I’m not a lawyer, but from what I understand they can decide that you were to drunk to form the intent to commit a crime. Intent is required for a crime to have been committed, at least in most cases (I imagine negligence-related things are an exception).
If the person is self-intoxicated, it generally can’t be used. Canada is a Commonwealth Nation. I don’t think the legal principles differ tgat much frim the UK.
“Intent” for negligence/recklessness is derived from reasonable foreseeability of the result of the person’s act.
Outside of prison, 38% of rapes are rapes against men (46% of the time the perp is a woman).
When counting prison (and especially juvenile detention), men make up, by far, the majority of rape victims.
In fact, even outside of prison, a 15 year old boy is more likely to be raped than a 40+ year old woman. Inside of juvenile, it’s off the chart.
1 Like
The defence of extreme intoxication in sexual-assault cases is back in Ontario, after a judge ruled that a federal law removing it violates the constitutional rights of the accused.
The ruling comes in a case in which a man voluntarily took a substance commonly known as a date-rape drug, then said he didn’t know what he was doing when he had sexual intercourse with a woman who was waking from a drunken sleep.
…
Justice Spies wrote in her decision that the federal law relieves the prosecution of having to show that an accused voluntarily committed a sexual assault. It thus violates the right to be presumed innocent, and the right to fundamental justice, wrote Justice Spies.
I’m sorry I forgot it can be used as a defense in criminal acts with specific intent. My bad.
Men in society plus men in prison > women in society. Agreed. But I was working off the understanding that, if we’re counting inmates into the total victim pool, it’s inconsistent to exclude women’s prison where women are still significantly more victimized than men.
“The rate of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization is at least 3 times higher for females (13.7%) than males (4.2%).”
“Rates reported by prison and jail inmates were higher among females than males”
Just for the sake of argument, the incarceration rate for women is much lower than for men so if you count female prisoners it probably doesn’t make a huge difference in the numbers.
Men in society plus men in prison > women in society. Agreed. But I was working off the understanding that, if we’re counting inmates into the total victim pool, it’s inconsistent to exclude women’s prison where women are still significantly more victimized than men.
Nope. While women prisoners may be victimized at a higher rate than men in prison, the female prison population is so small compared to men, the total population of men (in at out of prison) who are victims are still higher than women (in and out of prison).
For example: 10% of 1,000,000 is still greater than 50% of 100,000.
Reminds me of Yogi Berra saying, when asked if he wanted his pizza cut in 4 slices or eight – he replied “Cut it in 4; I’m not hungry enough for 8.”
Fair points. My mistake.
2 Likes
It’s actually a really great mistake to make, in that now, you will be keenly aware how reporters/politicians/whoever switch from percentages to whole numbers to misleadingly make a point. Happens all the time.
“There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.” (Mark Twain)
3 Likes
Once you see it, you can never unsee it
1 Like
I don’t know what the Canadian law is, but in MOST jurisdictions, by voluntarily taking an intoxicating substance, the intent-to-become-stupid, replaces the intent-to-do-whatever-crime is at issue to satisfy the “intent” element of a said crime in a typical jury instruction.
The analysis becomes more and more nuanced as the level of sophistication and thought required for the intent goes up (say, to conspire to do some white collar crime).
1 Like
Technically, OP and the girl did not enter into a ‘contract’ - do not ejaculate inside of me. As they both did not have capacity, ie. they were inebriated. Right? Am I remembering my law classes correctly.
No clue. While there is a “consent” feature to this, not sure this would fall under contract law analysis, at all, unless this has merged with the thread by the pervert upset about not finding his mom on Backpage anymore.
I do make an educated guess that, if this was a college campus, California, or he’s a white guy in Maryland, New York, MA, or CT, would somehow be rape.
In those places you could get charged with rape if you don’t call the girl the next day. Next, failure to give the girl an orgasm will be a punishable offence.
I could see the college angle since they have rape tribunals and don’t involve the police, but could he really be charged with a crime anywhere in the US? Would that have anything to do with a failed pullout as opposed to, say, her being unable to consent because of the alcohol rendering her mentally incapacitated?
I read through NY and couldn’t see anything about failed pull out methods. Has anyone ever been charged with a crime like this in the US?
I’m actually starting to feel a tiny bit sorry for this asshole.
He obviously kinda likes the girl if he’s still stalking her
2 Likes
You’re going soft, Yogi.
1 Like
I don’t know. I suspect that since the sexual contact was (initially) consensual, that it it is probably not a crime.
Also, given how premature/unintended ejaculation is pretty common, the burden of proof would be hard to meet.
That said, in looking (I’m stuck in an airport, if you haven’t guessed), it appears that it is a crime to ejaculate in your boss’s water bottle for four days straight. But it is not a sex crime. Appears to be tampering with foodstuffs.
4 Likes
This is such a relief. Glad I stopped at three.
2 Likes