<p>
</p>
<p>No, that’s a crime. It has been for quite a while now.</p>
<p>Whether one chooses to prosecute or not (overwhelmingly they do not- to the order that less than 5% of alcohol-involved sexual assaults are reported), it is still a crime. </p>
<p>Responding to Romani in post #40: No, that is completely wrong. You are completely misinformed. It is not a crime to use bad judgment in sexual matters, whether you are under the influence of alcohol or not. Nor should it be. People are free to drink and have sex, even if their judgment is impaired, and even if they regret it in the morning. Many, many people have fully consensual sex when they are under the influence of alcohol. Many of those people regret it the next day. It is not a crime. I am a lawyer. I know the law.</p>
<p>If you would like to know when it is a crime to have sex with a person who is intoxicated, please see my post #23. That is the legal standard in California, and is, in substantially the same form in all other states that I am aware of. The standard boils down to that the victim has to be SO INCAPACITATED THAT HE OR SHE IS INCAPABLE OF RESISTING. This means passed out or nearly passed out. It does not mean drunk enough that judgment is impaired. If the person is able to EXERCISE JUDGMENT, that is say yes to sex, the standard is, by definition, not met. If the person consents to sex (verbally or nonverbally), it is not a crime. In addition, the PERPETRATOR HAS TO KNOW THAT THE VICTIM IS SO INCAPACITATED. Without those elements, no crime has been committed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I should clarify that I don’t think it has any relevance to this law. I just think in general getting rid of “gun free zones” is a good idea. In the “ambiguous” situation there’s no relevance, but it could help protect everyone from violent crime in these areas. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Someone who’s very drunk probably shouldn’t shoot a firearm, no. It obviously has no relevance to the discussion on whether this law makes any sense or not, because this law isn’t about addressing a violent crime. </p>
<p>Will this stop a “he said, she said” situation? My vote is for a contract that is signed before sex, then we can minimize, not eliminate, this issue.</p>
<p>@Nottelling - I said the very same in a different thread and got blasted for not understanding the law and was called all sorts of names. At least, someone else understands the law, as I have always understood it. And I need to understand it because we need to be ready in case something happens between employees at the company. And what you describe is exactly what my chief counsel has written up in the handbook for all new hires and current employees. And that is in a different state than CA.</p>
<p>To clarify my post #41, there may be cases in which someone is so intoxicated (but not passed out) where they are completely incapable of understanding what they are doing and are completely incapable of making a judgment. That would meet the legal standard for incapacitated. Again, the perpetrator has to know (or reasonably should have known) that the victim is impaired to that degree for it to be a crime. But if a person has simply had too much to drink, and makes a bad judgment that he or she later regrets, his or her sexual partner has not committed a crime. </p>
<p>Unfortunately some students are under the impression that if there was not a clear and sober yes followed by enthusiastic participation, they were raped.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. Signature is too late.</p>
<p>To be more useful, the contract must be signed before the first drink is taken and the two parties take full responsibility for whatever happens after the first drink. Unless you do that, being drunk will always be an out - to be clear, I am referring to colleges only. At my company, as Nottelling said, two drunk people are pretty much on their own - all you have is two drunk people stories. There is no way to figure that out with any certainty and no company that I know wastes its time even trying. </p>
<p>Flossy, I don’t believe that for a minute. </p>
<p>Really? You don’t believe they think that? Romani is not the only one, by far.</p>
<p>
Which is why I think permission slips is a silly idea. How is one to know what will happen in the future. Such a signature removes all liability or places all liability onto the signer. </p>
<p><a href=“spreadthehealthbu.com”>spreadthehealthbu.com;
<p>Cute, flossy, especially the word “sober” in the very first line. The problem is drinking college students so nope sober won’t work as essential for this law to work…that is what people are saying, if BOTH are drinking NEITHER can give consent as some are interpreting it to mean and both would then be “guilty.” </p>
<p>TNSTACFS - there’s no such thing as consequence-free sex</p>
<p>And, let’s be honest here, MANY people enjoy having consensual sex when they are a little buzzed and their inhibitions are a bit lowered. I think binge drinking and sexual assaults on college campuses are huge problems, but let’s not come up with a rule that would outlaw consensual sexual practices that MANY, MANY people engage in and enjoy. There has to be a better way to combat the very real problem of sexual assaults. </p>
<p>I really don’t understand the opposition to the “no means no” standard, which seems to strike the right balance. The affirmative consent standard seems designed to capture the VERY LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCE where one partner does not want to proceed but continues to participate anyway WITHOUT SAYING NO and WITHOUT PHYSICALLY RESISTING. We should teach our daughters to clearly and firmly say NO to unwanted sexual advances. What is wrong with that? </p>
<p>I am on another thread talking about sports cars a bit, and it is interesting what we do before we race. Literally, we accept responsibility for racing at high speed and if you and another driver have a run-in at 150 mph, there are no criminal charges because we both have agreed to speed and live on the edge. Things happen so darn fast at 150 and 180 mph that it is impossible to sort things out, unless there is a glaring error on the videotape, which there never is. </p>
