(PG- 13) Steubenville, Round IV: NAP vs Personal Repsonsibility

[presence]

THIS IS A DECISIVE LIBERTY ISSUE, and it is quite emotionally charged. Every attempt we have made to discuss it here at RPF has decended into name calling and hurtful statements. I am as guilty as the next, and for that I apologize. Each of our other threads have been placed in HOT TOPICS by moderation on the underlying premise of what is commonly referred to in this movement as "bentonism", for better or worse... that is the policy of this forum; we do not want to turn off christian republican voters by appearing crass and uncultured. FINE and well enough.

It is my position that we should make every attempt to bring the underlying debate of this issue to the public as a forum.

Before you post in this thread please read the following rules of engagement in this OP:

1) THIS thread is a DEBATE under the assumption that JUDGEMENT has not yet been handed down.
2) We will at all times refer to the COMPLAINANT as "THE COMPLAINANT" and NOT the "VICTIM" or ANY of the other decisive and crude terms that have been applied to her in other threads or throughout the twitterverse.
3) We will at all times refer to the DEFENDANTS as "THE DEFENDANTS" and NOT the "RAPIST" or ANY of the other decisive and crude terms that have been applied to them; INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY; in this thread we will operate under the assumption that the hands of time have been turned back; prior to JUDGEMENT.
4) If you are a moderator, I ask, as the Opening Presenter that you immediately DELETE any post in this thread in violation of the Terms and Conditions of the forum or which blatantly turn away our desired voting bloc so that it may remain VISIBLE to the public.
5) If you feel like you need to violate these rules of engagement, please do so in one of the other three thread on this subjects that ARE NOT ACCESSIBLE to the general public; you can find them using your RPF Search Bar, keyword: steubenville.
6) With every statement we make in this thread, bear in mind that the FIRST, primary, most important goal is that this thread remain open to public viewing.
7) Taking pictures of little naked little girls is child porn, a crime in all 50 states. No one argues that. This thread should focus on the issue of RAPE, not the photos taken and distributed.
8) Feel free to cut and paste your thoughts from the other "hot topics" threads on this subject, but please edit them for emotionally charged or forum rules violating verbiage and content; again the goal is to express our beliefs without turning away Christian Republican voters.


I ask that everyone please behave and act as an agent of philosophy for the higher public good.

Much thanks, without further aside I wipe our collective slate clean that we may begin anew;



PG-13


STEUBENVILLE:

NON AGRESSION PRINCIPLE (NAP) VS PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY


For better or worse, after considerable research into the facts of the case, after having changed my personal stance on this issue, as devils advocate, or as a lawyer of the defendants (whichever makes you hate me less) I take the stance that personal responsibility is the underlying issue in this case and that NO AGGRESSION OCCURRED; the defendants are INNOCENT of the charges of RAPE. Most of my position hinges on the testimony of the expert witness, a Clinical Psychologist with a speciality in Alcohol Intoxication named Fromme.


MY OPENING POSITION:

Could it be that she just woke up and thought everything was normal until she saw naked pictures of herself on the internet and heard what happened? She didn't realize what had happened because she was blacked out?

Blacked out is NOT medically or legally equivalent to unconscious. It means your short term memory is not becoming long term memory. It does not imply a loss of agency.

Fromme said the brain essentially shuts down if a person is passed out. However, a person experiencing a blackout from drinking can still function, but will have little or no memory of what they did. She said people have performed surgery or flown a plane while experiencing a blackout.

keywords: fromme steubenville

Even if she actually did like it and did want it what kind of message does that send to everyone? That it's okay to sexually violate someone when they are too inebriated to consent?

There is NO SUCH THING.

Inebriated is consciousness
and consciousness is agency
and agency is free will
and free will is individual liberty
and individual liberty is PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

You are still PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE when you are inebriated.

People should not be acting like this. It makes all women look bad if this is acceptable behavior for women who want sex. I'm 26, I should be able to drink what I want, dress how I want, and talk to whomever I want and not have to worry about someone touching me in a sexual place if I accidentally go over my limit and pass out.

