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

[dannno]

That's not true. You don't understand what I'm saying.

If you can be civil, I'll help you to understand. If you're just going to be an ass, I'll do something better with my time.

I understand what you're saying. You're saying that if a guy and a girl have consensual sex and the guy doesn't call her back the next day or make her feel special, then she can change her mind about the consent that she gave because she was drunk and she can put this innocent man behind bars for years.

 

[pp0rker]

Food for thought. If the girl in question had managed to call a cab before passing out and had been safely given a ride home, would that have been a valid contract?

I think so. The presumption here is that she called the cab *because* she knew she wouldn't be able to drive. She gave her consent by calling the cab. What becomes more difficult is if the cab driver then drives an extra 20 blocks and takes advantage of her condition. A jury though should rule in her favor because the cab driver didn't act in good faith.

 

[jmdrake]

That's not true. You don't understand what I'm saying.

If you can be civil, I'll help you to understand. If you're just going to be an ass, I'll do something better with my time.

I think the problem is you haven't drawn a distinction between "drunk" and "passed out drunk." I believe that if someone is actually unconscious, then whatever happens sexually lacks consent. (I guess if they have a contract that says "It's okay to have sex with me if I'm unconscious" but that's it.) But a conscious drunk person consenting to sex has consented. From what I understand the girl in this story was possibly unconscious. But if to say "intoxicated people can't consent to sex", creates an unworkable rule. Better to ban alcohol than have a bunch of guys walking around risking being rapist for doing what is pushed in this society as the "in thing." (Go out, wine and dine a woman and try to get her to sleep with you.)

 

[pp0rker]

I understand what you're saying. You're saying that if a guy and a girl have consensual sex and the guy doesn't call her back the next day or make her feel special, then she can change her mind about the consent that she gave because she was drunk and she can put this innocent man behind bars for years.

No, you don't. If the girl accuses the guy of rape, then the court must sort it out. The court should determine if she was of sound mind and if he was of sound mind. If she was and consented and he was and consented, then she has made a malicious accusation and should go to jail. If she wasn't and he was, then the sex was not consensual. If she wasn't and he wasn't, then they both acted recklessly and neither can be held liable.

What you are suggesting is that a woman have *no* recourse against assault. That if she has sex then by definition she has consented to it. I prefer a system that would protect someone from being abused. The burden of proof though should always be on the accuser so it should be her obligation to prove to the jury beyond reasonable doubt that she had was not of sound mind and had not given her consent.

 

[CaptUSA]

Ok, here's one last try at this to make you guys see why this was wrong... And I apologize upfront when this violates the PG13 premise.

Let's say a girl plans on consenting to intercourse. Does that means she also consents to fellatio and anal sex as well? What if a guy tries that and she does not consent? If she does not consent and he does it anyway, has he committed an aggression?

Now, what if she has lost her ability to deny her consent? Does this mean the guy can do whatever he wants? Pretty absurd, right? If you do not have the ability to remove your consent, you are not operating under your own free will. And while she is responsible for placing herself in this condition, they are responsible for their aggression on a girl that did not have the capacity to say "no".

I keep hearing people say things like this girl was asking for it. Well, what was she asking for? Did she consent to having naked pictures taken while being molested in front of an audience? I don't think any of you would say she was consenting to that. So even if she may have been considering consenting to having sex that night, it should be obvious that she no longer possessed the ability to consent of her own free will. And since these creeps didn't care about that and aggressed on her anyway, they violated the NAP.

 

[pp0rker]

I think the problem is you haven't drawn a distinction between "drunk" and "passed out drunk." I believe that if someone is actually unconscious, then whatever happens sexually lacks consent. (I guess if they have a contract that says "It's okay to have sex with me if I'm unconscious" but that's it.) But a conscious drunk person consenting to sex has consented. From what I understand the girl in this story was possibly unconscious. But if to say "intoxicated people can't consent to sex", creates an unworkable rule. Better to ban alcohol than have a bunch of guys walking around risking being rapist for doing what is pushed in this society as the "in thing." (Go out, wine and dine a woman and try to get her to sleep with you.)

That is a distinction I'm not willing to make. What you're suggesting is that the potential rapist be the one to decide whether the woman is capable of giving consent or not.

