[voksveta]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
No, it is a clear definition of rape which focuses on what is crucial.

Rape is sex without consent. If you are super drunk, you are incapable of giving consent. If you are super drunk you also lack the mental intent to committ rape.

As an example of the difference. A prostitute that has to prostitute to pay the black marketers who would kill her otherwise is being raped. The prostitute who is prostituting to get the new Jetta is not being raped. So you'd arrest the "Johns" for rape, even if they didn't know the circumstances? After all, rape is illegal.

[Cyzkrahu]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
No, it is a clear definition of rape which focuses on what is crucial.

Rape is sex without consent. If you are super drunk, you are incapable of giving consent. Is "super drunk" a legal term? I don't see how that is a "clear definition." Is there a specific blood alcohol content that should be used as a threshold?

And as I said above, if both parties are "super drunk," who raped who?

As an example of the difference. A prostitute that has to prostitute to pay the black marketers who would kill her otherwise is being raped. The prostitute who is prostituting to get the new Jetta is not being raped. I'm not entirely sure what you're saying in the first example. If you mean that the prostitute gives sex to the "black marketers" in return for them not killing her, I'd agree that's rape. But if you mean that her motivation for becoming a prostitute is to earn money to pay off said black marketers, then I would not agree that is rape.

[xtc2d6u8]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


If you are super drunk you also lack the mental intent to committ rape. If both are very drunk, then it is like two kids who have sex with eachother. Both should get 'mild' rape charges, like both kids getting 'mild' statuatory rape charges.

There should definitely be a difference between violent rape and non-violent rape.


So you'd arrest the "Johns" for rape, even if they didn't know the circumstances? After all, rape is illegal. The fact that prostitution is very often rape is the reason I would make prostitution illegal. If prostitution was always or even almost always the 'I want a Jetta' type, then I would go for legal and regulated.

JM

[ViaplyVuple]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
If both are very drunk, then it is like two kids who have sex with eachother. Both should get 'mild' rape charges, like both kids getting 'mild' statuatory rape charges. When two minors of the same age have sex with each other, how often is it that either faces any charges? And I can't think of any circumstances in which BOTH would be charged.

Regardless, this statement is ludicrous. Beyond being virtually unenforceable, there is no such thing as a "mild" rape charge. In many states, if not most, a single charge lands someone forever on a sex offender list. Any employer who ran a background check would see a rape charge, mild or not. And all because both people were drunk when they had sex? What an awful idea.

[WertyNtont]

I am saying it was rape. I am not saying that the John should be charged with rape. For a lot of statutory rape, we just give a slap on the wrists. That would be fine in this case.

The sex offender list is in many cases ridiculous. It is because it groups rapists with someone who had sex with his 16 yearold girlfriend and her parents didn't want him to.

JM

[arindiruppyr]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
For a lot of statutory rape, we just give a slap on the wrists. That would be fine in this case. They are still charged with rape.

The sex offender list is in many cases ridiculous. It is because it groups rapists with someone who had sex with his 16 yearold girlfriend and her parents didn't want him to. It still exists.

[antonyandruleit]

We are talking about laws here. Bad ones like the sex offender list should be changed.

JM

[yespkorg]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
We are talking about laws here. Bad ones like the sex offender list should be changed. What's the likeihood they will be?

And this doesn't address the issue of comparing two drunk people ****ing to two kids ****ing.

Yeah, with two drunk people, I don't think you have rape at all.

[#[SoftAzerZx]]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

And this doesn't address the issue of comparing two drunk people ****ing to two kids ****ing.

Yeah, with two drunk people, I don't think you have rape at all. What's the differnece?

JM

[Efonukmp]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I argue that two drunk people should get charged (not put on sex offender lists or face prison time, community service is fine) for having sex with eachother.

Just like two kids. And I say that's ludicrous. If both are drunk, then there's no crime being committed, by any stretch of the imagination.

Drunk people are incapable of giving consent. Just like kids. Or retarded people.

You cannot really be saying that mentally retarded people should be legally prevented from ever having sex???

This is fascist.

I agree that it takes a lot of drunk to get to that level (I have been there, I no longer get there, thankfully no one took advantage of me).

I am not saying that the state should go out looking for drunk people and charging both. It just isn't reasonable without a big invasion of privacy. And therein lies the big problem. How can the law determine the level of drunkenness after the fact? Unless they can catch them in the act and give a test, it would be impossible to determine.

However, if one person is charging another with rape, and they were both drunk. Then both should get the same response as if they statutory raped each other now. Or how about neither gets charged in this case, so our already overburdened legal system is worrying about cases like this?

There is a pretty high threshold for proving rape, which is as it should be. If it's a case of two equally drunk people complaining after the fact, then they're equally responsible for their own "plights" they should just get shooed out of court and not waste its time.

