The fact that they seemed to have an ongoing consensual sexual relationship confuses things even more. I definitely had some drunken nights with an on again off again booty call when I was their age.
We have plenty of good Florida lawyers available, and I'm not one, but as I understand it (from other states), impairment of the accused is generally not a defense against criminal liability while impairment of the victim can contribute to criminal responsibility. However, NONE of that has yet been shown to have anything to do with Keyonte's situation. I'm just answering a quick question until a Florida lawyer reads and answers.
IF ONE WERE KJ’S LAWYER One could see an argument being made that “these two young adults have had a sexual relationship, or booty call, for months now. She’s now in a relationship with another male. She sleeps with KJ again. Other male is upset, she feels bad, regrets it. Tells male it wasn’t consensual. Other male is very cooperative with police.” One could try to use something like that, with more emphasis and theatrics, of course, as their opening statement and defense. It’s more of an emotional argument and less a legal one but that works with juries. Don’t jump me. I’m simply talking about what a possible trial could look like from one perspective.
Why do posters use the word "fact" in a speculative fashion? As far as "ongoing consensual sexual relationship", I remember it saying they did UNTIL August, then she started rejecting him. That's not ongoing and it damn sure ain't a fact. At best, it's conjecture or a presumption.
Now that we all know there have been serious allegations and a strong denial, maybe we should wait until more actual facts develop . . . or this might turn towards Too Hot which I've been worried about. Nothing wrong with starting a separate thread there to discuss speculative possibilities.
Voluntary intoxication is not a defense in Florida which is absurd. But that is the state of Florida for you. So if two people go out drinking and the woman goes back to the guy's place and they both are sloshed, her condition can be taken into consideration but not his. That is not only patently unconstitutional but borderline fascist.
I understand what you’re saying in that example, but the reverse is the problem. “Can’t fault me for a DUI, I was drunk.” “But you chose to go out to a bar with a car and get hammered drunk, knowing you couldn’t safely drive home” “Yeah but I was drunk so, oops” That’s why. If you choose, on your own, to go get wasted you’re responsible for the outcome of your actions. Hence the voluntary. If someone drugs you and it’s not voluntary, that’s a different story. Don’t want to make it legal to have an issue with someone, get piss drunk, kill them or injure them, and walk away because you were intoxicated of your own volition. Otherwise every criminal would just get intoxicated first and never get in trouble. So big picture, it’s a good thing that’s not a legal defense. But I get your frustration with the hypocrisy in that current example, it’s a solid point.
If she's playing cowgirl, she knows what she's doing and its consensual. If she's passed out or nearly out, it's not consensual. If he can get it up, he knows what he's doing. It's not that much of a gray area.
Not sure about that last argument. I wake up with it up, and have no idea what I was doing, other than sleeping.
This is correct. And I believe there is a distinction made between intoxicated and incapacitated. As others have alluded too, if two dunk people willingly have sex…. did they rape one another bc consent was not valid? Of course not. Intoxicated… as it relates to consent, is based on the capacity to provide such.
Equal protection under the law, so 14th amendment. Discrimination on the basis of gender, as men are not afforded the same protection as women. The way the law is written isn’t fair or equal. When both people are intoxicated, but not passed out, then that shouldn’t automatically be a crime by solely one party. Should the woman also be charged with raping KJ, as he was also intoxicated and unlikely able to give informed consent?
In America? While both were intoxicated? Sure you have female teachers diddling their teenage students and getting arrested, but we are talking about a woman getting arrested for having sex with an intoxicated man. We are discussing a very specific law that covers whether individuals can consent while intoxicated, and whether that law is being fairly applied to both genders.
A quick check shows that Florida statute 775.051 has been upheld in appeals courts as constitutional, and that the Montana statute it's based on has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. Basically, the statute says voluntary intoxication is not a defense in specific crimes. You can't say you're not responsible for your actions because you willfully got sloshed. What you're arguing is that someone who willfully got drunk can't bring violent crime charges against someone else who willfully got drunk. Good luck with that. The statute as written says nothing about gender.
What I am saying is where are the charges against the woman? Both got intoxicated and had sex. Now one wants to cry rape. So would KJ have been correct in counter-accusing the woman of rape as he was obviously intoxicated and thus unable to consent as well? Is every drunken hook-up now a mutual rape event? What we are talking about is some law that was formed from good intentions, but is nebulous. How can you hold only the guy accountable in that case, and not the woman. The application of the law is the issue.
I agree. This is where prosecutorial discretion comes in. The D.A. either declining to bring charges or, more likely, half-heartedly presenting to a grand jury which doesn't indict so he/she can point to the grand jury. In this case NOTHING but police charges and Keyonte's strong denial have occurred so far.
