What is Wrong with People

[polak]

Oh I agree that if she can't make an informed decision then it is rape, but just cause she might have been drunk, doesn't mean she can't make a normal decision and that she should be excused of granting consent. Kinda odd how the victim can claim being drunk as an excuse but the defendants can't use it for a plea of some sort assuming they were equally as drunk as one another... but thats a different discussion all together.

They need to find out from a witness what really went down that night and I agree, that will be tough two years after the fact.

When did she claim rape though?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by polak

I don't think thats true. At what point is she "too drunk?"

At age 15.

[polak]

Originally Posted by transplant99

At age 15.

I made out with a girl and got to second base when I was 15. She was 15 as well and although it was obviously consensual, we were drunk. Am I a rapist? Or better yet... was I raped?

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by valo403

Again, advocate for reform.

Btw, you are massively misrepresenting the facts here. I'm not sure what source you're looking at, but according to RAINN (Rape Abuse & Incest National Network) "[i]f there is a prosecution, there is a 58% chance of a felony conviction" and "[i]f there is a felony conviction, there is a 69% chance the convict will spend time in jail." Let's at least stick to being honest.

Source: http://www.rainn.org/get-information...ishing-rapists

Okay, I'll use the stats from your link. 94% of rapists go free.

You skipped right over (or ignored since it doesn't help your case) that almost half of reported cases never lead to an arrest. Of the half that do lead to an arrest, 20% of those charges are dropped before prosecution. ONLY THEN does your 58% come I to play. And ONLY THEN does your 69% come into play. So by the stats on the site YOU provided, of reported rapes, only 16% of the time does the offender ever see jail.

The biggest gulf is unreported rape. Bug the second biggest is where the police and prosecutors don't have enough evidence to make an arrest. Which is what happened in this case.

Letting the courts "do their job" means a lot of rapists going unpunished. Which you seem okay with, but I am just as appalled by those stats as I am with the idea of punishing innocent people. Like I said, I'm not happy with either option.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by polak

Oh I agree that if she can't make an informed decision then it is rape, but just cause she might have been drunk, doesn't mean she can't make a normal decision and that she should be excused of granting consent. Kinda odd how the victim can claim being drunk as an excuse but the defendants can't use it for a plea of some sort assuming they were equally as drunk as one another... but thats a different discussion all together.

They need to find out from a witness what really went down that night and I agree, that will be tough two years after the fact.

When did she claim rape though?

Except that the girl or the victim is possibly in no place to resist and is at the mercy of the person imposing his or her will.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by polak

I made out with a girl and got to second base when I was 15. She was 15 as well and we were drunk. Am I a rapist? Or better yet... was I raped?

did she tell you to stop and did you?

Or to you did no mean push it a little harder?

[polak]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Except that the girl or the victim is possibly in no place to resist and is at the mercy of the person imposing his or her will.

Ah but thats the problem with that logic. In this hypothetical situation, there was no resisting remember? She agreed to it. She just happend to be drunk and renegged when she sobered up...

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by polak

I made out with a girl and got to second base when I was 15. She was 15 as well and although it was obviously consensual, we were drunk. Am I a rapist? Or better yet... was I raped?

You're making yourself extremely punchable right now. You're comparing two drunk teenagers where you got to touch some boob with 4 teenagers gang raping a girl who was near blackout drunk. Not even close to the ballpark.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I get the feeling Polak would never get laid without very drunk girls to take advantage of. Certainly get that vibe reading his posts.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by polak

Ah but thats the problem with that logic. In this hypothetical situation, there was no resisting remember? She agreed to it. She just happend to be drunk and renegged when she sobered up...

Was she drunk enough that she couldn't make an informed decision or that she couldn't even answer?

The no means yes defense and the I assumed that she was sober enough defensese went out the window a long time ago.

Is it unfair? It could be, but it certainly takes the decision process out of the hands of one party here.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Reaper

You're making yourself extremely punchable right now. You're comparing two drunk teenagers where you got to touch some boob with 4 teenagers gang raping a girl who was near blackout drunk. Not even close to the ballpark.

I never knew she was black out drunk and I'm assuming the police didn't either or those kids would be locked up by now?

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I get the feeling Polak would never get laid without very drunk girls to take advantage of. Certainly get that vibe reading his posts.

I just got out of a five year relationship so that might very well become the truth in the near future but luckily, I'm not the type to take advantage and I'm definitely not into gang rape.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Okay, I'll use the stats from your link. 94% of rapists go free.

