Can drunk people consent to sex?

[TheGoverness]

Yes, I would. Being incapacitated, mentally or physically, precludes you from knowingly and willingly entering into such actions.

So by that logic, should intoxicated drivers not be charged with any crime because they are drunk, and therefore did not 'willingly' enter into their actions?

 

[CanadaJohn]

So by that logic, should intoxicated drivers not be charged with any crime because they are drunk, and therefore did not 'willingly' enter into their actions?

All people are responsible for their own actions. The initial action, driving to wherever the person in your scenario chose to drive to get drunk, was the initial consent to potentially commit the crime of driving under the influence, or worse. If they allow themselves to become intoxicated and then break the law, then they are guilty.

That is far different from a person being taken advantage of while under the influence. So no, not by my logic are the two similar.

 

[TheGoverness]

All people are responsible for their own actions. The initial action, driving to wherever the person in your scenario chose to drive to get drunk, was the initial consent to potentially commit the crime of driving under the influence, or worse. If they allow themselves to become intoxicated and then break the law, then they are guilty.

That is far different from a person being taken advantage of while under the influence. So no, not by my logic are the two similar.

But that applies to the same people who get drunk before they have sex, right? If a woman/man gets drunk on their own accord, then they are fully responsible for the actions that they commit while being intoxicated.

 

[CanadaJohn]

But that applies to the same people who get drunk before they have sex, right? If a woman/man gets drunk on their own accord, then they are fully responsible for the actions that they commit while being intoxicated.

No, I disagree. If a person decides to drink, having sex is not a natural consequence of drinking to excess. At least not where I come from.

Driving to a bar with the intent of getting drunk sets up the logical conclusion of driving home drunk.

If you don't see the difference, I can't help you.

 

[lenski7]

If you get drunk it is your own fault, if you did it voluntarily, now someone injecting alcohol into you veins however, or forcing it down your throat is different. Now let's say you went out, and got wasted on purpose. You intoxicated yourself, so you go out, and kill someone while you are inebriated, you are now charged with manslaughter, it wasn't intentional (at least to sober you I hope) but it was still your fault. The same thing applies to sexual intercourse, if someone takes advantage of you because of the state you put yourself in, you have consented by allowing them to take advantage of you.

However if you are blacked out drunk you cannot give consent, because you are unable to do anything much really.

Also if you want to get wasted, it's probably best to do it at home, or around people you actually trust

 

[TheGoverness]

No, I disagree. If a person decides to drink, having sex is not a natural consequence of drinking to excess. At least not where I come from.

Driving to a bar with the intent of getting drunk sets up the logical conclusion of driving home drunk.

If you don't see the difference, I can't help you.

Well where I come from, a lot of people who do tend to get drunk end up engaging in sexual activities thereafter. At least where I'm from.

 

[Dragonfly]

Besides, how desperate do you have to be that sex with a drunk person is a viable option?

Is that a serious question??? :roll:

In case you've forgotten, sex can be tons-o-fun. Being drunk doesn't have to change that.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Well where I come from, a lot of people who do tend to get drunk end up engaging in sexual activities thereafter. At least where I'm from.

Glad I don't live there. STD's rampant in your neighbourhood??

 

[CanadaJohn]

Is that a serious question??? :roll:

In case you've forgotten, sex can be tons-o-fun. Being drunk doesn't have to change that.

Depends on your definition of drunk.

Rocking a corpse isn't my idea of "tons-o-fun", but hey, I'm old.

 

[SDET]

For a western woman: regret = rape.

 

[americanwoman]

For a western woman: regret = rape.

Speak for yourself.

 

[CanadaJohn]

For a western woman: regret = rape.

For an eastern woman: rape=day at the market ride on the bus

 

[Quag]

2 drunk people have sex, who would be at fault?

 

[lenski7]

2 drunk people have sex, who would be at fault?

The alcohol manufacturer, blame them for all the drunk crime, and drunk self-rapes /s

 

[Skeptic Bob]

So by that logic, should intoxicated drivers not be charged with any crime because they are drunk, and therefore did not 'willingly' enter into their actions?

People keep making the drunk driving analogy and it is a bad one. We punish drunk driving as a deterrent for people not to drive if they are going to drink. If you are going to go out drinking then you should form a transportation plan while you are sober and lucid. The threat of an arrest helps motivate people to do that.

People making the drunk driving analogy are saying that rape should be the punishment for going out and getting drunk. If you forget to lock your car door then getting your car stolen is the punishment you deserve. IF you use the ATM at night then getting beaten over the head and robbed is just your punishment.

There is a difference in punishing someone for breaking the law and taking advantage of someone in a vulnerable position.

 

[disneydude]

It absolutely depends. It depends on the level of drunk that a person is. If you've had a few too many, absolutely you can consent to sex. It you are so drunk that you cannot stand up and are practically passed out, then the consent is vitiated.

 

[disneydude]

2 drunk people have sex, who would be at fault?

You have to look at the circumstances and factor that into it. Obviously if one person is passed out drunk and the other is sober....there is a level of criminality that is different than if both are extremely drunk. Its all about taking advantage of the opportunity and what one's mental state is at the time.

