munchingfoo wrote:The fact that he was drunk should not be considered when deciding on the punishment. We are equally responsible for our actions whilst sober and inebriated (unless the alcohol was forced onto him).
Gubbins wrote:(I'm not really making a point - just posing an ethical question!)
Gubbins wrote:munchingfoo wrote:The fact that he was drunk should not be considered when deciding on the punishment. We are equally responsible for our actions whilst sober and inebriated (unless the alcohol was forced onto him).
Is that strictly true? Speaking purely as someone with the legal knowledge of a stuffed gerbil, is can insobriety not be used for grounds of diminished responsibility? Voluntary dimished responsibility, admittedly, which one should also be held liable for, but dimished responsibility nonetheless.
Gubbins wrote:To take a parallel, but slightly different example, would you give the same sentence to a lorry driver who killed someone while drink-driving as one who fell asleep at the wheel? Both could knowingly have been prevented by the driver, but neither is malicious. How about a driver that was drunk, and one who purposefully ran over someone? Which would get the heavier sentence?
Gubbins wrote:I don't know if the student in question urinated on the monument because it was a monument, or just a convenient place to have a pee (i.e. it didn't register with him that it was a monument). If it was the latter, should the punishment be lighter? (I'm not really making a point - just posing an ethical question!)
munchingfoo wrote:We are equally responsible for our actions whilst sober and inebriated
Haunted wrote:munchingfoo wrote:We are equally responsible for our actions whilst sober and inebriated
Unless of course you are a female consenting to sex.
RedCelt69 wrote:Uhm... why differentiate gender? Date rape of men also happens - whether heterosexual or homosexual.
Haunted wrote:RedCelt69 wrote:Uhm... why differentiate gender? Date rape of men also happens - whether heterosexual or homosexual.
Nothing to do with date rape
RedCelt69 wrote:Nothing to do with gender, regardless.
Haunted wrote:RedCelt69 wrote:Nothing to do with gender, regardless.
My entire point is that it has everything to do with gender. If a woman consents to sex whilst inebriated, it is generally presumed that she was not responsible for her actions and the person she consented with is, therefore, a rapist. This is of course in stark contradiction to the idea that you are still responsible for your actions when willingly inebriated.
RedCelt69 wrote:You've lost me. Why does the same not apply to men?
Haunted wrote:If a woman consents to sex whilst inebriated, it is generally presumed that she was not responsible for her actions and the person she consented with is, therefore, a rapist.
LonelyPilgrim wrote:That said, the man should be punished. I would suggest community service... perhaps giving the monument a complete cleaning.
Gubbins wrote:LonelyPilgrim wrote:That said, the man should be punished. I would suggest community service... perhaps giving the monument a complete cleaning.
I agree. I think the judge was just trying to give him a bit of a scare (which probably worked!). I think working (as anonymously as possible) in a veterans' home might be more appropriate.
Return to The Sinner's Main Board
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests