[HeartsOfFire]

Originally Posted by rubecube

You can't have proper functioning society without a justice system.

Agreed.

Sometimes this justice system will make errors. The alternative is much worse.

When the justice system lets a criminal off the hook, it is a single error. Those affected get no justice.

When the justice system wrongly imprisons an innocent person for the crime of another, that is two, possibly three errors.
Error 1: The real criminal is off the hook
Error 2: An innocent person is condemned to serve the criminal's sentence
Error 3: If it is determined in the future that the wrong person was convicted, the original victim of the crime has lost all previous closure.

Therefore, I disagree. A criminal walking without punishment is far more favourable than an innocent party serving their time in lieu. And dare I say, if the actual criminal cannot be brought to justice, that is not the failure of the justice system, but a failure of the Crown for not being able to conclusively associate the accused with the crime committed.

Additionally, another article from the Vancouver Sun today.

This particular passage struck me:

Some commenters charged that the girl was a voluntary participant, an allegation that did not sit well with Kristen Gilbert, a regional education consultant and certified sexual health teacher at Options for Sexual Health.

“When I talk in classrooms, young people are shocked — 100 per cent of the time — when I tell them that, by law, people can’t consent to sex when they’re under the influence of drugs and alcohol,” Gilbert said.

“What people need to know is that, later on, someone can genuinely say, ‘It might have looked like I was consenting, but I was drunk or high, so I couldn’t.’ ”

So what I want to know -- and wasn't addressed in the article, but was addressed earlier by a previous poster -- is what happens when all parties involved are under the influence? Do the guys accused of rape get off the hook because they couldn't have possibly known what they were doing if it can be proven they were taking drugs? I highly doubt the system would look on it that way. Now we risk a double standard, wherein a woman cannot consent to sex if under the influence, but a man still can.

The parties involved were at a rave. Despite what rave organizers insist upon, there will be drugs at raves. If I were investigating, I would be very curious as to who was on what.

Like Regorium said, the presence of a sedative in the girl's system would definitely corroborate the accusation of rape. If not, then things get very, very hairy.

If no trace of a sedative can be found, what drugs was she on?

-If she was on one, or a number of drugs, she may have been conscious and aware, but completely loopy.

-If she was on one, or a number of drugs and completely loopy and therefore unable to legally consent, what were the accused on?

-If the accused were individually on one or a number of drugs, then they too are legally unable to consent.

-If any of the accused were drug-free, then yes, technically it's rape.

If she was not on drugs at all, was she forced into intercourse?

-If she was forced, then it's rape no matter what the others were on.

-If she was not forced, then this was not rape. She got in way over her head, has irrevocably destroyed her own individual character, and is now trying to save face by destroying everyone else that was involved.

Except there's also the difference between initiating sex and consenting to it. I believe the current standards would say no matter how intoxicated (whether by alcohol or drugs) an individual is, they are always aware enough of their actions to initiate sex. Or maybe not, according to afc wimbledon.

So again I ask: What if both the woman and man involved are intoxicated? Is the possibility of rape now thrown out the window because no one technically knew what the heck was going on? Conversely if this girl and the accused men involved were all on drugs/alcohol, did a rape occur?

The only way that I would answer yes to the above question is if one of the drugs the girl was on was a sedative.