Drunken rape

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My issue is that not enough rape cases manage to get to that point. I think one of the major factors with this is because the rape charge is singular, which allows things like being drunk etc to be a confounding factor for the jury as in their head they may view rape to mean something more calculated.

Hmm. It seems to me that this is more an issue with clarity in the law and proper application of that law by juries than it is about the term we use for the crime.

 

[kadzbiz]

What a weird definition of rape.

Here is the Code for where I live:

IC 35-42-4-1
Rape
Sec. 1. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a person who knowingly or intentionally has sexual intercourse with a member of the opposite sex when:

(1) the other person is compelled by force or imminent threat of force;
(2) the other person is unaware that the sexual intercourse is occurring; or
(3) the other person is so mentally disabled or deficient that consent to sexual intercourse cannot be given;commits rape, a Class B felony.
​

(b) An offense described in subsection (a) is a Class A felony if:

(1) it is committed by using or threatening the use of deadly force;
(2) it is committed while armed with a deadly weapon;
(3) it results in serious bodily injury to a person other than a defendant; or
(4) the commission of the offense is facilitated by furnishing the victim, without the victim's knowledge, with a drug (as defined in IC 16-42-19-2(1)) or a controlled substance (as defined in IC 35-48-1-9) or knowing that the victim was furnished with the drug or controlled substance without the victim's knowledge.
​

As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.2. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.36; P.L.320-1983, SEC.23; P.L.16-1984, SEC.19; P.L.297-1989, SEC.1; P.L.31-1998, SEC.3.
Source
​

Well, that was pretty brief and expanding on what defines "sexual penetration", but here is the definition from our crimes act. Quite interesting I think, seeing how I'd be committing rape if I force someone else allow me to give them a BJ.

(2) A person commits rape if—
(a) he or she intentionally sexually penetrates another person without that person's consent while being aware that the person is not consenting or might not be consenting; or

(b) after sexual penetration he or she does not withdraw from a person who is not consenting on becoming aware that the person is not consenting or might not be consenting.
S. 38(3) inserted by No. 67/2000 s. 4, substituted by No. 2/2006 s. 6(1).
(3) A person (the offender) also commits rape if he or she compels a person—
s. 38A
(a) to sexually penetrate the offender or another person, irrespective of whether the person being sexually penetrated consents to the act; or
(b) who has sexually penetrated the offender or another person, not to cease sexually penetrating the offender or that other person, irrespective of whether the person who has been sexually penetrated consents to the act.
S. 38(4) inserted by No. 67/2000 s. 4, amended by No. 2/2006 s. 6(2).
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), a person compels another person (the victim) to engage in a sexual act if the person compels the victim (by force or otherwise) to engage in that act—
(a) without the victim's consent; and
(b) while being aware that the victim is not consenting or might not be consenting.

 

[Father Heathen]

I'm going to ask you to back up that assertion.

It's just basic psychology. Alcohol just removes inhibitions and restraint. It doesn't magically instill tendencies, behaviors and characteristics that weren't already existent and underlying. You don't honestly think that any random decent, balanced, well adjusted person can transform into a subhuman monster with just a few drinks, do you?

 

[kadzbiz]

It's just basic psychology. Alcohol just removes inhibitions and restraint. It doesn't magically instill tendencies, behaviors and characteristics that weren't already existent and underlying. You don't honestly think that any random decent, balanced, well adjusted person can transform into a subhuman monster with just a few drinks, do you?

I'm with you FH. IMO, the increase in alcohol intake only exacerbates the type of person we are inside, just as money does.

 

[zenzero]

Friends,
Now in a lighter vein,
Lets all get drunk and go to heaven.
Love & rgds

 

[kadzbiz]

Make sure you drink lite beer...

 

[misanthropic_clown]

It's just basic psychology. Alcohol just removes inhibitions and restraint. It doesn't magically instill tendencies, behaviors and characteristics that weren't already existent and underlying. You don't honestly think that any random decent, balanced, well adjusted person can transform into a subhuman monster with just a few drinks, do you?

You're still asserting your assertion. Burden of proof is on you.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

Hmm. It seems to me that this is more an issue with clarity in the law and proper application of that law by juries than it is about the term we use for the crime.

Yep. I think a new system would do that better. Evidently the current system isn't working, especially given that juries are specifically instructed as to the law during trials.

 

[DallasApple]

Yep. I think a new system would do that better. Evidently the current system isn't working, especially given that juries are specifically instructed as to the law during trials.

If you get drunk and beat the bloody pulp out of someone..and you are charged with attempted murder..I dont think the jury throws out the case because they get all confused because "hey the guy was drunk when he did it"..Why would it be any different with rape?Would the DA strike a deal for a lesser charge with the defendent because they feel like they cant get a conviction on the higher charge simply because the guy was drunk?

I can see other extenuating circumstances being a factor.But not drunkeness.

Love

Dallas

 

[misanthropic_clown]

If you get drunk and beat the bloody pulp out of someone..and you are charged with attempted murder..I dont think the jury throws out the case because they get all confused because "hey the guy was drunk when he did it"..Why would it be any different with rape?Would the DA strike a deal for a lesser charge with the defendent because they feel like they cant get a conviction on the higher charge simply because the guy was drunk?

I can see other extenuating circumstances being a factor.But not drunkeness.

