Nightmare in Maryville
- Thread starter cydsho
- Start date
I'm just pointing out what this kind of legislation can lead to.
I get that it was enacted with good intentions, but excuse me if I don't trust the government, generally, to be sensible in how they apply these laws. If you're so ****ed up that you can't consent to sex, I think that can be established in a trial scenario, and you don't need to build a clause into rape laws that says "if you're drunk, you can't consent, and therefore all drunk sex is rape".
Well, I'm really not saying that. What I'm saying is that they're unable to consent. If they can still say "yes" or "no" and know what they're doing, they're consenting. Even if drunk. What if both parties are drunk? Do you charge both parties? Or just the man? If so, why?
These are the problems this creates. It makes more sense to say that any non-consensual sex is rape, and then show at trial whether or not the person consented.
I believe the article says that Missouri law has a clause which states that people who are incapacitated from alcohol cannot consent.
I don't know whether or not they define what "incapacitated" means and whether it is merely "intoxicated" or "incapable of functioning".
I've seen enough terribly drawn legislation (did you know you can be found guilty of Public Intox in Iowa while completely, 100% sober?) to have doubts as to how well Missouri spelled out what they actually meant in this situation.
I kind of get your point, but mostly I think you are barking up the wrong conspiracy tree. If the law worked as poorly like you think it would, you would still have to have someone accuse you of rape. In your example, it is not likely that your wife would accuse you of rape. If she is that vindictive that she would make it up, then maybe she shouldn't be your wife. And if you really did force yourself on her (i.e. some sort of abusive marriage situation) then maybe you did rape her.
There are a lot of people in this thread claiming that they or people they know have a lot of drunken sex. Most women aren't going to just go cry rape if they have sex with someone when they are a little drunk. If they did, apparently a large majority of you would have been charged with rape.
The larger argument in this case isn't all that complicated. Very few people would listen to the story that was told by the girls and think that there is not enough evidence to charge those boys with some sort of crime. And if the burden of proof for charging people with rape is high enough that those kids weren't charged, then they need to look at it again.
In this particular case the outrage has little to do with what al-4-state is talking about and everything to do with:
14 year old girl + sex + very drunk all night + left passed out in her yard by person she had sex with +said she was raped = no charges
I'm no criminal lawyer but if we don't look into that, let's just end all prosecution where someone didn't get murdered.
According to a witness, a 14 year old girl was incoherent, unable to talk, walk, or do anything. She was unable to go through the door to her home in below freezing temperatures. Seven hours later, BAC was still .13, and she had painful reddened areas on her genitals and buttocks as well as vaginal tearing. How anyone can argue this is consensual is simply mind boggling. I guess by reporting rape in this country you are setting yourself up for constant harassment, your parent losing their job, and your house being burned down, but it could be worse, in India they just gang rape women to death and get away with it.
I readily admit that I'm dealing with hypotheticals that are very unlikely. However, it's my opinion that legislation should be crafted to not allow these hypotheticals any breathing room in the first place. That is all. I'm not saying there was anything consensual about this situation in Maryville, only that the Missouri law could pretty easily be horribly misapplied.
I understand your point, but I still think it's important to mention alcohol in legislation because there is a distressingly large segment of our population who think that a clearly intoxicated person can give consent. If you take that language out of the law, you've given those people more reason to believe what they do and make it even more difficult for rape victims to come forward.
Wow, you've really opened my eyes. You're right. A 14 year old girl gets drunk to were she can't walk or function and witnesses said was crying immediately afterwards, and let another kid video tape the incident. It sure sounds like she wanted it.
I've seen both sides of this argument play out in my college days. I saw one girl who clearly knew what she was doing and clearly gave consent turn around a put a person through a few weeks of hell with a sexual assault charge that was later dropped. I've also seen guys sleep with women who in no way could have formed anything close to knowing consent. I really do see the debate on this issue as crafting a law that attempts to mitigate against either of these occurances leads to unfair results on the other side.
My biggest issue is that a person has to know where they stand under the law. If you are going 70 mph in a 55 mph zone, you are speeding. If you get put a bag of weed in your pocket and get caught, you have possessed marijuana. I understand the law is often more nuanced than that, but a law-based society is based on the premise that people know what conduct is legal/illegal and conform their activities around those laws. The problem with ambiguous "consent based" statutes are that people often don't know where they stand under the law. If a woman has had quite a bit to drink but verbalizes a consent is it ok? What if she never verbalizes her intent but her "actions" imply consent? What if she has verbalized some form of intent earlier in the night and has subsequently become more intoxicated? Not to mention, many of these "encounters" take place behind closed doors, so while people could testify as to the state of the victim at earlier points in the night, the only people with any direct knowledge on the issue of consent would be the alleged victim and the alleged perpetrator, who obviously will tell two different stories.
I'm not sure how this all plays out in this story. I would imagine the male was under the impression that the female was coming over "for a reason", and figured that reason didn't change due to her intoxication. Again, this is all speculation, but I imagine things were said or done that lead the male to think he had consent. I would imagine subjectively, in his intoxicated, adolescent mind, he thought she was consentting. Objectively, looking at all of the totality of what happened, I think it is clear that she was not consenting and that is actions were, in many ways, deplorable. Where that leaves everyone under the current rape statutes, I guess I don't know.
My biggest issue is that a person has to know where they stand under the law. If you are going 70 mph in a 55 mph zone, you are speeding. If you get put a bag of weed in your pocket and get caught, you have possessed marijuana. I understand the law is often more nuanced than that, but a law-based society is based on the premise that people know what conduct is legal/illegal and conform their activities around those laws. The problem with ambiguous "consent based" statutes are that people often don't know where they stand under the law. If a woman has had quite a bit to drink but verbalizes a consent is it ok? What if she never verbalizes her intent but her "actions" imply consent? What if she has verbalized some form of intent earlier in the night and has subsequently become more intoxicated? Not to mention, many of these "encounters" take place behind closed doors, so while people could testify as to the state of the victim at earlier points in the night, the only people with any direct knowledge on the issue of consent would be the alleged victim and the alleged perpetrator, who obviously will tell two different stories.
I'm not sure how this all plays out in this story. I would imagine the male was under the impression that the female was coming over "for a reason", and figured that reason didn't change due to her intoxication. Again, this is all speculation, but I imagine things were said or done that lead the male to think he had consent. I would imagine subjectively, in his intoxicated, adolescent mind, he thought she was consentting. Objectively, looking at all of the totality of what happened, I think it is clear that she was not consenting and that is actions were, in many ways, deplorable. Where that leaves everyone under the current rape statutes, I guess I don't know.
You must have forgot what it's like to be a teenager, a little rape is just kids being kids.
The is dangerously close to the "she was asking for it" defense. I know that's not what you meant but it's what I thought of while reading it.
Also, this thread has turned into a shining example of why most sexual assaults go unreported.
The other problem that arises in this, is that if alcohol can override clear verbal consent in sexual encounters, where else can it override clear verbal consent?
As Clonefan32 states, these alcohol/consent clauses don't let people know where they stand under the law and where the line between "legal" and "illegal" is. On top of this, what if both parties are drunk? That is often the case in these situations. Do you charge both parties with rape?
It seems that there is plenty of evidence in the case at hand to show a lack of consent, and we didn't need that alcohol clause to do so.
As someone who has worked with victims, I have to say it seems like about 99% of rapes go unreported and this story and these reactions just confirm why. One poor woman didn't report hers and then an acquaintance was raped so violently by the same guy and his friends that she nearly bled to death. The first woman who didn't report then had the guilt of not reporting to deal with.
I agreed with what you said until the last paragraph. It borders on the 'she deserved it defense'.
About consent while intoxicated (speaking about adults) ... The law isn't clear and can put people in difficult situations that were never intended, didn't occur, or did happen. There is a lot more trust going on for any sexual encounter when alcohol is involved, past using protection. It can be down right scary... and different types of scary for either party.
You're a lawyer right? I'm pretty sure that any contract signed while one of the parties is intoxicated is on shaky legal ground because of this very idea.
I’m not a doctor but I think normal consensual sex doesn’t involve bruising, vaginal tears, and other marks on the body. These were found during a doctor examination just hours after the incident so right there you have a pretty solid evidence, I would think.......
