Are you able to give consent to sex while drunk?

[Lancecastor]

According to a recent court ruling in Canada, “a drunk can consent” to sexual intercourse.

I have consented to sex many times while shitfaced.

And you?

 

[Disgustipated]

I have consented to sex many times while shitfaced.

Having to lubricate yourself before you lube yourself is just sad.

 

[RobDownSouth]

http://68.media.tumblr.com/96f89068ef19fe818710ae0e70283d1d/tumblr_mu0ar5r8ve1r4lee6o1_400.gif

 

[Ms_Ann]

It depends on how drunk I am.

 

[Maidboy]

Yes, but the performance may be somewhat impaired.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Are you able to give consent to sex while drunk?

I can if I'm not too drunk to speak.

 

[KingOrfeo]

It depends on how drunk I am.

So many important things in life do.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

No, I can only discern consent when drunk...

 

[raindancer]

Ugh, drunk is scary interpretive.

I've made poor decisions while under the influence. But, it was also my poor choice to become inebriated.

 

[RobDownSouth]

The last time "drunk consent" came up, someone linked this video "behind the disco" and a splendid meltdown ensued.

To me, it looks like consent for the first guy (borderline call), but not the second.

 

[pensivepoet]

So far, I can't get this drunk

 

[Phelia]

According to a recent court ruling in Canada, “a drunk can consent” to sexual intercourse.

It's ludicrous to present this out of context. Yes, a drunk person can give consent and is responsible for their actions. "Drunk" is different from incapacitated due to a state of extreme inebriation. In this case, the woman had such a high BAC she couldn't remember anything, and thus was unable to testify whether or not she had given consent.

Her underwear was soaked with urine at the time it was removed from her body. That is incapacitated. This woman was raped, the judge was wrong, and people are pissed.

 

[Lancecastor]

Her underwear was soaked with urine at the time it was removed from her body. That is incapacitated. This woman was raped, the judge was wrong

A rape kit was performed and there was no evidence he'd been inside her.

And what does urine have to do with anything?...it wasn't Trump.

 

[KingOrfeo]

A rape kit was performed and there was no evidence he'd been inside her.

Then how did the question of consent even arise? Why was not the case simply dismissed for lack of evidence?

 

[gypsyTX]

Then how did the question of consent even arise? Why was not the case simply dismissed for lack of evidence?

Read the article Phelia posted. The cop spotted them 11 minutes after she hailed the cab, just after the cabbie stripped her lower half naked and propped her legs up. She was passed out.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Read the article Phelia posted. The cop spotted them 11 minutes after she hailed the cab, just after the cabbie stripped her lower half naked and propped her legs up. She was passed out.

So the charge was attempted rape, I suppose.

 

[gypsyTX]

So the charge was attempted rape, I suppose.

The charge was sexual assault, not rape. There is a difference. Taking someone panties off and/or touching her private parts without consent, that's sexual assault. Rape involves penetration.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The charge was sexual assault, not rape. There is a difference. Taking someone panties off and/or touching her private parts without consent, that's sexual assault. Rape involves penetration.

But consent is a valid defense to either, correct?

 

[Phelia]

Just so it's crystal clear for everyone, let's post the judge's own words.

I've bolded the parts where it's made clear that the crux of the case involves the period between when she was picked up (after she was so visibly drunk that she was denied entry into a bar) and when she was found passed out in the back seat of the taxi. In this time period, the defendant drove her in the complete opposite direction of her house, watched her piss herself, and peeled her urine-soaked pants and panties off of her body like he was stripping a doll. He had his pants partially down and her DNA on his upper lip. These are undisputed facts - the judge spells it all out in excruciating detail.

To make it super easy, I used red text to highlight the parts where the judge decides that there is not enough evidence to prove she did not say "yes! Do it!" to all of the above, and that it is unclear whether she chose to position her body at a 90 degree angle with her legs propped up against the front seat.

But yeah wow totally a grey area.

In order for Mr. Al-Rawi to be convicted of the offence that's before the court, the Crown would have to establish beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mr. Al-Rawi touched (complainant), that it was in such a way that it violated her sexual integrity, and that it was not done with her consent. In other words, that it was done without her consent.

Now on the element of consent, in order for there to be consent, the person giving the consent must have an operating mind, they must be of an age responsible enough to agree to sexual conduct. It can be withdrawn at any time and it can be limited to certain acts and not others.

A person will be incapable of giving consent if she is unconscious or is so intoxicated by alcohol or drugs as to be incapable of understanding or perceiving the situation that presents itself.

This does not mean, however, that an intoxicated person cannot give consent to sexual activity. Clearly a drunk can consent.

As noted by (inaudible), the forensic alcohol specialist, one of the effects of alcohol on the human body is it tends to reduce inhibitions and increases risk-taking behaviour. And this often leads to people agreeing, and to sometimes initiating, sexual encounters, only to regret them later when they are sober.

In this case, there is no question (complainant) was drunk when she was found in Mr. Al-Rawi's taxi and she was unconscious. Therefore at that moment, when Const. Thibault approached Mr. Al-Rawi's vehicle, (complainant) was in fact incapable of consenting to any sexual activity.

And that also means that whenever she did pass out, she would have been incapable.

What is unknown, however, is the moment (complainant) lost consciousness. That is important because it would appear that prior to that, she had been able to communicate with others. Although she appeared drunk to the staff at Boomers, who would not let her in because of her state of intoxication, she had appeared to make decisions for herself, however unwise those decisions might have been.

