The disappearing middle class

I think your argument looks good on paper, but it fails when applied to real life. Drunken drivers maim and kill people, and society has an interest in keeping them off the roads. It always could be argued that the drinker had the responsibility to make transportation arrangements for himself in advance of becoming intoxicated. It's not like people get drunk by accident, or as a result of the beer fairy tapping them on the shoulder with her magic wand! No; they get drunk because they choose to keep ordering another round. The crucial point, as far as decision-making is concerned, happens long before the drunk gets behind the wheel; rather, it comes when the drinker, still sober enough to exercise proper judgment, makes the decision to "have another one" without making any provisions for his transportation later in the evening.

I'm with ya on this one. We need to do a better job on the front end with sentencing. If someone truly has been rehabilitated, parole is an option (in absence of a mandatory life sentence). It's a Catch-22 ... we shouldn't be holding people beyond the end of their sentences ... but I can see how it's difficult for law enforcement to release someone who, for instance, brags about how he plans to rape and kill again.

I think these laws are a holdover from an earlier time when society held much more chivalrous notions about the need to protect the purity of young women. We have lots of laws like this. Heck, the welfare system (and Social Security in part) were instituted at a time when the majority of women didn't work outside the home and weren't capable of supporting a family in the absence of a male breadwinner. It's rather ludicrous that married mothers with children are working today and paying taxes to support single mothers so that they can stay home with their children! The way people live has changed, but the laws haven't kept up with those changes.

That said, I suspect most prosecutors would be reluctant to take on the case described above wherein the sex truly was consensual, albeit intoxicated. Presumably the female witness would be unwilling to cooperate; how then does one build a case, and to what purpose? Prosecutors don't take on every case that crosses their desks, you know.

__________________
"I love all of this mud," said no one, ever.

You know, there is a solution to this argument that befits the times.

Rapists are habitual. They don't change and they never do it once unless caught the first time.

Rape should be a capital crime. Execute them and you'll have far less of the fuzzy area sex. And this is a new world. I don't know any woman who would put a man in jail because she has regrets for boinking him. It's just not that important and her life isn't ruined by having sex. She's free to do that to a whole football team if she wants. If she wants. If she's passed out on a fraternity room floor then she's not making that choice. If she's been rufied she's not making that choice. It's seems pretty darn simple.

Rape and force can have genetic components too. An urge for power over another that they simply can't get away from and is wired into them. That is why we shouldn't force anyone to bring the children of rape into this world.

__________________
Christy
Growing Human
http://growinghuman.blogspot.com

When wearing narrow lenses of hate and ignorance, is it any wonder one finds it difficult to see clearly? - Me

It fails in real life due to the fact that is is not PC to hold a woman responsible for her actions because women are to be looked at as victims of men. Look at how even you reacted to my post. You accused me of not liking women. Yet when I brought up the same exact legal problem concerning abortion you readily agreed there was a problem with a double standard.

Again you have no problem with saying will a drunk driver did this or should have done that to avoid driving drunk. Can not EVERY thing you said about the drunk driver's action not apply to a woman who gets drunk and the next morning discovers she can't remember which man nor even how many men she had sex with last night?

Let me make one thing clear, I think any one who gets in a car and drives should not be charged with DUI, he should be charged with attempted murder/homicide. Just as if he, or she, got drunk and started shooting randomly in public. I think a drunk driver kills someone that driver should face the death penalty.


Yes its difficult but you can't have "thought police" putting people away because the police "think" the guy might commit another crime. No matter how heinous the crime.

But we are reaching that point. You can now be locked away forever, think about that very carefully FOREVER, just because the police THINK you MIGHT commit another crime.

If the police "think" they know the reason you committed a crime they can lock you away for longer, AKA hate crime. I have told people if they ever need to beat someone up to make sure the entire time they are beating the person they need to be shouting "I love you!" to make sure they can't be charged with a hate crime.


Its because its not PC to talk about making people take responsibility for their actions. I know because I get slammed all the time for talking about it. I get called a Nazi, a right wing nut, a woman hater, a racist. All the while if you go back and read my post the only thing I am is someone who thinks people should be held responsible for their own actions and the government should not be supporting people's bad decisions. There is a MAJOR difference in a woman who has been staying at home caring for the kids whose husband dies therefore she needs help and a woman who goes out and has kids w/o ever marrying any of the father.


Two words for you to ponder: Duke Lacrosse.

__________________
Remember, when seconds count. . .
the police are just MINUTES away!

Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. . .Davy Crockett

Which is not representative of the scenario suggested earlier, that a man might be prosecuted for having sex with a willing woman who happened to be drunk. (How would such an encounter even come to the attention of the authorities?) In the Duke rape case, the purported victim claimed to have been raped.

__________________
"I love all of this mud," said no one, ever.

Maybe his check bounced

Hey Jim, how do you make a hormone?:1pig: I love being a cheerleader on certain posts.

