This discussion is closed.
jenkinsear
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#221
Report 4 years ago
#221
(Original post by greeneyedgirl)
There's a difference between drunk and so drunk you're unable to consent. OP is clearly the latter.
How on earth can you conclude this? You simply can't on what OP has said.

(Original post by greeneyedgirl)
No a woman can still rape you even if you are completely drunk.
Women cannot rape men under English law.
0
NYU℠
Badges: 20
#222
Report 4 years ago
#222
(Original post by jenkinsear)
That's a ridiculous comment. The police can't just start seizing things because someone turns up and tells them to. They need to establish a reasonable case first and then get the permission of a judge (exceptions applying for certain things).
It's not as though a rape accusation accompanied by witnesses or CCTV evidence that she went off with the man couldn't amount to reasonable cause.
0
jenkinsear
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#223
Report 4 years ago
#223
(Original post by NYU2012)
It's not as though a rape accusation accompanied by witnesses or CCTV evidence that she went off with the man couldn't amount to reasonable cause.
I never said it couldn't, but the notion that you can just tell the police to go start seizing things is madness. They would need some serious cause to do that. If they have it, then of course they would, but it's not something you just request and it happens.
0
ngb9320
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#224
Report 4 years ago
#224
(Original post by jenkinsear)
That's a ridiculous comment. The police can't just start seizing things because someone turns up and tells them to. They need to establish a reasonable case first and then get the permission of a judge (exceptions applying for certain things).
It is a reasonable case. They have good reasons for doing it due to the serious accusation.
0
NYU℠
Badges: 20
#225
Report 4 years ago
#225
(Original post by jenkinsear)
For the diminished mental capacity rule to apply she'd need to have some form of mental illness or an incredibly low IQ to be unable to consent. I think you're confusing the different branches of capacity to consent.
I think you're not terribly familiar with criminal law here or you're attempting to semantically nitpick for no good reason. Diminished mental capacity, per the posters use, would simply mean a diminished capacity to consent. Diminished capacity understood in the way that poster used it would mean a capacity lower than would be usual for the OP. In fact, alcohol factually causes a diminished capacity. Ergo, it's entirely reasonable to speak in terms of the OP having a diminished capacity to consent and such terminology could easily be used in a legal discussion about capacity to consent due to intoxication - the judge and jury would understand exactly what you meant.

Let's not confuse the defense of diminished capacity with the concept of diminished capacity.
0
NYU℠
Badges: 20
#226
Report 4 years ago
#226
(Original post by jenkinsear)
I never said it couldn't, but the notion that you can just tell the police to go start seizing things is madness. They would need some serious cause to do that. If they have it, then of course they would, but it's not something you just request and it happens.
It was obviously not the intent of the poster to imply that police just seize things at request. It seems like you're simply on this thread to play semantics and are offering no useful aid.
0
jenkinsear
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#227
Report 4 years ago
#227
(Original post by ngb9320)
It is a reasonable case. They have good reasons for doing it due to the serious accusation.
It doesn't quite work like that.
0
jenkinsear
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#228
Report 4 years ago
#228
(Original post by NYU2012)
It was obviously not the intent of the poster that police just seize things. It seems like you're simply on this thread to play semantics and are offering no useful aid.
I suggest you re-read their post, as that does not seem to be their point at all.

As for your second point, I am correcting some of the idiotic comments that the wannabe lawyers are spouting.

The most useful advice for OP if they genuinely believe they were raped (which is a bloody serious allegation to be making, so they should consider whether they do really consider that to be what happened) is to contact the police immediately and report for a medical examination asap so that critically helpful evidence can be taken.
0
snailsareslimy
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#229
Report 4 years ago
#229
I'm so sorry this happened to you. A similar thing happened to me a few months ago, so I know exactly how you feel :hugs:.

The next few months are gonna be tough, you're gonna go through a lot of crazy feelings, but honestly it does get better. Talk to someone you trust and try to work through your problems. Counselling might also be an idea (I didn't go to my session but I think it would have helped me, tbh.)

