Quote:
Originally Posted by afc wimbledon
So your idea of a defence against a sexual assault allegation is random testimony to some web site that the victim was really really high, essentially unable to consent to the sexual act?
|
If I understand what dissentowner's intending here, he is suggesting that ERW is not the victim but the ... aggressor?
The above actually got me thinking about culpability under the influence. Let me preface this by saying I am not specifically weighing in on the ERW situation; I am not, but I find the legal aspect of the 'under the influence, can't consent' thing interesting in how the law in this country appears to be of two minds about it.
On one hand, driving under the influence is considered being reckless and you can be charged, and being
too drunk to know that what you were doing -- driving drunk -- was wrong is not a defense. On the other, in 2020 an
Ontario court ruling allowed people accused of sexual assault or other crimes to argue they were so intoxicated they didn't know what they were doing.
This inconsistency is really perplexing, and knowing we have a few lawyers on the forum, is there anyone who can ELI5 how we've decided that people can be both culpable and not culpable under the influence depending on what exactly the activity is?