or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › I need feminism because tumblr
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

I need feminism because tumblr - Page 335

post #5011 of 5616
I'm not sure what the legal standard for conviction is in California, nor do I want to second-guess the jury, but it's not really clear what they necessarily found to convict -- i.e., whether the prosecutors actually had to prove that she was passed out or just too drunk to legally consent. Actual facts do seem to be hard to come by (in a left-wing cause celebre -- go figure!), but the gist of it appears to be that the girl claimed not to be able to remember anything at all. She didn't deny giving consent, she didn't deny that she didn't fall asleep moments before they were confronted by two passers by, etc. She just said those weren't the sort of things she would do.

I did see somewhere that her BAC was extrapolated to be between .24 and .25 at the time, which is pretty low for someone to actually be completely unconscious. And apparently she wasn't, since she was able to curl up into the fetal position afterwards.
post #5012 of 5616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mariokartfever View Post

No one said this, so don't waste time pretending someone did. 

Since they were both piss drunk and are both having trouble remembering what happened (based on what I've read, feel free to provide your own sources) it seems equally as likely that they started hooking up and she passed out as it is that he waited for her to pass out then started molesting her. 

I guess in our progressive society treating all parties with the presumption of innocence makes me a bigot though. 

You are ignoring the fact that he has already been found guilty and we are commenting on the sentencing.

Your post said 6 months seems harsh and the reasoning for such was because they were involved in an "hour of flirting and drinking together." My reply was to point out that no matter how much they flirted or drank together it does not make him finger banging her after she passed out any more ok.
post #5013 of 5616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

I have to say the rape scenario between two drunk people has been something I've been puzzling over since the 90s. If two people are equally intoxicated, and we deem one party cannot give consent, how can we logically deem the other equally intoxicated person be held responsible for his/her actions? OTOH there's no way you excuse something like what happened in this case.

Got no answers.


Being intoxicated is no excuse for breaking the law. You run over someone while driving intoxicated you are more then likely going to jail. Same if you shoot someone or any number of crimes.

Rape is rape. No matter if one or both parties are drunk.
post #5014 of 5616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jr Mouse View Post

My reply was to point out that no matter how much they flirted or drank together it does not make him finger banging her after she passed out any more ok.

 

Doesn't a lot of this rely on his knowledge that she had passed out (I have no idea if he did)? If I was bomber while eating out my GF who was also bombed, I would have a hard time pinpointing the exact moment she passed out unless I was checking in every thirty seconds. How liable should one piss drunk person be to make sure another piss drunk person is conscious?

 

FWIW, he could be a psycho rapist. He could also just be a nice kid. I've been avoiding reading most news I've seen on this issue since it's all come from Jezebel/Gawker/the usual. 

post #5015 of 5616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jr Mouse View Post


Rape is rape. No matter if one or both parties are drunk.

 

So if two drunk people hook up it's double rape?

post #5016 of 5616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jr Mouse View Post

Society has excepted this as a standard for years. Being intoxicated is no excuse for breaking the law. You run over someone while driving intoxicated you are more then likely going to jail. Same if you shoot someone or any number of crimes.

As a general matter it's a bit more complicated than that.

For many crimes, one of the things the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the person intended to commit the act in question. That's an oversimplification, but it's true enough as a general rule for discussion purposes.

Drunk driving is probably more an exception than the rule in that respect, for reasons that have a lot to do with the particular nature of that crime.

The extent to which cognitive impairment caused by voluntary intoxication may be a "defense" to the intent element of other crimes is kind of all over the map -- depending on the particular statute allegedly violated, the jurisdiction, etc.
post #5017 of 5616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mariokartfever View Post

. I've been avoiding reading most news I've seen on this issue since it's all come from Jezebel/Gawker/the usual. 
If all the reporting on this you've seen is coming from sources like jezebel and gawker than that's because those travesties are where you're spending your time. There's been a ton of coverage of this story across media sources, not just those sorts of sites.
post #5018 of 5616
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

The extent to which cognitive impairment caused by voluntary intoxication may be a "defense" to the intent element of other crimes is kind of all over the map -- depending on the particular statute allegedly violated, the jurisdiction, etc.

