<p>In the case of the NZ video, the guy is clearly sober. I don’t think that’s the situation he’s talking about. </p>
<p>BTW, SSRIs do not alter state of mind in any way that compromises the ability to make decisions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is like saying we need guilty until proven innocent legal standards because the defense lawyer for the Boston Marathon bomber tried to make a case to free his client (as he is obligated to under the law, and as is the provision for any civil country, that all accused, however blatantly guilty, still get the services of a lawyer, whose job is to find any and every legal loophole to free his client).</p>
<p>I can only sigh when people make decisions based on emotions. The Vanderbilt case will very likely end up in conviction under the CURRENT criminal laws. But so what? Some lawyer said something to defend his client, so let’s bring on Yes means Yes and criminalize vast swathes of behavior that is not criminal in any shape or form under current criminal laws.</p>
<p>This is why the court of public opinion is such BS.</p>
<p>New numbers.</p>
<p><a href=“Rape and Sexual Assault Among College-age Females, 1995-2013 | Bureau of Justice Statistics”>Home | Bureau of Justice Statistics;
<p>Expanding on my post, if you are going to propose a policy, then you have to say where the line is exactly where legality becomes illegality.</p>
<p>For instance, when does “enthusiastic” consent become “somewhat enthusiastic” consent or “tepid” consent (whatever is the next shade down from enthusiastic)?</p>
<p>HarvestMoon1, great link.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is usually left to the judicial system to craft those “lines” of distinction. That is what case law does and people often overlook the power of “precedence”. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Who knows? I am not a doctor. It is better for me and anyone else who can get screwed over a rape case under the new Yes means Yes laws to just play it safe. That’s the basic premise of Draconian Laws. Scare the living daylights out of the populace so that they voluntarily change their behavior by extreme degrees. Remember what Vaclav Havel wrote in the Power of the Powerless? That’s how the Soviet System worked. No one knew exactly how much trouble they would get into for breaking some unexplained provision of some vague law, so everyone acted complaint and snitched on each other. That’s the way to control the population.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>SWDYDH,
I did not advise my S about Yes means Yes, because he does not attend a CA public university. I only advised him about drunk sex. </p>
<p>I advocate enthusiastic consent to be safe. But tepid consent is consent. Grudging consent is consent. In the state of California, it’s legal sex if the accused person got any kind of consent, and it’s illegal if the accused person got no affirmative consent at all.</p>
<p>The dividing line is the line between something and nothing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I didn’t see the NZ video. But I simply revert to my simple standard, whatever is good for the criminal courts is good for me. You tell me, will someone having sex with the woman in the NZ video get away with rape under the current US criminal system? If yes, then it’s not rape in the first place, regardless of what you believe or I believe. It’s really that simple.</p>
<p>I do agree, CAlum. And that Tepid consent is gray. Look, we’re not talking about when the next am or 3 months later or 3 decades later, one looks back and says, “Wow those were great days, I sure had a lot of fun.” Or, “Wow I was drunk, but it was great.” We’re talking about when the perception is different. That alone puts us in another place.</p>
<p>I understood SoWhat to be saying that it’s rape if the victim is unconscious, or if the victim says No, and not otherwise.</p>
<p>As someone (Consolation or JHS, I think) says, rape doesn’t require a mens rea under any existing rape law. So it doesn’t matter whether the alleged attacker is drunk or sober**, only what the alleged attacker did. If you rape someone because you’re too drunk to know what you’re doing, that’s rape. </p>
<p>**Absent some evidence that the alleged attacker was drugged against their will, but we’re not talking about that here.</p>
<p>ahl"Changing campus culture through education rather than punishment just seems a more positive way to go and much more effective in the long run."</p>
<p>That is definitely true, but we have to be able to deal with the sexual predators and serial rapists on campus. Education and shifting the zeitgeist/cultural beliefs will work for the majority, but there also needs to be a clear enforcement plan to deal with the predatory rapists. You will not change their view unless they realize that if they rape someone, the woman will come forward and they will be caught and convicted.</p>
<p>CF (2376) - I’d agree the woman in the New Zealand rape education video is too drunk to consent. I don’t find the Dubowski chart very useful because I can’t easily map it into my experience. Perhaps I’d draw the line somewhere at the upper levels of their Excitement stage or at the lower level of their Confusion stage. My concern is that people at the dividing line experience both Excitement and Confusion symptoms but one stage dominates their outward reaction, like the difference between a “loud drunk” and a “quiet drunk”. Someone’s judgment may still be impaired even if they seem to be having a great time.</p>
