Teen girl too drunk to consent to sex: Languish?

[CountDeMoney]

So someone who is impaired to the point of being unable to legally operate a motor vehicle safely can still legally consent to sexual activity

How is that even remotely similar?

It doesn't take much intoxication to reduce my reaction time and judgement enough to make me a dangerous driver.

I would be pretty fucking pissed off if I had a couple drinks and suddenly was not allowed to have sex because someone like you decided you know better than I do whether or not I am capable of giving consent with a nice buzz going.

We're not talking about a "nice buzz going" now are we, Hurricane Berkut?  We're discussing lack of consent when incapacitated.  But good job dialing it straight to Category 5 as usual. A nice buzz going.  Goofball.

[CountDeMoney]

Then again it's the victimization of women we're talking about, and they're all cunts and whores.

You know, you make this statement an order of magnitude more than anyone on Languish could reasonably be said to imply it...

Then stop using such shitty examples for arguments of equivalency.  All it does is turn the misogyny dial up to 11.

[grumbler]

Personally, girl definitely did put herself in a vulnerable situation.  If I were her parent or guardian, I would have a long chat with her.  That however in no way reduces the guilt of the accused.  It may be foolish to leave your front door unlocked, but that doesn't make it okay to come in and burgle your stuff while you're out.

But if you were highly intoxicated and invited your neighbor to come take your stuff, presumably that would have some implication for your neighbor's guilt when charged with stealing it.

I am not arguing for the innocence of the boy; I don't ave the evidence that the judge had.  I am merely pointing out that, had the girl not willfully violated the law, no crime would have occurred.  That leaves her morally responsible (in some degree) for the crime happening, and I was wondering if the law would penalize her.  Apparently not.

This would be a youth court decision given the ages involved.  Sentences are wildly different than adult court.  That being said the standard for a finding of guilt is exactly the same.

That is sorta what i figured, but I wasn't sure that Canada lacked the morally bankrupt political prosecutors we have in the States that try to make every high profile case an adult case.  Maybe this kid will learn from some time in custody that getting drunk isn't a great idea.

The quotes attributed to Justice Crosbie sound perfectly reasonable to me.  Judges have an obligation to explain their verdict and not just blankly say "guilty".

The judge wasn't explaining her decision.  She was telling the boy what he thought and preaching to him. 

"It is simply not possible that he was unaware that she was drinking a lot of alcohol," she said

Of course it is possible. 

nstead, the boy "forged ahead, knowing there existed a danger or risk that she was too drunk," Crosbie said. "Further, he was aware of a need for some inquiry but he did not wish to pursue the truth – he preferred to remain ignorant."

This isn't the language of logic and evidence, this is the language of someone preaching about what another person thought (contrary to what the other person said).

Not everyone objects to that, of course, but I do.  Judges who preach make it less likely for the non-religious to accept that the judge is reaching conclusions according to the secular law.  I don't expect you to agree; people can have different standards and expectations for judges, and standards and expectations for judges can vary by locality (she'd fit right in in, say, Alabama, I think).

[Barrister]

Personally, girl definitely did put herself in a vulnerable situation.  If I were her parent or guardian, I would have a long chat with her.  That however in no way reduces the guilt of the accused.  It may be foolish to leave your front door unlocked, but that doesn't make it okay to come in and burgle your stuff while you're out.

But if you were highly intoxicated and invited your neighbor to come take your stuff, presumably that would have some implication for your neighbor's guilt when charged with stealing it.

I am not arguing for the innocence of the boy; I don't ave the evidence that the judge had.  I am merely pointing out that, had the girl not willfully violated the law, no crime would have occurred.  That leaves her morally responsible (in some degree) for the crime happening, and I was wondering if the law would penalize her.  Apparently not.

I really, strongly, disagree that the girl is "morally responsible (in some degree)".  She put herself in a very vulnerable position.  I guess she even broke the provincial liquor laws (which would be a ticketable offence, nothing more).  But the moral culpability rests 100% with the offender.

This would be a youth court decision given the ages involved.  Sentences are wildly different than adult court.  That being said the standard for a finding of guilt is exactly the same.

That is sorta what i figured, but I wasn't sure that Canada lacked the morally bankrupt political prosecutors we have in the States that try to make every high profile case an adult case.  Maybe this kid will learn from some time in custody that getting drunk isn't a great idea.

