In any case, good job with the "apparently," I think it is a better way to think on the matter; I can respect that.
I mean, no matter how things look to us, we must respect the rule of law and cannot go around treating people like they are guilty just because the government agency in charge of prosecuting them says so. Were we to do that, we really would have no credibility to criticize bush and the cuba detainees.
-------------------- a moment for old friends now estranged, victims of the flux of alliances and changing perceptions. There was something there once, and that something is worth honoring as well. - John Carroll Posts: 3375 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by callee: Edit limit? seriously? Since when?
In any case, good job with the "apparently," I think it is a better way to think on the matter; I can respect that.
Dunno. It's been in effect for a week or so. So, if you edit, you better do it quick.
And, yeah. Apparently is better. I actually appreciate you calling me on that, Callee. Seriously, I don't know what has crawled up my butt lately, but that 8 1/2 hour, 30 mile commute Wednesday didn't help anything. I'm seriously grumpy and mean and wired.
-------------------- So many spankings! It feels so good! But at the same time, I don't care about meeting your family! - I'mNotDedalus: Posts: 3216 | From: Denver, CO | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ryda Wong, EBfCo.: If the description is valid, and the person is on the bathroom floor, seems intoxicated during sex, and then later has to be pulled off of the bed, then, yes, they are unable to give consent.
Why? An intoxicated person cannot have sex? Ever? Is it always rape if the woman is drunk?
quote: Sorry, but I don't trust public opinion, judges, or the law on matters of what is and is not rape.
Then whom do you trust?
Pogue
-------------------- Let's drink to the causes in your life: Your family, your friends, the union, your wife. Posts: 11325 | From: Kentucky | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it was the combination of the girl first lying on the bathroom floor, then having to be pulled off the bed.
I think the key word, though, is having. If she had to be pulled off the bed because she was too drunk to stand, then I think it would be considered rape, just because of the level of intoxication. If she was pulled off the bed playfully, and still seemed coherent, if drunk, then I don't think the rape charge would apply.
There's no way to tell, though, without seeing the tape.
quote:Originally posted by Ryda Wong, EBfCo.: If the description is valid, and the person is on the bathroom floor, seems intoxicated during sex, and then later has to be pulled off of the bed, then, yes, they are unable to give consent.
Why? An intoxicated person cannot have sex? Ever? Is it always rape if the woman is drunk?
An intoxicated person may be capable of intercourse. They cannot, however, give consent.
If a person is unable to stand or move, then, yes, they are too far gone to consent to sex.
And there is a difference between tipsy and not being able to stand. If you cross that line for whatever reason, then you are not capable of being trusted in the general public, and, at the very least, need intensive behavioral therepy to make you safe around people again.
-------------------- So many spankings! It feels so good! But at the same time, I don't care about meeting your family! - I'mNotDedalus: Posts: 3216 | From: Denver, CO | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pogue Ma-humbug: Then whom do you trust?
Pogue
Not much of anyone. But, if the victim and the D.A. concur that rape occured, I'd trust them over your run-of-the-mill jury.
-------------------- So many spankings! It feels so good! But at the same time, I don't care about meeting your family! - I'mNotDedalus: Posts: 3216 | From: Denver, CO | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ryda Wong, EBfCo.: An intoxicated person may be capable of intercourse. They cannot, however, give consent.
Regardless of that person's level of intoxication? What if both parties are drunk? Can an intoxicated person reach the level of intent necessary to commit a crime?
quote: If a person is unable to stand or move, then, yes, they are too far gone to consent to sex.
I would agree with that, but we have no idea how intoxicated this person was.
quote: And there is a difference between tipsy and not being able to stand. If you cross that line for whatever reason, then you are not capable of being trusted in the general public, and, at the very least, need intensive behavioral therepy to make you safe around people again.
I'm a little unclear as to what you are saying here. Is it that someone who has sex with a passed-out person is a rapist who deserves to go to jail? On that I wholeheartedly agree. But your earlier comments seem to imply that any level of intoxication leaves one incapable of consenting to sex, and thus makes the second actor a rapist. On that, I cannot agree.
