Miscellaneous

In Canada, Shitfaced = Consent

A Canadian judge ruled this week that a 19-year-old man was not guilty of rape because the 14-year-old girl he plied with beer and liquor didn't say no. In fact, the judge reasoned, accepting the alcohol was tantamount to consent.

Really?

"The accused's lewd comments towards her did not compel her to leave," the judge said. "The complainant was not forced to consume alcohol -- she drank ... beer willingly and then switched to alcohol. It is not at all clear why she drank so heavily."

The reasoning behind her decision to drink heavily reallyshouldn't have any bearing on whether there was consent. Consent to drink does not equal consent to have sex.

Of course, the judge didn't let the guy off scott free. He was found guilty of sexual assault, not for raping the girl, but "for placing his genitals on the girl's face after she passed out -- an act the offender captured on his cellphone camera and showed to co-workers."

Where's the logic? The 14-year-old girl willingly drank, therefore she willingly passed out, so by the judge's logic, she willingly allowed him to place his testicles on her face. Right?

Dumbass.

Full post as published by Quiz Law on July 15, 2008 (boomark / email).