Complaints mount against judge in cab sex assault case who said 'a drunk can consent

[TeleriaX]

In the 8 pages here, was it discussed what counts as being drunk? In the states for drunk driving for a woman, it seems the amount is pretty small (24 ounces of beers an hour) to be between impaired and legally intoxicated.

What if the guy is technically more drunk then the girl or at least falls into the legally intoxicated range, can he be charged with Rape, since he too should be considered unable to make a rational decision?

What the hell is even wrong with you guys that are like "it should count for men too"? IT DOES. Of course you can get raped as man too. And yes if you are totally drunk and some woman (or man) litterally pushes herself on you when you dont want that - then yes, it is considered rape.

[Deleted]

A person so intoxicated that they cannot remember the night then you are legally not considered capable of consenting to sex. To my knowledge, if you are so drunk you cannot remember the night and kill someone with your car, you are charged with vehicular manslaughter, not murder, as murder implies premediation. Get a better point.

Better point here, what if i get drunk and then get upset at my wife/husband/random person in a bar/an alien and kill him/her?

As long as we're talking people you know there is a case to be made that it was premeditated even before getting drunk but if i stab someone in a bar i'll get charged with murder, not manslaughter.

I wish there was a good way to deal with being drunk in law. Too bad there's no omniscient being who can tell us only the truth of what happened.

- - - Updated - - -

What the hell is even wrong with you guys that are like "it should count for men too"? IT DOES. Of course you can get raped as man too. And yes if you are totally drunk and some woman (or man) litterally pushes herself on you when you dont want that - then yes, it is considered rape.

His point is more about the case where both people having sex are drunk rather than a simple role reversal.

[Mad_Murdock]

What the hell is even wrong with you guys that are like "it should count for men too"? IT DOES. Of course you can get raped as man too. And yes if you are totally drunk and some woman (or man) litterally pushes herself on you when you dont want that - then yes, it is considered rape.

I think you're missing what I'm asking. 1 hetrosexual guy and 1 hetrosexual girl are at a party. Girl has 2 shots of Tequila, guy has 4 shots. Guy and girl go upstairs and have sex. Legally the girl would be consider too drunk to drive and can't be responspile for her actions, and thus sex with a sober guy, the guy could possible be charged with rape. In this case, the Guy is also too drunk to drive, so could he be charged with Rape, since he should also be considered in the impaired judgement range that he can't be responsible for his actions.

I'm not talking about him having rape intent from the start. I'm saying, if the girl gets a pass because she's over the limit, why wouldn't the guy get a pass because he is over the limit?

[TeleriaX]

I think you're missing what I'm asking. 1 hetrosexual guy and 1 hetrosexual girl are at a party. Girl has 2 shots of Tequila, guy has 4 shots. Guy and girl go upstairs and have sex. Legally the girl would be consider too drunk to drive and can't be responspile for her actions, and thus sex with a sober guy, the guy could possible be charged with rape. In this case, the Guy is also too drunk to drive, so could he be charged with Rape, since he should also be considered in the impaired judgement range that he can't be responsible for his actions.

I'm not talking about him having rape intent from the start. I'm saying, if the girl gets a pass because she's over the limit, why wouldn't the guy get a pass because he is over the limit?

What you are describing isnt rape at all. It is normal sex between two drunk persons. Again, it is NOT considered rape when both people want sex, nomatter how drunk they are. And even when a drunk girl sleeps with a sober guy (or other way around) but she is ok with it - it isnt rape. The term rape only is applied when either the man or the woman is forced to do it. And yes - saying no literally means no. If the man/woman is to drunk to defend themself it counts as rape.
"This does not mean, however, that an intoxicated person cannot give consent to sexual activity. Clearly, a drunk can consent," he said.

[Mehrunes]

There is a huge difference between being drunk and being literally passed out or on the verge of passing out.

This. Yes, technically the judge is right that drunk people can consent and that is recognized by law. It's rather hard to apply that to people who pass out (which is a state that rules out consent regardless of being drunk or not) from intoxication. Especially when you have an officer confirming that said person was passed out and as such it's no longer a he said she said case. So I guess I can say I agree with the judge's logic (as far as stating facts can be called logic at least), but in light of the article, not so much with its application.