What I'm trying to get across here (badly I guess) is that it doesn't matter by what mechanism someone is rendered incapable of giving consent (alcohol, drugs, CO poisoning, medical condition, whatever). What matters is whether they did or didn't in the opinion of the jury. And that the person at risk of being accused of assault (the hapless drunk guy looking to score) should consider this and mitigate that risk. That's an example of taking personal responsibility. The courts should determine whether there has been a violation of the NAP.

 

[pp0rker]

Ok, here's one last try at this to make you guys see why this was wrong... And I apologize upfront when this violates the PG13 premise.

Let's say a girl plans on consenting to intercourse. Does that means she also consents to fellatio and anal sex as well? What if a guy tries that and she does not consent? If she does not consent and he does it anyway, has he committed an aggression?

Now, what if she has lost her ability to deny her consent? Does this mean the guy can do whatever he wants? Pretty absurd, right? If you do not have the ability to remove your consent, you are not operating under your own free will. And while she is responsible for placing herself in this condition, they are responsible for their aggression on a girl that did not have the capacity to say "no".

I keep hearing people say things like this girl was asking for it. Well, what was she asking for? Did she consent to having naked pictures taken while being molested in front of an audience? I don't think any of you would say she was consenting to that. So even if she may have been considering consenting to having sex that night, it should be obvious that she no longer possessed the ability to consent of her own free will. And since these creeps didn't care about that and aggressed on her anyway, they violated the NAP.

I agree. The difficulty is the vagueness which is where the personal responsibility comes in. I think the courts should exist to determine the matter of NAP but that we all have a personal responsibility to mitigate personal risk. Does that mean she might have been "asking for it?" Which is to say she took a reckless risk by putting herself in the situation in the first place. Maybe and the jury should take that into account.

But as to the question of guilt or innocence, I think that if she is able to prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that she did not give her express consent, then the accused are guilty of violating the NAP. Jail time should follow. And that should serve as a lesson to other guys wanting do the same under similar circumstances.

 

[Christian Liberty]

If you can't say yes or otherwise communicate that you are consenting, you can't consent. Silence is not consent. If, on the other hand, you are able to say yes than you consented. If your mind is not fully sound, and this is by your choice, than that's your choice. This is different than a man fradulantly getting a girl drunk, or a child, since in neither case did the person choose the condition that they have that makes them unable to be fully of sound mind. The drunk person, by contrast, willingly lowered their inhibitions when they chose to get drunk.

Even still, I do think sleeping with a girl while she's drunk is pretty morally despicable, and society should really shun such a person, but if she did consent both to drinking enough alcohol to get drunk (No fraud) and she did consent to the sexual act while being drunk, than she cosents just as much as if she consented while not drunk, at least from the perspective of libertarian NAP.

 

[pp0rker]

If your mind is not fully sound, and this is by your choice, than that's your choice.

I don't agree. If you're not of sound mind, then by definition you cannot make an informed choice.

The drunk person, by contrast, willingly lowered their inhibitions when they chose to get drunk.

Again, I disagree. The drunk might have made herself more vulnerable but that does not imply consent to anything. As I posted above, if you leave your door unlocked, that doesn't imply you are consenting to being robbed. Poor judgment, yes. Consenting to be acted on, no.

 

[talkingpointes]

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

Do you think it's okay for a girl to walk through a ghetto in the middle of the night ? I think so. But I also think that if you think doing so won't also have negative consequences then well... I can't respond to that.

At what point should the girl had held responsibility for her actions? I won't debate for a second they are scoundrels. Do you think that she had a good home life and was very happy or content and and just happened to be experimenting for one night ?

 

[talkingpointes]

I hope all the people here that are so adamant about protecting this girl goes on to the prison system -- where nearly 75% of male rape occurs. But I'm sure these same folks will say they deserve it.

 

[talkingpointes]

For those who fail to understand more about females. (I image there is a lot of abstinence here)



Lesbians tend to be the most violent towards women, not men. Women more often now are the abusers of men then vice versa. When you take a more aggressive woman with a passive guy you get 70% of those women abusing the man with no recourse. (they don't even fight back, because that would be hitting a woman)

Quite frankly I'm getting tired of the female domination bullshit. I can't think of one guy in my ENTIRE LIFE that has hit a women -- YET NEARLY 30-50% of my good friends deal with extremely emotionally/physically abusive women. My women isn't much different, what is going on.

Women raise (75% single/25% married with a homemaker)90% of the men that become the abusers anyways. WTF

My mom never hit us though, and she was extremely loving and nice to me.