Passing out implies medical unconsciousness. That was not the case in Steubenville.

again, keyword: fromme steubenville

You can drink what you want.
You can dress as you like.
You can talk to whomever you want.

But in a free society, you always have personal responsibility to protect yourself, no matter how inebriated you are.

(just like you have a NAP personal responsibility to not harm others, no matter how inebriated you are)



So long as you are medically and legally conscious...

IT IS YOUR BODY,
given to you by your creator,
and He (she, it, whatever) expects YOU to care for it; ALWAYS.


You are given respite for temporary medical unconsciousness, coma, and death.

NOT inebriation.

Not because you're blacking out your memories.
Not because you're too tired right now.
Not because you're too sick.
Not because you're too weak.
Not just because its more convenient to lay there
and think about how its too difficult to get up or speak up to defend yourself right now.


ALWAYS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY









Its not my fault... I was too drunk to resist when he was sticking his finger in me.

Does not cut it in a free society any moreso than:

Its not my fault... I was too drunk to see those kids on the side of the road I that I just flattened with my Jeep.

"99% of failures come from people who have the habit of making excuses."
-- George Washington Carver.

George Washington Carver, was an American scientist, botanist, educator, and inventor.
The exact day and year of his birth are unknown; he is believed to have been born into slavery in Missouri in January 1864

"the girl was a known liar"

That concludes my opening position. Feel free to engage, but PLEASE lets keep this civil and OPEN TO GOOGLE SEARCHES.

 

[presence]

//reserved

 

[Nirvikalpa]

I challenged your findings on Fromme on the other thread, and you ignored it.

Fromme based her "blacking out" account on the amount of alcohol one of the girl's friend said she had/saw her drink. Fromme admitted the girl could have drank more than what her friend saw.

There was no clinical evidence present, no actual hard evidence for the amount of alcohol in the girl's system.

Fromme also was presented with pictures taken that night, of the girl appearing to be carried by the boys, from place to place, as well as her laying naked on the floor, to which Fromme said she had never seen those pictures before. You haven't seen some of the strongest evidence for the prosecution?

-------------

Can't wait to hear how I am being emotional again

 

[CaptUSA]

ALWAYS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY


Its not my fault... I was too drunk to resist when he was sticking his finger in me.

Does not cut it in a free society any moreso than:

Its not my fault... I was too drunk to see those kids on the side of the road I that I just flattened with my Jeep.

One of these involves you committing an action that aggresses on another individual; one of them involves another individual aggressing on you, but not having the ability to defend yourself. Two different things here. And it displays your misapplication of the NAP. I will cede that she is responsible for giving up her ability to defend herself. That does not make the aggression any less serious.

 

[pp0rker]

There's nothing to debate.

The woman was not capable of giving her informed express consent while intoxicated. By definition, her judgment was impaired. If she had given her consent to sexual activity before getting intoxicated, that would have been different. And even if she had given her consent before getting intoxicated, it would still have been prudent for the men to have some proof of her consent for their own protection.

So you're right about the matter being that of personal responsibility. The men had the responsibility to ensure she had given them her informed express consent. They obviously didn't receive it and that makes them guilty of sexual assault. And this was not a normal sexual encounter but one that they should have known could put them in jeopardy of being accused of sexual violence. At best, they acted with grievous recklessness but based on the known facts they acted with malice.

And committing such an act should land them in prison for a long time.

 

[Christian Liberty]

While I think there is a case to be made in some cases that children are not able to fully consent, to me the same does not apply to an adult who voluntarily chooses to get drunk. If you consent, you consent, whether you remember or not.

On the other hand, just "Not saying no" is not the same as "Saying yes."

I'm really not sure of the details of what happened here. I would say that if in any sense, she actually did consent (Again, that she consented while drunk is not relvant to me) than there's no rape, but if she simply "Didn't say no" but never did actually consent, than its still.... something criminal.

