Is there less rape these days?

[Berkut]

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.

Outside debates like this, I would be inclined to agree. When he says he would be willing to prosecute someone for rape when the victim does not even remember being raped, I wonder.

[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?

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

Well I could see it if you have sex with somebody who is passed out but asking somebody to make the call when somebody is coming onto them on how intoxicated the other person is?  Why should other people be held responsible for the bad decisions somebody makes when they are drunk?

Maybe people shouldn't get so drunk they start propositioning sex with people.

[Valmy]

LOL he does seem to protest too much.

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

I have never ever had sex with a drunk person.  I have a rule about that.

It is pretty easy anyway drunk chicks are pretty gross to me.

[Jaron]

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.

What do you do? Get them drunk, tie them down and violate their toes?

[Valmy]

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

I was a virgin until a few months out of college

College sucked ass for me.  One of the worst and most boring times in my life.

[Barrister]

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.

The law is different here.  There's no "informed consent" - either there is consent or there is not.  A person might be so intoxicated they are unable to consent, but that only comes up with unconscious or barely coherent victims.

Intoxication as a defense to the act is almost completely eliminated.  It may continue to apply to some specific intent offences, but rape is a general intent offences and thus self-induced intoxication can not be a defence.  Being drugged against your will is a different story...

[Valmy]

The law is different here.  There's no "informed consent" - either there is consent or there is not.  A person might be so intoxicated they are unable to consent, but that only comes up with unconscious or barely coherent victims.

This strikes me as the only just way of doing this.  Requiring everybody to refuse sex as soon as somebody starts drinking by law is ridiculous.

[Berkut]

The only standard for bringing a case is the reasonable chance of a conviction?

No ethics involved in this, no discretion, no judgement on your part?

So lets see - you have a case where in fact you know that the accused did not commit the crime, but at the same time, you are pretty sure you can convict them anyway. You would try that case, since "you are not the judge" and as long as you have a reasonable chance of conviction you are bound to bring it?

In other words, as long as you think you can convince a jury to return a guilty plea, whether the person actually did anything isn't really all that important?

[Neil]

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.

Outside debates like this, I would be inclined to agree. When he says he would be willing to prosecute someone for rape when the victim does not even remember being raped, I wonder.

Why would you wonder?  That's the guy's job.  Drinking and raping are the only things to do in the Yukon.

[Valmy]

No ethics involved in this, no discretion, no judgement on your part?

The other part of the test in 'in the public interest' so yes there are.

[Berkut]

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.

The law is different here.  There's no "informed consent" - either there is consent or there is not.  A person might be so intoxicated they are unable to consent, but that only comes up with unconscious or barely coherent victims.

Intoxication as a defense to the act is almost completely eliminated.  It may continue to apply to some specific intent offences, but rape is a general intent offences and thus self-induced intoxication can not be a defence.  Being drugged against your will is a different story...

But if the accuser was drunk, even so drunk that they do not even remember the act, what they said, what they did, nothing, then that doesn't matter - as long as the accuser says afterwards that they do not *think* they would have consented, that is sufficient to charge someone with a crime like rape?

[Neil]

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.

Of course, if you're drunk, you can't consent to sex either, so what would have been regular sex becomes two counts of rape.

Maybe we should just decriminalize rape.

[Barrister]

The only standard for bringing a case is the reasonable chance of a conviction?

No ethics involved in this, no discretion, no judgement on your part?

So lets see - you have a case where in fact you know that the accused did not commit the crime, but at the same time, you are pretty sure you can convict them anyway. You would try that case, since "you are not the judge" and as long as you have a reasonable chance of conviction you are bound to bring it?

In other words, as long as you think you can convince a jury to return a guilty plea, whether the person actually did anything isn't really all that important?

How do I "know" that the accused didn't commit the crime?  If there's hard evidence proving the person's guilt I have an obligation to disclose that to defense, and therefore I can't see how there would be a reasonable prospect of conviction.

Are you saying if it was merely my opinion?  Would I prosecute someone who I think is innocent, or who I just have no opinion on?  Yes.  My opinion, as long as its mere opinion, is largely irrelevant.  I am not a second judge.  I have a duty to present cases to the trier of fact.  It is not my job to get convictions, it is my job to present cases.

But this is touchy stuff.  Why would I think the person is innocent?  If it is because the complainant gives a sketchy version, and I think the judge will have trouble swallowing it, then maybe there's no reasonable prospect of conviction.

But I have to keep going back to the prospect of conviction test.

[HVC]

BB, if someone has a history of claiming rape can defense bring that up at trial?

[alfred russel]

What if you were practicing in the south 30 years ago and the accused was a black man that you were reasonably certain was innocent, but that a jury would probably convict anyway?