05-06-2016, 05:50 PM
(05-06-2016, 02:59 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Here's proof why your defintion of rape is too broad. There is no court case in the USA to ever convict someone of rape for having consensual sex with someone who's drunk, and then regrets it later.
Where do you have that fact from? I'm just curious, given that in most states being intoxicated means, by the law, that they cannot give consent.
I should add a couple of things here. One, the reason for no convictions (if true) is likely due to the fact it would be very hard to get a conviction for such a thing. Two, it is my understanding from the way the laws are written it is also hard to convict because for a lot of them it focuses on using intoxication/mental incapacity in coercing the act to occur. That would be very hard to prove.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