[Mad_Murdock]

What you are describing isnt rape at all. It is normal sex between two drunk persons. Again, it is NOT considered rape when both people want sex, nomatter how drunk they are. And even when a drunk girl sleeps with a sober guy (or other way around) but she is ok with it - it isnt rape. The term rape only is applied when either the man or the woman is forced to do it. And yes - saying no literally means no. If the man/woman is to drunk to defend themself it counts as rape.
"This does not mean, however, that an intoxicated person cannot give consent to sexual activity. Clearly, a drunk can consent," he said.

Well, that's the problem, you say it's not rape at all, but the only thing that needs to happen is for the girl in this scenario is to decide she didn't mean to have sex with the guy and she whips out the "I was drunk" line. There is this Huffpost article that argues drunk sex is rape. In the case mentioned, the girl even text her roommate about going to have sex with a guy and still later said it was rape. People are unhappy with this judges interpretation and thus here we are talking about it. Granted in this case, the Taxi driver is presumed sober

There are obvious, black and white cases, girl was passed out, guy came by and had sex, that's wrong and I doubt many would argue it. And I'm actually for fairly strict rules that discourages drunk sex altogether. I just think it's really hard to make such rules and for those rules to be fair.

So we're back to, If the girl is considered legally intoxicated and the guy is considered legally intoxicated, how do we charge the guy, if the girl decides she didn't want to have sex with him the next day\week? At the end of the day, it will be up to each judge\jury to interpret what counts and what doesn't and that could be rougher for some than others.

[Mehrunes]

If the prosecutor phrased his argument in an asinine way they may have left the judge with no recourse but this ruling

Well, yeah, that's why I specified that's in the light of this article. It may lack some information in either direction.

[Docturphil]

"clearly a drunk can consent"

Assuming they're conscious and able to form a coherent sentence, then yes they absolutely can consent.

This often leads to people agreeing and to sometimes initiate sexual encounters only to regret them later when they are sober.

No fucking shit. People do stupid shit when they're drunk. Everybody knows this. It's the risk you take when you consume large quantities of alcohol.

That being said, it sounds like they found her unconscious. If she was unconscious and he was doing things to her, well that's just not acceptable. But if she was just drunk, who gives a fuck?

If neither can be proven then we must assume this guy is innocent. Although some of the details do seem pretty shady.

Moral of the story is don't get black out drunk unless you're with people you can trust.

- - - Updated - - -

Uhh... Yeah, the charge for killing someone while drunk is vehicular manslaughter.

I believe that is his point. If we cannot allow people to take responsibility for decisions they make concerning their sexual activity while drunk, how can we hold them accountable for drunk driving?

[Deleted]

Of course a drunk can consent, when I consent to sex when I'm drunk it's because I want it and not because I was drunk at that time.

Drunk doesn't mean you can't say no and that when you say yes it's because you were drunk.

This portion of the law has always been under fire because it's extremely easy to abuse for profits and revenge.

Simple reason why that same law has been adjusted in a plethora of countries where it states that a verbal yes, means yes and that's final (whether you were drunk or not is not going to win your case in those countries). Then again it's kinda hard, these cases in general, you can always deny giving consent, which is what a lot of women do. There need to be mental evaluations in those cases, most people don't lie well, so they'd fall through pretty easily if they were just trying to get revenge for lousy sex.

As for having sex with asleep or unresponsive people is still not gonna get you free though, even if they supposedly said yes before passing out or falling asleep lol.

[TeleriaX]

Well, that's the problem, you say it's not rape at all, but the only thing that needs to happen is for the girl in this scenario is to decide she didn't mean to have sex with the guy and she whips out the "I was drunk" line. There is this Huffpost article that argues drunk sex is rape. In the case mentioned, the girl even text her roommate about going to have sex with a guy and still later said it was rape. People are unhappy with this judges interpretation and thus here we are talking about it. Granted in this case, the Taxi driver is presumed sober

There are obvious, black and white cases, girl was passed out, guy came by and had sex, that's wrong and I doubt many would argue it. And I'm actually for fairly strict rules that discourages drunk sex altogether. I just think it's really hard to make such rules and for those rules to be fair.

