A question about drunk legality, and holding people responsible.

[jurnag12]

There's just an inherent difference between the situations. You can't exactly compare operating a vehicle to social interaction. A car can't steer you in a direction the same way someone taking advantage of a drunk person can.

Aside from that, laws like these are in place to prevent people from coming to harm. With driving the best way to do so is to forbid people from driving drunk in the first place, and with consent it's best to make it clear that people heavily under the influence of alcohol are not capable of giving consent and thus getting themselves into situations they would not agree to if they were of clear mind.

 

[Thaluikhain]

This again?

In both cases, there is a second party involved. In the case of a drunk driver running them over, the second party didn't want to be. They are an innocent bystander until they get made into a victim based on nothing they decided. That's a big difference.

As an aside, that this has to continually argued over doesn't say good things about how our society views consent.

 

[Superbeast]

This again?

In both cases, there is a second party involved. In the case of a drunk driver running them over, the second party didn't want to be. They are an innocent bystander until they get made into a victim based on nothing they decided. That's a big difference.

As an aside, that this has to continually argued over doesn't say good things about how our society views consent.

Yeah, this.

I can barely even be bothered to argue with/correct people over it any more. Not only is it depressing as hell that it comes up so often, but it is the relative inevitability of a shit-tide of angry responses. I'm apprehensive about even posting what follows.

OP:

Rape, someone having sex with you when you can't consent, is an action being done to you. Driving whilst drunk is an action you are doing. That is why people are held to different levels of responsibility in those situations, because people have different levels of responsibility in those situations!

 

[Hagi]

I think, in all cases, it's more of a case of can't resist or know what you're doing because you're too drunk and the other party could be reasonably expected to know that.

I think in regards to drunk driving if you can show that:
- You were drunk to such a degree that you couldn't reasonably be expected to resist or know what you were doing.
- Other(s) were pushing you into driving.
- Said other(s) could reasonably be expected to know you were too drunk to resist or know what you were doing.

You shouldn't be guilty. Which I'd argue is exactly the same for sex, contracts or anything else.

If one of those doesn't apply then it's your own responsibility.

 

[runic knight]

I'm of the mind that anyone who willingly gets drunk is as responsible for any and all behavior they do while drunk as if they were stone cold sober. Seriously, personal responsibility from drinkers has been a joke as people use it as an excuse for avoiding responsibility for their actions, and for some reason society has adapted to that mindset as well. But it really needs to cease. If someone chooses to weaken their own judgement, they they need to deal with the consequences of that action. Killing someone while drinking and driving should be as severe, if not more so then doing it while sober. More so since they willingly chose to be stupid and weaken their judgement and make themselves a danger and break the law about not drinking and driving on top of the whole killing someone behind the wheel bit.

With regards to being black-out drunk, nothing changes. Unless you have someone actively drugging you against your will or without your knowledge(a different issue of them deciding you should be out of your right mindset, something that should be a heavy crime and be viewed in any decision you make after that point), any decisions you make while drunk that bad are still yours to bear the consequences of. You go out and punch someone in the face while drunk, it is the same to that person as if you did it while sober. Your drunkeness level doesn't make the damage less because you might not have decided to do it while sober, so why treat it as such? The damage is still done. Doesn't matter the degree of being drunk, the punch is the punch is the punch so why would anyone see the same action in a different light based off a previous decision the perpetrator did before that point?

with regard to sex, again, if the person choose and willing got themselves drunk, they are responsible for their own actions including agreement to sleep with other probably likewise drunken people (general bar setting is what I am seeing this sort of thing at). About the only time this does change is black-out drunk because, well, hard to give consent while unconscious and all that. But with regard to especially minor alcohol involved before making that decision, person who is drinking is responsible for their decisions before and after.

 

[CaitSeith]

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure this very same question was asked some time ago in these forums. And I doubt anyone who participated back then has changed their opinion, so good luck.

 

[Pirate Of PC Master race]

I recommend to put those people in a jail forever.

I believe this is most ethical thing to do, as this will protect other people form those drunks but more importantly, protect those drunks from themselves.

 

[TechNoFear]

You appear to be comparing chalk to cheese...

When someone is drunk, we say they can't consent to having sex or signing any legal document/contract because they're not of sound mind to make that decision

These laws are to protect impared people (from being exploited).

when someone who's drunk gets behind the wheel of a car, we DO hold that person responsible for a choice they make while they are drunk.

These laws are to protect society (from impared people).

 

[Elfgore]

Locked per OP's request.