Note that I said "Something criminal." I don't know the details here, but I think "Rape" is overused as a term anyway. "Rape" means "By force" period. If it wasn't forced, its not rape. Again, I don't know the details here, but anytime someone says "Statuitory Rape" it kind of annoys me. I understand that, and why, a 13 year old is considered to not be emotionally mature enough to consent, or whatever, but it still isn't RAPE if she consented to it. To me, "Rape" suggests that it would be justifiable to execute the perpetraitor, or otherwise forever ruin their life. Otherwise, a less strong word should be used. In much the same manner, a drunk driver who gets into an accident and kills somebody is guilty of a crime, but not murder, because he didn't deliberately kill. And while punishing the drunk driver in some way is justifiable, it would be less than a murder charge.

Anyways, I don't know. You can probably figure out my position by what I've posted here combined with knowledge of what actually happened, which I don't have.

 

[jmdrake]

The woman was not capable of giving her informed express consent while intoxicated. By definition, her judgment was impaired. If she had given her consent to sexual activity before getting intoxicated, that would have been different. And even if she had given her consent before getting intoxicated, it would still have been prudent for the men to have some proof of her consent for their own protection.

^This is proof that bad cases make bad law. You seriously think that a woman with a BAC over .08 cannot consent to having sex? Seriously? Because....that's insane. Now I will agree that a woman who's too drunk to walk maybe can't consent. But "intoxicated" is way too broad of a term. Consenting beforehand? Well under current law that ain't good enough. Halfway through if a man doesn't stop immediately as soon as he hear the "n" in "no" he could be convicted of rape in some states. Besides, how do you know what specifically she consented to? Do you need every conceivable act with every possible partner spelled out the way you would have in a living will? Plus that's not the way most people live their lives. Many adults go to singles bars (hello? they serve alcohol!) looking to find sexual partners. That's men and women. Imagine a guy talking to a girl and saying "Hey. I'd like to buy you a drink. But before I do, please sign this consent to sex form just in case something happens later."

So you're right about the matter being that of personal responsibility. The men had the responsibility to ensure she had given them her informed express consent.

And these guys are drunk too. Under law under the past thousand years there's been something called "mens rea". In other words the criminal had to have intent. If being drunk nullifies consent, then why doesn't it at least mitigate responsibility on getting consent?

They obviously didn't receive it and that makes them guilty of sexual assault. And this was not a normal sexual encounter but one that they should have known could put them in jeopardy of being accused of sexual violence. At best, they acted with grievous recklessness but based on the known facts they acted with malice.

And committing such an act should land them in prison for a long time.

Not defending the men involved in this case. But if society were to adopt your "Women are incapable of giving informed consent if they are legally too drunk to drive" then by all means ban women from drinking. If men are absolved from all ability to consent under such circumstances, then ban alcohol altogether. (And yeah, I know that all of the parties in this case were underage).

 

[pp0rker]

It is common law that consent must be given with a sound mind. So if you're drunk and someone puts a contract in front of you to sign, your signing it doesn't not make it a valid contract.

What presence is basically arguing is that if you leave your front door unlocked, you are consenting to being robbed. The woman's inability to resist or make known her intentions does not grant others the right to use her body.

If someone doesn't have positive consent to act on another, they don't have their consent. If the person is incapable of giving her consent, they don't have her consent. Others have a positive obligation to gain informed express consent under all circumstances.

If a person is not of sound mind as determined by court of law, then that person will have a guardian. Parents are the common law guardians of their children. Minors are incapable of providing their informed express consent which is why they shouldn't be permitted to enter contracts or legally allowed to engage in sex.

 

[jmdrake]

It is common law that consent must be given with a sound mind. So if you're drunk and someone puts a contract in front of you to sign, your signing it doesn't not make it a valid contract.

What presence is basically arguing is that if you leave your front door unlocked, you are consenting to being robbed. The woman's inability to resist or make known her intentions does not grant others the right to use her body.

If someone doesn't have positive consent to act on another, they don't have their consent. If the person is incapable of giving her consent, they don't have her consent. Others have a positive obligation to gain informed express consent under all circumstances.

