Links
-
Blogs, in vague order of updatedness/niceness
- Funny Lonely Life
- Something about a future God...
- Dave's Blog
- Penny Arcade
- Bash
- Questionable Content
- XKCD
Other links
Archives
- June 2003
- July 2003
- August 2003
- September 2003
- October 2003
- November 2003
- December 2003
- January 2004
- February 2004
- March 2004
- April 2004
- May 2004
- June 2004
- July 2004
- August 2004
- September 2004
- October 2004
- November 2004
- December 2004
- January 2005
- February 2005
- March 2005
- April 2005
- June 2005
- July 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
- October 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- February 2007
- June 2007
- March 2008
It's only semi autobiographical
Friday, March 17, 2006
Drunken consent, a reply.
We can agree on the start of your argument, in the 3rd paragraph, the practice of getting someone drunk to lower their resistances is indeed immoral. But I would say that if someone gets themselves drunk deliberately, no other person may be blamed for this state of affairs.
Next, we discuss how to assess drunkenness. You affirm that these laws should apply to strangers in particular, since relationships blur the lines. Now, different people have vastly different capacities for consuming alcohol. If you do not know a person, you have no way of knowing if they are extroverted normally, and quite sober, or an incredibly shy shrinking violet, pissed off their head. To within reason of course, I do have two particular people in mind when writing this.
Next, my point was not so much that one would have to be very cautious, but that one would not be able to have sex at all. The truth of the matter is, no matter the level of sobriety of a girl, (I am sorry for using the sexes this way around, but in general this is the case) she could at any point decide that she had not wanted to have sex, and claim she was so drunk she could not have given consent. I argue here from practicality, there would be no way to uphold the kind of ruling proposed here.
I also would not say that one should "expect" to wake up in a strange bed. I for example, nearly always return home when very drunk. If I did have a tendency to wake up in a strange bed, I would not drink that much. I do have a tendency to throw up if I drink too much. So I drink, but not enough to make me ill. I have a tendency to miss lectures if I go out and drink the night before, so I try not to. Gin makes me alternately sick and violent, so I never drink gin.
As Kieran states, I made the point that if one gets drunk, one must take responsibility for ones actions, and I stand by this claim. The next point has a qualifier: "...If you agree that drunken consent is not really consent..." and the next point is a tautology. However, this just amounts to "If you agree with me... then you agree with me."
My argument is that if you take responsibility for your drunken actions, you must take responsibility for what you agree to. Kieran here states "Yes, you take responsibility for any crimes you might commit, but not crimes committed to you." and on his blog itself I riposte with the fact that sex is not a crime in itself. The reply that this statement comes from the assertion that drunken consent is not consent if fair enough, but that means that this statement has no bearing on the argument, and is no reply to the assertion that one must take responsibility for your actions.
Now in summary: I argue this; Responsibility must be taken for ones actions. If one gets drunk, one at that point takes responsibility for actions they may take when drunk. Otherwise, we have the case that Loz pointed out, where one can avoid responsibility for rape, by getting drunk.
It seems the counter argument has but one point. If you get drunk, you do not have to take responsibility for what you say and do. All the other points rest on this assertion, and this, I believe is a fallacy.
On a side note, the report here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4780992.stm was the start point for this debate. And I, personally, think that the judge mentioned at the end of the article, hit the nail on the head. If I may describe a hypothetical situation, which to some degree addresses Kieran's points in paragraph 7 of his post.
Judge: So at this point, you say the defendant stole your wallet?
Accuser: Yes. I know I had my wallet at 10pm, when I bought my 10th DVR, and then I don't remember much, but she walked me home, and then we kissed for a bit, and she got in a taxi and left, then my wallet was gone!
Judge: Wait, you don't remember much?
Accuser: Well... no, not from 10 till about 3AM.
Judge: So you could have, in fact, dropped your wallet or lost it before then.
Accuser: I don't remember.
Judge: (Throws case out of court)
And I would argue that this is equivalent to the situation in the news article.
One last point, which I may address more fully in a later post.
"Amnesty International UK said the campaign was a "step forward" but that it must form part of a wider plan to tackle low conviction rates and "a sexist blame culture"."
I agree with this quote, but not in the way I expect it was intended. I do think there is a "sexist blame culture" but not just around rape in particular. But I will not go into that. The bit I do not agree with is their arguments stemming from "low conviction rates" perhaps... just perhaps... there are low conviction rates, because most people are not guilty?
And again... I run out of time. I hope I have made myself clear. It boils down to responsibility, if you have a clear counter-argument, from either practicality or morality, I would like to hear it.
Comments:
Hmm, an interesting arument- I don't have time to argue properly with it right now, but I will ask a question- do you think drunken consent is consent? I'm not talking about whether one should take responsibility, I am saying if someone is already very drunk, whether you would consider that consent is real consent?
Also, I don't think this prohibits sex. Obviously, as I say, the woman in question would need evidence to prove that she was drunk, as with all legal cases, witnesses, etc- the burden of proof, as I stated, is on the accusor always, as in only just in a court of law.
Also, I don't think this prohibits sex. Obviously, as I say, the woman in question would need evidence to prove that she was drunk, as with all legal cases, witnesses, etc- the burden of proof, as I stated, is on the accusor always, as in only just in a court of law.
If a clear statement of consent is made, then yes, I do believe it is consent regardless. Few contracts specify that someone must be sober, and a verbal contract such as this especially so. Note that I would not say this is Morally the case, but legally it has to be.
But Mr K, even if one is cleared of rape, it can ruin ones life. If I were accused publically, and there were any sort of trial or publicity, do you think I would ever work in teaching?
Post a Comment
But Mr K, even if one is cleared of rape, it can ruin ones life. If I were accused publically, and there were any sort of trial or publicity, do you think I would ever work in teaching?