Love

Dallas

Actually attempted murder is a specific intent crime. If the suspect were to act as you describe, I do believe they would be charged with GBH rather than attempted murder.

Striking a deal gets the guy in jail. Given how abysmal the success rate is now, perhaps it is a necessary evil.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

If you get drunk and beat the bloody pulp out of someone..and you are charged with attempted murder..I dont think the jury throws out the case because they get all confused because "hey the guy was drunk when he did it"..Why would it be any different with rape?Would the DA strike a deal for a lesser charge with the defendent because they feel like they cant get a conviction on the higher charge simply because the guy was drunk?

I can see other extenuating circumstances being a factor.But not drunkeness.

Love

Dallas

Being drunk would mean they couldn't add pre-meditated which would mean a lesser charge. So it can be a factor in the case.

 

[DallasApple]

Being drunk would mean they couldn't add pre-meditated which would mean a lesser charge. So it can be a factor in the case.

Just because you are drunk does not automatically mean there was no premeditation.Depends on what you were planning or actions you had taken before you got drunk.Not only that ..people can "plan" and "conive" even when they are drunk.Depends on how drunk you are I suppose.

Love

Dallas

 

[DallasApple]

I want to give an example of pre-meditation..Lets use cheating on your spouse as an example.You meet someone ..you hit it off..you start talking to them (hiding this from your spouse)..you sneak around to meet them for lunch..then you plan a night out together...tell your spouse you have an overnight business trip..you meet this person in a hotel room..condoms in hand..you have drinks..you get rip roaring drunk..and have sex..

When your spouse finds out you can say..."I was so drunk when it happpened".."I barely even remember it"..'I wouldnt have gone through with it if I hadnt been wasted".

I say ..BS.

Love

Dallas

 

[Father Heathen]

You're still asserting your assertion. Burden of proof is on you.

It's pretty sound logic, but before I go searching for sources, studies and the like, may I ask what exactly brought the subject up, and why are you so oddly defensive about it?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yep. I think a new system would do that better. Evidently the current system isn't working, especially given that juries are specifically instructed as to the law during trials.

I think this is one of the strengths of the approach in the Canadian criminal code: since the crime is the more widely defined sexual assault, not rape specifically, I think it's much easier to clearly say "yes, this action meets the definition" or "no, it doesn't". There's no real need to quibble over whether a particular non-consensual sexual act constitutes rape or not - if was sexual in nature, involved physical contact and was done without consent of the victim, then it was sexual assault, no ifs ands or buts. With that out of the way, the judge and jury can then get down to the business of deciding just how serious a sexual assault it was.

 

[DallasApple]

if was sexual in nature, involved physical contact and was done without consent of the victim, then was sexual assault, no ifs ands or buts. With that out of the way, the judge and jury can then get down to the business of deciding just how serious a sexual assault it was.

I agree..Its an "assault" that is sexual in nature..Is easier to understand or "grasp" than rape.

If a stranger walks up to me and grabs my breast..that is "sexual assault".

I dont however believe full blown "rape" in the 1st degree should be taken out of the language completely.

There was a case..where the man was stupid enough to video tape his savedgely beating and raping a woman that he had "abducted"..(she was a rank stranger) for hours ..he repeatedly raped her..They showed part of the video with certain "areas" blurred out..It was so incredibly brutal I almost threw up..At one point the woman was so beaten and traumatised she looked like a rag doll being tossed around ...

I dont think "sexual assault"(that term) would be justice for that woman.

Love

Dallas

 

[DallasApple]

This is a bit off topic from "drunk rape"..But there was another "intriguing" rape case..It was a "stranger" rape..In the womans home..To my recollection he had a weapon..(I believe a knife)..the woman did what she was told and did not try to fight.But she emplored the the man to wear a condom(which she would provide)..She even reasoned that it was for his protection too.

I cant remember(sorry) if he did or not.But he was "caught" and in the trial..part of his defense was since she had the condom..and asked him to wear it she was "consenting" and or "particpating willingly" in the sex act.. ..On top of the fact she didnt fight..she offered a condom..therefore it was consentual..(double roll eyes)

Love

Dallas

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree..Its an "assault" that is sexual in nature..Is easier to undertand or "grasp" than rape.

If a stranger walks up to me and grabs my breast..that is "sexual assault".

I dont however believe full blown "rape" in the 1st degree should be taken out of the language completely.

And it doesn't have to be, no more than, say, "beheading" isn't taken out of the language just because it's covered under the blanket term "homicide" in the criminal code.

 

[DallasApple]

And it doesn't have to be, no more than, say, "beheading" isn't taken out of the language just because it's covered under the blanket term "homicide" in the criminal code.

I see so its in "general" a sexual assault..But "specifically" the nature of the "sexual assault" would be termed "rape".(if that was the charge).

Love

Dallas

 

[misanthropic_clown]

It's pretty sound logic, but before I go searching for sources, studies and the like, may I ask what exactly brought the subject up, and why are you so oddly defensive about it?

Just propagating discussion. If all drunken crimes are the result of latent tendancies, it weakens the position that drinking can be a defense to a crime as it would only be removing inhibition as opposed to preventing the formation of intent. If, however, alcohol can create/exacerbate violent tendancies then having it as a defence to crimes of specific intent would be sound (though would still depend on other factors)