If a person is not of sound mind as determined by court of law, then that person will have a guardian. Parents are the common law guardians of their children. Minors are incapable of providing their informed express consent which is why they shouldn't be permitted to enter contracts or legally allowed to engage in sex.

What you're arguing for is that every man who tries to get lucky a singles bar should be liable for rape on the whim of whatever woman decides after a couple of drinks to sleep with him unless he has her to sign some stupid contract before she starts drinking in which case she will probably run from him because she thinks he's a psycho.

 

[pp0rker]

This is proof that bad cases make bad law. You seriously think that a woman with a BAC over .08 cannot consent to having sex?

If she's drunk, she cannot give her informed express consent no matter what she may have said. Period. My understanding is that she was drunk. There are images of her apparently passed out. If it were a matter of "he said she said," the jury should decide based on what evidence is available. If she was intoxicated, she was not of sound mind and by definition not able to give her consent.

And these guys are drunk too.

Yes, I'm familiar with mens rea. If they can prove they were not of sound mind at the time, then the case should go from deliberate to reckless endangerment. They would still go to jail because they still committed the assault - just not as long.

But if society were to adopt your "Women are incapable of giving informed consent if they are legally too drunk to drive" then by all means ban women from drinking.

I didn't say or imply that. No one can give their informed consent when drunk - men or women. So much for the "I ask that everyone please behave..."

 

[dannno]

There's nothing to debate.

The woman was not capable of giving her informed express consent while intoxicated. By definition, her judgment was impaired. If she had given her consent to sexual activity before getting intoxicated, that would have been different. And even if she had given her consent before getting intoxicated, it would still have been prudent for the men to have some proof of her consent for their own protection.

So you're right about the matter being that of personal responsibility. The men had the responsibility to ensure she had given them her informed express consent. They obviously didn't receive it and that makes them guilty of sexual assault. And this was not a normal sexual encounter but one that they should have known could put them in jeopardy of being accused of sexual violence. At best, they acted with grievous recklessness but based on the known facts they acted with malice.

And committing such an act should land them in prison for a long time.

Now wait a minute here, there are a lot of levels of drunk and intoxicated. Based on your post, if I meet a girl who has had ONE or TWO drinks, and she agrees to have sex with me, I could be charged with rape.

Conversely, are you saying that if a guy is 5 or 6 drinks deep and a sober woman has sex with him, can HE then claim that she raped him? If not, you have an atrocious double standard. I don't agree that either of those are rape - if I choose to drink then I realize that I might want to have sex more than normal and I should accept the consequences if I end up consenting to have sex with someone I might normally consent to. That's the whole point of this thread, personal responsibility.

I admit that if a woman is unconscious or unable to protect herself and a man does something that she didn't consent to then that could be considered rape. This case isn't very cut and dry, though. Everybody was drunk and nobody remembers much - except that the girl had told the boys several times that she was planning on having sex with them. We don't know if she was unconcious, blacked out or what. There are no good witnesses of what happened. The girl said that the only reason she brought about charges was because her parents told her to, and that was after social networks plastered her photos/videos or whatever up for everyone to see. I'm not convinced that she pressed charges because the guy put his finger in her, I think she pressed charges because of the social network fiasco and the reaction from her family.

 

[pp0rker]

What you're arguing for is that every man who tries to get lucky a singles bar should be liable for rape on the whim of whatever woman decides after a couple of drinks to sleep with him unless he has her to sign some stupid contract before she starts drinking in which case she will probably run from him because she thinks he's a psycho.

No, I'm not. But why shouldn't people take personal responsibility and protect themselves from a malicious accusation or even just a misunderstanding? The fact is, sex is not a casual interaction. It can have life changing implications. Treat it seriously or suffer the consequences. Being accused of rape being one of them.

So, what you're arguing for is that men should just be able to rape women indiscriminately... See I can play that game too.

 

[jmdrake]

First you said:

If she's drunk, she cannot give her informed express consent no matter what she may have said.