Pogue
-------------------- Let's drink to the causes in your life: Your family, your friends, the union, your wife. Posts: 11325 | From: Kentucky | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: And there is a difference between tipsy and not being able to stand. If you cross that line for whatever reason, then you are not capable of being trusted in the general public, and, at the very least, need intensive behavioral therepy to make you safe around people again.
I'm a little unclear as to what you are saying here. Is it that someone who has sex with a passed-out person is a rapist who deserves to go to jail? On that I wholeheartedly agree. But your earlier comments seem to imply that any level of intoxication leaves one incapable of consenting to sex, and thus makes the second actor a rapist. On that, I cannot agree.
Pogue [/QB][/QUOTE]I did not mean to imply the latter. I was not specific enough. However, the person should not have to be passed out to have it qualify as rape. Impared mobility, speech, etc., should be quite enough.
Now, might that result in a few convictions for folk that "really didn't mean to commit a crime"? Perhaps. However, that is a very reasonable standard for behavior. I sincerely believe that we need to shift the expectations of behavior to demand true, clear consent for sex from all people involved. Anything less than that should be prosecutable.
The case of two drunk people would have to be decided by law based on the evidence, just as a case involving only one drunk person.
-------------------- So many spankings! It feels so good! But at the same time, I don't care about meeting your family! - I'mNotDedalus: Posts: 3216 | From: Denver, CO | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would think that if we are to use Ryda's standard of the level of intoxication necessary to prevent consent from being legally possible (which I agree with), then I would think that if both parties have crossed that line, they are both too drunk to have given valid consent. So either they both raped each other, or they both learned a valuable lesson in how much to drink.
Unless, of course, the parties had significantly differing levels of intoxication (e.g. one person was really drunk, but the other person was passed out entirely, or one person was tipsy and the other was hammered).
Ah, legal standards. The art of using the best combination of black and white to match every shade of grey.
-------------------- "For me, religion is like a rhinoceros: I don't have one, and I'd really prefer not to be trampled by yours. But it is impressive, and even beautiful, and, to be honest, the world would be slightly worse off if there weren't any." -Silas Sparkhammer Posts: 3239 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is such BS! Here is more info on what happened that night. She was drunk, but so was everyone else. There was tape of her going down, willingly, on guy after guy. How many teenage boys would say no to that? She woke up thinking she was raped, because she just didn't remember what happened. Heck, she didn't even want to press charges after she realized what happened.
Not worth 10 years + being a registered sex offender for the rest of his life. Plus, it's looking like appeal is going to be tough.
-------------------- I've got a pen in my pocket does that make me a writer? Standing on the mountain doesn't make me no higher. Putting on gloves don't make you a fighter. And all the study in the world doesn't make it science. -Paul Weller Posts: 199 | From: Kalamazoo, MI | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
*sigh* I've said this before and I'll say it again. Sex is not special or magical, when it comes to considering intoxication and consent. Take the sex out and imagine another situation. Was the girl so drunk that she couldn't sign a contract? (Never mind that she's under the age for legal consent to a contract - we're talking about intoxication only.) Where the guys around her drunk?
And there's the rub - probably the overwhelming factor here is that there was one girl, and many guys. And videotape.
Not far from where I live, there was an incident of a girl being at a birthday party with several guys. The birthday boy's mother provided alcohol for the party, where all the kids were underage. One girl got very drunk. Other girls were present, but left, and warned the adult that things were getting out of hand. Eventually the drunk girl was alone with 4 guys. She was passed out, violated with a beer bottle, shaved, fondled, groped, etc. She wsa lucky that no one raped her, though there is speculation that the gusy were too drunk for that. One of the 4 guys was charged as an adult and has gone to jail. (There was much publicity, as another jail inmate testified that he had coached the guy before his appearance in court, in order to feign sympathy and be treated with lenience). Before you feel too sorry for him and the penalty for one minor indiscretion, the girl dropped out of school and has moved away. She can't show her face in public in her hometown, and her promising life has fallen apart.
