1248B
16-07-2004, 15:02
This is from a now closed thread:
Actually, in most places it would be rape, as the woman was in a state (the woman was drunk) where she could not legally give consent, just like she couldn't sign a contract, buy a house, or even get a tattoo.
Since when does being drunk discharge a person from having to assume responsibility for what they did while they were drunk? And I'm not talking about buying a house, etc, but simply about a drunk woman agreeing to have sex.
To say "because she was drunk we can't hold her responsible" seems rather stupid. According to that line of reasoning you can never be held responsible legally wise for anything you do while drunk. :eek:
I say that if a person gets drunk then they have to accept that when drunk they might end up doing something very stupid and to me it seems unreasonble to just excuse them on the ground of them being drunk. After all, they made the choice to get loaded in the first place.
Actually, in most places it would be rape, as the woman was in a state (the woman was drunk) where she could not legally give consent, just like she couldn't sign a contract, buy a house, or even get a tattoo.
Since when does being drunk discharge a person from having to assume responsibility for what they did while they were drunk? And I'm not talking about buying a house, etc, but simply about a drunk woman agreeing to have sex.
To say "because she was drunk we can't hold her responsible" seems rather stupid. According to that line of reasoning you can never be held responsible legally wise for anything you do while drunk. :eek:
I say that if a person gets drunk then they have to accept that when drunk they might end up doing something very stupid and to me it seems unreasonble to just excuse them on the ground of them being drunk. After all, they made the choice to get loaded in the first place.