Then in response to where I said: But if society were to adopt your "Women are incapable of giving informed consent if they are legally too drunk to drive" then by all means ban women from drinking.

You said:

I didn't say or imply that. No one can give their informed consent when drunk - men or women. So much for the "I ask that everyone please behave..."

Make up your mind. Either a woman can give informed consent when she is drunk or she can't. The legal definition of intoxicated is over .08. And I don't see anyone misbehaving. I'm asking you to think about what you are actually implying. What "rule" do you wish to impose? How high does the BAC have to be before a women who has consented to sex is a rape victim regardless of what she said? And how is this established in a court of law anyway? Should rape victims be required to submit to blood tests as a part of the rape kit? If not, then how can they prove later that they were drunk or high or whatever? And what about women on prescription drugs that make them too impaired to drive? Should the be celibate?

Again, think about what you are actually saying. Your words.

What presence is basically arguing is that if you leave your front door unlocked, you are consenting to being robbed. The woman's inability to resist or make known her intentions does not grant others the right to use her body.

So a woman who's had a few drinks and says she wants to have sex is the same as someone who leaves the front door open consenting to being robbed? Sorry but it's not that simple. The rule that you've proposed is totally unworkable in its present form. I'm sorry that my pointing that out makes you uncomfortable.

 

[dannno]

No, I'm not. But why shouldn't people take personal responsibility and protect themselves from a malicious accusation or even just a misunderstanding? The fact is, sex is not a casual interaction. It can have life changing implications. Treat it seriously or suffer the consequences. Being accused of rape being one of them.

So, what you're arguing for is that men should just be able to rape women indiscriminately... See I can play that game too.

Uh, no, for some people sex is a casual interaction. I would argue for some women it is even more casual then for even some of the most casual men.

 

[pp0rker]

Now wait a minute here, there are a lot of levels of drunk and intoxicated. Based on your post, if I meet a girl who has had ONE or TWO drinks, and she agrees to have sex with me, I could be charged with rape.

That works both ways. Maybe you could charge her with rape... What if she consents to sex and has an STD? Has she committed an act of sexual violence against you? I say she has. Better safe than sorry.

Conversely, are you saying that if a guy is 5 or 6 drinks deep and a sober woman has sex with him, can HE then claim that she raped him? If not, you have an atrocious double standard.

Yeah, he should be able to. "Of sound mind" is the standard and only by trial can the standard be defined.

The girl said that the only reason she brought about charges was because her parents told her to...

Actually, her parents should have brought charges. They are her legal guardians. I don't know the details and that wasn't the point of this thread. It was to discuss NAP vs personal responsibility - not to retry the case.

 

[pp0rker]

Uh, no, for some people sex is a casual interaction. I would argue for some women it is even more casual then for even some of the most casual men.

I know it is but that doesn't mean it should be. There's a difference between "can" do something and "should." If people choose to treat sex casually, they should also be prepared to accept the consequences. Same goes for handling firearms. Play with a loaded gun, bad things are likely to happen.

 

[jmdrake]

I know it is but that doesn't mean it should be. There's a difference between "can" do something and "should." If people choose to treat sex casually, they should also be prepared to accept the consequences. Same goes for handling firearms. Play with a loaded gun, bad things are likely to happen.

One of the consequences is that you may wake up the next morning to regret what you did. You made have contracted an STD. That doesn't make you a "victim."

 

[pp0rker]

So a woman who's had a few drinks and says she wants to have sex is the same as someone who leaves the front door open consenting to being robbed?

The point of this thread I thought is to debate NAP vs personal responsibility. The context as I understand it is the woman was drunk. If she's not drunk and consents, then she consents. No harm, no foul. There is no debate if someone can provide their informed express consent.

If you're going to question when someone can be considered of sound mind, that can only be determined in the courtroom. Every person has different tolerances to alcohol, etc. The point here is have the men taking precautions against the accusation of rape. I think they should have. That's would have been responsible. The legal system is a threat to everyone. We all have a responsibility to mitigate that risk.

