Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Soundness of Mind and Alcohol Related Crimes

Harper
Posts: 374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 6:32:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Criminal responsibility is determined by soundness of mind. People who are not sound of mind are not criminally responsible for their actions. That's the reason why the "insanity defense" has legally worked. When you are intoxicated, you are not sound of mind-- that's the very definition of being intoxicated. So why do we hold drunk rapists and drivers against their own actions, but we consider drunk women who have sex drunk inherently innocent because "they aren't sound of mind"? Either we hold all people responsible for their choice to drink or not. You can't say that one group people cannot be held responsible for their decisions based on the fact that they were intoxicated, but then hold that other intoxicated groups of people are somehow responsible for their decisions.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 7:37:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 7:06:05 PM, Maikuru wrote:
Khaos?

Not me, LOL
You know, I saw this posted at 4 minutes old, and I thought about saying it wasn't me.
I see we still think alike.

But to this question, I do have an answer, and I am curious if anyone else knows the reason (assuming my reason is correct legal theory).
My work here is, finally, done.
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 7:41:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 6:32:40 PM, Harper wrote:
Criminal responsibility is determined by soundness of mind. People who are not sound of mind are not criminally responsible for their actions. That's the reason why the "insanity defense" has legally worked. When you are intoxicated, you are not sound of mind-- that's the very definition of being intoxicated. So why do we hold drunk rapists and drivers against their own actions, but we consider drunk women who have sex drunk inherently innocent because "they aren't sound of mind"? Either we hold all people responsible for their choice to drink or not. You can't say that one group people cannot be held responsible for their decisions based on the fact that they were intoxicated, but then hold that other intoxicated groups of people are somehow responsible for their decisions.

Isn't it because the rapists and drivers are breaking the law? It seems to me that if a drunk woman has sex with a sober man, she isn't breaking any laws. So they are inherently innocent in a legal sense because they have committed no crime. now if you're asking why people don't hold her accountable for sleeping around, or cheating or whatever, then yes that's a valid question. Those aren't crimes, so she is legally innocent but I'd argue that yes, she should be held morally culpable for the sex. Unless she was raped.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 7:47:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 7:41:48 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 4/14/2015 6:32:40 PM, Harper wrote:
Criminal responsibility is determined by soundness of mind. People who are not sound of mind are not criminally responsible for their actions. That's the reason why the "insanity defense" has legally worked. When you are intoxicated, you are not sound of mind-- that's the very definition of being intoxicated. So why do we hold drunk rapists and drivers against their own actions, but we consider drunk women who have sex drunk inherently innocent because "they aren't sound of mind"? Either we hold all people responsible for their choice to drink or not. You can't say that one group people cannot be held responsible for their decisions based on the fact that they were intoxicated, but then hold that other intoxicated groups of people are somehow responsible for their decisions.

Isn't it because the rapists and drivers are breaking the law? It seems to me that if a drunk woman has sex with a sober man, she isn't breaking any laws. So they are inherently innocent in a legal sense because they have committed no crime. now if you're asking why people don't hold her accountable for sleeping around, or cheating or whatever, then yes that's a valid question. Those aren't crimes, so she is legally innocent but I'd argue that yes, she should be held morally culpable for the sex. Unless she was raped.

He's saying that intoxication inhibits culpability (i.e. consent) is some cases but not others. It is, in fact, illegal for a sober man to have "consensual" sex with a clearly intoxicated woman, just like it is illegal for this woman to enter into any other contract.

Think of a will: "being of sound mind and disposing memory and not acting under duress or undue influence, and fully understanding the nature and extent of all my property and of this disposition thereof, do hereby make, publish, and declare this document to be my Last Will and Testament, and do hereby revoke any and all other wills and codicils heretofore made by me."
My work here is, finally, done.
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 7:55:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 7:47:59 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/14/2015 7:41:48 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 4/14/2015 6:32:40 PM, Harper wrote:
Criminal responsibility is determined by soundness of mind. People who are not sound of mind are not criminally responsible for their actions. That's the reason why the "insanity defense" has legally worked. When you are intoxicated, you are not sound of mind-- that's the very definition of being intoxicated. So why do we hold drunk rapists and drivers against their own actions, but we consider drunk women who have sex drunk inherently innocent because "they aren't sound of mind"? Either we hold all people responsible for their choice to drink or not. You can't say that one group people cannot be held responsible for their decisions based on the fact that they were intoxicated, but then hold that other intoxicated groups of people are somehow responsible for their decisions.

