The Glade 4.0

If you intentionally run someone over with your car while drunk, it's murder.

If you accidentally run someone over with your car while not drunk, it's still possibly a number of different crimes less serious than murder.

The point being, one's state of inebriation has no bearing on your culpability for a criminal act behind the wheel of a car (apart from the fact that driving a car while intoxicated is, itself, a crime.)

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

This is not true. If you drive drunk and are in an accident where someone dies, you are automatically guilty. This is true even if you did not cause the accident, and if I remember correctly there was a pretty famous case where a drunk driver in an idling vehicle got prosecuted for manslaughter when he was hit from behind and pushed into a pedestrian.

I was going to debate this; it is only partially correct, but ... putting greater legal culpability onto the intoxicated person actually strengthens my point, rather than hurting it. So feel free to continue to make my argument stronger.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Which is considerably different from what you said.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

I don't think it should need to be stated that if intent can be shown in court, it's substantially the same thing as if that intent didn't exist at all.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Isn't that what what is being discussed? The ability to prove intent, or conversely, consent? Isn't that what separates rape from consensual sex and the entire basis for reasoning behind diminished consent?

It seems to me that if intent were almost irrevocably provable through neurocognitive forensics, there wouldn't be an problem surrounding the questions of when rape happened or not.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

The ability to prove intent or consent varies from case to case. In general, it's hard to prove in rape cases but not impossible. However that difficulty of proof is the foundation of the issue - it makes rape a difficult crime to prosecute, which is an acknowledged fact no one really disputes.

Because of this, one of the easiest ways to make a rape case is to get the accused to admit to something that would constitute rape; i.e. even if he doesn't say "yes I raped her", he admits "I did X" where X meets the criteria of rape. Therefore, the discussion is really more over what constitutes consent - i.e. what values of X are rape and what are not?

Even if a fact is, in fact, true, if it can't be demonstrated in court it may as well be not true insofar as the outcome is concerned. Therefore, as far as hypotheticals are concerned, it should not be necessary to stipulate that something is provable in court; if it isn't provable it's moot whether its true or not in actuality.




There wouldn't be under the current system, nor in the minds of most people, but the problem is a substantial and vocal minority that is claiming intent and consent are irrelevant - that the only thing that matters is how the female experiences it, and that she can change her mind about her "experience" at any given point.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."