So we're back to, If the girl is considered legally intoxicated and the guy is considered legally intoxicated, how do we charge the guy, if the girl decides she didn't want to have sex with him the next day\week? At the end of the day, it will be up to each judge\jury to interpret what counts and what doesn't and that could be rougher for some than others.

You seem to have a serious reading problem sir.

When a girl says afterwards she didnt want that its word against word and will decided on factors, what witnesses saw, if she tried to defend herself and stuff.
The article that you claim that argues that drunk sex is rape says this at the beginning "That kind of mindset is the problem."..... So please, if you want an article for your (wrong and bullshit) argument, dont only read the clickbait title.

[Docturphil]

A person so intoxicated that they cannot remember the night then you are legally not considered capable of consenting to sex.

Pretty sure that's horse shit. I've blacked out more times than I can count. I'm still capable of consenting while blacked out. And besides that, it's damn near impossible to tell where the line is of someone just being drunk and blacking out. Also I'd like to point out that people black out from drinking a lot, which is their choice to begin with. That's not to say that raping them at that point is OK, but they're putting themselves in a state where they're more likely to make bad decisions. They need to take responsibility for that.

Keep it simple. If you're conscious and can form a coherent sentence you're good to go. If you're able to say "Stop touching me" then you're able to consent.

Now, if someone is drugged that's a different story, but I'm talking specifically about people who willingly take things which alter their decision making process.

[shadowmouse]

The problem is that in other areas of law, it is quite difficult (at least as a general rule in the US) to be too drunk to agree to something. As far as I know, it is similar in Canada.

Consider this the legacy of the three martini lunch. It can be difficult to establish what a person drank, when they drank it, and what other factors might influence intoxication. Once upon a time, businessmen might have a few drinks and sign contracts. The ability to disavow a signature on the basis of a few drinks was something that courts tended to be skeptical of.

This sounds like an extension of that kind of logic ... that there is drunk at a level that may impair one and should certainly keep you from behind the wheel, but that it falls short of the legal standard for "snap I was too wasted to know what I was doing". A ruling that she was too drunk to consent would possibly raise questions about how a person could be too sloppy drunk for sex but still able to sign a contract. It may be time to revisit that issue, but the judge was likely correct not to use this case as the platform.

[Sam the Wiser]

The I'm drunk and I can't consent meme needs to die.

[Docturphil]

Not sure why people bring these sort of things up all the time when it comes to sexual assault cases and alcohol.

Probably because it's uncertain whether or not the cab driver committed any sexual crimes. He may very well have, but since the woman was too drunk to remember we'll probably never know. There's a lesson we can learn from this. There are creeps in the world. Maybe it's best to avoid putting yourself in situations where they can take advantage of you.

- - - Updated - - -

So a woman gets really drunk and is barely conscious. A man forces himself on her and she mutters some words which are unclear. Isn't that rape?

If that was the case, yes. But we don't know if that's what happened. She could have been saying "Fuck my titties" just before she passed out.

Now, from the details of the case I find your scenario to be much more likely. But you can't make assumptions like that in a court of law. It would set a precedent which could have some pretty terrible implications.

- - - Updated - - -

Where do we draw the line?

Passed out and/or unable to form a coherent sentence. That's where you draw the line.

- - - Updated - - -

When their ability to make decisions is compromised, this shouldn't even be hard to understand.

No. Just no. That's waaaaayyy too open to interpretation. Two drinks and you could say your ability to make decisions is compromised. Not only that, but what you're suggesting would make it really, really, really easy for a woman to get someone in prison by getting a little drunk and seducing them.

Bad idea is bad.

- - - Updated - - -

She/someone with her acknowledged she was drunk? Check.
She called a cab. Check.
She was possibly sexually assaulted by the cab driver.

Seems like she was being responsible and did everything she was supposed to do.

Not sure when we started living in a world where someone does something potentially shitty and we blame the victim by saying they weren't being responsible.

Cab driver is creepy as fuck, but getting blackout drunk and wandering off on your own is not being responsible. If you're that drunk you should be with a trusted friend.