__________________
So in the morning, please don't say ya love me.
Cause you know I'll only kick you out the door.

Bounce the check

Lol

__________________
"I love all of this mud," said no one, ever.

That was a reference to your statement of "I suspect most prosecutors would be reluctant to take on the case described above wherein the sex truly was consensual, albeit intoxicated." That case was "taken on" by a prosecutor who was looking more at the political aspects than the legal ones. Look at the damage done to the men in that case.

__________________
Remember, when seconds count. . .
the police are just MINUTES away!

Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. . .Davy Crockett

I didn't think they would take a check. Didn't that cause a few problems for Jerry Springer?

You are comparing apples to oranges. This wasn't a case that was being prosecuted despite the sex being consensual; it was a case in which the alleged victim claimed to have been raped.

__________________
"I love all of this mud," said no one, ever.

I wasn't comparing anything. I was giving an example of how you never know what kind of case a prosecutor will pursue and how some of them will pursue a case, evidence be danged.

__________________
Remember, when seconds count. . .
the police are just MINUTES away!

Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. . .Davy Crockett

No, your original contention was that a man could be prosecuted for having sex with a willing woman simply because she was intoxicated.

My contention was that if the sex was consensual, how would it even come to the attention of the authorities? Who would file the complaint?

You then cited the Duke rape case, but that was not a case of consensual sex -- the woman in the case claimed to have been raped.

But perhaps there is some case law out there in which a third party stumbled upon a drunken couple having sex and sought to have the man prosecuted. I dunno! Doubt it happens often, though.

__________________
"I love all of this mud," said no one, ever.

Yea when her husband catches her

[your words underlined, mine in bold]

Originally Posted by willow_girl
That said, I suspect most prosecutors would be reluctant to take on the case described above wherein the sex truly was consensual, albeit intoxicated. Presumably the female witness would be unwilling to cooperate; how then does one build a case, and to what purpose? Prosecutors don't take on every case that crosses their desks, you know.

Two words for you to ponder: Duke Lacrosse.

You were talking about how "most prosecutors would be reluctant" to "take on" such a case. The Duke case is an example where a prosecutor took on a bad case and kept after it even when the evidence showed it was a bad case. Could you not see a prosecutor taking on a case like we are talking about? Especially if there were special circumstances such as race or if one of the people were famous or the child of someone famous?


If a 14 y.o. girl has consensual sex with a 41 y.o. it is rape because in the eyes of the law a 14 y.o. girl does not have the mental ability to give consent. The same thing applies here in the eyes of the law, a drunk woman does not have the mental ability to consent due to the effects of alcohol.


Even if there had NEVER been a case the fact that the law can hold a person legally labial for their actions (driving) and not legally labial for their actions (having sex) in the same circumstances (while drunk) is the problem.

__________________
Remember, when seconds count. . .
the police are just MINUTES away!

Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. . .Davy Crockett

You're introducing a new element into the mix, and the underage factor does indeed change everything.

Again I would say the laws protecting women (and even underage girls) are a relic of an time wherein female virtue was viewed as requiring protection.

I highly doubt there have been many cases in which a man has been prosecuted for rape for having consensual sex with an ADULT woman. I would challenge you to find one.

__________________
"I love all of this mud," said no one, ever.

No I'm not you are just getting hung up on the details. Read for the general. In each case the law view each female as unable to legally give consent to have sex therefore having sex with either females would be RAPE in a court of law. That is the point and the only point; the element and the only element.


UGHHH!!!!! That's not the point and doesn't matter one itoa. The point is the law non-sensable. It says a woman can be held responsable and unresponsable at the same time. Think about it. If a woman was drunk and having sex while driving down the road (just go with it) and a cop stopped her and arrested both of them. In the court room the jury would have to be told that the woman should be held responsible for consenting to driving drunk but that very same woman at the very same time could not be held responsible for consenting to have sex because she was drunk. How is that possible?!?!

If I were a woman and had been arrested for DUI in a state with a 'drunk rape' law I would try to have my conviction tossed based on the fact the government, via the state congress, has ruled that a woman can not be held legally responsible for her actions if she was intoxicated at the time of said action. A person can not be responsible and not responsible at the same time, the court has to pick on or the other.

__________________
Remember, when seconds count. . .
the police are just MINUTES away!

Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. . .Davy Crockett

That would be an interesting case alright!

However, I don't think society is asking too much when it expects people who go out drinking to arrange alternative transportation. The drunk behind the wheel was at an earlier stage a sober person who made a conscious decision to go on drinking, knowing that if he persisted, he would become intoxicated. Nobody gets drunk by accident!

As far as the laws that protect underage girls -- note that they apply to boys as well. Quite frequently we hear of a 'Mrs. Robinson' type who is prosecuted for her cougarish ways. Again, I don't think it's a bad idea for society to attempt to shield young people from older predators or even to discourage them from having sex with their underage peers.

__________________
"I love all of this mud," said no one, ever.