If you ever need someone to talk to, PM me. Any time. Sending out loads of hugs :hugs: xxxx
0
jenkinsear
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#230
Report 4 years ago
#230
(Original post by NYU2012)
I think you're not terribly familiar with criminal law here or you're attempting to semantically nitpick for no good reason. Diminished mental capacity, per the posters use, would simply mean a diminished capacity to consent. Diminished capacity understood in the way that poster used it would mean a capacity lower than would be usual for the OP. In fact, alcohol factually causes a diminished capacity. Ergo, it's entirely reasonable to speak in terms of the OP having a diminished capacity to consent and such terminology could easily be used in a legal discussion about capacity to consent due to intoxication - the judge and jury would understand exactly what you meant.
Please, never go to the bar. There's an important distinction between "diminished mental capacity" and "diminished capacity to consent" which would need to be made very clear to a jury.

It's also so wrong to say that alcohol "causes a diminished capacity". No it doesn't. It can, in somewhat extreme circumstances, but normally the approach is that it actually doesn't.

(Original post by NYU2012)
Let's not confuse the defense of diminished capacity with the concept of diminished capacity.
With respect, you seem to be confused about the fine distinctions necessary in law. I assume you're quite early into your studies, but these things become clearer with time. Ultimately the important thing is what OP opts to do next, which I hope is whatever is best for their wellbeing.
0
NYU℠
Badges: 20
#231
Report 4 years ago
#231
(Original post by jenkinsear)
I suggest you re-read their post, as that does not seem to be their point at all.
The poster in question simply stated, verbatim:

"Also op you should get the police to check his laptop/computer, camera and phone."

The poster doesn't imply that police have to the power to do this without legal authorization or otherwise; their comment is silent on that issue. Really, what you've done is, to use a common law student example, assumed that "Victim A was shot" meant that A was shot dead, when in fact, you cannot infer that from the statement. You're attempting to extract or import meaning which simply isn't there and, I can guarantee if we go ask that poster, they clearly did not intend.
0
jenkinsear
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#232
Report 4 years ago
#232
(Original post by NYU2012)
The poster in question simply stated, verbatim:

"Also op you should get the police to check his laptop/computer, camera and phone."

The poster doesn't imply that police have to the power to do this without legal authorization or otherwise; their comment is silent on that issue. Really, what you've done is, to use a common law student example, assumed that "Victim A was shot" meant that A was shot dead, when in fact, you cannot infer that from the statement. You're attempting to extract or import meaning which simply isn't there and, I can guarantee if we go ask that poster, they clearly did not intend.
They suggest it is simply a matter of OP "getting" the police to check multiple items of his property. Their choice of language is incredibly telling. Clarity matters

My genuine concern is that OP or others may get the impression that they have a right to such things and then feel let down or that their rights are not being respected if they do not succeed in getting such action taken. It's important for alleged victims to understand the limits of police power; regardless of intent the original comment was unhelpful in this regard. I do not feel that is an unfair comment.
0
NYU℠
Badges: 20
#233
Report 4 years ago
#233
(Original post by jenkinsear)
Please, never go to the bar.
Unnecessary and childish.

There's an important distinction between "diminished mental capacity" and "diminished capacity to consent" which would need to be made very clear to a jury.
Unless we're dealing with a case that involves mental illness/low IQ and alcohol which caused diminished capacity, this linguistic distinction wouldn't be necessary to draw to the jury. In a case which involved drinking to a clear excess, I could say "drinking caused the victim to experience diminished mental capacity" - and this would be a true statement. It would cause a diminished capacity to consent, capacity to coordinate movement, and we could name other things.

The semantic differentiation between "diminished mental capacity" and "diminished capacity to consent" is not particularly relevant, and the fact that we were talking about capacity to consent would be plainly obvious to the jury since we're talking about "Did she consent to rape?". Since we know what the framework question would be, the use of "victim suffered diminished capacity" would not carry substantively different meaning from "diminished capacity to consent", the former simply shortening the statement by dropping off the last clause - but since the context of the case, and the relevant legal question of legal consent would already be set, the context would clearly imply to the "to consent" to the jury. The jury aren't idiots and anyone with any understanding of linguistics knows that context is an extremely important factor of linguistic processing

P.S. I assume you've studied, at university level, to some extent, linguistics and neuroscience like I have, so that you can have a factual scientific background in this particular subject area before you attempt to retort since you want to throw our your legal educational qualifications as somehow being indicative of your clearly superior knowledge here.

