to sex.
It goes to part of her culpability. It would be a fact that is entered and decided on by the Jury.
Excellent points Plindsey! That definately is a double-standard to me. The only explination, IMO, is that it takes two tango but only one to drivo. In normal words, the girl could be drunk but sex involves another people so the issue gets more complicated as two people are involved in the issue. As opposed to the girl being drunk and driving. This only involves her, her car, and her actions so therefore she is held soley responsible.
Last edited by J2thez929 on Thu Jan 25, 2007 4:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Doesn't it seem a bit odd that a person can claim that they didn't know what they were doing while drunk when they had sex, and therefore they were raped, but if a person gets behind the wheel while drunk he or she is fully liable for their own actions?
Does intoxication relieve you of responsibility for your own actions or not?
Seems like a double standard to me....
The law considers both to be "No intent" crimes.
If you get behind the wheel drunk, regardless of whether you meant to or not, you are on the hook.
Same with underage or drunk sex. If you have sex with someone who is underage or under the influence, regardless of whether you knew they were or not, you are on the hook.
Wait a second... I'm talking about from the point of view of the drinker...
If a cop pulls you over drunk and says, "What the hell are you doing driving?"
And you respond, "I don't know... I'm drunk and didn't know what I was doing when I got in the car."
The cop is going to say, "Too bad. We don't care if you knew what you were doing or not. Intoxication does not relieve you of responsibility for you own behavior. You're under arrest."
Now, if that same driver happens to be a woman, but instead of driving home, she decides to stay at the party and bang a frat boy, and the next morning she gets up and calls the police to report a rape, the cop is going to show up at the frat house and say, "Mr. Frat Boy, we don't really care if she hopped into your bed, grabbed your package, and begged for it. She was drunk, and is therefore NOT responsible for her own behavior."
How does that work? It seems to me that in a legal system based on precedent, if we're going to apply the principle that a drunk person IS responsible for their own actions with regards to driving, that same person is ALSO responsible for their own actions with regards to sex.
It goes to part of her culpability. It would be a fact that is entered and decided on by the Jury.
While I know this is true, the fact is that the situations would be weighed very differently because the law presents them differently. In a rape case, the woman’s intoxication is counted against the rapist, since she is clearly not in a frame of mind to make clear decisions. In the drunk driving case it would count against the driver, because they clearly shouldn’t have made the choice to drink so much. That’s the double standard.
Getting back on topic, here, I have to wonder, with regards to this case, if the woman in question was white... I mean, this is Georgia we're talking about... As detestable as it is, having grown up just a few miles outside of Georgia, and having just moved from Alabama, I can attest to the fact that the courts in that part of the country are still much harsher on black men having sex with underage white women than white men having sex with the same... I'd be willing to bet the accuser in this case was white, which would explain the severity of the punishment...
Kilroy1872 wrote:If , for example, Drunken Girl A Instigates a sexual encounter with Drunken Guy B, how the h**l is B in any way, shape, or form guilty of rape?
I don't know, but there are hundreds, if not thousands, of young men that are either convicted or plead guilty to criminal charges because of that exact situation every year.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Baseball
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by knapplc » Thu Jan 25, 2007 4:10 pm 
