« It's Not Censorship, It's Just "Less Free" Speech | Main | Yeah, It Kinda Is Torture. No, Make That It REALLY Is Torture »

May 23, 2009

Oregon lege: gender wars, take 1,925,856,012

SALEM -- A young woman at a college party gets drunk and blacks out. Then she's raped.

Oregon is one of 18 states where prosecutors and courts are allowed to consider how she became intoxicated. Did she drink too much? Did somebody slip a drug into her beer?

It matters because, under current law, if a woman is incapacitated by her own actions, the person accused of attacking her could be charged only with sex abuse in the second degree and not with the more serious crime of first-degree rape or sex abuse, which carry mandatory minimum prison sentences.

A bill generating much debate in the Legislature would change the law so that it wouldn't matter how a rape victim became vulnerable to attack.

"The question is, did she consent or not," said Rep. Sara Gelser, D-Corvallis. "Nothing else should matter."

Well, that's poorly worded by Rep. Gelser. What she means is, "did she give INFORMED consent or not." A blackout is not unconsciousness. A person in an alcoholic or drug-induced blackout can verbally agree to all sorts of things. It's just that they won't remember any of it.

What if the young man is also in an alcoholic or drug-induced blackout? Apparently that's irrelevant to this legislation. Which is why this is bad legislation.

The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment is all about guaranteeing equality under the law. This legislation proposed by Rep. Gelser doesn't even attempt to do that. If an incapacitated young woman isn't fully responsible for her choices and actions while incapacitated then neither is a young man. Anything less than that makes a mockery of our most cherished notions of "justice".

Perhaps this'll reveal the depth of my idealistic naivete but I look forward to the day when BOTH genders cease attempting to use the law to punish the opposite gender. Either one believes in the concept of equality under the law or one doesn't. There is no middle ground.

Posted by Kevin at May 23, 2009 08:18 AM