‘A drunk can consent’ judge finds second \cabbie not guilty of sexually assault

[FlatBootyJudy]

We all need to give our partners breathalyser test and sign consent forms before we engage in sex.

[Spryte]

You CHOSE to get drunk, maybe sometimes it hits you harder than you expected but that's why its a good idea to go out with friends so you can look out for each other.

[Akka]

Again, because driving a car like drunk require to be conscious, while many cases of ''LULZ, WUMIN'' involve women who are passed out

The argument then should be "someone unconscious can't consent" (which is a given, like "someone asleep can't consent"), not "someone drunks can't consent".

[derpkitteh]

i think drunks can consent all the way up to the point that they can barely stand.

in the state where their body is moving and talking, but the lights are entirely out, that is when they can't consent. but, someone shouldn't get in trouble for sleeping with that person, because they had no way of knowing they were blacked out.

[Tyrianth]

Once again I'm wondering how one can be responsible for killing someone when drunk, or responsible for petty vandalism when drunk, but not responsible for having sex when drunk.

Because murder and vandalism are illegal with or without consent. Your state of mind has nothing to do with the legality of those actions.

[Mikah]

i think drunks can consent all the way up to the point that they can barely stand.

Exactly.

And to add to that, getting drunk to the point of blacking out, or not being able to make rational decision is extremely rare.

We are now being told by all those rape advocates that it is impossible to give consent after one or two drinks, but that's total bullshit. I was going out A LOT when I was younger, and honestly, I can count on my hand the number of times I have seen someone so incapacitated that it would have been possible to take advantage of. And usually, it's not a pretty sight.

That's the thing with consent now. People are using it as an excuse now when they regret something they have done to blame it on alcool. It's a way to deflect responsability of their own act. Thing is, they would probably have gone through it sober.

[Louisa Bannon]

Once again I'm wondering how one can be responsible for killing someone when drunk, or responsible for petty vandalism when drunk, but not responsible for having sex when drunk.

I hate these threads because of the sloppy thinking that occurs. So, as usual, we have to talk our way up from from completely stupid shit so that we can actually get to a place where a meaningful discussion can only possibly happen.

Understand this:
People are charged with whatever crimes the attorney for the state thinks will stick. That attorney is not concerned with reasonableness per se, just: can this work, will a grand jury indict, will a jury of peers convict?

Defense issues are properly the concerns of the defendant. If someone wants to make a claim of state of mind, or whatever they can make those claims, argue to have charges reduced or altered, make their case for doubt before the jury, etc. Strategy, son...

And just to take the killing example, that crime exists on a continuum. In other words, all crimes of killing are not the same. First degree murder usually requires malice and aforethought. Sometimes killing someone happens by accident so we call that manslaughter. State of mind and even incapacity might be meaningful defenses. If the burden of proof is not met for more serious charges, sometimes a lesser charge is proffered to keep the case alive.

Don't mean to be rude, but you really don't know this? Or are you intentionally trying to muddy the conversation? My take is the latter.

- - - Updated - - -

And to add to that, getting drunk to the point of blacking out, or not being able to make rational decision is extremely rare.

This is false. It is actually rather common now. Old news even:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/06/health...ola/index.html

This is how Americans drink now, they get super shitfaced, blackout and sometimes even die.

But sure, keep pretending whatever you like so you can keep taking advantage of people that if they were sober, far from consenting, would actually laugh in your face.

[Deleted]

This is false. It is actually rather common now. Old news even:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/06/health...ola/index.html

This is how Americans drink now, they get super shitfaced, blackout and sometimes even die.

But sure, keep pretending whatever you like so you can keep taking advantage of people that if they were sober, far from consenting, would actually laugh in your face.

Unless someone is pouring the alcohol down their throats, they still made the conscious decision to consume enough alcohol to get themselves into that state. You can't defer blame for their actions onto other people just because they made poor decisions.

[Louisa Bannon]

You can't defer blame for their actions onto other people just because they made poor decisions.

Reality check:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intoxication_defense
In criminal law, the intoxication defense is a defense by which a defendant may claim diminished responsibility on the basis of substance intoxication. Where a crime requires a certain mental state (mens rea) to break the law, those under the influence of an intoxicating substance may be considered to have reduced liability for their actions. With regard to punishment, intoxication may be a mitigating factor that decreases a prison or jail sentence. Numerous factors affect the applicability of the defense.
...
In the US, the Model Penal Code also includes the possibility of "pathological intoxication" whereby a medical condition allows a small amount of alcohol to causes disproportionate intoxication that the drinker could not foresee

[Deleted]

Perhaps I should have said you *shouldn't* be able to defer blame rather than *can't*, my apologies. I'm aware of the intoxication defence.

The thing is, if you can apply intoxication defence to things, why is it often completely ignored in cases where a man and a woman had sex while drunk and the woman later claims it was rape? Either they were both unable to consent or they were both able. Applying one set of logic to one person and another to the other makes no logical sense.

And I'm not just pulling this out of my ass here either, there are actual awareness posters saying stuff like "He was drunk. She was drunk. They had sex. She couldn't consent so he's the devil incarnate." Okay, so I'm employing a tad bit of hyperbole there but you get my point.

As an aside, and please understand that I'm not using this as an actual debate point because it would be an anecdotal fallacy to do so, my wife (who has been raped on multiple occasions) agrees with everything I said in my post.