The opposite of "rape" is not "consensual". There are grey areas in between. The OP is one of them. And I dare say that one can't assume that because the girl did not want to press charges, is not an admission of guilt, error, or complicity. Crimes go unpunished because victims are afraid of the publicity - shame, embarassment, blame, hostility, fear of revenge, etc.
-------------------- "The fate of *billions* depends on you! Hahahahaha....sorry." Lord Raiden - Mortal Kombat Posts: 1587 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
If he would have had vaginal intercourse with her & got her pregnant, he would have gotten off way easier. That's my problem with that.
What happened to the standards of cruel & unusual punishment?
-------------------- I've got a pen in my pocket does that make me a writer? Standing on the mountain doesn't make me no higher. Putting on gloves don't make you a fighter. And all the study in the world doesn't make it science. -Paul Weller Posts: 199 | From: Kalamazoo, MI | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
In order to commit a crime (except a strict liability offense, which is almost everything), you need to be able to form intent. If you you're too drunk to be able to form intent to do something, you cannot be found guilty of it. If a guy is hopped up on hallucinogens, and honestly believes that the nearest vagina is his own hand, he can't be found guilty of rape because he literally thought he was masturbating. Thankfully, this is really hard to prove and any defense attorney who tries this defense is likely to end up unemployed.
As for consent, the difference between rape and no crime at all is the alleged victim's ability to give consent. If she's tipsy but knows what she's doing, she can still give consent. If she's too drunk to know up from down, then any sex she has is automatically rape; she may agree to it but she doesn't know what she's saying.
She can't sign a contract either; any time a drunk person signs a contract it's invalid.
So how do you prove how drunk someone was on the night in question? Good luck with that one. If there was a clear-cut answer, my job would be much easier.
quote:Originally posted by Hero_Mike: *sigh* I've said this before and I'll say it again. Sex is not special or magical, when it comes to considering intoxication and consent. Take the sex out and imagine another situation. Was the girl so drunk that she couldn't sign a contract? (Never mind that she's under the age for legal consent to a contract - we're talking about intoxication only.)
Yeah, but forcing a person to sign a contract when she's drunk isn't a criminal offense that carries penalties of up to life in prison.
Pogue
-------------------- Let's drink to the causes in your life: Your family, your friends, the union, your wife. Posts: 11325 | From: Kentucky | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pogue, forcing someone to sign a contract is not a crime against the person, but rather, a crime against property. It is perfectly natural for crimes against the person to be more harshly punished than those against property. Consider that if it was legal for a person to sell themselves into slavery (which it isn't), forcing someone to sign such a contract while they are intoxicated would carry very, very, very harsh penalties.
Amigone, there happens to be video of what happened, so there's a lot less speculation on how drunk someone was, than if there was no video.
Monza, your point is well taken. The punishment does not fit the crime, though I think that it's fair to say that there was criminal action and intent. Even intoxicated people know what they are doing is wrong, but seems like "a good idea at the time", mostly because drunk people have no perception of risk. They think that they won't get caught, so it's okay. Just ask any drunk driver what they were thinking when they got behind the wheel.
-------------------- "The fate of *billions* depends on you! Hahahahaha....sorry." Lord Raiden - Mortal Kombat Posts: 1587 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ryda Wong, EBfCo.: Well, one thing that makes me feel better is that the kid convicted is indeed a rapist. From the article Linky In a portion of a tape obtained by "Primetime," Wilson, then 17 and an honor student and star athlete who was homecoming king, is seen having intercourse with a 17-year-old girl, who was seen earlier on the bathroom floor. During the sex act, she appears to be sleepy or intoxicated but never asks Wilson to stop. Later on in the tape, she is seen being pulled off the bed
He does deserve to be jailed, just not for the oral sex with the 15 year old. It's a pity he wasn't convicted for the real crime.
