Alcohol, responsibility, and double-standards

I was motivated to write this after two court cases came down recently. In one, a young man was given 6 years for killing one man and badly injuring another in a DWI. (Incidentally, someone who also killed while driving while legally blind here got house arrest, but that's not where I'm gonig.)

In the other, a man was convincted of rape for sex with an intoxicated--and possibly unconscious--victim.

What I'm interested in is this: should people be held liable for actions taken while drunk? A growing number of people say that consent given while drunk (how drunk is debatable) is null and void--one can't be held accountable for that. For driving (maybe one wouldn't DREAM of driving drunk--until one has a few) this doesn't fly. (For killing, it's in-between: won't beat the rap, but makes proving premeditation more difficult.)

First of all, there's a double--even triple--standard; second, the double standard has essentially reversed itself over the last 30 years or so.

I'm not going to argue my point, nor am I going to talk about the specific cases: I don't know enough of the details to do so intelligently. Let me toss out some "starters":

1. Should one be accountable for sexual decisions and/or driving decisions made while drunk? Why/why not?

1a. How drunk is "drunk"? Are considerations given for tolerance? (I've seen seasoned drinkers act sober at probably double the DWI threshold, thus any bar hook-up is a possible jail ticket if the 0.08 is used.

2. The present (US) doctrine of "equal protection under the law" means that this is just as valid for men as women. Should it be?

2a. If your answer to 2 is "it shouldn't," is it because men are generally more promiscuous than women? If so, should an especially promiscous woman also be excepted?

3. If one were to live a life such that one never drew a sober breath, would that mean one could never be called into account for one's sexual behavior?

4. What if one is attracted to a physically dependant drinker? Waiting for him or her to be sober would put him or her in a state nearly as vulnerable as a non-alcoholic being drunk. (Wait 'till after rehab?)

 

1. Yes. They put the shit in their body, nobody forced them to do that. This is a major problem with drug use in my opinion. People are always looking to shift the responsibility away from themselves.

1a. I don't really believe in measuring the bac. It's a good guideline, but not definitive. I would say drunk is drunk when a persons judgement dimishes to the point they do things not consistent with their sober personality.

2. Yes.

3. No.

4. I really have no idea what you are asking here...

 

You drink the booze, you're responsible.

 

I think people who commit a serious crime when drunk.. because they were drunk should be held responsible but should only recieve a fairly small punishment. This is because punishment should only be given out to make somebody think twice next time.. or to keep dangerous people out of society. So for example.. a drunk driver hitting someone and killing them is not in need of a punishment anywhere near as bad as a person who hits someone on purpose.. People should be punished for their motives not actions... otherwise the punishment is just revengful and inhumane... such as a person going to jail for more than.... two years for man slaughter.... whats the point? their not dangerous people... just lazy or clumsy etc

 

my opinion..its called responsible drinking.
you're not drunk when you decide to start drinking so on a conscious level you need to limit yourself, and you're not with good friends (or good intentions) if u get so drunk you make stupid decisions (driving, rape, etc). no, people that do that need to be held responsible, its their decision to drink, being punished will motivate them to make better drinking decisions and become more responsible.

 

I 2nd that