You can rape someone by introduction of an intoxicating substance.
In the U.S. it becomes a question of fact for the jury:
1.) If that person took it knowingly and voluntarily.
2.) The extent to which the person was intoxicated.
People have sex while drunk. It happens; a lot.
At some point, there is no possible way you can give consent because you are too damn drunk or otherwise intoxicated. After a certain level of extreme intoxication, you can't really remember, much less knowingly consent.
Also, you really can't sue over anything in the US. Civil Rule 11 has been there from the start to keep that from happening. People just think you can because they hear shit on the news or other TV programs. In actuality "frivolous lawsuits" aren't that common. They are, however, every single solitary defendant's first BS line of defense. What most people really mean when they say "frivolous lawsuits" is lawsuits that they personally don't agree with. People think they are special and that their approval is required for things to be legit. It isn't.
The Casey Anthony:
http://news.yahoo.com/now-free-casey-anthony-avoiding-public-eye-081757315.htmlFreaking exhibit A, people in the US are seriously pissed she wasn't found guilty of first degree murder. Fact is this was never murder, though she may have killed her child. It's called manslaughter and there is a difference. The prosecutor screwed up, immensely. The dude purposefully delayed his retirement so he could go out with a bang--a 1st degree murder conviction all over the news. It's called ego.... Some little baby girl died and we are all about to buy and sell it 'cause it's Tragic with a capital T. Some cute little kid died and we want blood....
State statutes vary but at common law, murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Malice Aforethought exists if there are no facts reducing the killing to voluntary manslaughter or excusing it and was committed with one of the following states of mind. 1.) intent to kill, 2.) intent to inflict serious bodily harm, 3.) depraved heart: reckless indifference to an unjustifiable risk to human life, or 4.) felony murder.
First degree murder has aggravating circumstances that vary by state but in Ohio it's killing of a police officer, pregnant woman, child under 13, during a jail sentence or while committing a predetermined list of felony murders.
This was Involuntary Manslaughter. Involuntary Manslaughter: a killing committed with criminal negligence or during the commission of an unlawful act. Here, Ms. Anthony went out partying and did not supervise her child. She negligently allowed the child to die. This is itself an unlawful act and is criminal negligence. None of the factors required for murder and certainly none of the factors for aggravated murder are present. Thus, it was involuntary manslaughter, not murder.
Ms. Anthony was only charged with 1st degree murder. Manslaughter was not an option given to the jury by the prosecutor's indictment. Thus, the Jury made the right decision freeing Ms. Anthony, because exactly as the jury stated, there was not enough evidence to convict her of 1st degree murder.
The prosecutor was totally floored. He mouthed "wow," no less than 5 times while the jury decision was read.
The jury is quoted as saying "We didn't say she didn't do anything wrong; we're saying there wasn't enough evidence."
Overconfident, egotistical prosecutor, public wanting entertainment, and a news media willing to sell them it, all adds up to a miscarriage of justice. Had she been properly charged, I believe Ms. Anthony would be doing about 10 years right about now. This would be a just result.
Author
Topic: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread (Read 855124 times)