Intoxication and Consent - morality, legality, and other shenanigans

[Omar]

Ginger, can I draw your attention to the point I made about consent in exchanges?

[Ginger_Warrior]

I'll be honest, I'm not entirely sure what you meant by it. That being drunk prevents you permission from agreeing to a contract of any nature?

[muggiwhplar]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/12/false-reports-outpace-sex-assaults-in-the-military/

[muggiwhplar]

Considering it's not exactly possible or ethical to include consequences for false rape accusations, I wonder what effects would occur if slut shaming no longer existed.

[Alg]

Considering it's not exactly possible or ethical to include consequences for false rape accusations, I wonder what effects would occur if slut shaming no longer existed.

I'm not sure if that would make rape any less serious.

[Kaida23]

I'm not sure nuclear war would make rape any less serious.

[muggiwhplar]

Considering it's not exactly possible or ethical to include consequences for false rape accusations, I wonder what effects would occur if slut shaming no longer existed.

I'm not sure if that would make rape any less serious.

 

Huh?

[Alg]

Huh?

I'm probably not hitting the right topic (actual rape, rather than false accusations), don't mind me.

[Sir_Squab]

...You know, I could ramble a lot on this. This topic made me realize what a complicated issue this is. The best conclusion I can come to is agreeing with Muggi's "don't have drunk hookups."

 

I also agree with Muggi's assessment on how both parties are most likely responsible to a greater or lesser extent.

[Omar]

I'll be honest, I'm not entirely sure what you meant by it. That being drunk prevents you permission from agreeing to a contract of any nature?

Contract isn't the right word, I think, because I understand those to be explicit and to exist in the longer term, which is why they require enforcement. I mean that any transfer or exchange of property, i.e. buying a drink when you're already drunk, or buying your friends a round, requires a type consent which doesn't seem to be of a different nature as that necessary for sexual relations. The aforementioned examples, if this is true, should then be considered theft.

 

I'm going to disagree with the notion that both parties can be responsible. In the case where consent can be given when intoxicated, the sex was consensual albeit harmful in the long run, and therefore no one can be responsible. In the case where it can't, the rapist is solely responsible, just like a woman wearing a short skirt in a sketchy neighbourhood isn't responsible for putting herself in a "dangerous situation" if she gets raped. You might say she didn't think it through, but that does not make her morally responsible.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Agreed. You might argue that their decision to get drunk isn't wise because it places them in increased danger of being raped, but it doesn't make them in part responsible for any actions that occur to them.

 

In reply to your point; the issue is not that you're drunk necessarily. The issue is that you're so drunk, and you've impaired your mental state of health so much, that you no longer have capacity to give consent because you cannot justify why you are giving that consent, or follow the process that leads to consent. If somebody who is drunk can justify why they're buying drinks to their friends and can understand the consequences of that decision, and there's a clear process to it, they can give capacity.

 

I referenced the Ched Evans case before. In that case, the victim was said to be slurring in speech, couldn't recall information and could just about barely stand with assistance. There's no possible way someone in that frame of mind could have capacity to give consent to another person having sex with them, and therefore no consent could have been given. Therefore, it was rape. Technically speaking, if she was as bad as that, she could have been detained under the Mental Health Act had the police been called, although this would have been unlikely since the police could also have her admitted to hospital under the same Act for her own safety, as an alternative.

[Omar]

Is that what the law says though? My understanding of the matter is that a person cannot legally consent at all once alcohol has been ingested, although I'm obviously not an expert. I also see no way in which this law can really be practically enforced.

[Ginger_Warrior]

It might be different (in fact, probably is) in Canada.

[Kaida23]

As I read it, in Canada the level of intoxication, and therefore ability to give consent, is decided upon by the presiding judge. I have a feeling though that the complainant would have to prove she was pretty damn drunk in order to claim she didn't give consent.

[obfuscator]

Agreed. You might argue that their decision to get drunk isn't wise because it places them in increased danger of being raped, but it doesn't make them in part responsible for any actions that occur to them.

 

This is stupid. It does make them in part responsible. It doesn't mean they deserve to be raped, or that the rapist isn't responsible (and shouldn't be prosecuted/punished), but the decisions they made directly contributed to an outcome - that is responsibility, albeit partial.

