Re:How Likely Is Someone Accused of Assault by Multiple Peop...
by peterwwillis on Tuesday December 23, 2014 @08:39PM
(#8791151)
I have not and do not defend anyone for their actions, whatever they are, consensual or not. I am responding to a flawed statistical model. You're free to judge whomever you want, though, including people who respond to flawed statistical models. You're also free to essentially accuse me of defending quasi-rapists just because I find a statistical model flawed. It's a free country, after all.
"Can't consent" is different than "lack of consent", which is different than "consenting", etc. Consent is a highly varied and complex subject. There's explicit consent, implicit consent, informed consent, implied consent, non-consent, consent agreement violation, consensual non-consent, re-established consent, etc etc. Legally speaking (Note that I am not a lawyer) in America, there's very few laws that determine what is consensual or not. Usually it has to be determined by a jury when it goes to trial. It's because of this that, legally speaking, having alcohol does not alone remove the ability to consent in all cases.
Non-legally-speaking, I think you missed my original point. Nowhere in my commentary, nor in the study, does it say that anyone was actually intoxicated past the point of being able to consent. It merely says that within the legal framework someone could have been held liable for non-consensual sex. All this requires is that the person was intoxicated (about .08 BAC, or 1 beer, in the US).
If you feel like condemning people for this, so be it. All i'm saying is a study that generalizes based on guidelines like this is flawed, amongst other things.
"Can't consent" is different than "lack of consent", which is different than "consenting", etc. Consent is a highly varied and complex subject. There's explicit consent, implicit consent, informed consent, implied consent, non-consent, consent agreement violation, consensual non-consent, re-established consent, etc etc. Legally speaking (Note that I am not a lawyer) in America, there's very few laws that determine what is consensual or not. Usually it has to be determined by a jury when it goes to trial. It's because of this that, legally speaking, having alcohol does not alone remove the ability to consent in all cases.
Non-legally-speaking, I think you missed my original point. Nowhere in my commentary, nor in the study, does it say that anyone was actually intoxicated past the point of being able to consent. It merely says that within the legal framework someone could have been held liable for non-consensual sex. All this requires is that the person was intoxicated (about .08 BAC, or 1 beer, in the US).
If you feel like condemning people for this, so be it. All i'm saying is a study that generalizes based on guidelines like this is flawed, amongst other things.