Great post. To this last part, you wonder if it is what caused the judge to give him a sentencing that is viewed as "light" in so many people's eyes.
post #5019 of 5616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

I have to say the rape scenario between two drunk people has been something I've been puzzling over since the 90s. If two people are equally intoxicated, and we deem one party cannot give consent, how can we logically deem the other equally intoxicated person be held responsible for his/her actions? OTOH there's no way you excuse something like what happened in this case.

Got no answers.

Um. The guilty party is the one with the penis. Duh.

Serious reply: I get the feeling the guy in this case is a scumbag who took advantage of a drunk woman in a manner I think is criminal. However, I have trouble with the furor over it because no one really knows what happened. Like Ata said, her whole claim that this had to be non-consensual seems to rest on her certainty that she's just not that kind of girl. She can't actually refute the male's claims because she has no memory of vast majority of the night. Even after I read her statement, I was left feeling like she was legitimately traumatized, but despite doing my best to view things from her side, I just couldn't rationalize sending the male away for years and years.

There is no good answer here. I don't have any trouble believing that the male was in the wrong, but there is exceedingly little evidence for that assertion. My gut says he got off light, but my mind says you don't send people to prison based upon the defendant probably being a bad person.

And, yeah, none of this is helped by the fact that they were both wasted, and it's a prototypical example of he said/she said rape prosecution.
post #5020 of 5616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jr Mouse View Post

Being intoxicated is no excuse for breaking the law. You run over someone while driving intoxicated you are more then likely going to jail. Same if you shoot someone or any number of crimes.

Rape is rape. No matter if one or both parties are drunk.

As LD pointed out it's not quite that simple. Also, I was asking for the logic, or rationale if you will, and this doesn't really provide that. In this particular situation we have a huge gap in logic/rationale. Giving consent is a form of responsibility, and the rationale is, a drunk person cannot responsibly/reasonable exercise this cognitive function. How then can we reason the other person understand consent was not given? Hell, the legal case is even if the woman says "yes" "yes" doesn't mean "yes" in this case!

It's complicated, IMO, and no matter how many times "rape is rape" gets repeated doesn't simplify the situation nor offer a logical, rational basis for legal action.
post #5021 of 5616
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post


If all the reporting on this you've seen is coming from sources like jezebel and gawker than that's because those travesties are where you're spending your time. There's been a ton of coverage of this story across media sources, not just those sorts of sites.

 

I have a lot of liberal leaning friends so my news feed is clogged with it... probably the only exposure to MSM I get though. Watching the news make me depressed

post #5022 of 5616
Get the "Hourly news" app for you phone and just play it while you get dressed in the morning. Outside of that I use google news and NPR.
post #5023 of 5616
Lawyerdad's post is accurate, but Jr. Mouse's is closer to the typical experience: voluntarily intoxication is rarely if ever a defense to criminal liability.

For example, in my state (and I don't know how typical this is), mistake as to consent isn't even a defense to rape.
post #5024 of 5616
I am sorry, but his case is pretty clear cut. 2 random people were biking and saw a dude molesting a clearly unconscious girl behind a dumpster. They immediately called the police and restrained the dude until the police arrived. The girl remained unconscious for the next 3 hours and woke up in the hospital. This is not a case driven by a women who wakes up the next day and figured she doesn't do random hookups so she must have been raped, the guy was caught in the act and there can be no doubt that consent couldn't have been given since the girl was clearly unconscious and remained so for a few hours after being picked up and cared for by police and medical personnel.

I also have been very uncomfortable with the way feminists have moved the goal post on rape and how colleges have been handling some of these situation, but in this case, I totally get the outrage, the guy deserves way more than 6 months of jail.
post #5025 of 5616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Lawyerdad's post is accurate, but Jr. Mouse's is closer to the typical experience: voluntarily intoxication is rarely if ever a defense to criminal liability.

For example, in my state (and I don't know how typical this is), mistake as to consent isn't even a defense to rape.

Just in case it wasn't clear, my comments weren't specific to rape or sexual assault crimes, where it gets even more complicated. It was a very general observation.

For example (oversimplifying again, but not unfairly I believe): if you are at a hipster party and get so drunk on artisan cocktails that you and your ironic beard ride off on somebody else's fixie thinking it's your own, you may be guilty of being a pretentious asshole but you're not guilty of theft. I'm pretty sure this would be the result in most if not all U.S. jurisdictions.

But as Mouse notes, most DUI statutes are written in such a way that being so hammered you didn't even realize you'd gotten into the car and started driving isn't a "defense".
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › I need feminism because tumblr