MN Football Team Sexual Assault Case
Not good.
Regardless of how this all started, it sounds like it ended in rape or something very much like it. I'm not exactly sure how this sounded like a good idea to anyone, but apparently preferences vary along this dimension. The left has turned 'consent' into a mantra, and pushed loony, cartoonish ideas about it--but it goes without saying that, properly understood, it's of the utmost importance. And you'd think that people would realize that, in a goddamn idiotic situation like this, you'd better be certain that you've secured it in no uncertain terms and beyond any shadow of a goddamned doubt.
posted by Winston Smith at
8:42 AM
9 Comments:
Pharyngula has had a couple of good posts on this (right, I know!?!). Even agreeing with the police that prosecuting the team members would result in the woman being crucified in court...but the university stepping in for these disgusting excuses for humanity. Perhaps not punishing them enough, reasonable people can disagree on that, but punishing them.
And, I think, the law is clear. A person cannot give consent if they are under threat, or are drunk, or both. And those who are drunk are still guilty of the crime (alcohol is involved in numerous crimes, and is rarely/never accepted as an excuse).
Haha yeah, "Pharyngula has...good posts..." is not something I'd predict to see around here.
I did write the post above in anger this morning, and I do think there is a case to be made on the other side. E.g.: (a) the woman, if sufficiently sober, does have an obligation to say something unambiguous--'no,' 'stop', 'i'm outta here'...whatever. (Despite this being denied by the contemporary madness.) And (b) it's difficult to wash all of our prudery out of our judgments. Some people--men and women--like this sorta thing, and that's none of our business.
Still...I don't think those things are going to make a difference in this case.
I barely even read the woman's account. I went straight to the players' account...and that was damning enough.
I disagree with the statement that you are incapable of consent when drunk. I do agree that you are incapable when incapacitated--that's an oxymoron, after all. But 'drunk' is very much a spectrum. Sure there's a grey area in the middle. But blacked out is way, way past that.
And yeah, the players condemned themselves. The cops did a terrible job.
Hmm...right, PM. You *can* definitely give consent when drunk--we do it all the time...but Aa seems to be saying that you can't *in the relevant legal sense.* That has the ring of truth about it, but IANAL, of course.
The current legal terminology (that I'm aware of based on presentation after presentation), is that a person who has been drinking cannot, legally, give consent.
Yeah, that's what I figured.
Legally...but not really.
I mean...legally speaking, then, everyone in U.S. has committed rape...yes?
I do not know the answer to your question.
I wonder how that works if you plan to get wasted and then do it.
Like, can you legally give consent to an act which will take place during a time when you are legally incapable of giving consent?
My guess: no. So, by that rationale, you can intend to be raped, which would seem like a logical impossibility.
A quick web search shows it's only illegal if someone is 'too drunk to consent'. Like I said: a grey area. They don't call it 'liquid courage' for nothing.
Note 'too drunk to consent' is not the same as 'too drunk to have impaired judgment.' That would almost certainly be unenforceable. How could you possibly know? Neither is 'kegakky too drunk to drive'. That's ridiculously strict, and again, how could you know?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home