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.

He deserves 5 years inside for having a name like Ched.

We don't have it, but the judge saw enough to make the conviction. That isn't to say he/she is infallible but they are coming from a position of much greater experience and knowledge to make that call.

Lagos wrote:

Burnwinter wrote:

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.

but that's the thing, where's the proof it was rape? it's he says she says, she's too drunk too even remember what happened

and it's not a double standard, things happen to both sexes when we get drunk, it just manifests itself differently because we are different.

Rape means there was no consent. The fact that she was too drunk to remember does not negate that. She was deemed to be incapable of consenting given her intoxication level. So it's not the samy thing as "he says, she says" at all. The fact that, as someone else has pointed out, it's not like he was out at a party and drunk as well (which would be bad enough), he actually drove there to have sex with her knowing she was in that position. That makes it particularly despicable. Which is why most people in this thread agree with the outcome, at least generally.

There won't be an appeal by my reckoning.

Nah, that question makes no sense. The crime is taking advantage of someone's vulnerability, not having sex.

I don't understand your point or the relevance of her approaching him. Can you explain it again.

Rape is rape. Men, women, children; all the same.

she could have, but she didn't, that's why there was a judge involved in the first place. That's a nonsense.

As I already said:

"She is afforded the protection that she is by the society that she is a part of; her drinking too much is neither here nor there. The man in question took advantage of her vulnerability in the given instance and that was the crime."

• Her responsibility is to not get fucked up.
• Ched's responsibility is to not rape somebody or, if you want to dilute it, have non-consensual sex with an individual or take advantage of a vulnerable member of society.
• Nobody is blaming Ched for her getting drunk.

It's very hard to have a strong opinion when we dont have all the facts of the case at hand. Certainly my gut reaction is similar to Lagos, but then that might be because I'm a man.

At the end of the day though, he's been found guilty by jury and it's notoriously hard to get a convictions in these cases, so I'm pretty sure the evidence against him would have been overwhelming.

Actually, fuck it; I can't be arsed.

You sign a contract; it's consensual. It's written in the contract. If you prove that you signed it under duress or certain circumstance, it is annulled.

And fucksake, stop editing after the fact.

I already told you what is what; you read it, you ignored it. Sound.

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.

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.