 

If I went into a poor neighborhood in the middle of the night naked with wads of hundred dollar bills in my hands shouting at the top of my lungs "I have thousands of dollars in cash on me and no means to defend myself", and I got robbed, you wouldn't say that I am in no way responsible for getting robbed. Yet that's what you're claiming when it comes to being taken advantage of while drunk.

 

EDIT: If we're talking purely about moral responsibility, that can be different. Responsibility and moral responsibility aren't necessarily the same.

[Ginger_Warrior]

How does getting drunk "directly contribute" to being raped?

 

What a crass statement. I'll make no apology for being snarky this time, that's a truly appalling statement to make.

[Omar]

EDIT: If we're talking purely about moral responsibility, that can be different. Responsibility and moral responsibility aren't necessarily the same.

Look at the word responsibility, think about where it comes from, and then try to distinguish "moral responsibility" and "responsibility" again.

[obfuscator]

How does getting drunk "directly contribute" to being raped?

 

What a crass statement. I'll make no apology for being snarky this time, that's a truly appalling statement to make.

 

Because someone has made the decision to:

 

Put themself in a situation where they do not have full control over their body and emotions

Put themself in a situation where they are more vulnerable then they would be otherwise

put themself in a situation where they must rely on others to ensure they aren't harmed

 

How do those things not contribute to an eventual unfortunate circumstance?

 

Once again: I'm not saying someone who gets raped while drunk deserves to be raped. But by making different decisions they could have effected a different outcome: that's what responsibility is.

[obfuscator]

EDIT: If we're talking purely about moral responsibility, that can be different. Responsibility and moral responsibility aren't necessarily the same.

Look at the word responsibility, think about where it comes from, and then try to distinguish "moral responsibility" and "responsibility" again.

 

Moral responsibility, to me (in this instance) is about whether or not someone deserves to be punished for their actions. Someone who decides to rape is morally responsible for the crime and should be punished.

 

Someone who acts naively and puts themselves in a situation where they can be taken advantage of is responsible in the sense that the decisions they've made contributed to the outcome, but not morally responsible in the sense that they should be punished.

[Ginger_Warrior]

I can't really think of any other crime where so much energy is expended trying to put some level of blame on the victim, or trying to find an excuse for the perpetrator's actions. The fact that crime happens to be one of the most traumatic and horrifying experiences any victim of crime can go through, makes that position all the more harrowing.

 

I have every right to go out and get drunk. Yes, it makes me vulnerable. It does not make me responsible if some guy who can't accept the answer "no" decides that actually, he'd rather make my mind up for me and abuse every basic right I have as a human being, to suit his own satisfaction.

[Omar]

But that's not what responsibility is, legally speaking. To be responsible for something means that you are answerable for it, which implies you've got duties towards another person.

To put things into perspective, if responsible, defined in the sense relevant to legal issues, a rape victim would be punishable. If not, then how is it relevant that a person is "non-morally responsible", since all the law does is explicit what punishments will be carried out regarding certain behaviours?

This isn't even a matter of blaming the victim IMO, you're just talking about issues that concern neither the moral nor legal aspect of the issue. He or she played a part in creating the circumstances leading to the rape, sure. So what? How does this change the way the issue should be approached?

In defense of obfuscator, it isn't this particular crime in which he intends to "blame the victim", just any case in which the victim really made things easy for the aggressor. I try to be sensitive to criticisms of rape culture, but I don't think they apply all the time.

[obfuscator]

I can't really think of any other crime where so much energy is expended trying to put some level of blame on the victim, or trying to find an excuse for the perpetrator's actions. The fact that crime happens to be one of the most traumatic and horrifying experiences any victim of crime can go through, makes that position all the more harrowing.

 

Yet despite the fact that I've repeatedly stated the victim does not deserve what happened to them nor should they be punished, you throw the generic "blame the victim" accusation at me instead of actually responding to my post.

 

Give me any crime, and scenario. I imagine for the vast majority of those I'll be able to point out how the decisions of the victim(s) contributed to the crime.

 

I have every right to go out and get drunk. Yes, it makes me vulnerable. It does not make me responsible if some guy who can't accept the answer "no" decides that actually, he'd rather make my mind up for me and abuse every basic right I have as a human being, to suit his own satisfaction.

