Quote:
Originally Posted by TorqueDog
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 people can be both culpable and not culpable under the influence depending on what exactly the activity is? |
I think the difference is being manipulated by external forces while under the influence versus your own decision to drive while intoxicated. Actions between two drunk people though, I don’t know how that would go.