I know this is only tangentially related to this incident, and not what really happened here (at least, I don't see any evidence that it was), but what if the girl had provided consent before becoming drunk?
For example, suppose a girl says to a guy, "Let's have sex after the party tonight" (not very imaginative, is she?). And the guy she's propisitioning responds "If you insist" and the girl walks off and says, "Meet me tonight in my room at 1:00." And so she goes off and gets drunk, and they meet in her room. She's drunk, but reasonably lucid and certainly conscious. They decide to film it, the film gets in the hands of the authorities somehow. Can the man be prosecuted for rape? After all, she did give consent, she just didn't do it right before. How long does consent "last?"
What if the same situation occurs, but she passes out on the bed, drunk. Not being a big romantic, the guy goes to town anyhow. In a lot of ways, this is the same as before. She has given consent previously when sober, and is no longer able to re-affirm her consent. However, it seems a lot more like rape than the first case. But how, legally, could these two cases be distinguished?
Also, suppose there's a couple, and a girl who's maybe a little kinky and would get off watching herself having sex while passed out. So they agree to this before hand, she does some sort of thing to go unconscious (probably some sort of drug, I guess) and they do it and film it. Should this be rape?
To me, at least, it seems as though the first and last scenarios should not be rape, but maybe the second should be. Still, she did give consent though. I can't really think of a code of law that would make the first and last legal but the second illegal. I'm not 100% sure the second should be illegal. After all, she did give consent, some time earlier, and never retracted it. Especially if the next day she did not "feel" she was raped (not the best wording, but I can't think of a better way to phrase it). Still, it seems like not a very nice thing to do, and certainly sounds like rape.
What do you think? Also, how would current laws rule on these events?
Posts: 1048 | From: Brunswick, Maine | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Monza305: This is such BS! Here is more info on what happened that night. She was drunk, but so was everyone else. There was tape of her going down, willingly, on guy after guy. .
You are confusing the two women involved. BJ woman was the convicition, but not the one who thought she was raped. The woman with whom all those men had intercourse is a different matter.
The conviction, in and of itself, is BS. The fact that he was convicted of something is not.
-------------------- So many spankings! It feels so good! But at the same time, I don't care about meeting your family! - I'mNotDedalus: Posts: 3216 | From: Denver, CO | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
EC, Consent only goes moment to moment, act to act (or at least it should. There was a ruling in some state, Tenn.?, which I can find later that said differently). However, if I consent to an act, I can only consent to that act in that moment, and only with full competency.
Again, if there is a doubt, don't do it.
Ryda "anyone else notice that spelling long words when tipsy is, well, hard" Wong
-------------------- So many spankings! It feels so good! But at the same time, I don't care about meeting your family! - I'mNotDedalus: Posts: 3216 | From: Denver, CO | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr: Protection against prosecution from laws passed Ex post facto is a Constitutional right, found in Article 1, Section 8.
Good, a sign of sanity...
But I understand the converse, ie, the automatical superceding of old law when it comes to be less favourable to the accused, isn't rule?
Luís Henrique
Posts: 4498 | From: Brasília, Distrito Federal, Brazil | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amigone201: Quick Criminal Law 101 on intent:
In order to commit a crime (except a strict liability offense, which is almost everything), you need to be able to form intent. If you you're too drunk to be able to form intent to do something, you cannot be found guilty of it.
Someone please, please, please tell me the above isn't true!
Luís Henrique
Posts: 4498 | From: Brasília, Distrito Federal, Brazil | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amigone201: Quick Criminal Law 101 on intent:
In order to commit a crime (except a strict liability offense, which is almost everything), you need to be able to form intent. If you you're too drunk to be able to form intent to do something, you cannot be found guilty of it.
Someone please, please, please tell me the above isn't true!
I'm pretty sure Amigone knows what she's talking about. Did you miss this part of her post:
quote:Thankfully, this is really hard to prove and any defense attorney who tries this defense is likely to end up unemployed.
quote:Originally posted by Monza305: There was tape of her going down, willingly, on guy after guy. How many teenage boys would say no to that?
