Quote:
Originally Posted by valo403
Her being a minor has nothing to do with her ability to consent in this context, this isn't a contract case where being under 18 makes any consent invalid. I don't see any reason the judge would even consider shooting that argument down, I actually don't see how he could do so unless it's a bench trial.
The issue with meeting the burden on the whole intoxication thing is that a party like this is lacking for credible witnesses who can testify as to the condition of the aprties involved. There will probably be people that claim she was absolutely smashed, but of course so were they. There will probably be people who say she was fully aware and lucid, even if that isn't true. It gets into pretty muddy waters when you have a bunch of drunk people serving as witnesses, meeting a burden in that situation is tough. Hopefully there was someone who was sober and witnessed what happened.
This is somewhat unrelated, but incidents like this always make me shake my head at the 21 drinking age in the US. Of course parties will always happen, and bars aren't always safer, but forcing young people to drink in secret just opens the door to situations like this due to the lack of any type of authority/control. I don't want to derail the thread, this just reminds me of some of the dangers I saw at parties in US college towns.
|
I would hazard a guess that the judge will consider the victims age as a relevant factor in her ability to give informed consent to 7 adult men while under the influence of booze or anything else, essentially any half decent crown will argue her age and inexperiance with alcohol will make for a much lower threshhold of intoxication.
That and the peasents with the burning torches and pitchforks outside the court!!