Fish Eaters Traditional Catholic Forum
May 25, 2013, 09:10:AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The man still needs help!
 
   Fish Eaters    Forum Index   Forum Rules   Help Calendar Members Chat Room   Who's Chatting   Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13]
 
Author Topic: Opinions wanted on this comment  (Read 6327 times)
diotima
Guest
« Reply #120 on: August 20, 2008, 03:25:PM »

Quote from: Cephas
I'm not diminishing the guilt of the rapist, if that's what you're trying to get at.

And also, thanks for your 'wisdom'. I'll order a whole batch of miniskirts and tank tops now. Absolutely no guilt on her part. I guess Chrysostom and Tertullian wasted ink on modesty, because I would not have considered her culpable in that situation. /sarcasm.


you really aren´t the sharpest tool in the shed, are you?

to wit: she MIGHT be culpable of inciting lustful thoughts/glances when wearing immodest clothing. She is NOT culpable of rape or inciting rape. Geddit?
Logged
QuisUtDeus
Guest
« Reply #121 on: August 20, 2008, 03:36:PM »

Quote from: diotima

Quote
Guy gets drunk and has extremely diminished reason because of drink.  He knocks a girl down and forces himself upon her.  Well, he doesn't know what is going on.  Is he responsible for his actions?  Is this rape?


Legally? No.A crime needs mens rea, which is absent, when someone doesn´t know what he´s doing.

So if I'm driving drunk and crash into a school bus full of kids, I'm only guilty of DUI not manslaughter or murder, right?

Logged
CanadianCatholic
Member

Gender: Female
Location: CaNaDa
Personality type: CrAzY
Posts: 5,579


Kickin @$$ and takin names


« Reply #122 on: August 20, 2008, 03:50:PM »

Quote from: Cephas
Quote from: ResiduumRevertetur
Quote from: Cephas
No, that someone is dressed like a prostitute or makes stupid decisions prior to a rape should always be considered 0% culpable is just plain ridiculous.
Cephas, think about it, hypothetically, when you get older and have a daughter and said daughter makes a mistake, behind your back mind you, and maybe wears a little too much makeup or wears her pants a little too tight and has a beer at party and laughs a little at a guys joke, when said daughter come home (or maybe not, in some cases) with bruises covering a good portion of her body, perhaps a broken jaw (it takes a lot to hold a frantic girl down and keep her from screaming) and maybe some fingers, as her father you can get her to admit to the bastard that did it how sorry she was for her culpability.

So sorry to disgust you with appeals to emotion. I got to get out of this thread. It is disgusting. Goodbye.

I would find a way to beat the living crap out of the guy, but if she wanted to go out and dress immodestly in the first place, I'll hold her somewhat culpable, like 5% or so, and rebuke her on how if she simply listened to me, then I wouldn't be holding her culpable for anything if the rapist responded to the stimuli she presented. Or maybe I shouldn't push her about it at all. Maybe say that's its fine that she dress all provactively. After all, nothing she does with what she wears makes her guilty of anything.  No need to warn her about the miniskirt or that tank top. Perhaps her wardrobe should emphasize such things instead and I'll help her along beating the seculars in fashion sense instead.
Its easy for you to say that. As a mother of 2 girls, i can guarantee you, you wouldn't react that way. You teach your daughters modesty in dress, and to respect and value themselves. you dont teach them modesty so they dont get raped. A girl walking around dressed like a skank, will probably get treated like one...but it does not, in any case, make her at fault in any way if shes raped. If a guy is soooooo overcome with lust, that he rapes her because of howshes dressed, hes got the problem, not her.
Logged
gjwalberg
Guest
« Reply #123 on: August 20, 2008, 03:54:PM »

Quote from: Cephas
No, that someone is dressed like a prostitute or makes stupid decisions prior to a rape should always be considered 0% culpable is just plain ridiculous.

This statement is indefensible.

It is like suing the Kwik-e-Mart for selling the candy bars and hot dogs that make you fat and have a heart attack.  An individual has responsibility for their own actions.

Ford is not responsible for your speeding ticket because your Mustang can drive faster than the speed limit (and the commercials entice you do do so).  An individual has responsibility for their own actions.
 
Smirnoff is not at fault because you got drunk and sang the Humpty Dance in front of your boss and you lost your job-- neither is the dive bar where you went after work.  An individual has responsibility for their own actions.