Similarly, if only one was drunk (the accuser), then the accused should get statutory rape charged. This isn't similar, this is a different scenario. If one party was clearly intoxicated to a level that they couldn't consent and the other wasn't, and this can be proven, then of course charges are warranted. That's not remotely the same as two impaired people humping each other.

And face it, ethically John's are responsible for the conditions the prostitue is in. If she is a sex slave then the John is party to that. If she is being forced, then the John is party to that, even if he didn't physically force her himself. Bullshit. Unless the prostitute is actually being coerced into the sex by the john, there's no ethical problem for the john. It's two adults making a business transaction with each other, which should be every adult's right. If the prostitute is being coerced, charge the person coercing her.

I think two consenting adults should be allowed to have sex with each other for whatever reason they choose, and it's nobody else's business why they do it.

[apatteopipt]

Drunk people have to take responsibility for their own actions. Many people seek to take advantage of intoxicated people. (bars, casinos etc.) Why do businessmen have expense accounts? Should casinos be charged for illegal gambling. Should businessmen be charged with contract fraud.

If a person voluntarily gets drunk (they weren't unwillingly drugged or something) and voluntarily has sex, it is their own fault. Instead of claiming rape they should perhaps go to an AA meeting and try and figure out A) why they get so drunk and B) why they do things when they are drunk that they wouldn't do if they were sober.

As far as I know the law and society keep telling us voluntary alcohol consumption isn't an excuse for bad behavior. As adults we are assumed responsible enough to determine how much we drink and are accountable for our actions. Even if it means voluntarily having sex with someone who is sober that you normal wouldn't want to.

If someone could use the argument that they were drunk therefore they are not responsible for their actions there would NEVER be a drunk driving arrest. I wonder how many murders occur when the murderer kills someone in a drunken rage. How many time does vandalism occur when people are drunk. I'm sure all of these people will say they wouldn't have done it sober and regret what they did the morning after.

[Dyslermergerb]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
What causes the crime?

Lack of consent.

There is a lack of consent, so there should be a crime.

There is also a lack of consent when two 15 year olds have sex (as 15 year olds can't consent), but in a great deal of jurisdictions that is not considered to be a crime (it's called the "Romeo & Juliet" exemption). Often times there is this within 2 age rule. I think that that is an issue of 'this is natural, we can't fight it' raher than saying that because both peopel can't consent, the fact that they can't consent doesn't matter.

Additionally, as you said, only some jurisdictions. I agree with them in practicality (no real reason to punish), but disagree with them ethically.

How about two 11 yearolds?

JM

[Pdarassenko]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Often times there is this within 2 age rule. I think that that is an issue of 'this is natural, we can't fight it' raher than saying that because both peopel can't consent, the fact that they can't consent doesn't matter. I think its more of a WTF, statutory rape laws were NOT meant for this ****.

Statutory rape laws were meant to punish older people who preyed on minors.

How about two 11 yearolds? How about 'em?

[Orefsmisits]

And look what happened to her.

[krek-sikUp]

At levels of mental retardation where consent can't be given, yeah, I consider all sex as being rape.





And we should consider your opinion beyond this, why?

[AngelinaTheElf]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
At levels of mental retardation where consent can't be given, yeah, I consider all sex as being rape. And just what level would that be? How is it determined? Who gets to decide such a thing?

I already addressed that long ago. I said that consent should be obtained before drunkiness. How much "drunkiness?" What blood alcohol level is the tipping point beyond which given consent is invalid?

Nothing to do with authoritarianism. As I Said, we already apply this principle to other areas of life.

For example, if a kid who had a bunch of money (let's say 50000$) gave another kid all of his money... wouldn't we do something about it? Would we be charging either kid with a crime? Of course not, so it's a silly example. No crime is committed if a kid gives his money away, whether or not the other is forced to give it back.

It IS authoritarianism, because it's criminalizing something that needs not be criminalized.

Unless one charged the other, it would never go to court. If one charged the other, then yeah.. I would say they both should get a slap on the wrist (baring other evidence). Rape doesn't imply that there is just one victim. I'm not aware of any case of rape where someone can be both the victim and perpetrator at the same time. That's why this is so ludicrous.

But this also contradicts your previous position wrt prostitutes. You made excuses for prostitutes that "have no choice" but to be prostitutes due to their situation in life, but here you're saying it would be OK to charge someone who was under threat of death.

And again, no sex crime--no matter how much you try and call it a "slap on the wrist"--will actually be treated as such, given what was mentioned earlier about offender registries and backgroun checks.

A lot of people are so hung up on sex that when it comes up they start treating it completely different then all other areas of life.

JM You're the one who agrees with making sex between consenting adults a criminal act based on the reasons why they choose to have sex, not me. So this is just hypocrisy.