Now, if she was with her friends the entire time up until the point where she was put in a cab, then I would agree with you. You should be able to trust a cab driver... I guess maybe take an uber next time. Better yet have a friend drive you home.

- - - Updated - - -

"can someone who is cognitively impaired to the point of memory loss consent"

Yes. Short term memory loss does not mean you cannot make decisions.

- - - Updated - - -

Drunk people are still people making decisions.

Getting drunk, consenting to sex and then calling the man a rapist is a joke.

Assuming they didn't pass out you would be correct. But they did find the woman unconscious sooooo... That's a bit fishy.

[Mad_Murdock]

You seem to have a serious reading problem sir.

When a girl says afterwards she didnt want that its word against word and will decided on factors, what witnesses saw, if she tried to defend herself and stuff.
The article that you claim that argues that drunk sex is rape says this at the beginning "That kind of mindset is the problem."..... So please, if you want an article for your (wrong and bullshit) argument, dont only read the clickbait title.

Maybe I am reading it wrong, The quote you point out "That kind of mindset is wrong", is refuting Kaisers's argument. In bold they have
Again: We believe that drunk people cannot give consent.

Here is the Illinois state U's definition.
Key Points
- Consent must be actively given. Submission is not consent. Lack of a "no" is not consent.
- If an individual is intoxicated, they cannot provide consent. Having sex with someone who is drunk IS sexual assault/rape.
- Penetration is not required. Any unwanted, nonconsensual sexual activity could constitute sexual misconduct.

Matthew Kaiser is arguing against such definitions, the Huffpost writer is saying that Kaiser is wrong.

I'm not really making an argument, so much as asking a question, to which there doesn't appear to be a clear answer. If a drunk girl can't consent because of impaired judgement, can a drunk guy determine that she's too drunk to consent if he also has impaired judgement? If the answer is, the guy always knows better, that *seems* like a rough double standard

[Docturphil]

...women claim they like sex just as much as men...

Yeah, no. They don't.

[Varitok]

Drunk WOMEN can't consent, The problem with the "I was to drunk to consent!" is there is usually no proof or no way of knowing, unless you did a breathalyzer immediately, how drunk these people are and if they were "to drunk to consent". Plus these laws greatly favour women over men, how can a drunk man having sex with a drunk woman be charged with sexual assault? I mean, wasnt he to drunk to know what he was doing? Its stupid.

[Deleted]

Wow...amazing how an "arabic name" turns:



Into



The dude was innocent until proven arab I guess?

- - - Updated - - -



If a girl wants to have sex with a guy...she'll have sex with a guy. If there are "barriers" then she really doesn't want to have sex with that guy.
If you need to get a girl drunk so she'll sleep with you...she's not the one with the problem.

Arab men are scumbags who will do anything to get sex because their own women won't have sex unless married .

[Docturphil]

So fuck women having any form of control who they have sex, where they have sex, and when they have sex if a guys wants it he should have it. Jesus dude your outlook on life is fucking monstrous and I feel bad for any women in your life because they are less then human in your eyes.

Yeah, dude seems a bit sketchy. Sounds like he needs to learn how to rub one out so he can chill.

- - - Updated - - -

However, there is a possibility that she says no because she doesn't want to be perceived as a slut.

A chance? Sure. I don't believe that is one of the more common reasons a woman will tell you no. I think probably about 99% of the time they tell you no because they don't want to have sex with you.

- - - Updated - - -

WTF, NO!

All I'm saying is that if a girl likes a guy, and wants to have sex, she shouldn't put up all the barriers.

I mean you can't all really tell me that girls put up no barriers at all and/or are not the harder of the two sexes to get into the bedroom.

Wrong. Women can put up all the barriers they want. And they're probably doing so because they don't want to have sex with you. Women in general don't like to have sex as much as men do or at the very least they don't like to have sex as often. That's the way it is. Deal with it.

[Deleted]

Wouldn't this be simpler by attacking the root of the problem? DON'T GET FUCKING DRUNK TO THE POINT OF BEING UNABLE TO MAKE JUDGEMENTS!