It's also so wrong to say that alcohol "causes a diminished capacity". No it doesn't. It can, in somewhat extreme circumstances, but normally the approach is that it actually doesn't.
Legally speaking, no it doesn't always cause a diminished capacity; in fact neurological fact, we can easily see the effect of alcohol and diminished capacity.

With respect, you seem to be confused about the fine distinctions necessary in law. I assume you're quite early into your studies, but these things become clearer with time. Ultimately the important thing is what OP opts to do next, which I hope is whatever is best for their wellbeing.
You're pedantic, annoying, and have an overinflated ego. In fact, I'm in my final year, with only two exams left to complete, and accepted to the University of Chicago for graduate study; which in case you aren't aware, is one of the world's highest ranking universities. Please, save it. I'm not here to play egos and puff chests.
1
NYU℠
Badges: 20
#234
Report 4 years ago
#234
(Original post by jenkinsear)
They suggest it is simply a matter of OP "getting" the police to check multiple items of his property. Their choice of language is incredibly telling. Clarity matters
Most people aren't lawyers. Most people don't speak in legalese. Lay off of non-lawyers.

My genuine concern is that OP or others may get the impression that they have a right to such things and then feel let down or that their rights are not being respected if they do not succeed in getting such action taken. It's important for alleged victims to understand the limits of police power; regardless of intent the original comment was unhelpful in this regard. I do not feel that is an unfair comment.
LITERALLY NOT AT ALL RELEVANT TO THIS THREAD. If you want to have a discussion about the appropriateness of such and such, make a thread about it. This is a thread about whether or not someone may have been raped. This is absolutely NOT to appropriate place to lay into non-lawyers about legalese jargon.
0
jenkinsear
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#235
Report 4 years ago
#235
(Original post by NYU2012)
Unnecessary and childish.



Unless we're dealing with a case that involves mental illness/low IQ and alcohol which caused diminished capacity, this linguistic distinction wouldn't be necessary to draw to the jury. In a case which involved drinking to a clear excess, I could say "drinking caused the victim to experience diminished mental capacity" - and this would be a true statement. It would cause a diminished capacity to consent, capacity to coordinate movement, and we could name other things.

The semantic differentiation between "diminished mental capacity" and "diminished capacity to consent" is not particularly relevant, and the fact that we were talking about capacity to consent would be plainly obvious to the jury since we're talking about "Did she consent to rape?". Since we know what the framework question would be, the use of "victim suffered diminished capacity" would not carry substantively different meaning from "diminished capacity to consent", the former simply shortening the statement by dropping off the last clause - but since the context of the case, and the relevant legal question of legal consent would already be set, the context would clearly imply to the "to consent" to the jury. The jury aren't idiots and anyone with any understanding of linguistics knows that context is an extremely important factor of linguistic processing

P.S. I assume you've studied, at university level, to some extent, linguistics and neuroscience like I have, so that you can have a factual scientific background in this particular subject area before you attempt to retort since you want to throw our your legal educational qualifications as somehow being indicative of your clearly superior knowledge here.



Legally speaking, no it doesn't always cause a diminished capacity; in fact neurological fact, we can easily see the effect of alcohol and diminished capacity.



You're pedantic, annoying, and have an overinflated ego. In fact, I'm in my final year, with only two exams left to complete, and accepted to the University of Chicago for graduate study; which in case you aren't aware, is one of the world's highest ranking universities. Please, save it. I'm not here to play egos and puff chests.
I'll make this my final point aside from a brief response to your other comments below as there's little point continuing, but I have taught first year undergrads in their first term Criminal law at a far more prestigious university than Chicago (is Chicago even prestigious for law? I've seen little of it in the academic world, which hints as a no to me) and they all pretty much grasped these issues with far more understanding than you seem to.