Isn't it because the rapists and drivers are breaking the law? It seems to me that if a drunk woman has sex with a sober man, she isn't breaking any laws. So they are inherently innocent in a legal sense because they have committed no crime. now if you're asking why people don't hold her accountable for sleeping around, or cheating or whatever, then yes that's a valid question. Those aren't crimes, so she is legally innocent but I'd argue that yes, she should be held morally culpable for the sex. Unless she was raped.

He's saying that intoxication inhibits culpability (i.e. consent) is some cases but not others. It is, in fact, illegal for a sober man to have "consensual" sex with a clearly intoxicated woman, just like it is illegal for this woman to enter into any other contract.

Think of a will: "being of sound mind and disposing memory and not acting under duress or undue influence, and fully understanding the nature and extent of all my property and of this disposition thereof, do hereby make, publish, and declare this document to be my Last Will and Testament, and do hereby revoke any and all other wills and codicils heretofore made by me."

Right, but i argue that it actually shouldn't be considered rape unless the woman is drunk enough to not be able to move or speak. That's when she is not consenting. If she is drunk but agrees to sex, that isnt rape because she willingly drank and accepted sex. If someone drinks a ton and passes out, and their friend carries them into a car and straps them into the drivers seat, tapes their foot to the gas pedal, and turns on the car, I would argue that person shouldn't be guilty of drunk driving
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 8:10:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 7:55:47 PM, ford_prefect wrote:

Right, but i argue that it actually shouldn't be considered rape unless the woman is drunk enough to not be able to move or speak. That's when she is not consenting. If she is drunk but agrees to sex, that isnt rape because she willingly drank and accepted sex. If someone drinks a ton and passes out, and their friend carries them into a car and straps them into the drivers seat, tapes their foot to the gas pedal, and turns on the car, I would argue that person shouldn't be guilty of drunk driving

They clearly would not be.
There is a difference between getting drunk and having sex (time/place/motive difference) and getting drunk to have sex, right? If they are unrelated, then one cannot consent, and without consent, it is rape.
If not, where do you draw the line? Is it rape if the girl passes out after consenting? Or if she would have consented anyway (e.g. spouse), but was passed out?

Now, I do not believe that a man who is drunk should be guilty of rape of a "consenting" drunk woman. as they are both drunk, and they both raped each other, but that is difficult to prove, to my knowledge.
My work here is, finally, done.
Harper
Posts: 374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2015 9:22:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/14/2015 7:41:48 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 4/14/2015 6:32:40 PM, Harper wrote:
Criminal responsibility is determined by soundness of mind. People who are not sound of mind are not criminally responsible for their actions. That's the reason why the "insanity defense" has legally worked. When you are intoxicated, you are not sound of mind-- that's the very definition of being intoxicated. So why do we hold drunk rapists and drivers against their own actions, but we consider drunk women who have sex drunk inherently innocent because "they aren't sound of mind"? Either we hold all people responsible for their choice to drink or not. You can't say that one group people cannot be held responsible for their decisions based on the fact that they were intoxicated, but then hold that other intoxicated groups of people are somehow responsible for their decisions.

Isn't it because the rapists and drivers are breaking the law?
But as I've established, people who are not sound of mind (like some killers) are not held responsible under the defense that they were not sound of mind.

It seems to me that if a drunk woman has sex with a sober man, she isn't breaking any laws.
If the other party isn't drunk and sound of mind, then he/she can be held responsible under the law. What I don't understand is how a drunk rapist is considered responsible enough for their actions to be tried in court, but a drunk girl initiating sexual activity is apparently not responsible for anything she did to the point that she's automatically considered innocent, regardless of her own sexual advances.
So they are inherently innocent in a legal sense because they have committed no crime. now if you're asking why people don't hold her accountable for sleeping around, or cheating or whatever, then yes that's a valid question. Those aren't crimes, so she is legally innocent but I'd argue that yes, she should be held morally culpable for the sex. Unless she was raped.
I'm sorry, I don't think I was clear enough about what I meant. I'm not saying a girl initiating sexual activity is a crime, but that it seems silly to say that a girl can never consent to sex (even if she advances herself, because apparently she is not responsible for her words or actions) while drunk under the defense that she is not sound of mind, and then say that a drunk driver should be considered responsible for their actions so much so that they could be put in jail for it. My issue is the apparent double standard in the personal responsibility of certain people under the influence.