Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
If a male and a woman are having sex and the woman is too drunk to know what's going on should this be classed as rape?
66 Answers
What about if it was the other way around? What are your honest thought on this report?
http://uk.news.yahoo....r-is-too-45dbed5.html
http://uk.news.yahoo....r-is-too-45dbed5.html
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by MickyMacgraw. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
eyethankyou
you are confusing two different legal contexts.
The police need to use breath and blood testing equipment in order to support a case that is primarily about alcohol levels eg drink driving
In a case of criminal assault such as rape, witness opinions about someone's levels of inebriation are admissable and it is up to the jury to be persuaded or not.
.
you are confusing two different legal contexts.
The police need to use breath and blood testing equipment in order to support a case that is primarily about alcohol levels eg drink driving
In a case of criminal assault such as rape, witness opinions about someone's levels of inebriation are admissable and it is up to the jury to be persuaded or not.
.
I am definitely not confused because regardless of the fact that someone either has been breathalysed with what is called a "positive" outcome, i.e. the use of an official intoximeter at a Police Station, OR a person is accused by eyewitness accounts, i.e. signed written statements, those methods are not sufficient to convict them alone, that is always a matter for a court of law to decide.
In either case, what is being provided is some form of evidence which a court takes into consideration before reaching its conclusion, i.e. guilty or not. The reason I used the breathalyser example earlier was to highlight the fact that such evidence is far more indicative of alcohol levels in a person's system as opposed to a witness who has merely seen someone drinking alcohol, falling over, vomiting etc.
In the end analysis, however, neither is sufficient to prefer a guilty verdict which is something decided by a court which has as much evidence as possible in front of it which will enable the Magistrates / Judges+Juries to reach their conclusion(s).
Scotland probably has the best system because there is a verdict of "Not Proven" in cases where there is sufficient doubt of a defendant's guilt. England and Wales do not unfortunately have such a "tool" in their judicial armoury.
In either case, what is being provided is some form of evidence which a court takes into consideration before reaching its conclusion, i.e. guilty or not. The reason I used the breathalyser example earlier was to highlight the fact that such evidence is far more indicative of alcohol levels in a person's system as opposed to a witness who has merely seen someone drinking alcohol, falling over, vomiting etc.
In the end analysis, however, neither is sufficient to prefer a guilty verdict which is something decided by a court which has as much evidence as possible in front of it which will enable the Magistrates / Judges+Juries to reach their conclusion(s).
Scotland probably has the best system because there is a verdict of "Not Proven" in cases where there is sufficient doubt of a defendant's guilt. England and Wales do not unfortunately have such a "tool" in their judicial armoury.
Well you seem confused.
you posted: <<Evidence of opinion on the other hand by a witness who has seen someone consuming alcohol that aforementioned person is therefore "drunk", is simply that, it is an opinion as opposed to a proven fact, nothing else>>
If the opinions and statements of witnesses eg " I saw her drink 19 glasses of vodka" or "she seemed very drunk to me" are accepted as a relevent factor by a jury then it does become "proven fact"
Unfortunately, jurisprudence cannot rely on measurable, definite, not open to interpretation 'facts' because they are few and far between.
.
you posted: <<Evidence of opinion on the other hand by a witness who has seen someone consuming alcohol that aforementioned person is therefore "drunk", is simply that, it is an opinion as opposed to a proven fact, nothing else>>
If the opinions and statements of witnesses eg " I saw her drink 19 glasses of vodka" or "she seemed very drunk to me" are accepted as a relevent factor by a jury then it does become "proven fact"
Unfortunately, jurisprudence cannot rely on measurable, definite, not open to interpretation 'facts' because they are few and far between.
.
joggerjayne
/// Technically, it is rape ... of course.///
/// If a girl is drunk, she can't give consent.///
/// If she hasn't given consent, it is rape ///
Therefore it is reasonable to assume, if a wife is drunk, and hasn't given consent, it is rape?
Or if a long term partner is too drunk to give consent it is also rape?
Or does this rule only apply to casual acquaintances?
/// Technically, it is rape ... of course.///
/// If a girl is drunk, she can't give consent.///
/// If she hasn't given consent, it is rape ///
Therefore it is reasonable to assume, if a wife is drunk, and hasn't given consent, it is rape?
Or if a long term partner is too drunk to give consent it is also rape?
Or does this rule only apply to casual acquaintances?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.