(Complainant) in her testimony could not provide any information, any details, on whether she agreed to be naked in the taxi or initiated any sexual activity. She could not provide any evidence as to why the taxi was in the south end of the city, nor could any other compellable witness provide that information.

Now as I've said, the taxi being in the south-end neighbourhood, not on any route one would drive to get from Grafton Street to the Armdale Rotary, is of concern. (Complainant)'s sandals found on the floor of the driver's compartment under Mr. Al-Rawi's feet, is also of concern.

Mr. Al-Rawi having (complainant)'s pants and panties in his hand and shoving them between the console and the front seat is of greater concern. (Complainant)'s position in the back seat with her legs propped up on the backs of the front bucket seats is very disturbing.

All of that, together with (complainant) being found unconscious in the back seat of that vehicle, Mr. Al-Rawi having his pants undone, would lead any reasonable person to believe that Mr. Al-Rawi was engaging in or about to engage in sexual activity with a woman who was incapable of consenting.

In other words, Const. Thibault had ample grounds to arrest Mr. Al-Rawi. It would have been foolish of her not to do so in the circumstances. That being said, it is the burden on the Crown to prove in this case that (complainant) could not or had not consented to any sexual activity.

The Crown failed to produce any evidence of lack of consent at any time when Mr. Al-Rawi was touching (complainant).

I fully believe that the reason (complainant)'s sandals were in the driver's compartment is because Mr. Al-Rawi took possession of them. I also believe the pants were inside out with the panties caught up in them because Mr. Al-Rawi was the person who took them off (complainant).

As described, it is only logical that those clothes came off by Mr. Al-Rawi grabbing the pants at the waist and pulling the pants and panties off together, thus turning them inside out as they were pulled over (complainant)'s legs. Anybody who has changed a child would understand the method used to strip (complainant) of her clothes.

I also believe that (complainant)'s DNA was located on Mr. Al-Rawi's upper lip because, in all probability, he wiped his hand or fingers over, either intentionally or absent-mindedly, after handling the urine-soaked pants of (complainant). That would explain her DNA being on his upper lip.

So this is what I believe, and is logically probable based on the circumstantial evidence placed before me.

But I do not know whether Mr. Al-Rawi removed (complainant)'s pants at her consent, at her request, with her consent, without her consent, I don't know.

The Crown marshalled no evidence on this. The Crown had no evidence to present on the issue of consent prior to Const. Thibault arriving on scene.

Once Const. Thibault was on scene, Mr. Al-Rawi was not observed to be touching (complainant) in any way. He therefore was not assaulting her when we know she was unconscious.

Mr. Al-Rawi as a taxi driver was entrusted with the safe conduct of (complainant) to her place of residence. That is one of the main reasons we have taxis operating late at night and into the morning hours, to get people under the influence of alcohol or other intoxicants safely home.

Experienced taxi drivers easily recognize the signs of intoxication on people. They also know from experience that drunks can behave in ways detrimental to their own health and reputation. Taxi drivers are therefore under a moral obligation not take advantage of intoxicated people, either by racking up improper fares or engaging in sexual activity, as two examples.

If (complainant) consented to Mr. Al-Rawi's removal of her clothes, Mr. Al-Rawi was under a moral or ethical obligation to decline the invitation. She was clearly drunk. If she was unable to provide an address, he should have sought police assistance.

Once he saw she had peed her pants, he knew she was quite drunk. He knew going along with any flirtation on her part involved him taking advantage of a vulnerable person. That is not somebody I would want my daughter driving with, nor any other young woman, and it is not somebody I would want to hire to drive for my company.

Having said that, with regards to the charge before this court at the critical time of when Mr. Al-Rawi would have stripped (complainant) of her clothes, the Crown has provided absolutely no evidence on the issue of lack of consent.

The evidence of (inaudible) provided the possibility that with a blood-alcohol level of 223 to 244 milligrams per cent, (complainant) might very well have been capable of appearing lucid but drunk and able to direct, ask, agree or consent to any number of different activities. A lack of memory does not equate to a lack of consent.

Where the Crown has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (complainant)'s lack of consent, I am left with no alternative but to find Mr. Al-Rawi not guilty.

Mr. Al-Rawi, you're free to go. Thank you.

 

[Phelia]

The charge was sexual assault, not rape. There is a difference. Taking someone panties off and/or touching her private parts without consent, that's sexual assault. Rape involves penetration.

That is not true in Canada.

 

[Mello_SixtyNine]

If you are passed out drunk, then no, you can't give consent. If you are in a situation where you and someone else are at a party and both drinking, you end up having sex (no mentions of no/stop during sex), you can't claim rape when you wake up in the morning.

 

[gypsyTX]

But consent is a valid defense to either, correct?

Earlier you didn't even want to talk about consent. You just wanted to get it all dismissed....

 

[gypsyTX]

That is not true in Canada.

Ah. I didn't know.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Earlier you didn't even want to talk about consent. You just wanted to get it all dismissed....

I wanted nothing of the kind; I asked why it had not been dismissed when there was no evidence of penetration. Now I know there was evidence of other misbehavior.

 

[Phelia]

Ah. I didn't know.

I didn't until recently. It was actually after I'd moved back to the US after spending six years north o' the border. Lawyers still wear robes in court too