Those drunk on their own can't be considered 'mentally incapacitated' in rape cases

[Dill]

(03-27-2021, 07:27 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Blacked out and passed out are two different things.  Regained consciousness could mean anything from awaking from a sleep, to suddenly coming to one's senses while in a drunken state.  The way that the article is written, it seems to lead one to believe that she was perhaps passed out, but they didn't say that, they said "blacked out", which could mean something different.

From my own college experiences, I know that I drank until I couldn't remember, then walked about 2 miles to my girlfriend's place, had relations;  Then woke up the next morning asking "Did you come and get me?".  She told me, "No, you got here on auto pilot".  Thankfully her and I got along, and all was harmless.

However, just because someone willingly got drunk or took drugs should not entitle them to blanket protections.  I mean, when you drink and drive, commit acts of violence or other crimes while inebriated, you're still responsible.  Why protection for a drunken sexual escapade?

The article uses the term "blacked out," but then "woke up." That implies she lost consciousness or was at least incapacitated enough not to give consent. Then "passed out" again after withholding consent.

Would you say a drunk and incapacitated person falls outside of legal protection then? 

I'm just wondering why, in the above case, the protection is for the person committing the crime rather than the victim

--i.e., the "driver" following your drink-and-drive analogy, not the person who was run over.