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? |
Could be a lot of things going on here, honestly. I shared an office with a few lawyers who handled a lot of complex assault cases.
If a person has a few drinks and then later regrets having sex, that's not an assault. The other extreme, is if their so drunk they pass out, and can no longer consent, that's a clear assault. There's obviously, grey areas in between.
Criminal law also requires a Mens Rea for the accused. The accused has to know or ought to have known that the person was incapable of making a decision. So, if a person is black out drunk, but would reasonably perceived as acting somewhat normally, then potentially no assault. If you knowledge that, or reasonably out to, that even though the person is acting normally something else may be up, it could still be assault. For example, roofies.
For the accused, being blackout drunk if it's involuntary (Ex an adverse reaction to medication you didn't intend to happen) or for certain specific intent crimes. Murder is a specific intent crime, as it has requires intent towards a specific outcome. Assault is not.
In the current case, it would also depend on the facts. There's a lot of evidence to support EVW's claim that she was coerced into doing drugs and acts she didn't want to do. That's complicated, as it's not really a specific act of assault, necessarily, but an abusive relationship culminating in a loss of free will. This is why you often see these cases proceed from different angles: assault, confinement, etc...
If this random crew member is to be believed, and she did, in fact, rip a bunch of lines and then coerce Manson into a sexual act, that's likely not assault.
Someone with more of a background in crim law might be better off to comment on the implications of this new case. I have a hard time believing that voluntarily getting black out drunk is an accepted defence for non-specific intent crimes in Canada.