while trying to hunt down how the child surport system works in australia and wether rape victoms can be forced to pay like they aparently can be in the US i ran across an atical on The Australian web site by Janet Albrechtsen. now i dont know who she is apart from the fact that the Australian hosted this blog. Its on the changes to the rape laws in Queensland and bells especially may find her comments interesting in light of our previous discussions on sex and intoxication.
now using rational logic it would be resonable to suggest that if two people get themselves to the same level of intoxication through there own actions then the same standed of proof should be aplied as to concent. this is my understanding of how the law works and i belive thats what you were arguing as well bells
this artical however seems to suggest that the first in wins, ie which ever party arives at the police station first claiming rape, the other parties level of intoxication is irrelivent.
anyway its to long to post so here:
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com...angerous_sex_as_the_state_enters_bedroom/P50/
now using rational logic it would be resonable to suggest that if two people get themselves to the same level of intoxication through there own actions then the same standed of proof should be aplied as to concent. this is my understanding of how the law works and i belive thats what you were arguing as well bells
this artical however seems to suggest that the first in wins, ie which ever party arives at the police station first claiming rape, the other parties level of intoxication is irrelivent.
anyway its to long to post so here:
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com...angerous_sex_as_the_state_enters_bedroom/P50/