So in MN being blacked out and raped isn't rape

[Cthulhu 2020]

So if a woman is "willfilly inebriated" for a surgery and passed out on the table, does that mean the doctor gets to have sex with her because the willingly accepted the anesthesia? Seems like this can create a really fucked up loophole for many rape situations.

[PosPosPos]

Thankfully, in the broader developed world judges have the sense to not let technical loopholes get in the way of handing down fair judgements against heinous crimes.

As usual, the US is the sore thumb exception where the letter of the law is far, far more important than the spirit of it - and the reason why the problem even exists is that their own citizens defend such egregious miscarriages of justice.

[Levelfive]

Want me to quote more for you? I'm willing to bet not one of those people actually read the link and just decided to blame the judge and be outraged that this happened.

PosPosPos is exactly right, though--the decision largely hinges on a single comma as proof that the legislators' intent was to claim mental incapacitation is strictly limited to involuntary ingestion. Here's the statute as written:

"'Mentally incapacitated' means that a person under the influence of alcohol, a narcotic, anesthetic, or any other substance, administered to that person without the person’s agreement, lacks the judgment to give a reasoned consent to sexual contact or sexual penetration.'"

If you remove the comma, the clause only modifies "any other substance," rather than the series of intoxicants that precedes it. ("Other" is also doing some work there.)

From the decision: "It is also significant that the qualifier here (“administered to that person without the person’s agreement”) is set off from the series of similar nouns by a comma. 'A qualifying phrase separated from antecedents by a comma is evidence that the qualifier is supposed to apply to all the antecedents instead of only to the immediately preceding one.'

...

Accordingly, the inclusion of a comma between the last in the series of intoxicating substances and “administered to that person without the person’s agreement” supports Khalil’s reading that the qualifier modifies all four of the substances in the preceding series: “alcohol, a narcotic, anesthetic, or any other substance.”"

This is a shockingly stingy and destructive interpretation of the legislators' intent. They are essentially saying, "Syntax, amirite? What're you gonna do?" Someone else in the thread brought up raping someone under anesthesia--the State did as well, which the judges brushed off by saying, tru, but that's a problem for the legislature to solve. People are right to be upset with the judges as well as the legislature that wrote the statute.

I'm going to get absolutely screamed at here, but the ruling makes technical legal sense - just emotionally fucking sucks. So bare with me.

LET ME BE CLEAR AT THE OUTSET HERE - in my opinion, this is clearly rape. She was unconscious, she did not agree = rape.

The ruling isn't saying that the woman wasn't raped - keep that in mind. They are saying that the reasoning argued by the Prosecution was flawed, because you cannot be ruled mentally imbalanced because you've ingested drugs or alcohol by your own choosing.

This ruling is widely established already in cases where people get drunk and commit crimes - being drunk or under the influence does not give you immunity from the crimes you committed. And we like that overall as a society. In this case the court is saying that her voluntary ingesting of drugs and alcohol does not qualify her as mentally incapacitated.

NOW - how this factor relates to the rape charge is...odd. I'm not sure why the prosecution didn't just argue that the woman was unconscious and never agreed to sex, therefore rape.

Dude. Friend. What are you doing, here? Is being the victim of a crime while you are under the influence equivalent to committing crimes while you are under the influence?

ETA: He will get a new trial, but can only be charged with a fifth degree misdemeanor.

ETA2: Link to the decision https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov...281-032421.pdf

[Mayhem]

I personally won't be outraged. This is on MN citizens and the law makers they vote in that allow this and don't work to change it. Does it suck she won't see justice? of course. maybe this will wake some people up that something does need changed and the current government isn't doing it.

That is a really strange hill to die on.

[Orange Joe]

That is a really strange hill to die on.

The hill of how the US legal system is suppose to work?

[Mayhem]

The hill of how the US legal system is suppose to work?

The legal system failed impressively with this judgment and could but didn't have set a precedent which is apparently not outraging because?

Damn, you'd be a good citizen of any authoritarian country.

[PosPosPos]

The hill of how the US legal system is suppose to work?

The US legal system is supposed to be immoral and unethical?

Okay, that explains a lot.

[Shadowferal]

Well, it seems the difference between doing the right thing, and following the law is on full display. MN needs to remember that the two ideals should be more aligned.

[Orange Joe]

The legal system failed impressively with this judgment and could but didn't have set a precedent which is apparently not outraging because?

Damn, you'd be a good citizen of any authoritarian country.

I mean it's on MN state laws. It's on the people to vote in those that make/change the laws. The people of MN clearly don't think this is a big issue or they would vote people in to change it wouldn't they?

If this happened in my state I would be letting my elected officials know if they didn't fix it I would be voting for the next person that will fix it.

[Themius]

I mean it's on MN state laws. It's on the people to vote in those that make/change the laws. The people of MN clearly don't think this is a big issue or they would vote people in to change it wouldn't they?

If this happened in my state I would be letting my elected officials know if they didn't fix it I would be voting for the next person that will fix it.

You know how sinema ran on 15 min wage and then voted it down...

[Orange Joe]

Well, it seems the difference between doing the right thing, and following the law is on full display. MN needs to remember that the two ideals should be more aligned.

This is gonna happen in almost any court in the US.

it's how OJ got off.
It's how Casey Anthony got off.

Those are just 2 well known cases. I'm sure you could find 100's if not 100's of similar cases throughout the US.
@cubby could confirm/deny or expand on this, but my understanding of the US system is based a lot on this statement.

"Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer"

- - - Updated - - -

You know how sinema ran on 15 min wage and then voted it down...

And? you're making an argument on why he should be voted out next cycle. That doesn't refute what I said. If we held them accountable and didn't keep voting the same people in this wouldn't happen as much.

[PosPosPos]

"Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer"

This refers to the concept of reasonable doubt in the court of law, and not to be unironically used in the defense of criminals getting off on semantic technicalities in the realm of "well there's a missing/additional comma here so I can exercise malicious compliance to interpret it in bad faith".

Boy, the moral and ethical compasses of US citizens are so damn out of whack, and it really shows when they intentionally conflate reasonable doubt with letter of the law versus spirit of the law.

[Mayhem]

I mean it's on MN state laws. It's on the people to vote in those that make/change the laws. The people of MN clearly don't think this is a big issue or they would vote people in to change it wouldn't they?

If this happened in my state I would be letting my elected officials know if they didn't fix it I would be voting for the next person that will fix it.

What state are you from?

[eschatological]

So, an appellate court can look at the law and say, "Nah, this can't be what they intended." And uphold the ruling.

Let's not be letter-of-the-law jackasses here and pretend the court HAS to do what the law says. Otherwise Brown v. Board of Education would have had to say "Hey, segregation is legal."