 

[jmdrake]

That works both ways. Maybe you could charge her with rape... What if she consents to sex and has an STD? Has she committed an act of sexual violence against you? I say she has. Better safe than sorry.

I'd say you just made presence case for him. If you have unprotected sex in the 21st century that's implied consent to catching whatever may be floating around.

Yeah, he should be able to. "Of sound mind" is the standard and only by trial can the standard be defined.

Well that's a different standard than "intoxicated." It's one thing if someone is under a mind control drug. It's another if their inhibitions and faculties have been reduced by drugs or alcohol.

 

[Christian Liberty]

This is tricky I'll admit. I think Rothbardian title-transfer theory of contract is helpful here, and while I see no reason why a libertarian MUST accept this theory of contract, most do, and I do as it makes the most sense to me.

Under title transfer, mere promises made through contract aren't valid, only transfers of title. A transfer of title that takes place in the future is valid. So, if I sign a contract with a girl that she will have sex with me in a year, that's not a binding contract at all, and she can freely refuse to follow through. By contrast, if I sign a contract with a girl saying that she owes me 200 dollars UNLESS she has sex with me in a year (Some kind of weird reverse prostitution I guess, but completely legal) than she could, in a year's time, still refuse to have sex with me, after all, she cannot sell her will (Walter Block disagrees with this and takes it to the logical conclusion that you can sell yourself into slavery, but I and most other libertarians disagree with Block), but I would then be the rightful owner of 200 dollars formerly owned by her.

My reason for bringing that up is to say that even if a previous contract said "We're gonna get drunk, and then have sex" she could still say "No" while intoxicated and I'm still guilty of rape, or at least some lesser derivative of sexual assault (She said yes before so I thought it was fine might be a mitigation but is definitely not a defense) I could, however, with her agreement, sign some kind of contract saying she would give me X amount of money (Say, 100 dollars) if she refused to have sex with me after we got drunk, and that would/should be enforceable.

If you leave your front door unlocked, you are not deserving to get robbed, so I'd agree with whoever said that. And while it is true that the responsibility does to some extent fall on you for defense of person and property in libertarianism (In anarcho-capitalism, it falls entirely on you or others that you freely contract with that agree to do so, in minarchism, which is what I support, the government does have some degree of responsibility in stopping and punishing* criminals, she still does have some degree of responsibility for defending herself, but this is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether he is a rapist that deserves punishment.)

As for the "Contract while drunk" thing, I'd probably agree that a contract signed while drunk ("Drunk" would have to be defined sensibly, I don't know if the current legal standards are sensible or not) is not binding, but you still can't be punished for engaging in this contractually agreed activity until that point. I'd say if a trade of resources, labor, or anything else, already occurred, as opposed to merely possibly going to occur in the future, too bad. For instance, if a drunk person agrees to work for me for three dollars an hour (Remember, there's no minimum wage in a libertarian society, and I assume everyone here would agree with this) for a ten hour job, and then becomes sober again in five hours (Don't ask me why I'm hiring a drunk person, just follow along) he can quit after he becomes sober, but he can't demand more money for the hours already worked. In the same way, if a woman, for instance, signed a contract to have sex every day for three days (Assume there is some kind of "Title-transfer" related "Punishment" for failure to deliver, in both this case and the other case) I'd agree if after becomming sober after the first time she no longer wants to do it, she can terminate the contract without penalty, since she was legally unable to fully consent. However, since she chose to get drunk, unlike a child or mentally disabled person, she is not completely lacking in responsibility, and she cannot charge with rape for the one action of sex that did occur already.
I will say this though, and I might disagree with those who are a little more hardcore than me on this, even if she consented to sex, EVEN IF SHE CONSENTED to putting it on video, this does not mean she consents to having said video uploaded on the internet. I would argue that to do this without her permission is a crime against her, even if they agreed to make the video for some other purpose, such as private enjoyment. While pornography should obviously be legal, I don't think it should be legal to make someone into a porn star without their permission.