 

[pp0rker]

I hope all the people here that are so adamant about protecting this girl goes on to the prison system -- where nearly 75% of male rape occurs. But I'm sure these same folks will say they deserve it.

I'm not commenting on the case. This has been a hypothetical NAP vs personal responsibility discussion using the case as an example. I'm not on the jury. I don't know the details. We have a near dysfunctional legal and penal system in the US. Bottom line is that no matter what the outcome of the trial, most likely justice will not be served.

 

[talkingpointes]

Ok, here's one last try at this to make you guys see why this was wrong... And I apologize upfront when this violates the PG13 premise.

Let's say a girl plans on consenting to intercourse. Does that means she also consents to fellatio and anal sex as well? What if a guy tries that and she does not consent? If she does not consent and he does it anyway, has he committed an aggression?

Now, what if she has lost her ability to deny her consent? Does this mean the guy can do whatever he wants? Pretty absurd, right? If you do not have the ability to remove your consent, you are not operating under your own free will. And while she is responsible for placing herself in this condition, they are responsible for their aggression on a girl that did not have the capacity to say "no".

I keep hearing people say things like this girl was asking for it. Well, what was she asking for? Did she consent to having naked pictures taken while being molested in front of an audience? I don't think any of you would say she was consenting to that. So even if she may have been considering consenting to having sex that night, it should be obvious that she no longer possessed the ability to consent of her own free will. And since these creeps didn't care about that and aggressed on her anyway, they violated the NAP.

Agreed. Who learns a lesson here? (just wondering)

 

[CaptUSA]

Agreed. Who learns a lesson here? (just wondering)

My hope would be everyone.

Hopefully, this girl learned not to allow herself to become defenseless.
Hopefully, these boys learned that violating a girl - even if it was really easy - is wrong, immoral, and just plain dickheaded.
Hopefully, some people in this forum will learn that just because a girl displays reckless behavior doesn't mean she's "asking for it", and it doesn't make her fair game for whatever kind of abuse some sickos can think up.

 

[jmdrake]

That is a distinction I'm not willing to make. What you're suggesting is that the potential rapist be the one to decide whether the woman is capable of giving consent or not.

That is simply not true. In either scenario, mine or yours, both sides would have to present evidence to support the claim. That evidence could be testimony of the complaintant, the defendant, third party witnesses and/or blood alcohol levels. I assume you believe that a complaintant shouldn't be able to never have a drink, lie and say she was drunk, and then convict a totally innocent man of rape. If you are choosing to be fair in this discussion, you must also assume that I do not believe a man should be able to have sex with a woman who is passed out, lie and say "She said yes" and automatically get off scott free. So based on that assumption I kindly ask you to retract your baseless and false characterization of my position.

What I'm trying to get across here (badly I guess) is that it doesn't matter by what mechanism someone is rendered incapable of giving consent (alcohol, drugs, CO poisoning, medical condition, whatever). What matters is whether they did or didn't in the opinion of the jury.

Of course. But what a jury decides is guided by a jury instruction. Here are two different jury instructions:

Yours:

Jury, if you find that said woman was drunk at the time she had sex with this man, and that there is no evidence that she consented to sex before they started drinking, you must find him guilty of rape regardless of what she said later.

Mine:

Jury, if you find that said woman was unconscious at the time she had sex with this man, and there is no signed contract giving him permission to have sex if she was passed out, you must find him guilty of rape

Neither instruction leaves it up to the man to determine if the woman consented.

And that the person at risk of being accused of assault (the hapless drunk guy looking to score) should consider this and mitigate that risk. That's an example of taking personal responsibility. The courts should determine whether there has been a violation of the NAP.

The standard you've put forward makes it impossible to mitigate. In fact the only way this "hapless drunk guy looking to score" can mitigate under your scenario is if he claims the woman raped him before she gets a chance to file her charges.

Edit: And while I'm no expert on NAP and libertarian philosophy, I know that the idea of "victimless crimes" are frowned upon. A crime where both sides can equally claim victimhood qualifies as a victimless crime in my book. Both the "hapless drunk guy" and the "hapless drunk girl" can equally claim the other took advantage of his/her "hapless state" and that they were raped. Sorry, but your argument fails on pure logic.

 

[Ranger29860]

I wan't sure until you opened up this thread after the other thread got moved but now I am sure you are a troll.