Here is the core of your problem: you seem to think linguistics and neurology change what the actual law is. They do not. As lovely and interesting as the academic theories or even the scientific studies in these areas are, they are irrelevant unless they are drawn upon in applying the law. No court is going to overrule reams of caselaw because of your views on neurology.
0
jenkinsear
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#236
Report 4 years ago
#236
(Original post by NYU2012)
Most people aren't lawyers. Most people don't speak in legalese. Lay off of non-lawyers.
I have no interest in whether they are lawyers or not, simply in the accuracy of their comments. A non lawyer can be far more informed than a lawyer- I have seen it many times, this thread being an example in several instances.


(Original post by NYU2012)
LITERALLY NOT AT ALL RELEVANT TO THIS THREAD. If you want to have a discussion about the appropriateness of such and such, make a thread about it. This is a thread about whether or not someone may have been raped. This is absolutely NOT to appropriate place to lay into non-lawyers about legalese jargon.
Nice bold type. I however disagree entirely- I wish OP or anyone who ever reads back on this thread to have factual information, not ill-informed drivel. Unless such errors are challenged, they spread. Why do you think so many people believe in common law marriage? I have offered my view on what OP should do in addition to challenging some of the more dubious advice/views given, with the overall aim of being a mix of supportive and realistic. I make no apologies for doing so.
0
NYU℠
Badges: 20
#237
Report 4 years ago
#237
(Original post by jenkinsear)
I'll make this my final point as there's little point continuing, but I have taught first year undergrads in their first term Criminal law at a far more prestigious university than Chicago (is Chicago even prestigious for law? I've seen little of it in the academic world, which hints as a no to me) and they all pretty much grasped these issues with far more understanding than you seem to.
Here is the core of your problem: you seem to think linguistics and neurology change what the actual law is. They do not. As lovely and interesting as the academic theories or even the scientific studies in these areas are, they are irrelevant unless they are drawn upon in applying the law. No court is going to overrule reams of caselaw because of your views on neurology.
I never made such a claim, and the fact that you've tried to insert such a claim into what I've claimed makes me absolutely skeptical of your above claim [bolded] about teaching. Furthermore, not knowing of Chicago makes your claim even more unlikely, since it's the #4 law school in the US, tied with Columbia and only bested by Stanford, Harvard and Yale.

It's also host to Martha Nussbaum, which if you have actually studied/taught criminal law and consent, you know who she is.

http://www.topuniversities.com/unive...=false+search=

Wow, weird, Chicago is ranked #9 in the world for law

So, I assume you've been teaching at... Oxbridge, which I find... doubtful
0
jenkinsear
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#238
Report 4 years ago
#238
[QUOTE=NYU2012;54584529]
(Original post by jenkinsear)
I'll make this my final point as there's little point continuing, but I have taught first year undergrads in their first term Criminal law at a far more prestigious university than Chicago (is Chicago even prestigious for law? I've seen little of it in the academic world, which hints as a no to me) and they all pretty much grasped these issues with far more understanding than you seem to.



I never made such a claim, and the fact that you've tried to insert such a claim into what I've claimed makes me absolutely skeptical of your above claim [bolded] about teaching. Furthermore, not knowing of Chicago makes your claim even more unlikely, since it's the #4 law school in the US, tied with Columbia and only bested by Stanford, Harvard and Yale.

It's also host to Martha Nussbaum, which if you have actually studied/taught criminal law and consent, you know who she is.

http://www.topuniversities.com/unive...=false+search=

Wow, weird, Chicago is ranked #9 in the world for law

So, I assume you've been teaching at... Oxbridge, which I find... doubtful
Christ, we know we're in trouble when the old league tables are being wheeled out. I won't even go into the flaws in their methodology, but suffice to say I find the claim Chicago is somehow a top law school to be quite amusing.

I have a vague awareness of Nussbaum for some of her jurisprudence writings, but I wouldn't really cite her as particularly noteworthy on criminal law. I find it bizarre that you would think she was.