Scantilly dressed women are an unfortunate reality of the 21st Century.  Yet most men live most of their lives without raping women.  How is that possible?  Because an individual has responsibility for their own actions.
Logged
diotima
Guest
« Reply #124 on: August 20, 2008, 03:54:PM »

Quote from: QuisUtDeus

Quote from: diotima
Quote
Guy gets drunk and has extremely diminished reason because of drink.  He knocks a girl down and forces himself upon her.  Well, he doesn't know what is going on.  Is he responsible for his actions?  Is this rape?

Legally? No.A crime needs mens rea, which is absent, when someone doesn´t know what he´s doing.

So if I'm driving drunk and crash into a school bus full of kids, I'm only guilty of DUI not manslaughter or murder, right?


It depends on the circumstances involved. For manslaughter or murder, you´d need INTENTION to kill (or, at least, an awareness and acceptance of the risk of killing someone, which MIGHT be present, if you were aware of your state and could still control your actions enough, to not do it), otherwise it would be criminal negligence. IF you are too drunk to control your actions, your actions cannot be held against you - BUT you might be held responsible for getting drunk so badly. Compare it to the situation, where someone has a seizure, while driving and crashes into the bus... he cannot be said to be guilty of murder or manslaughter, even though the result is the same - dead kids unless he KNEW he might have a seizure at the time, thought "what the heck, I´ll drive!" and could have chosen not to.
Logged


QuisUtDeus
Guest
« Reply #125 on: August 20, 2008, 04:13:PM »

Quote from: diotima
Quote from: QuisUtDeus

Quote from: diotima

Quote
Guy gets drunk and has extremely diminished reason because of drink. He knocks a girl down and forces himself upon her. Well, he doesn't know what is going on. Is he responsible for his actions? Is this rape?


Legally? No.A crime needs mens rea, which is absent, when someone doesn´t know what he´s doing.

So if I'm driving drunk and crash into a school bus full of kids, I'm only guilty of DUI not manslaughter or murder, right?



It depends on the circumstances involved. For manslaughter or murder, you´d need INTENTION to kill (or, at least, an awareness and acceptance of the risk of killing someone, which MIGHT be present, if you were aware of your state and could still control your actions enough, to not do it), otherwise it would be criminal negligence. IF you are too drunk to control your actions, your actions cannot be held against you - BUT you might be held responsible for getting drunk so badly.

I guess European law is different than U.S. Law where one can (and sometimes will) be charged with manslaughter or homicide.  See below.

In any event, even if it is Europe and considered criminal negligence, there is some recognition of responsibility on the part of the person who performed the actions, right?

Let's see if we agree on this.

If a girl is very drunk, but:

1) She can understand the question: Do you want to have sex?
2) She can understand that if she says "yes" they will engage in sex.
3) She says yes and engages in sex remaining conscious and without protest (either verbal or physical) during the act.

Then it's not rape even if she is drunk.  Do we agree on that?



Tucson Region

Sentence for DUI death is 15 years

By Kim Smith
Arizona Daily Star
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 03.21.2006
 
A 46-year-old Tucson man whose drunken-driving accident killed a young motorcyclist last April was sentenced Monday to 15 years in prison.
Before being sentenced by Pima County Superior Court Judge Frank Dawley, Gregory D. Artz told the family of Aaron Anaya Jr. he wishes he could trade places with Anaya.
Although he prays for their forgiveness, Artz told the family, "I understand if you hate me. I understand and I'll have to live with that."
Anaya, 21, was riding a 2004 Harley-Davidson on the Ajo Highway west of Tucson on April 14, 2005, when Artz turned in front of him, police reports say.
The motorcycle clipped the truck, throwing Anaya off the bike near South Sheridan Avenue just west of South Kinney Road. Anaya, who was not wearing a helmet, hit a sign.
Tests showed Artz had a blood-alcohol level of more than 0.30 at the time of the crash. He was convicted in January of manslaughter, two misdemeanor DUI charges and criminal damage.
Prosecutor Jonathan Mosher asked that Artz be given the maximum 21 years for manslaughter, pointing out that he'd had DUI convictions in the past.
Mosher said Anaya's death was foreseeable, given Artz's prior convictions.
"Aaron Anaya paid for this man's freedom with his life, and it's time for society to stop paying for it," Mosher said.
Standing in front of a packed courtroom, Anaya's mother, JoAnna Aguilar, made a tearful plea for the maximum sentence.
"Life is so precious," Aguilar said. "It's given to us, and for someone not to take that into consideration is so hard to believe."
Defense attorney Douglas Francis Jr. asked for a 10-year sentence, noting Artz's remorse and his vow to stay away from alcohol.
Artz can't trade his life for Anaya's, Francis said. "All he's left with is reliving that moment over and over and over again."
Dawley also sentenced Artz to 180 days for each of the DUI charges and 21 months for the criminal damage count, to be served concurrently with the manslaughter sentence. He gave Artz credit for 339 days already served in jail and ordered him to pay more than $9,300 in restitution.
 

