Lagos wrote:

typical Capi in cul-de-sac reponse mode

Yep, it's class. Well done.

FEBravo wrote:

The crime is not "taking advantage of someone". The crime is rape, which happened because you took advantage of someone, i.e., having sex with someone who is not capable of consenting. That's it. It really isn't that difficult.

What you seem to be having an issue with, is whether the woman should be given that protection, or to put it differently, whether the fact that she got drunk - and for which you are assigning some moral blame to her (rightly or wrongly, that's not the point) - negates her right to not be assumed to be consenting. That's the policy underlying the law, which states that consent cannot be implied in such cases. You can agree or disagree with that underlying rationale, but not with its application which seems straightforward with the limited facts provided. I tend to agree with it, and maybe you don't. That's fine, but let's make sure we're talking about the right issue here.

How would you categorise a sexual assault whereby the victim has lost the ability to consent? Or rather, how would you label it?

Captain wrote:

FEBravo wrote:

The crime is not "taking advantage of someone". The crime is rape, which happened because you took advantage of someone, i.e., having sex with someone who is not capable of consenting. That's it. It really isn't that difficult.

What you seem to be having an issue with, is whether the woman should be given that protection, or to put it differently, whether the fact that she got drunk - and for which you are assigning some moral blame to her (rightly or wrongly, that's not the point) - negates her right to not be assumed to be consenting. That's the policy underlying the law, which states that consent cannot be implied in such cases. You can agree or disagree with that underlying rationale, but not with its application which seems straightforward with the limited facts provided. I tend to agree with it, and maybe you don't. That's fine, but let's make sure we're talking about the right issue here.

How would you categorise a sexual assault whereby the victim has lost the ability to consent? Or rather, how would you label it?

Just to be clear, I was actually responding to Lagos's earlier question, not to your post. But to answer your question, the crime still is sexual assualt, because there is a lack of consent. The rationale behind it is obviously linked to protecting the vulnerable from being taken advantage of.

Sorry, I should have been clearer. Would you liken it to statutory rape (the label, not the legal term as that is american) or would you call it something else? Keep in mind that she was clearly conscious at the time based upon the little info that we know.

I'm just asking to clarify something for myself.

I'm writing at a million miles per hour and doing quite a few things at once so I apologise (sincerely) for not being clearer.

What you have to understand, Lagos, is that a man can't concentrate on the forum and his facebook at the same time.

Burnwinter wrote:

Lagos wrote:

What about a woman taking responsibility for her liquor intake and the consequences of such?

Well, it's a massive double standard isn't it?

As a man you generally don't prepare - all jokes aside - for the possibility that you'll get raped or get into a bad situation with a sexual predator when you get legless. And you don't take precautions as a result.

In an equal society a woman shouldn't have to either, and shouldn't have to take the blame when she's assaulted or raped.

Oh yes I do take precautions. One of my worse nightmares (figure of speech because i don't have those) is some man raping me. I'd rather get a quick death shot to the head than have my asshole violated. I'm never so drunk that I don't have my wits about me. When it comes to drinking I'm a square anyway, I can't recall ever being pissy drunk. I need to be fully functional so that I can pull out -- not my dick -- but my gun (concealed weapon permit for the win).

And rape is a serious crime that should be punished accordingly, so giving a guy 5 years (w/ the possibility of getting out in 2) for rape means it wasn't really rape rape and now they are creating all sorts of classifications for rape (oh that's serious rape, medium serious and not so serious ... WTF). In college most guys are getting some because girls are drinking and they were drinking. If she wouldn't have banged somebody if she was sober does that means she was taken advantage of? What if I wake up and my beer goggles was extra fucked up and I don't like the chick I see next to me, did she take advantage of my drunkenness?

Lagos wrote:

FEBravo wrote:

The crime is not "taking advantage of someone". The crime is rape, which happened because you took advantage of someone, i.e., having sex with someone who is not capable of consenting. That's it. It really isn't that difficult.

What you seem to be having an issue with, is whether the woman should be given that protection, or to put it differently, whether the fact that she got drunk - and for which you are assigning some moral blame to her (rightly or wrongly, that's not the point) - negates her right to not be assumed to be consenting. That's the policy underlying the law, which states that consent cannot be implied in such cases. You can agree or disagree with that underlying rationale, but not with its application which seems straightforward with the limited facts provided. I tend to agree with it, and maybe you don't. That's fine, but let's make sure we're talking about the right issue here.