<p>I think <a href=“Enough alcohol to call it rape? - Yale Daily News”>http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2014/11/07/after-uwc-complaint-two-students-wait/</a> does a great job of highlighting the real world problems with these cases. To me, I’d say she more likely than not gave consent but not because I can assess her level of intoxication. I base this primarily on the text messages that were sent, the fact that they had sex again in the morning presumably after the alcohol had been metabolized, and the fact that she didn’t think she was raped until talking to her friends. The fact that they had been regular lovers in the recent past also mattered to me. Perhaps the investigator had more data.</p>
<p>Yale made the same determination but the girl was clearly very upset at the outcome. I worry that these proceedings actually have damaged her mental health further. I have no idea how colleges can reliably assess these cases one year after the event. I was actually surprised how much agreement there was on the objective facts of the case – I guess either Yale students are very honest or there was a lot of electronic documentation. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If we’re talking about what the law should be, we can’t decide based on what the law is. Is the NZ video rape, or is it not? Should the guy’s actions be criminalized, or should they not be?</p>
<p>What the NZ guy does is rape based on the current laws in the state of California. Some states require the victim to be completely unconscious. In those states, I guess it would not be rape. Some states require that the victim be “incapacitated.” In those states, it would be a gray area and the jury would have to decide whether the NZ woman was incapacitated.</p>
<p>Let 's get rid of the lower hanging fruit. </p>
<p>Is there a reason why a school can 't keep track of complaints? If there are patterns, we can throw the guy out. Or the woman if she is a serial liar.</p>
<p>The Columbia case with the mattress… There were complaints from 3 different women. Why wasn 't this allowed as evidence? The guy talked about a public video? Why wasn’t the video shown as evidence?</p>
<p>Why can’t we emulate what happened to Al Capone? Why can’t we throw students out of the school for lying to the police? Lying under testimony? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So there you have your answer. In some cases, it’s not rape. In some other cases, the jury will have to decide. In no current cases is it automatically rape.</p>
<p>I already told you what I think the law should be, you just didn’t like it so you are asking me over and over. That won’t change my answer. And the current criminal law system is well there with me, as case law shows.</p>
<p>"My first time getting drunk was inadvertent because I did not realize how strong it was, but right then I became a fan of bar mitzvahs. "</p>
<p>God, there is just no limit to some people’s crassness. I get 13 yo kids at a bar mitzvah trying to get a sip of some unsuspecting adult’s drink, but getting actually drunk? Well, money doesn’t buy class, that’s for sure.</p>
<p>“I don’t think it will be easy to verify, unless they know “Drew’s” name, which is unclear to me from media reports whether a real person with a real name who attended UVA exists. Supposedly, Jackie is not cooperating with law enforcement.”</p>
<p>Jackie said the name of the person to the UVA folks. Can’t UVA cooperate with law enforcement to find out what names were on credit cards used that night at the Boars Head and cross-check it against their student list? I don’t know the legality of this all. I guess what I’m asking is … why does that require Jackie’s assent?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure, but note the specific term, “under certain circumstances.” </p>
<p>You are correct though that my statement was written too generally to prove my point. Should have been more narrow because I am talking about the situations where those certain circumstances do not exist in the law, in any law.</p>
<p>My example was not meant to include those “certain circumstances.” My overall point is if people do not agree with a law, they will effectively nullify it by not following it. It does not matter what the law is and what exceptions that are in it, people will ignore it. </p>
<p>And this why so many women have drunk sex and to the disdain of advocates they do not call it or report it as rape. Those women realize that both she and the male were VOLUNTARILY off their rocker and NO ONE knew what they were doing. 90%+ of women would not call that rape irrespective of what advocates and the law want them to call it. </p>
<p>Essentially, such women have nullified the law that drunk women cannot consent, because these women, oh no, want true equality. They realize if the male is also too drunk to consent then it is demeaning to say that her drunked-ness is somehow different than the male. These women are smart to figure both people were unable to consent, so either both raped or no one raped. </p>
<p>Kind of like gun laws where I live - it is illegal to have a handgun except and there are 9 or 10 exceptions. However, it not the exceptions, which people ignore, its the entire law really. Many have guns that do not meet the exceptions. The police know it, but they are not crazy enough to think that they can safely round people up and just take their guns. Why? because the police also live in the neighborhoods that they would have round up in. Even the police are not that dumb. </p>