exchemist
Veteran Member
The point surely is that a person having sex with someone drunk may be exploiting their lack of mental capacity. It is like having sex with someone mentally retarded, or with a child, even. The crime is not committed by the drunk person, but by the person doing the exploiting, who is deemed to be doing so with full mental capacity. (Though it might be an interesting defence to claim to be drunk, too, I suppose.)But, then, by these "ethics", a person driving drunk should not be punished, as their decision making and judgment was impaired at the time of the decision to drive drunk. Seems to me that your "ethics" are based on arbitrary personal preference. A drunk person need not be responsible for their sexual decisions (at least, if they're a female), but should always be held responsible for their driving decisions. Why?
There is no parallel with drunk driving. In drunk driving a person is not generally being invited or pressured to get a car and drive when everyone can see they are sloshed. Generally they have put themselves in a situation in which they know, when sober, that they will need to drive later (say at the end of the evening out) and then they recklessly drink too much.