That mentality really, really bothers me. I get the whole "raging hormone" thing, but I refuse to accept that teenage boys are literally slaves to their libido. It's as insulting to boys as it is dangerous to girls.
I believe that a young man who is taught to respect girls and women, and to respect appropriate boundaries, is capable of doing so even when it means he misses out on a BJ. He might, just might, even be capable of acting to stop such a situation.
-------------------- How homophobic do you have to be to have penguin gaydar? - Lewis Black Posts: 8322 | From: Columbus, OH | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lainie: I refuse to accept that teenage boys are literally slaves to their libido. It's as insulting to boys as it is dangerous to girls.
Rather, they would be enslaved to peer pressure, and to the general beliefs that men who refuse sex with a (not spetacularly ugly) woman are gay, and that being gay is partularly shameful.
Luís Henrique
Posts: 4498 | From: Brasília, Distrito Federal, Brazil | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amigone201: Quick Criminal Law 101 on intent:
In order to commit a crime (except a strict liability offense, which is almost everything), you need to be able to form intent. If you you're too drunk to be able to form intent to do something, you cannot be found guilty of it.
Someone please, please, please tell me the above isn't true!
Luís Henrique
Getting drunk/drugged on purpose to work up the courage to do something will not excuse you from the crime.
So if there is evidence of planning for the crime before intoxication, then intoxication is not an excuse.
And "except a strict liability offence" means:
Not all crimes require a Mens Rhea (guilty thought) Since alcohol doesn't force you to commit actions, its not an excuse for these crimes. (Drugs that directly encoruage sleep-walking like effects are an excuse, because a crime committed while sleep-walking can be considered that you didn't even perform the act)
Posts: 201 | From: Toronto, ON | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
Canuckistan
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
Psst ... Lainie ... Amigone's a man.
-------------------- People need to stop appropriating Jesus as their reason for behaving badly. It's so irritating. (Avril) Posts: 8429 | From: New York run by the Swiss (Toronto) | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, Amigone. My bad. But I'm sure you do know what you're talking about!!
-------------------- How homophobic do you have to be to have penguin gaydar? - Lewis Black Posts: 8322 | From: Columbus, OH | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Although in Scotland, no matter how drunk/otherwise intoxicated you are, you can still be found guilty of any crime (unless you can prove - on the balance of probabilties - that someone else did it to you aginst your will and/or without your knowledge).
-------------------- "The United States Government: significantly less cruel and sadistic than the Taliban." - Dara Posts: 1289 | From: Aberdeen University, Aberdeen, UK | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In Canada, I believe that intoxication is not a defence against a specific action, but it is a defence against something that leads to something else. I know that sounds confusing, so let me give an example, because I forget the legal term.
If I push you down the stairs while I am too drunk to know what I am doing, I can still be guilty of assault and battery. But if I push you down the stairs and you hit your head and die, I cannot be guilty of murder. Manslaughter, perhaps, but not murder.
This is because (according to my law teacher in grade 12) studies have shown that if I am that drunk, I can comprehend that pushing you down the stairs is a bad thing, but I cannot make the leap to deciding that pushing you down the stairs would be a good way to deliberately cause your death.
-------------------- "For me, religion is like a rhinoceros: I don't have one, and I'd really prefer not to be trampled by yours. But it is impressive, and even beautiful, and, to be honest, the world would be slightly worse off if there weren't any." -Silas Sparkhammer Posts: 3239 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hate to post & run, but I got stuff to do.
I've re-read this whole post & linked articles. I did misread stuff last night, I was tipsy. But I still don't understand the attitudes of some here.
He did have sex with a drunk 17 year old girl & there was tape of it. When a person is too drunk, they can't give consent to sex, I agree. But the jury saw this tape several times and determined that the sex was consentual. That's why he was not convicted of rape. She might think she was raped, the DA might think so too, but a jury who saw videotape of the incident,again, didn't agree! Ryda might think he's an apparent rapist, but the law said he's not.