You skipped right over (or ignored since it doesn't help your case) that almost half of reported cases never lead to an arrest. Of the half that do lead to an arrest, 20% of those charges are dropped before prosecution. ONLY THEN does your 58% come I to play. And ONLY THEN does your 69% come into play. So by the stats on the site YOU provided, of reported rapes, only 16% of the time does the offender ever see jail.

The biggest gulf is unreported rape. Bug the second biggest is where the police and prosecutors don't have enough evidence to make an arrest. Which is what happened in this case.

Letting the courts "do their job" means a lot of rapists going unpunished. Which you seem okay with, but I am just as appalled by those stats as I am with the idea of punishing innocent people. Like I said, I'm not happy with either option.

I didn't skip over anything, I addressed you using 100% false statistics, either because you didn't know the actual ones or as a means to skew the facts in order to support your position.

You said:

"Of the cases that are reported only 7% get a conviction" That is false.

Misrepresenting stats does a fine job of poisoning the conversation and preventing meaningful reform.

And I'm not okay with anything, that you insinuate that is disgraceful. I'm a heavy advocate of movements to change the way that sex crimes are addressed by the police and the courts. What I will not advocate for is a lowering of the threshold upon which we judge guilt or innocence. That is not justice.

And again, there are more than 2 options. I'm not sure why you've become fixated on this as a one or the other scenario.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by Reaper

You're making yourself extremely punchable right now. You're comparing two drunk teenagers where you got to touch some boob with 4 teenagers gang raping a girl who was near blackout drunk. Not even close to the ballpark.

To be fair (and I see where both sides are coming from), he's implying that we have a situation where all parties are drunk and underage. There might have been consent (not informed on anyones part). He's arguing how are the boys more liable if they're drunk too and everyone has "consented" and isnt being forced. Obviously we don't know the answer but Im sure its been set through case law already, Id be interested to see the ruling.

For the record, how do we know she was blackout drunk anyways? (not that it impacts it either way).

[valo403]

Originally Posted by polak

Ah but thats the problem with that logic. In this hypothetical situation, there was no resisting remember? She agreed to it. She just happend to be drunk and renegged when she sobered up...

Consent by someone who does not have the capacity to consent is not consent.

[polak]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Was she drunk enough that she couldn't make an informed decision or that she couldn't even answer?

The no means yes defense and the I assumed that she was sober enough defensese went out the window a long time ago.

Is it unfair? It could be, but it certainly takes the decision process out of the hands of one party here.

Obviously not (I might have actually been though lol when I was 15 it took me two beers to start feeling stupid... now it takes at least 3).

My whole argument is at what point do we say that she was unable to make the informed decision to agree to it? If she is coherent, normal, not "fall over drunk" is it okay?

Definitely a touchy and very iffy subject

[valo403]

Originally Posted by polak

Obviously not (I might have actually been though lol when I was 15 it took me two beers to start feeling stupid... now it takes at least 3).

My whole argument is at what point do we say that she was unable to make the informed decision to agree to it? If she is coherent, normal, not "fall over drunk" is it okay?

Definitely a touchy and very iffy subject

It's a factual matter. You seem to want a black and white answer to a question that quite obviously does not have one.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Ducay

To be fair (and I see where both sides are coming from), he's implying that we have a situation where all parties are drunk and underage. There might have been consent (not informed on anyones part). He's arguing how are the boys more liable if they're drunk too and everyone has "consented" and isnt being forced. Obviously we don't know the answer but Im sure its been set through case law already, Id be interested to see the ruling.

For the record, how do we know she was blackout drunk anyways? (not that it impacts it either way).

Thank you. This is exactly what I meant in my original post before I had to get on the defensive (which is understandable and expected, given the subject matter)

Originally Posted by valo403

It's a factual matter. You seem to want a black and white answer to a question that quite obviously does not have one.

Agreed.

Which goes right back to my point of letting the courts decide and sticking to Innocent until Proven Guilty.

[CaptainCrunch]

There's no black and white on this anymore as Valo said. The bottom line is that there is a responsibility to be sure on either side but especially the person making the so called move.

Yes doesn't mean yes anymore, no certianly means back the hell off.

Are you sure comes into play now.

It all depends on what comes from any investigation if your implicated.

[polak]

Originally Posted by fotze

I think girls who consentually do things like this should be getting high fives, not shame.

You need to appreciate how difficult it is to not bring your mom into my reply to this post.

[CaptainCrunch]

Yeah, the Fotze mom posts have run their course. His dad though is totally open season.