Is there less rape these days?

[Neil]

But we have this idea in the Western legal tradition - we would rather let ten guilty men go free than throw one innocent man in jail.

That's old news.  These days, shit happens.

After all, it's not like you're arguing with some guy from Russia or Rhodesia or something.  I would imagine that BB has a much better idea of the current state of Western legal thought than you do.

[Barrister]

If all DAs are this willing to try to throw people in jail on so little actual evidence, I am starting to think Stonewall is right.

DAs present cases.  Judges and juries throw people in jail.

I said I'd be comfortable running the case.  Who knows what the outcome might be.

uggh, so there is no onus on the DA to actually think that case has merit and the person in question is in fact guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

Because there is a lot more involved here than just a trial. The suspect will eb arrested and put in jail in all likelihood before that even happens.

My test to prosecute is that there is a "reasonable prospect of conviction" and it must be "in the public interest".

This is a fairly common problem.  You have a complainant who gives a very credible and believable version of events.  You have an accused who gives a suspect version of events, but there is no objective evidence that can absolutely disprove it.

Thats the kind of case that is begging to be run through to trial.  Put everyone up on the stand, listen to their versions first hand, then decide what happened.

Of course I'm aware of the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.  But that is the standard for conviction, not to begin a prosecution.  All I need to be satisfied is that there is sufficient evidence that the trier of fact could find the accused guilty.

I used the term "absolute proof" because I'm not quite sure how you think the system should work Berkut.  What kind of evidence do you think should be required in order to charge?

[Neil]

I said I'd be comfortable running the case.  Who knows what the outcome might be.

So you are comfortable running cases where you "don't know what the outcome might be", or in other words a case that you are not even certain yourself that the person is guilty?

Strawman alert!

[Valmy]

Ehh, if both of you are drunk, doesn't it cancel out?

Sure.

[Neil]

Ehh, if both of you are drunk, doesn't it cancel out?

Sure.

What if she's more drunk than you are, or you're more drunk than she is?

Stop being such a goof.

[Martinus]

You seem to operate under an assumption that a drunk man is unable to control his urges or assess (in)appropriateness of his actions, as soon as the woman implies consent. That's as ridiculous as the assertion that "women are always victims" you seem to be fighting here.

Having sex with a woman who gave consent is not rape or a crime, even if it is pretty damn dishonorable and scummy when she is drunk but hey we are not all angels.

How is it ridiculous to claim otherwise?

If she is too drunk to give an informed consent, it's still rape.

Of course there is always a blurred line between "beer goggles" and a situation in which the level of toxication excludes an informed consent, but caveat fucker.

[Valmy]

What if she's more drunk than you are, or you're more drunk than she is?

Whatever.

[Valmy]

If she is too drunk to give an informed consent, it's still rape.

It is a crime to have sex with somebody who gets drunk?

[Martinus]

But rather considerably less than a provable case of rape. For all you know, he is telling the truth.

That's a perfectly fine case of sex assault and I'd feel comfortable running it.

Wow. Gives a lot of power to women to utterly ruin the life of any man she chooses.

How do you know she didn't assault him? Maybe you should run with that one.

You seem to operate under an assumption that a drunk man is unable to control his urges or assess (in)appropriateness of his actions, as soon as the woman implies consent. That's as ridiculous as the assertion that "women are always victims" you seem to be fighting here.

I agree that prosecuting her for rape based on nothing more than his word is just as ridiculous as prosecuting him for rape based on nothing more than her word - and in this case, it isn't even her word that she was raped, since BB has posited that she doesn't actually remember ever telling him no - she remembers nothing.

If she remembers nothing, then chances are she was unable to give an informed consent.

The thing is, an intoxicated person can still commit a crime, if the intoxication was not "abnormal" (i.e. not something a reasonable person could expect given the amount of drink consumed) - so the fact that the man is intoxicated not impair his judgement normally should not exclude his guilt.

On the other hand, an ability to give an informed consent can be and is impaired by significant intoxication.

[garbon]

It is a crime to have sex with somebody who gets drunk?

No, it only matters if the drunk person feels bad enough about it afterwards.

[Martinus]

If she is too drunk to give an informed consent, it's still rape.

It is a crime to have sex with somebody who gets drunk?

It is potentially a crime, yes. Anyone who does that is taking a risk that he is committing a crime.

[Martinus]

If all DAs are this willing to try to throw people in jail on so little actual evidence, I am starting to think Stonewall is right.

DAs present cases.  Judges and juries throw people in jail.

I said I'd be comfortable running the case.  Who knows what the outcome might be.

uggh, so there is no onus on the DA to actually think that case has merit and the person in question is in fact guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

Because there is a lot more involved here than just a trial. The suspect will eb arrested and put in jail in all likelihood before that even happens.

My test to prosecute is that there is a "reasonable prospect of conviction" and it must be "in the public interest".

This is a fairly common problem.  You have a complainant who gives a very credible and believable version of events.  You have an accused who gives a suspect version of events, but there is no objective evidence that can absolutely disprove it.

Thats the kind of case that is begging to be run through to trial.  Put everyone up on the stand, listen to their versions first hand, then decide what happened.

Of course I'm aware of the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.  But that is the standard for conviction, not to begin a prosecution.  All I need to be satisfied is that there is sufficient evidence that the trier of fact could find the accused guilty.

I used the term "absolute proof" because I'm not quite sure how you think the system should work Berkut.  What kind of evidence do you think should be required in order to charge?

Yeah, prosecutor is not a judge. It's his job to bring cases before the court, not to rule on them.

[Barrister]

I said I'd be comfortable running the case.  Who knows what the outcome might be.

So you are comfortable running cases where you "don't know what the outcome might be", or in other words a case that you are not even certain yourself that the person is guilty?

Strawman alert!

In this case no.  I present cases.  What my personal opinion might be is irrelevant.  The test is whether there is a reasonable prospect of conviction.

Now I guess it does factor in that if I'm convinced someone is guilty how can you think there's a reasonable prospect of conviction, which is fair.  But otherwise - I'm not the judge.

[Jaron]

I think Valmy is disturbed that his #1 college seduction routine might have been legally considered rape.

[Martinus]

I think Valmy is disturbed that his #1 college seduction routine might have been legally considered rape.

LOL he does seem to protest too much.

Anyway, there goes my fire-proof way of seducing a straight guy, too.