 

[Quag]

You have to look at the circumstances and factor that into it. Obviously if one person is passed out drunk and the other is sober....there is a level of criminality that is different than if both are extremely drunk. Its all about taking advantage of the opportunity and what one's mental state is at the time.

I agree, which is why I previously said I never slept with someone visibly drunker than myself. However It is pretty darn hard to prove without other witnesses/video etc that person A was passed out at the time of having sex or that person B was relatively sober when compared to person A when they had sex.
Gets messy trying to figure it all out.

 

[X Factor]

People keep making the drunk driving analogy and it is a bad one. We punish drunk driving as a deterrent for people not to drive if they are going to drink. If you are going to go out drinking then you should form a transportation plan while you are sober and lucid. The threat of an arrest helps motivate people to do that.

People making the drunk driving analogy are saying that rape should be the punishment for going out and getting drunk. If you forget to lock your car door then getting your car stolen is the punishment you deserve. IF you use the ATM at night then getting beaten over the head and robbed is just your punishment.

There is a difference in punishing someone for breaking the law and taking advantage of someone in a vulnerable position.

Pretty much nobody is advocating that rape is a reasonable punishment for a woman who gets drunk and has sex (I hope). There is no issue to discuss if she is drunk and still says "no" and he forces it anyway. That's rape. The only thing to discuss is if she (or he) communicates consent, yet she or he is also intoxicated, is that rape?

The point of bringing up DWI is to point out that people are still held legally responsible for actions taken while drunk and to suggest that is similarly reasonable for folks to bear the responsibility of their voluntary actions, even if done while intoxicated.

 

[disneydude]

I agree, which is why I previously said I never slept with someone visibly drunker than myself. However It is pretty darn hard to prove without other witnesses/video etc that person A was passed out at the time of having sex or that person B was relatively sober when compared to person A when they had sex.
Gets messy trying to figure it all out.

Absolutely. I represented a client a few years back charged with rape. The woman claimed that she met him in a bar and got really drunk, ended up going to a hotel with him. He got up the next morning and went to work. She checked out of the hotel, went home...and didn't call the police until the next day. She claims that she wasn't going to report it but her friends "convinced" her that she was "raped" because she was too drunk. We went to trial and the jury found him NG. Talking to the jurors afterwards, they were really swayed by the fact that she didn't immediately report the "rape". They also found it difficult to determine her state of mind. One other thing that was helpful to me was that the hotel clerk testified that while she was clearly intoxicated, she was not passed out or sloppily falling down drunk. The jurors felt that she knew what she was doing and therefore consented to the sex....and had regrets afterwards.

 

[Phys251]

Not sure about everyone, but I sure can !

Is that what your username is referencing? You realize I'm asking about two people being engaged in the act right? :2razz:

Freaking. Love. This. Scene. And what followed after that.

 

[Mr Person]

It depends how drunk.

Legal instructions usually put it in terms of being "incapable" of giving consent. This has traditionally been interpreted as being physically incapable due to extreme intoxication, unconsciousness, etc. As in being really sloppy, but still relatively capable of moving about and talking is not too intoxicated to consent. Instead, the alleged victim needs to be intoxicated to the point where they are becoming physically or verbally incoherent (or worse), such that they are not capable of saying "no" or indicating a lack of consent with physical movements.

Of course, a lot is up in the air at trials. It's a he/said she said, and you're basically hoping someone else can testify to the parties' conditions near to the time of the alleged rape. Otherwise, you might get a victim claiming to have been drunk to the point of being incoherent (perhaps because they blacked out and cannot actually remember) but the defendant claiming they were both drunk and a little sloppy, but still capable of communication.

But some professors in certain programs at various schools are trying to convince students that this actually means "drunk enough that the individual made a decision they wouldn't made sober," which is not the law, is stupid, and is dangerous.

 

[radcen]

People keep making the drunk driving analogy and it is a bad one. We punish drunk driving as a deterrent for people not to drive if they are going to drink. If you are going to go out drinking then you should form a transportation plan while you are sober and lucid. The threat of an arrest helps motivate people to do that.

People making the drunk driving analogy are saying that rape should be the punishment for going out and getting drunk. If you forget to lock your car door then getting your car stolen is the punishment you deserve. IF you use the ATM at night then getting beaten over the head and robbed is just your punishment.

There is a difference in punishing someone for breaking the law and taking advantage of someone in a vulnerable position.

No, it's not. Nobody "deserves" to be thefted or beaten in a situation like that. By saying so you are absolving the criminal who stole or beat.

All it means is the likelihood increases of something like that happening, but to say they 'deserve' it, or that it is 'just', is patently absurd.

 

[molten_dragon]

Up to a certain point, sure. The problem is that I don't think there's a clear cutoff as to when consent becomes invalid.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Look at it this way, you are legally capable if you get behind the wheel drunk, if you commit a murder, if you damage something, if you buy something, if you sign a contract.

The only time it is held that a person is not legally capable is as part of a rape allegation when giving consent while drunk.

Something doesn't seem right about that.