Discussion List for campus-based and allied personnel working to end gender-based violence on campus.

["Ross A Wantland" <>]

According to the law I found, it says: A person commits sexual assault by 
intentionally or knowingly engaging in sexual intercourse or oral sexual 
contact with any person without consent of such person.
 
Later, it reads:
Article 13-1401 of the Arizona Revised Statutes says:

5. "Without consent" includes any of the following:

(a) The victim is coerced by the immediate use or threatened use of force 
against a person or property.

(b) The victim is incapable of consent by reason of mental disorder, mental 
defect, drugs, alcohol, sleep or any other similar impairment of cognition 
and such condition is known or should have reasonably been known to the 
defendant. For purposes of this subdivision, "mental defect" means the victim 
is unable to comprehend the distinctively sexual nature of the conduct or is 
incapable of understanding or exercising the right to refuse to engage in the 
conduct with another.

What the law does not make clear is how much alcohol makes for an "impairment 
of cognition" nor how "impairment of cognition" impacts consent, or ability 
to consent. For lack of a more complete definition, I would assume that 
Arizona meant to be more like Illinois law (which says it is sexual assault 
if the accused "commits an act of sexual penetration and the accused knew the 
victim was unable to understand the nature of the act or was unable to give 
knowing consent"720 ILCS 5/12-13, ch. 38, par. 12-13)" 
 
When I talk with students, they have a similar impression that the law means 
if someone (usually a woman) has any alcohol at all, then she is instantly 
unable to give consent, which makes the women upset and feel disempowered and 
makes the men throw up their hands in dispair that they will "never be able 
to have consent." Poor fellas.  But I don't think this is what the law is 
actually saying. It seems more likely that the law was attempting to get to 
the heart of this "knowing consent" idea, that someone has to be aware of the 
decision they are making. When someone is drunk, they may make decisions that 
they might not have done when sober, but that is about the way we socially 
are encouraged to use alcohol as an excuse for our behaviors (i.e., sleeping 
with someone we wouldn't normally). AND it isn't the same as being UNABLE to 
give consent or understand what was going to happen. When we talk about 
alcohol's role in sexual assault, we need to be clear that these stories 
aren't as ambiguous (certainly not for the survivor) as these discussions 
sometimes make them. Also, women are not going to say, "Gee, he's not as 
attractive as I once thought. I have a novel idea! I'll call this rape, and 
then reap the social benefits of leveling such an accusation. What a great 
plan!" That's ridiculous. And I think that we as educators and advocates need 
to help people understand more clearly why and how alcohol impacts sexual 
violence. 
 
For a really great discussion on this (esp. for college students), I 
recommend the work of Antonia Abbey, especially her article: 
Abbey, A. (1991). Acquaintance Rape and Alcohol Consumption on a College 
Campus: How are they linked? Journal of American College Health. 39(4), 
165-169. (e-mail me directly for a pdf of the article)
 
Peace y'all,
Ross
 
________________________________

From: 

 on behalf of Guardian Angel
Sent: Thu 9/29/2005 3:32 PM
To: 

Subject: Drink Detective discussion



Hi guys,
  Upon reading your responses on this topic I remembered a friend of mine
asking for help on something. Her friend at U of A is on a Student Advisory
council of some sort, and the majority of that group feels that Arizona's
law of: if a person has been drinking, and is not sober, they can not give
consent. Now, this council is trying to say that if someone does drink, and
something happens, it is their responsibility/fault because they "should
have known better" type thing. From what I'm getting about what she
overheard was that our Arizona law protecting people under the influence is
preposterous and should not be adhered to, as it reduces the amount of
responsibility a person has in those sitatuations. This seems sort of
reasonable, but under any situation, someone who cannot consent willfully
and or gives the impression of a consent, a rape charge should not be
excused. She was asking me if I could find statistics or support such as
court cases where it proves the law is actually helping, rather than
excusing people of their actions. Email me if you have any questions. Hope
yall can help. Thanks.

-Nicole

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee®
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

_______________________________________________
SAPC mailing list

https://list.mail.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/sapc