<p>At this point, I am not too sure drinking in college should be viewed that much differently. Sign the release to drink at the door and then take responsibility and understand there are impaired guys and girls all around you. If one is concerned about the environment and potential rape, then do not sign and do not enter. This goes for males and females - guys should be aware of potential rape charges against them before they drink and females aware of potential assault. Anything else is striking me as a “pick up the broken pieces after” approach with both males and females saying the exact same thing, “I did not mean it.”</p>
<p>When we crash at the course, each man takes his own car and fixes it because he took responsibility beforehand to engage in activities that could easily lead to bad consequences. </p>
<p>(Obviously, the above is distinct from clearcut cases of forceable rape, where harmful intent is clear and not two impaired people having different recollections)</p>
<p>There are so many things wrong with what you’re saying, nottelling, that I’m not going to bother responding to all of it. I’m just going to leave the thread with this. </p>
<p>Under the law, people who are drunk cannot consent to sex which makes it sexual assault. That is the law in almost every state I’m aware of and certainly in my state. Secondly, I’m not sure why we’re only teaching our daughters to only say “no”. Men can and are sexually assaulted, too. Thirdly, “no means no” doesn’t work when there’s a culture of “no doesn’t REALLY mean no”. In perpetrator interventions, we learn all that time that they are “taught” that "no"s can be changed and that women only say “no” because they’re ‘supposed’ to. </p>
<p>I think the word is incapacitated which does have some legal precedence behind it…and at what point someone is incapacitated? Most people (and the legal system tends to agree) might say vomiting, unable to walk or staggering uncontrollably or falling down, unable to do simple tasks (like texting), , unable to speak coherently… so yes, drunk but more importantly incapacitated . If you wake up in the morning and don’t remember what happened you were probably incapacitated. The law is pretty specific actually although determining how drunk two people are when they have sex is complicated by the fact that time passes in some cases…in some cases weeks or months and sometimes there are no witnesses although I would think on a campus someone could testify if another student was incapacitated or not - most kids aren’t drinking alone in their rooms. There’s nothing wrong with what nottelling is saying he is speaking from a point of law. </p>
<p>Forcing or coercing someone to have sex because they believe no really means yes would be rape in the eyes of the law incapacitated or not.This law is not about ‘forceful sex’ or “coercion” it is about somehow getting two people to “agree” in some meaningful way verbal or non-verbal that can be proven – otherwise it’s a meaningless law because it doesn’t change a darn thing because nothing can be proven, it’s a law without teeth. </p>
<p>It seems that understanding that “No means no” needs to start early in life. No means no, and stop means stop! I see this as an issue often in younger kids; one kid is annoying another in some way, the annoyed child tells them to stop, but the behavior continues. Confronted by an adult, the child will claim they weren’t bothering the other child; they were just playing, or just joking, and they don’t understand that just because they didn’t have to have the intention of annoying the other child, they are still annoying them, and should still stop when they are asked to stop.<br>
At the same time, the child that is annoyed would benefit from being able to make it clear that they are serious about the “No” or “Stop”. If that is ambiguous at all, it may appear there is room for negotiation.
If the child who wants the behavior to stop is also concerned about confrontation, or about hurting someone’s feelings, and wants to be ‘nice’ about it, it may be difficult for them to be assertive, it can be a difficult situation to navigate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>OK, this means my chief counsel and all associate counsels are wrong too. Given the fact that they have guided the company flawlessly for 15 years through some serious stuff, I think I might have to go with their advice, which is identical to @nottelling’s post and is written in our handbook and APPROVED by the EEOC and a couple other government agencies. I guess the government agencies are wrong too then, as we follow their guidelines. Wow, I must have a company full of dumb lawyers. Time to fire them tomorrow. </p>
<p>Please note: our company handbook also does not use the word drunk anywhere; it uses the terms “physically impaired,” “loss of mental capacity to take decisions,” and “physical incapacitation.” Interestingly enough, “physically impaired” also applies to having a fever or broken hand and not being able to properly perform one’s job, but DOES NOT include loss of ability to take decisions, so even being drunk to the point of some physical impairment does not pass the test of being unable to take decisions. After reading this again, it may explain why employees are not crazy enough to bring us drunk “he said, she said” stuff when it happens.</p>
<p>Also please be aware that you also changed what @nottelling said - he did not just say drunk, he said CANNOT EXERCISE JUDGEMENT. However, many people exercise reasonable judgment when drunk, as many a drunk drive home perfectly for years without getting in an accident. That is why there are sobriety checkpoints - because one cannot just tell from the driving alone who is actually legally drunk, as there may be little degradation of driving skills on the average road.</p>
<p>As the one poster says above, I have no idea what this law is going to solve. I suspect nothing at all as males and females are still going disagree on what was said and done.</p>