To put the onus for a drunken hookup solely on one particular partner is to almost literally ask them to become a mindreader. Even blackout drunk people are capable of saying "I fully consent to this sexual encounter" at the time it's happening. That you don't remember it afterwards does *not* mean you didn't consent at the time and it shouldn't be on the person you slept with to have magically guessed that you didn't really mean what you said.

[Louisa Bannon]

And I'm not just pulling this out of my ass here either, there are actual awareness posters saying stuff like "He was drunk. She was drunk. They had sex. She couldn't consent so he's the devil incarnate." Okay, so I'm employing a tad bit of hyperbole there but you get my point.

That campaign is misguided, obviously.

But the advice remains the same: don't fuck people that cannot legally consent.

I have no idea why this subject must be endlessly debated on this site except that people want some sort of shared excuse for bad behavior.

[Kathandira]

Lenehan said the complainant’s debit transactions weren’t analyzed to see if there were any from Milad’s cab.

“Did anyone think to check?” the judge asked.

The 26-year-old complainant – who was not present for the verdict – had earlier told Lenehan she did not consent to being touched by the driver.

Milad testified in his own defence, denying through an Arabic interpreter that the woman was ever in his vehicle.

To me, it looks like the court screwed up royally.

[crewskater]

https://globalnews.ca/news/3761432/d...ing-passenger/



I don't get why people are so desperate for some that they must go to such lengths to take advantage of drunk people.

Also, why would the alleged victim think that she would get a guilty verdict without any solid evidence?

She was never in his car so how can you go after the cab driver? Virtue Signal much?

[Azadina]

To me, it looks like the court screwed up royally.

Do taxis not have cameras over there? I don't see how taxi drivers could possibly deny a passenger being present here, when they'd be on video.

[Kathandira]

Do taxis not have cameras over there? I don't see how taxi drivers could possibly deny a passenger being present here, when they'd be on video.

I'd have to believe they do. But if the defendant's defense was that she was never in his cab, and the court never took any steps to verify it, the court majorly failed.

[shadowmouse]

and the court never took any steps to verify it, the court majorly failed.

No, the Crown screwed up and the court commented to that effect. Tennisace even put it in bold, while setting you all up to squabble about something that wasn't even part of the case in this article.

But Judge Gregory Lenehan said Thursday the Crown did not come anywhere near proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and did a “disservice” to the complainant and to the community.

[Kathandira]

No, the Crown screwed up and the court commented to that effect. Tennisace even put it in bold, while setting you all up to squabble about something that wasn't even part of the case in this article.

In the US we don't use the term Crown. So I don't know what that is.

Here we have Judge, Jury, Plaintiff, Defendant, and Lawyer. That is basically all that is involved. So I don't what Crown is, or where it fits into this.

[Mikah]

This is false. It is actually rather common now. Old news even:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/06/health...ola/index.html

This is how Americans drink now, they get super shitfaced, blackout and sometimes even die.

You can find an article on CNN that will support whatever you want.

Current studies have actually shown that young adults now (those so-called milleniums) have had sex, alcohol and drugs for the first time later in their life, and are abusing it much less then my generation at that age.

But sure, keep pretending whatever you like so you can keep taking advantage of people that if they were sober, far from consenting, would actually laugh in your face.

I don't take advantage of other people that are not sober. I am married, I don't sleep around and neither my wife nor I drink to the point of blacking out. I am not faced with that decision on getting consent.


But let me guess, you are one of those who thinks that a girl who had a sip of beer can no longer consent to whatever, because of the impaired judgement? Blaming poor decisions on alcohol got way to easy to clear the conscience.

That's the thing. I've had what I think is a decently wild teenage/young adult life. I have done many things that perhaps I would have done differently. But the difference, is that I assume those decisions, because I was very aware of what I was doing. I am not blaming alcohol or whatever else, because honestly, that's just trying to find an excuse. I did not do those things because I was drunk, but because I was immature. Own up to what you do, and learn from it. That's called growing up.

[shadowmouse]

That is basically all that is involved. So I don't what Crown is, or where it fits into this.

Well, since this is not an American case, wouldn't it make sense to actually read what the article says about it so that you have the facts down, and then inform yourself?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_attorney

[Louisa Bannon]

Blaming poor decisions on alcohol got way to easy to clear the conscience.

Feeling guilty or having a bad conscience about something one has done is a stupid thing. I am never seeking an excuse to justify bad behavior. People that drink regularly to excess are foolish in my opinion. Regularly getting drunk and behaving badly are good ways to end lots of otherwise good relationships. People that respect themselves won't put up with that stupid shit. I've personally had to tell even my best friend that he was no longer welcome to visit with me if he was going to be fucked up every damn time we got together.

But let's not confuse behaviors that concern only oneself, and behaviors that also concern others.

If I get drunk and cut off my ear, that's bad but nobody else suffers from that act. If I get drunk and cut off your ear, you might have something to say about that. If I get drunk and you cut off my ear, I might have something to say about that.

Should someone drink to excess, I don't think it gives anyone else the excuse to take advantage of them in that altered mental state.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, since this is not an American case, wouldn't it make sense to actually read what the article says about it so that you have the facts down, and then inform yourself?

Yes and no, there's the particulars of the actual case and then a larger, more ambiguous ethical issue that people also want to discuss. The specific case is pertinent to a recurring ethical dilemma for some of the people on these forums.