 

— A 41-year-old man was sentenced Thursday to 15 years in prison for DUI manslaughter in connection with the death of a 77-year-old woman.

Geronimo Castro-Flores, of the 1900 block of Fulton Drive in Fort Pierce, reportedly had a blood-alcohol level of 0.252 and cocaine in his system July 1, 2006, when he drove his 1998 GMC pickup truck through a red light at Virginia Avenue and 13th Street in Fort Pierce and struck Alberta B. Richardson's 1988 Buick station wagon, which was waiting at the intersection.

According to police records, Richardson went into cardiac arrest at the scene, requiring rescue workers to perform CPR. She later was pronounced dead at Lawnwood Regional Medical Center & Heart Institute.

Castro-Flores, who suffered minor injuries in the collision, told officers he had consumed about six beers before the crash. His blood-alcohol level was more than three times the legal limit of 0.08 percent.

At a hearing Thursday before Circuit Judge Gary L. Sweet, Castro-Flores pleaded guilty to DUI manslaughter, and prosecutors dropped a charge of vehicular homicide. The 15-year sentence is the maximum allowed.

"Drinking, drugging and driving is a lethal combination," Assistant State Attorney Jason Berger, a prosecutor on the case, said after the hearing. "There are no winners here, but justice is served."

Logged
diotima
Guest
« Reply #126 on: August 20, 2008, 04:18:PM »

Quote from: QuisUtDeus
Quote from: diotima
Quote from: QuisUtDeus

Quote from: diotima
Quote
Guy gets drunk and has extremely diminished reason because of drink. He knocks a girl down and forces himself upon her. Well, he doesn't know what is going on. Is he responsible for his actions? Is this rape?

Legally? No.A crime needs mens rea, which is absent, when someone doesn´t know what he´s doing.

So if I'm driving drunk and crash into a school bus full of kids, I'm only guilty of DUI not manslaughter or murder, right?


It depends on the circumstances involved. For manslaughter or murder, you´d need INTENTION to kill (or, at least, an awareness and acceptance of the risk of killing someone, which MIGHT be present, if you were aware of your state and could still control your actions enough, to not do it), otherwise it would be criminal negligence. IF you are too drunk to control your actions, your actions cannot be held against you - BUT you might be held responsible for getting drunk so badly.

I guess European law is different than U.S. Law where one can (and sometimes will) be charged with manslaughter or homicide.  See below.

In any event, even if it is Europe and considered criminal negligence, there is some recognition of responsibility on the part of the person who performed the actions, right?

Let's see if we agree on this.

If a girl is very drunk, but:

1) She can understand the question: Do you want to have sex?
2) She can understand that if she says "yes" they will engage in sex.
3) She says yes and engages in sex remaining conscious and without protest (either verbal or physical) during the act.

Then it's not rape even if she is drunk.  Do we agree on that?



as I said - causing a lethal accident while driving under the influence MAY be considered manslaughter or not, depending on the exact circumstances, both in Europe AND the US. In most cases, a driver would NOT be too drunk to be considered incapable of knowing what he was doing, thus a conviction for manslaughter in such cases is far from rare even in Europe. (not murder, since murder in Europe requires direct intention to kill someone, not merely acceptance of the possible risk, or criminal recklessness - that is a rare thing).
As for the rape - I already said, it IS rape, if the girl is drunk to the point of not knowing what is going on, i.e. being incapable of giving valid consent, AND the other person is AWARE of that being the case (otherwise, lack of mens rea), and goes ahead anyway. MERELY being drunk, but not to that point, means, she can consent, so it is NOT rape, if she consented.
Logged
QuisUtDeus
Guest
« Reply #127 on: August 20, 2008, 04:39:PM »

Quote from: diotima
As for the rape - I already said, it IS rape, if the girl is drunk to the point of not knowing what is going on, i.e. being incapable of giving valid consent, AND the other person is AWARE of that being the case (otherwise, lack of mens rea), and goes ahead anyway. MERELY being drunk, but not to that point, means, she can consent, so it is NOT rape, if she consented.

I agree with that; I guess we disagree on at what point she is incapable of giving valid consent. In a court that would be something for the jury to decide.

But, for the sake of discussion...

As I stated above, if she can understand the question enough to answer it at the time it is asked, then it is consent in my book.  If she doesn't even know what is being asked of her, then, of course I agree she isn't giving consent.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13]
 
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.8 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC