"She had vomit dribbling down her face"

[Headache in a Suitcase]

it's also a very small school as opposed to one of the most prestigious universities in the nation.

you can not be serious about your criticism of finnerty, seligman and evans. i feel sorry for you if you do. the new DA of raleigh-durham, north carolina didn't just throw out the case... he didn't just declare them not guilty... he declared them "100% innocent." it's proven fact that finnerty, who's name you mentioned, wasn't even at the party when the alleged attack took place. so, yea... no.

as for this situation, people shouldn't make a rush to judgement without knowing the other evidence that was taken into effect when the decision not to prosecute was made. what that evidence possibly could be? i have no frigin idea...

one question i have... not neccesarily in this situation, since there were numerous males there... but if someone is incapable of consenting to sex if intoxicated, what then if the other person, too, is intoxicated to a point where they can not make valid decisions on their own? if two drunk people both consent, which legally they can not do, who's ultimately at fault? if anyone?

 

[CTU2fan]

as for this situation, people shouldn't make a rush to judgement without knowing the other evidence that was taken into effect when the decision not to prosecute was made. what that evidence possibly could be? i have no frigin idea...

Headache that's pretty much what I was getting at. If rushing to judgement was wrong in Durham, then it's wrong here.

one question i have... not neccesarily in this situation, since there were numerous males there... but if someone is incapable of consenting to sex if intoxicated, what then if the other person, too, is intoxicated to a point where they can not make valid decisions on their own? if two drunk people both consent, which legally they can not do, who's ultimately at fault? if anyone?

That's a question I've wondered about myself. I was actually going to go into this long-winded story but suffice it to say, I stepped in to a situation where a girl was pretty well passed out drunk and the guy (a casual buddy of mine in college), also drunk but not quite as much, was planning to score. He was bombed; I don't think he felt like he was "taking advantage" of her...he was just drunk with a drunk girl, and thinking he was gonna get lucky. The next day he actually told me he was glad I'd cut him off, that he really didn't realize the situation was what it was. So if something had happened, is he a rapist?

How is sex between 2 underage minors handled legally? I suppose it varies by state, but that's the only comparison I can think of...I'm not sure you can legally or ethically make a "more drunk/less drunk" distinction.

 

[Irvine511]

one question i have... not neccesarily in this situation, since there were numerous males there... but if someone is incapable of consenting to sex if intoxicated, what then if the other person, too, is intoxicated to a point where they can not make valid decisions on their own? if two drunk people both consent, which legally they can not do, who's ultimately at fault? if anyone?

i went to college in Massachusetts and was something akin to a resident advisor, so i have a little bit of training in this area. if memory serves, if someone has had even one drink, they are unable to legally consent to sex. and since the man is in possession of the "weapon" one uses in rape, then it is the woman who must be able to give legal consent, not the man. so if both are equally drunk, she did not legally consent to the act, and since the man is in posession of the weapon, it could be an act of rape.

at least that's what i remember. things may have changed over the past 6-7 years or so.

 

[anitram]

one question i have... not neccesarily in this situation, since there were numerous males there... but if someone is incapable of consenting to sex if intoxicated, what then if the other person, too, is intoxicated to a point where they can not make valid decisions on their own? if two drunk people both consent, which legally they can not do, who's ultimately at fault? if anyone?

I don't know the law in the US. But in Canada, it doesn't matter if you're intoxicated. That does not give you free reign to go raping women. The only question is extreme intoxication - but here we are talking about complete blacking out. Even so, our Criminal Code does not allow an extreme intoxication defence in cases of crimes which resulted in serious bodily harm - so you couldn't get away with sexual assault. There is some question about whether this is constitutional but it has not yet been discounted.

I don't believe it is sound policy to allow intoxication to be a defence.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I don't believe it is sound policy to allow intoxication to be a defence.

No it's not-if you're going to use that as a defense for rape, why not murder too or any number of crimes?

 

[Bono's shades]

No it's not-if you're going to use that as a defense for rape, why not murder too or any number of crimes?

What gets me about this case is there were eyewitnesses who apparently are willing to testify, but the DA still won't prosecute!

I can't help but wonder if the DA isn't prosecuting because of all the heat the prosecutor in the Duke case got. I was afraid that was exactly what would happen - that DAs would be even more reluctant to prosecute rape cases than they already are.

 

[martha]

We really do not know the entire story.

 

[financeguy]

i went to college in Massachusetts and was something akin to a resident advisor, so i have a little bit of training in this area. if memory serves, if someone has had even one drink, they are unable to legally consent to sex. and since the man is in possession of the "weapon" one uses in rape, then it is the woman who must be able to give legal consent, not the man. so if both are equally drunk, she did not legally consent to the act, and since the man is in posession of the weapon, it could be an act of rape.

at least that's what i remember. things may have changed over the past 6-7 years or so.

That policy must have been written by Andrea Dworkin, or some other man-hating feminist bigot.

 

[Irvine511]

That policy must have been written by Andrea Dworkin, or some other man-hating feminist bigot.

i'm sure the law was based in emotion, not reality. but i can't say much beyond that.

most people -- men and women -- thought it was absurd, and not least that it infantalized women.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

i'm in no way trying to use intoxication as an excuse for rape...

but if a male and female go out to a bar, both have drinks, both are drunk but not to the point of passing out, both consent to having sex, then legally the guy committed rape... which is complete and utter bullshit.