 

[QueenB4Liberty]

My hope would be everyone.

Hopefully, this girl learned not to allow herself to become defenseless.
Hopefully, these boys learned that violating a girl - even if it was really easy - is wrong, immoral, and just plain dickheaded.
Hopefully, some people in this forum will learn that just because a girl displays reckless behavior doesn't mean she's "asking for it", and it doesn't make her fair game for whatever kind of abuse some sickos can think up.

All of your posts have been spot on. +rep

 

[presence]

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

I was working on this OP as I got out the door this morning for work... I only have so much time; I do what I can.
I contribute to this forum so that liberty issues can be elucidated before the general public;
Be myself wrong or right, I am here to learn, teach, and refine our collective understanding collectively.
Due to related frustration, I've generally lost interest in the HT threads on this subject.

Sorry?

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.

estimated that the victim had a blood alcohol level of anywhere between .18 to .25 based on the varying reportsof how much alcohol she consumed.

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories...-according-to-testimony-679587/#ixzz2O87n5jzo
​

1. Euphoria: This is the initial stage of intoxication, characterized by BAC level at 0.03 to 0.12%. In this phase, person is much more relaxed, over confident and appears without any inhibitions.
2. Lethargy: In this phase, BAC ranges from 0.09 to 0.23%. The person stars losing body balance, his vision gets blurred and appears sleepy.
3. Confusion: BAC gets increased at 0.17 to 0.28%. Name of this phase rightly denotes the status of the subject as he appears intense in his emotions and feelings. Dizziness and Nausea are peculiar features of this stage.
4. Stupor: This stage is marked by the BAC count ranging from 0.25 to 0.39%, where persons impaired start losing and again gaining consciousness at frequent intervals. Due to this feature, there is high amount of risk of coma.
5. Coma: BAC ranges from 0.35 to 0.50%. Patient becomes unconscious, body reflexes become poor, there is drop in pulmonary beats with decrease in breathing.
6. Death: BAC exceeds the mark of 0.50%. This is a very fatal stage marked by Central Nervous System failure, which ultimately leads to death.
Read more at Buzzle: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/blood-alcohol-content.html

NEXT....


I have to say that it is incredibly trying to read through all of the fromme testimony in the media. If I were either of these two boys I would sue each of the media outlets $1000 for every instance in which they used the word "victim" to describe the complainant/plaintiff before it was even legally established that there even was a victim. Every article that you read, released before the verdict was out, takes this slant. If you could step back and look at the slanderous injustice of this situation for a moment you might find it moreso repulisive than any of that long list of descriptive words of my opinion of the plaintiff, which I left in hot topics may have been to you. To insinuate that someone was victim of sexual assault before there is a legally guilty perpetrator is the antithesis of innocent until proven guilty. Wag the dog. Not only did the media insinuate that the defendants were guilty throughout, but they insinuated juvenile defendants were guilty throughout. It is my sincere hope that on this ground alone an appeal is sought.

But back to the fromme testimony.

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

The actual hard amount of alcohol in the girl's system is not the point. The point is the state of intoxication was never deemed to be unconscious, any specific BAC does not absolutely imply unconsciousness; for one person it may be 0.30 for another 0.35. Fromme deemed her in stage 3 confusion not stage 4 stupor. Various web sources define the clinical limits for each stage a little differently (as each individual's tolerances are different; from what I understand she was quite the young drinker) and some have a bit of overlap, but generally she was deemed "not unconscious" which from my time in college psych class was stage 3 drunkeness; confusion. Fromme was a clinical expert in alcohol intoxication who assuredly took much more evidence into account than her estimated BAC, to arrive at her expert conclusion. Unless you have some reason to doubt the witness? Did the prosecution have a state witness willing to claim otherwise? You know they'd spend our tax dollars if they could find one.

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?

Well she certainly saw that evidence then and there. Did that change her position? Did she counter her stance? Did she turn around on her assertion that the girl was not unconscious?

Not that I recall, unless you can cite?

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

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

I don't know that I have time to get into Doctor John Gray with you at the moment.
But I could understand how you feel that way and you have every right to those feelings.

 

[cheapseats]

presence wants it to be not-exactly-okay but less-bad to VIOLATE females who are irresponsible enough to get blotto. It's not.

Should stealing from men who are blotto also warrant lesser penalty than stealing from "responsible" men?