We can't take youths into adult court at all.  What we can theoretically do is give an adult sentence in youth court.  In practice it absolutely never happens.  Not once in my 13 years have I seen it.

Odds are this kid doesn't see the inside of a jail at all.  Probably house arrest.  Youth court is VERY different.

Not everyone objects to that, of course, but I do.  Judges who preach make it less likely for the non-religious to accept that the judge is reaching conclusions according to the secular law.  I don't expect you to agree; people can have different standards and expectations for judges, and standards and expectations for judges can vary by locality (she'd fit right in in, say, Alabama, I think).

It just doesn't sound religious to me.  And I suspect a female youth court judge from Ontario would not fit in at all in Alabama.

[Berkut]

So someone who is impaired to the point of being unable to legally operate a motor vehicle safely can still legally consent to sexual activity

How is that even remotely similar?

It doesn't take much intoxication to reduce my reaction time and judgement enough to make me a dangerous driver.

I would be pretty fucking pissed off if I had a couple drinks and suddenly was not allowed to have sex because someone like you decided you know better than I do whether or not I am capable of giving consent with a nice buzz going.

We're not talking about a "nice buzz going" now are we, Hurricane Berkut?  We're discussing lack of consent when incapacitated.  But good job dialing it straight to Category 5 as usual. A nice buzz going.  Goofball.

No, YOU said "impaired to the extent they cannot legally operate a vehicle" which is not at all incapacitated.

[Berkut]

Then again it's the victimization of women we're talking about, and they're all cunts and whores.

You know, you make this statement an order of magnitude more than anyone on Languish could reasonably be said to imply it...

Then stop using such shitty examples for arguments of equivalency.  All it does is turn the misogyny dial up to 11.

I think you have the dial permanently nailed there. Or rather your indicator only has "11" on it.

[viper37]

Yeah, but the argument can be made that he was pretty drunk too, and thus not able to make a sound decision.

The boy was "either reckless or wilfully blind to (the girl's) lack of capacity to consent,"
[..]
What's more, at the time when he claimed to be having consensual sex with her, the girl was in and out of consciousness and had already thrown up, the judge said.

1) You can't invoke your own self-induced state to excuse your behavior.  Otherwise, you could claim you're not responsible for drunk driving and killing someone because you were so drunk/stoned that you had no idea what you were doing.  Although that defense was successfully used in a marijuana case, it has been since overturned.

2) She's passing in and out of consciousness and he's with her the whole night.  You're not talking about a girl midly drunk but in an altered state of consciouness because of some strong medication she takes but never told you.

Given these two elements, I agree with the judge.  It's a case by case basis when it comes to this.  But generally speaking, if you find a girl unsconcious or semi-conscious, it's not a good idea to sleep with her.

[Razgovory]

Sounds like sexual assault to me.  Besides, who wants to have sex with a chick covered in vomit?

[Jacob]

Yeah, from the facts reported I don't see anything wrong with the judge's decision.

The girl had vomited and was drifting in and out of consciousness. There's no real possibility of consent there.

Conversely, it seems the boy had a good solid buzz going but was still in a state where he could reasonably be expected to be aware of the girl's state and her inability to give consent. I mean, I understand how a 15 year old boy could be really keen on having sex, and how being drunk would affect his judgment enough to make him think it was okay to ignore the lack of consent - but that does not make him any less guilty.

[Valmy]

Don't have sex with someone who is black-out drunk. It's not complicated.

Don't have sex with anybody who has been drinking at all unless you really trust them or really want to spend time in prison.

[Malthus]

Besides, who wants to have sex with a chick covered in vomit?

Well, there are some very dark parts of the Internet where that question gets answered ... 

[garbon]

Don't have sex with someone who is black-out drunk. It's not complicated.

Don't have sex with anybody who has been drinking at all unless you really trust them or really want to spend time in prison.

I've only anecdotal evidence to rely on but I think chances are lower of being accused if its just man on man.

[Admiral Yi]

I've heard about guys who get off on fucking *while* a girl is puking, because of the muscle contractions.

[HVC]

if she's throwing up on herself you know you're doing something wrong and should stop. Kids guilty.

That said, kids these days get a signed waiver like a celeb, it's just safer that way

[Solmyr]

Yeah, but the argument can be made that he was pretty drunk too, and thus not able to make a sound decision.

This is generally not a valid defense in court.