That's almost exactly where I stand with the exception that I didn't actually realize that it is explicitly stated under law that consent cannot be given under intoxication. The problem is Capi didn't explain the law the way you did or wasn't as articulate instead was talking about taking advantage of vulnerability being the crime which didn't make any sense.

Oh also For the record I am not saying in any way that it negates her right to not be assumed to be consenting, I just feel people shouldn't drink to the point where they don't know what they are doing and they need to take some responsibility for their own safety.

For your information, this is from a 2007 Court of Appeals case:

"If, through drink (or for any other reason) the complainant has temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have intercourse on the relevant occasion, she is not consenting, and subject to questions about the defendant's state of mind, if intercourse takes place, this would be rape"

The 'she' is only relevant to that particular case as the claimant is female.

The question of both parties being drunk is more or less unanswerable as every case will be judged individually. You have to keep in mind that there is a claimant and a defendant; should the defendant also be considered to be 'not of sound mind', it throws up alot of questions which will then be addressed throughout the proceedings. It takes a significant amount of investigation before a case like this even reaches court, so one would assume that any such vagaries were addressed well in advance.

As a sidenote and in a very general sense, the man, as the person who penetrates, will be considered a consenting party by the mere nature of the act.

I've been thinking about why the first guy wouldn't have been convicted and I can't come to any conclusion. Could it be because they felt that, in agreeing to go to the hotel with him, she provided consent to the best of his knowledge? Don't think that lines up with the rest of the case though.

Quite a strange one, I'm going to have to ask someone about this. Probably a waste of time as we literally have no information.

To be fair coombs, there is a standard 'rape compensation' and, in my opinion, it wouldn't be worth her pursuing that. It's pennies on the scale of things and, as far as I'm aware, she hasn't seeked any further publicity of the event.

Wouldn't necessarily agree this case was high profile either.

It may also be worth noting, with reference to your judge comment, that this was decided by jury.

Captain wrote:

To be fair coombs, there is a standard 'rape compensation' and, in my opinion, it wouldn't be worth her pursuing that. It's pennies on the scale of things and, as far as I'm aware, she hasn't seeked any further publicity of the event.

Wouldn't necessarily agree this case was high profile either.

It may also be worth noting, with reference to your judge comment, that this was decided by jury.

Ah yes, I should have said "courts" rather than judge.

I'd say the case is certainly not low-profile.

I have no doubt that the girl felt violated and I'm sure she wasn't doing it for money. My point was that the possibility exists that she is being rewarded for a stupid decision, and that isn't necessarily right.

Don't think this is the case, just think its possible.

At the end of the day Ched Evans was reportedly pretty sober while she was off her face drunk with traces of cocaine and cannabis in her system. If we're talking 'personal responsibility' what the fuck was he doing having sex with a girl under those circumstances!? Smacks of an attitude whereby he thought he could do whatever he wanted and get away with it.

@[deleted] How can you say that having sex while "being drunk" is the only necessary condition for said intercourse to be legally considered rape. I can consent to sex when I am drunk so she can to. How drunk do these people get for G-d's sake?

Okay, I looked at the timeline of BBC articles and I think this one was particularly important:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-east-wales-17677969

The third party witness, who is in a position of no doubt, has demonstrated that the girl was drunk to the point where she (the receptionist) was genuinely concerned for her (the claimant) safety and that the claimant wasn't in control. What she had to say is also in opposition to this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-east-wales-17731510

where McDonald claims that the girl wasn't particularly inebriated and also that he was unaware of his 'friends' outside.

The claimant remains adamant that she cannot remember what happened throughout the entire ordeal in both the prosecution and defence questioning.

There are links at the bottom of the articles for related stories, so if you want, read through and come to your own conclusions.

One thing we can all be certain of, as Tim just said, Ched is a wrong 'un.

Thanks, Capi. It's a weird case. Guy probably deserves it...but the lack of information/hard evidence provided doesn't help public perception at all. Even stranger that the other fella goes free.