From what i’ve seen, most people consider you cannot make sex with a drunk person even if said drunk person is saying yes because they are not in full controll of their actions and cannot consent.
But a morbid question has been in my mind, what if a drunk person sexually harasses someone who is not drunk? Would it be considered right to press charges against that drunk person or would the person be considered as not in control of their actions?
If pressing charges is the correct thing to do because the person should have controlled themselves, would a person who made sex with a drunk person not argue the same thing?
I am not trying to be offensive, but this question has bothered me, and i found no answer to it.
Comments
Same thing that happens to Drunk Drivers that kill people.
Impairment does not negate the law
Drunkeness is not a defence for committing crimes. If it was then people would commit murders, rapes, robberies etc then immediately drink to excess and say they had actually been drunk beforehand and therefore werent guilty.
In the UK drunkenness is rarely a defence to any crime.
You’re responsible for your actions when you’re drunk.
A drunk person can have sex.. it’s not illegal unless they’re underage or unconscious.
Assaulting someone is a separate matter. Assault is assault. 🤌
The person who didn’t ask for harassment still needs justice and compensation
There has to be a “complaining victim”. I’m making this distinction because this has happened a lot to me over the years, especially while I’m working. I have yet to make a complaint or seek charges. Im also not easily offended.
Yes. Being drunk is not a free pass to commit crimes. The drunk person made the choice to get too drunk to maintain self-control, and then committed a crime. Everything that precipitated the crime was the choice and fault of the perpetrator.
You can sue a drunk person for sexual harassment. Courts generally reject intoxication as defense (because they chose to become intoxicated). It might be a mitigating factor but it does not negate guilt. You can also file for civil lawsuit for emotional distress.
So I get that this probably isn’t what you’re trying to say, but this is what you kind of sound like:
“Why should I get in trouble for taking advantage of a drunk person when I can also get in trouble for harassing people when I’m drunk! It’s just not fair!”
There is no time when it is appropriate to harass people, so being drunk is no excuse – in fact in British law I believe being drunk while doing so is an aggravating factor, not one that grants leniency, because if you’re getting so drunk that you can’t help harass people that’s something we want to discourage too.
On the other hand, people are absolutely allowed to have sex, but since too much alcohol can make it hard to know how much someone is really consenting vs just blackout drunk, it’s best to avoid situations where there’s uncertainty. I think very few people really claim that you can’t consent to sex when you’re even a little tipsy, but it’s worth getting the idea that somebody who is barely conscious definitely can not consent out there.
Look up the majewski defence
A Yes is a Yes. Harrasment is harrasment. Drunk or not.
A drunk person is impaired, and therefore can’t grant consent, but they’re still legally liable for their actions, even when drunk. You can’t murder someone, or rob a bank even when drunk.
Impairment also prevents contracts from being legally binding.
A substance is not an excuse fir a crime. What if a person murder someone while drunk?
They can get charged. But depending on lawyer, judge, his past and how much money he’s willing to throw at the case it will be lowered to a smaller charge…
you raped 15 girls last night 😡
but I was superdrunk lol 🤭
oh, why didn’t you tell it beforehand? You’re free to go sir 🫡
The main difference I see in my mind is asking vs. doing.
You cannot consent to sex while drunk (giving permission to someone else) but you can commit things when drunk (you’re not asking anyone permission, you’re just doing).
So, one involves another intoxicated person, who might not fully understand what is going on or someone’s full intentions, one involves just you while intoxicated, so there’s no miscommunication since it’s literally just you deciding to do a thing. Which is how any crime happens, intoxicated or not.
If you close your eyes – it doesn’t count
Law school grad here, presently working on bar admission:
Speaking in respect of criminal liability generally, while technically intoxication diminishes an offender’s actus reus, viz the voluntariness of an unlawful act, before the offender consumes the intoxicant, if s/he reasonably and constructively knows that the substance will have the potential effect of diminishing her/his faculties to determine the wrongfulness of an act and s/he willingly consumes the substance anyway, then s/he is responsible for the harms s/he commits while under its influence. This is largely the case for civil liability as well.
Depends on their sex and gender
Cis Male = Sexual Harassment
Cis Female = She can usually spin it that she was the one being harassed unless there are witnesses or video evidence to prove otherwise
Trans Woman = It will be considered rape, even if it was just harassment
Trans Man = Depends on how passing he is.
In a reasonable society, the person’s actions would be considered reprehensible but excusable because he was drunk; IOW he needs to learn how to handle his liquor.
Idk about other places, but where I live being under influence while committing crime is an aggravating circumstance, not a mitigating circumstance.
I feel like the whole ‘you can’t consent while drunk’ rule is a bit too arbitrary as a whole tbh.
This question comes up here every week and the answer is always the same – in one situation you are the victim. In another, you are the perpetrator.
If you walk in the street drunk and get mugged it’s not your fault. If you walk in the street drunk and mug someone – it’s definitely your fault.