Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagatob
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Also if we're going to be arguing semantics:
Getting into an accident while driving drunk is a possible consequence of driving drunk but not a natural one, people drive drunk home without issues all the time but only alcoholics will argue such and are rightly ridiculed.
Getting raped is indeed a natural consequence of getting too drunk. People are animals and do much more horrible premeditated things to sober people. Getting shitfaced in general public without someone to watch your back absolutely invites a crime of opportunity.
Where did anyone state or even imply that the perpetrate did nothing wrong and didn't deserve to be punished?
If some dumbass leaves the window on a ground floor home open and their child gets kidnapped, does the kidnapper suddenly get off the hook because the parent was negligent? No. Why do you imply it's different in the case of rape? Fucker should be castrated, doesn't make the drunk any less of a dumb shit.
|
your conception of a natural consequence is flawed. driving drunk impairs driving ability. impaired driving ability increases the likelihood of accident. impairment via drunkenness directly increases the likelihood of accident to the extent that it can be judged by a reasonable person that an accident is in fact a natural, if not inevitable, consequence of drunk driving. this is independent of the actions of any other party
there is no such direct correlation between drunkenness and rape. a reasonable mind could not judge rape as a natural consequence of drunkenness. in most instances, drunkenness has little or no demonstrable impact on the likelihood of rape. further, any such rape is entirely contingent upon the actions of a separate party. there must be an intervening party that commits criminal action in order for such a rape to occur. as this intervention would be decidedly unnatural, it must be judged that rape is not a natural consequence of drunkenness
you're basically arguing a bastardized version of "danger invites rescue" wherein drunkenness invites rape. the problem is that it doesn't.
also, i have no idea what you're talking about with criminals "getting off the hook". you're raising a question of liability. in the case of the drunk driver, the drunk assumes liability because his actions directly contribute to an accident. in the case of the drunk rape victim, the victim assumes no liability because getting drunk and falling asleep does not directly contribute to rape less you attempt to argue that the victim has an obligation to resist. in the case of the kidnapped child, the parent assumes no liability because having a child kidnapped is not a natural consequence of leaving a window open
06-02-2013, 01:55 AM
Linear Mode