 

Perhaps "responsible" isn't the right word to use (I'll address that in my response to Omar). I don't disagree with your post, I only insist that by exercising your rights you may have contributed to an undesirable outcome.

 

But that's not what responsibility is, legally speaking. To be responsible for something means that you are answerable for it, which implies you've got duties towards another person.

To put things into perspective, if responsible, defined in the sense relevant to legal issues, a rape victim would be punishable. If not, then how is it relevant that a person is "non-morally responsible", since all the law does is explicit what punishments will be carried out regarding certain behaviours?

This isn't even a matter of blaming the victim IMO, you're just talking about issues that concern neither the moral nor legal aspect of the issue. He or she played a part in creating the circumstances leading to the rape, sure. So what? How does this change the way the issue should be approached?

In defense of obfuscator, it isn't this particular crime in which he intends to "blame the victim", just any case in which the victim really made things easy for the aggressor. I try to be sensitive to criticisms of rape culture, but I don't think they apply all the time.

 

Perhaps "responsible" isn't what I mean then, or at least not from a legal sense. I've already said multiple times that the kind of responsibility I'm speaking of (for lack of a better word) shouldn't affect the punishment.

 

There's a kind of feeling that rape and other such crimes are inevitable that I take issue with, which is why I've been responding in this manner. There are things people can do, ways they can behave to lessen the chances they'll be victimized - yet such things are often ignored and I find that disappointing. And it's not just with rape, it's with the majority of crimes. Common sense and caution are virtues often (unfortunately) sadly lacking when examining criminal actions.

[Kimberly]

Perhaps the word is accountability, but we don't want to admit it because it's far too easy for the collective to outweigh the victim's accountability instead of the perpetrator. The line between the two becomes far too different to see and because we want so badly to put blame onto someone, the victim becomes such an easily attack-able target.

 

 

[Omar]

Perhaps "responsible" isn't what I mean then, or at least not from a legal sense. I've already said multiple times that the kind of responsibility I'm speaking of (for lack of a better word) shouldn't affect the punishment.

 

There's a kind of feeling that rape and other such crimes are inevitable that I take issue with, which is why I've been responding in this manner. There are things people can do, ways they can behave to lessen the chances they'll be victimized - yet such things are often ignored and I find that disappointing. And it's not just with rape, it's with the majority of crimes. Common sense and caution are virtues often (unfortunately) sadly lacking when examining criminal actions.

If by "examining criminal actions", you're referring to trials, you've already said they are irrelevant since the lack of common sense in question does not warrant punishment, and punishing is all a court does. Yes, you should obviously use common sense when transporting money bags, just like you should exercise caution when considering sexual relations with a drunk person as they may falsely accuse you of rape, but only because there's a chance that your rights will be violated, not because you have a duty to do so. If you agree that in your example about theft, a) the victim does not deserve to be punished b) the thief does not merit mitigation of his punishment, then in what other sphere of legal action can this be relevant to? Who else will be answerable/responsible/accountable (all the same concept, AFAIK)?

@Kim: I don't understand what you're saying :P

[obfuscator]

Perhaps the word is accountability, but we don't want to admit it because it's far too easy for the collective to outweigh the victim's accountability instead of the perpetrator. The line between the two becomes far too different to see and because we want so badly to put blame onto someone, the victim becomes such an easily attack-able target.

 

Yes, accountability is a good word.

 

If by "examining criminal actions", you're referring to trials, you've already said they are irrelevant since the lack of common sense in question does not warrant punishment, and punishing is all a court does. Yes, you should obviously use common sense when transporting money bags, just like you should exercise caution when considering sexual relations with a drunk person as they may falsely accuse you of rape, but only because there's a chance that your rights will be violated, not because you have a duty to do so. If you agree that in your example about theft, a) the victim does not deserve to be punished b) the thief does not merit mitigation of his punishment, then in what other sphere of legal action can this be relevant to? Who else will be answerable/responsible/accountable (all the same concept, AFAIK)?

@Kim: I don't understand what you're saying :P

 

I don't mean trials, I just mean looking at criminal actions. And I'm not talking about legal action here, and have never been....