podbaydoor wrote:Being falsely accused of falsely accusing also, surprisingly, ruins lives. What did you think Oregonaut's point was?
So does being falsely accused of being falsely accused of falsely accusing. What's your point?
Oregonaut wrote:What is so difficult about thinking some? Why do you have to have a black and white answer? Seriously, one family member who feels strongly about caring for the "alleged" victim can make a world of difference, and even more important, can stop the situation from continuing.
If they're lying, figure out after the fact why they did that. Try to help them out, even though they lied to you. Why? Because the alternative is YOU DON'T TRUST A VICTIM OF RAPE.
So, ask yourself, are you big enough to help someone who may be lying, but may not be and really needs your help EITHER WAY?
I'm fine with family members/loved ones believing the victim, just as the family of the accused is probably going to believe the accused. My point about presumption of innocence was for those whose job it is to determine the truth (law enforcement and the justice system) and for people who have the power to inflict consequences (such as school administrators or employers. Also, note that presumption of innocence of the accused does not imply that one is the victim is at fault, or was not hurt.
And what is that last line supposed to mean? The "help" that someone lying about being raped is very different from the kind of help that an actual rape victim needs.
pizzazz wrote:*So, this is something that's confused for the last 9 months since I realized it. Why is it that while drunk, you are presumed to have enough judgment that you can be held responsible for any deaths you cause by driving drunk, but not enough judgment to consent to sex?
Because if you have sex you later regret when drunk, or are too drunk to consent, or aren't sure which because you can't remember a thing and oh god my head... the victim is yourself. You can generally do whatever the fuck you like to yourself, in law. However, when you hurt/injure/kill someone else, you are responsible, whether or not you were drunk, because you've damaged someone else. The fact that you were drunk, IIRC (IANAL) is something that gets most sentences reduces. (I.E. Running someone down is worse than running someone down while drunk).
I understand all of that, but I don't see how it answers the question. My question is not about magnitude of punishment, or even directly about culpability. If I get drunk, then get behind the wheel of a car and kill someone, I am held responsible for that death. Usually it is considered an accident (manslaughter), akin to, say, pointing a gun at someone and having it go off by accident. The victim's death is still your fault, but the law acknowledges that you didn't kill on purpose; however, being drunk does not make it not your fault. On the other hand, if you are drunk and instead have sex with a sober person, now being drunk makes it not my fault. Confusing the situation even more, if the other person is drunk, and initiates sex, now THEY are treated as the drunk driver above, in that they are now a rapist.