As for where I teach, believe what you like. The reality is you are struggling with the content that a first year should be relatively comfortable with. That is bemusing and concerning. Lucky Chicago...
0
NYU℠
Badges: 20
#239
Report 4 years ago
#239
(Original post by jenkinsear)
Christ, we know we're in trouble when the old league tables are being wheeled out. I won't even go into the flaws in their methodology, but suffice to say I find the claim Chicago is somehow a top law school to be quite amusing.
Click on 'academic reputation', note that ranked by academic reputation, Chicago is still considered a top law school. Your ignorance of it is practically proof of the fact that you don't teach law.

I have a vague awareness of Nussbaum for some of her jurisprudence writings, but I wouldn't really cite her as particularly noteworthy on criminal law. I find it bizarre that you would think she was.
Because she's written on the issue of sex and consent... :rolleyes: You claimed to teach here, it's not my fault that you haven't read her work.

As for where I teach, believe what you like. The reality is you are struggling with the content that a first year should be relatively comfortable with. That is bemusing and concerning. Lucky Chicago...
If you're a lecturer of supposed import, why are you on TSR? Why are you on thread about rape so clearly insensitively treating the subject as your play place to attempt to correct non-lawyers about their lack of knowledge of law? This isn't a law thread, it's a thread about rape. You're supposedly a lecturer of criminal law, you should be vastly aware about how people can react to rape and you're fully well aware that talking about whether or not someone was a victim of rape is not the place to play semantics with non-law students. Get off your high horse.
0
Arkarian
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#240
Report 4 years ago
#240
(Original post by Anonymous)
I never ever thought id post a thread like this.
Last night, i got very drunk and was split up from my friends in a club. My memory went after that. The next thing I know I'm waking up with a guy who tells me we had sex, tells me i was sick in a taxi, sick on myself, he showered me and then put me to bed.. and then we had sex..
I can't wrap my head around this.. is this rape? I obviously wasn't in a fit state, I never would choose to have a one night stand,
I really don't know what to do.
I don't even know him at all.
I can't stop crying, I feel really odd, like I've never felt how I do right now.

Mod edit: Please note that this is not a debate thread, give helpful advice to the OP only. Unhelpful/unsupportive advice will be removed and you may receive a card

Viewpoint 1
I don't know where you live or anything, but in most countries instead of posting something like this online you should take it up with the police.
In most countries I believe rape is defined as a person not 'being in the right frame of mind' when the event happened. If you were both drunk then it goes both ways but if it was a one sided thing that would definitely be defined this way.


Viewpoint 2
Don't be quick to judge, even if you were drunk that is still a version of youself, talk to the guy as he seems cooperative and talk about it. If you jump to conclusions then you may miss a relationship that would work out.
Sometimes situations like that can make you find something in yourself, a resolve if you will about future situations. Just don't forget your actions depending on what you do about it.


Viewpoint 3
I'm sorry for saying this but how do you think the other person is taking this?
A person who he may of developed feelings for over this event now tells him to his face it was a mistake after he did all of those things to care for you and make sure you were ok. Sure he went too far but what if it was actually you who went too far?
Would you be happy with yourself for judging someone based on what may of been your decision?



My opinion would be to find out exactly what he knows about the situation and to talk it through with him before you jump to conclusions, as otherwise you may be making a mistake in multiple areas.

If you don't listen with an open mind to people then what's the point in having an honest conversation with him? In my opinion turning your back on him because of this or making him seem the criminal is too hasty a decision when you have only just come back to your senses.

Call your friends, go out for a drink (non-alchoholic) (sorry I couldn't resist) in the daytime and calm down. You will make mistakes if your head is clouded. In this situation you need to be sure you have no regrets in how you react.


Best wishes and I hope you find your path. I'm sure people here are willing to help and I will always respond to a message from someone who requests my assistance.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Would you turn to a teacher if you were being bullied?

Yes (53)
25.6%
No (154)
74.4%

Watched Threads

View All