Lanie: I'm glad you have such high standards for teenage boys, but as a former teenage boy I can tell you that a lot of them really aren't all that great at controling their libido (especially if they're drunk). Plus, because of the aformentioned peer pressure, the typical teen boy would not stop something like that from happening. I was raised right by my Ma & Dad, I was taught to respect women & boundaries, but at 17, I probably would have taken the BJ, just as many other guys would have too. This is being discussed at length on another board I frequent. This board is probably 85% male. They are not all shining beacons of society, but it's a good crossection of the male attitude. Everyone who posted there, except for one guy, said they'd take the BJ. Doesn't mean they're all evil, or raised wrong. It's just how a guys mentality works sometimes.
So it still comes back to the point that the kid has been sentenced to 10 years in prison, & will be a registered "child molester" for the rest of his life for a consentual BJ from a sober 15 year old. Drunks do stupid things. Teenagers do some stupid things too. Drunk teenagers do some really incredibly stupid things. The kid shouldn't have to pay for the rest of his life for this.
-------------------- I've got a pen in my pocket does that make me a writer? Standing on the mountain doesn't make me no higher. Putting on gloves don't make you a fighter. And all the study in the world doesn't make it science. -Paul Weller Posts: 199 | From: Kalamazoo, MI | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Fusca 1976: But I understand the converse, ie, the automatical superceding of old law when it comes to be less favourable to the accused, isn't rule?
Luís Henrique
You are right. In Kentucky, a new law can be used only if it redcues a person's punishment, not if it changes the definition of a crime.
For instance, Kentucky recently changed its law on self-defense, giving people far greater leeway to use deadly force to protect themselves or there property. A man charged with murder before the law went into effect wanted to use its provisions, but the judge would not allow him to do so, saying because the bill was a substantive change in the criminal code, it could not be applied retroactively.
Pogue
-------------------- Let's drink to the causes in your life: Your family, your friends, the union, your wife. Posts: 11325 | From: Kentucky | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Everyone who posted there, except for one guy, said they'd take the BJ. Doesn't mean they're all evil, or raised wrong. It's just how a guys mentality works sometimes.
No. It means they showed poor judgment. I'm not sure if it was poor enough to warrant a jail sentence, but generally you should not be doing anything sexual with anyone drunker than you are.
BTW, did anyone else catch the name of his defence lawyer?
quote:We have received hundreds of questions and comments about the case for Wilson's attorney, B.J. Bernstein.
-------------------- "For me, religion is like a rhinoceros: I don't have one, and I'd really prefer not to be trampled by yours. But it is impressive, and even beautiful, and, to be honest, the world would be slightly worse off if there weren't any." -Silas Sparkhammer Posts: 3239 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Canuckistan: Psst ... Lainie ... Amigone's a man.
Thanks Canuck I usually get called a "boy!"
quote:Originally posted by Lainie: Sorry, Amigone. My bad. But I'm sure you do know what you're talking about!!
Well, you show me a lot of faith, Lainie. I hope it's not misplaced.
But I know from whence I speak. My crim law professor told us that some time back, a student got himself good and plastered and hopped up on God-knows-what at a party. He came back to the dorm, got off the elevator, and attacked some random girl for no reason whatsoever.
My professor defended him and asked for a bench trial. His planned defense was the inability to form mens rea, and knew that that would never fly with a jury. But I think the kid, and the professor, both concluded that he was out of control when he came home.
I think the end result is that he successfully defended the kid. I'm sure he ended up with something for drug possession, but I don't remember what the sentence was. He got off the assault.
My selective memory is probably why I only got a B.
quote:Originally posted by Canuckistan: Psst ... Lainie ... Amigone's a man.
Thanks Canuck I usually get called a "boy!"
quote:Originally posted by Lainie: Sorry, Amigone. My bad. But I'm sure you do know what you're talking about!!
Well, you show me a lot of faith, Lainie. I hope it's not misplaced.
