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.
"Aggression" is not here appropriate. "Violation" would be far better, or "trespass". The principle of no trespass, alternatively the non-violation principle. I honestly despise this use of "aggression" because it is flatly incorrect. If we are to use the word "aggression" properly, the NAP makes poor sense. Just pointing this out as a matter of language and clear, precise, and complete communication. And yes, it is important even in this discussion.
You are still PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE when you are inebriated.
Even the doobuses at Alcoholics Anonymous agree that this is the case.
Passing out implies medical unconsciousness. That was not the case in Steubenville.
Was that established at trial or is the question still up for grabs? If the former, then I am not sure why those boys, probably young and promising assholes that they are, were convicted.
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.
That would seem to be the responsibility part. If you assess your "child" (and I question whether a 16-year old person qualifies as a child, save in the legal sense) as incapable of defending themselves against assaults upon their persons, then why as a parent are you letting them out of the house without escort?
So long as you are medically and legally conscious...
I would hope so.
given to you by your creator,
and He (she, it, whatever) expects YOU to care for it; ALWAYS.
Argument FAIL. This detail requires a belief that is wholly irrelevant to the core issues at hand. Best to leave this one out, IMO.
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 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.
Agreeable.
Not because you're too weak.
If you mean this in the literal sense of physicality and even psychology, I would have to disagree. Expecting a paraplegic to get up out of his wheelchair to run away from as assailant can be in no measure regarded as reasonable, for example.
Once again, care with the details of one's sentences.
ALWAYS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY
All else equal, I fully agree.
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.
In precise detail I cannot agree with this, once again the problem arising out of the specific structure of the statement. It is indeed possible that one becomes too physically disabled to effectively stop such acts once they have chosen and acted such that they become that drunk. The key lies in the choosing to drink that much in the first place such that you become incapable. That responsibility is always yours.
Therefore, claiming you were too drunk to resist becomes a non-defense if you willfully chose to drink so much that you rendered yourself incapable of resisting. In such a case, nobody dosed you unawares and nobody forced the booze down your throat. Rightly or wrongly, you put yourself into the position and as such carry a measure of culpability at least equal to those who acted against what you later claim as having been your wishes.
That, however, may not get one's assailants completely off the hook. It is one's responsibility to do no harm and under more ideal circumstances one should be able to tell whether the commission of an act is right or wrong. Sadly, such conditions are often absent and the various factors relating to such situations, such as the esteem of parents just to name one example, complicate things greatly.
Young girl is hell bent to "do" young boy and makes good on her intent. The parents catch wind of it and girl cries "rape" in order to escape the consequences of her willful choices. Young boy ends up in trouble to his eyelids. Why? Because the male is ALWAYS wrong and always guilty if the girl says he is, barring extraordinary evidence to the contrary, and sometimes in spite of it. This is the built-in assumption under which the culture and its courts operate and it is criminal in itself.