But I know from whence I speak. My crim law professor told us that some time back, a student got himself good and plastered and hopped up on God-knows-what at a party. He came back to the dorm, got off the elevator, and attacked some random girl for no reason whatsoever.
My professor defended him and asked for a bench trial. His planned defense was the inability to form mens rea, and knew that that would never fly with a jury. But I think the kid, and the professor, both concluded that he was out of control when he came home.
I think the end result is that he successfully defended the kid. I'm sure he ended up with something for drug possession, but I don't remember what the sentence was. He got off the assault.
My selective memory is probably why I only got a B.
I think it caries from one jurisdiction to another, Amigone. In most common-law jurisdictions, it is accepted that drunkenness is no defence. Similarly recklessness as to outcome is usually seen as equivalent to intent.
Presumably each state in the US could have its own law on the point. But IMO any legal system which allows a perpetrator to escape punishment because he or she was drunk at the time is pretty primitive.
Posts: 2370 | From: Arabia | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by LeaflessMapleTree: BTW, did anyone else catch the name of his defence lawyer?
quote:We have received hundreds of questions and comments about the case for Wilson's attorney, B.J. Bernstein.
Oh my gosh, how unfortunately hilarious.
reminds me of when I first moved to the north shore of boston. I was driving with a guy just arrived from the deep south, and we passed a store on the 128 named, unfortunatley, "BJs wholesale." My southern friend looked wide-eyed "man, I knew they were loose and liberal up on the east coast, but they sell them wholesale?!?!" he wasn't even blonde.
-------------------- a moment for old friends now estranged, victims of the flux of alliances and changing perceptions. There was something there once, and that something is worth honoring as well. - John Carroll Posts: 3375 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Monza305: Lanie: I'm glad you have such high standards for teenage boys, but as a former teenage boy I can tell you that a lot of them really aren't all that great at controling their libido (especially if they're drunk).
As a former teenage girl, I'm well aware of that. BTW, teenage girls have libidos, too.
quote: Plus, because of the aformentioned peer pressure, the typical teen boy would not stop something like that from happening. I was raised right by my Ma & Dad, I was taught to respect women & boundaries, but at 17, I probably would have taken the BJ, just as many other guys would have too. This is being discussed at length on another board I frequent. This board is probably 85% male. They are not all shining beacons of society, but it's a good crossection of the male attitude. Everyone who posted there, except for one guy, said they'd take the BJ. Doesn't mean they're all evil, or raised wrong. It's just how a guys mentality works sometimes.
And IMO, it will continue to be so for as long as we all accept that sort of "boys will be boys" attitude. I choose not to accept it. My point is that we need to change the mentality you're describing.
Girls and woman have libidos, too. Very very strong ones, in some cases. Teenage girls are young, and woman sometimes drink more than they should. But when a woman shows poor judgment, nobody says, "Oh well, she was horny."
Where exactly do boys and men get the idea that they are less than a real man if they turn down a chance at sex, or that another boy who turns down such a chance is less than a man? You may think that's just how male humans are born, but I think that's crap. I think they are taught that, and I don't think they should be. I think they should be taught that there are situations where they need to exercise self-control, leave the situation, and then go home and take care of themselves.
And to clarify, I don't agree with the sentence in the OP case.
-------------------- How homophobic do you have to be to have penguin gaydar? - Lewis Black Posts: 8322 | From: Columbus, OH | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Lainie. I think a lot of it is social/cultural. Men are socialized to interpret sexual feelings as sexual, whereas women are socialized to see them as love, etc. I can remember being young and perpetually aroused (I still am young and often, perpetually aroused...) but we don't tell girls that they should have the attitude of trying to "hit" anything with a pulse.
-------------------- "You can't play Electro-magnetic Golf according to the rules of Centrifugal Bumble Puppy." -Mustapha Mond, "Brave New World" Posts: 679 | From: New York | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
But I still don't understand the attitudes of some here.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I usually get called a "boy!"![[fish]](graemlins/fish.gif)
he wasn't even blonde.
