fbpx

Intoxication and Mutual Sexual Assault under the Yes Means Yes Statute

One more issue that the so called Yes Means Yes California statute on sexual assault in colleges raises is how sex between people who are intoxicated is regulated.  (For my earlier discussion of the statute, see here.)

The statute requires colleges to adopt:

 (2) A policy that, in the evaluation of complaints in any disciplinary process, it shall not be a valid excuse to alleged lack of affirmative consent that the accused believed that the complainant consented to the sexual activity under either of the following circumstances:

             (A) The accused’s belief in affirmative consent arose from the intoxication or         recklessness of the accused.

 (4) A policy that, in the evaluation of complaints in the disciplinary process, it shall not be a valid excuse that the accused believed that the complainant affirmatively consented to the sexual activity if the accused knew or reasonably should have known that the complainant was unable to consent to the sexual activity under any of the following circumstances:

             (B) The complainant was incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or       medication, so that the complainant could not understand the fact, nature, or        extent of the sexual activity.

 These provisions address two aspects of intoxication.  One involves a situation where the intoxication of the accused led him or her to conclude that the complainant had affirmatively consented.  The other involves a situation where the the complainant appeared to affirmatively consent, but was unable to do so because of intoxication.

Clearly, the statute treats the intoxication of the complainant and the accused quite differently.  If the accused’s belief in the complainant’s consent was due to his or her intoxication, that’s tough.  By contrast, the apparent affirmative consent of the complainant does not count if the accused reasonably should have known the complainant was intoxicated and unable to consent. 

So imagine two people have a sexual encounter.  They are both equally intoxicated.  If the complainant was intoxicated, he or she is not held responsible for it (in the sense that she can still claim to have been sexually assaulted).  But if the accused was intoxicated, he or she is held responsible for not securing the requisite affirmative consent.  To put it crudely, if you are the complainant, you can get drunk and not lose your rights.  In fact, your partner must protect you.  But if you are the accused, that you got drunk is no excuse.  

This asymmetry may or may not make sense as a policy matter.  But it does have an important consequence – both parties to a sexual encounter that goes wrong will desire to be the complainant.  Put differently, if two intoxicated parties have a sexual encounter, it may turn out that they have sexually assaulted one another.

Suppose Bill and Sally are both intoxicated.  Both should have known that the other was sufficiently intoxicated that they could not consent to the sex.  If Sally complains, then Bill has sexually assaulted her.  But if Bill complains, then Sally has sexually asssaulted him.

One might wonder whether this is really true.  What if Bill is the initiator in the sense that he makes the first move to kiss Sally, and then continues to make the first move at each step in the encounter?  I don’t think this matters under the statute.  First, the statute does not say that one needs affirmative consent only if one is the initiator; it says one needs it for any sexual activity.  Second, it seems clear that if Sally were drunk and put the moves on Bill, he would still be in violation of the statute if it were clear to him that Sally was too intoxicated to consent.

If my analysis is correct that a man and a woman who are intoxicated sexually assault one another, then this has implications for how one would expect a man to respond to a complaint of having sexually assaulted a woman, when both parties were intoxicated.  The man will not simply defend on the basis that the woman was not intoxicated; he will also argue, in the alternative, that he was intoxicated and therefore sexually assaulted by the woman.

This has the potential to equalize the leverage in these cases.  Perhaps the woman will withdraw her complaint.  Perhaps the women will not bring the complaint in the first place, if she knows that she might be charged.  Of course, the ultimate power will turn on the college adjudicators, who might choose to believe the woman and not the man.  Nonetheless, this potential for mutual charging brings a new dimension to these cases, one that the parties and the adjudicators have to consider.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on October 13, 2014 at 11:08:52 am

Amazin! how prescient the Left has been over the years.
who can forget their claims that the Bedroom Police would soon run rampant across america.
Little did WE know that THEY intended to assume the role!!!!!

So what shall it be? Setting up approved "sex dorms" on campus, entry requiring breathalyzers, thumbprints and all watched over by, let us say, Justice Ginsburg, the visage of which would of course "cool" any ardor on the part of the "consenting, non-intoxicated" parties. Yep, that'll do it!

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on October 14, 2014 at 09:51:58 am

Good points made here. But I would go a step further (beyond just the intoxication question) and assert that in virtually all scenarios (at least conceivably) intercourse becomes a mutual sexual assault. This relates back to your earlier post re: what constitutes affirmative consent. If it's verbal only, or even nodding, then 99.99% of Americans have committed a sexual assault in their lifetimes without realizing it. What a horrendous, vile law. If California is so concerned with these sexual encounters, do away with co-ed dorms, crack down on Greek life, etc. In other words, keep men and women from being so easily exposed to one another, which would prompt more formal dating and fewer random hook-ups. But no, the sexual revolution (which basically empowered men to have sex with more women) must not be rolled back, right?

read full comment
Image of William
William
on October 14, 2014 at 22:38:04 pm

I have twins - a daughter and a son. Alcohol lowers inhibitions. If both participants are intoxicated and the young woman later has regrets, she can bring an accusation of rape against the young man. This doesn't seem fair or reasonable. It's why I've told my daughter that if she drinks and engages in sex, I'll find it hard to believe that it was rape unless more than one young man is involved or she has physical signs of assault.

Alcohol is the villain here. Young Women, Don't Drink!

read full comment
Image of twinmom
twinmom
on July 17, 2015 at 20:26:26 pm

Thanks for your sober analysis :) I find it interesting that the same "equal rights" groups refuse to see men and women as equals in these cases. Rather it's simply assumed to mean that, in the case of mutial intoxication, the woman is the sole victim.

read full comment
Image of Jane Mars
Jane Mars
on February 09, 2016 at 23:28:08 pm

[…] I’m going to clarify this particular section by saying that this excludes the cases where a woman or man is raped and doesn’t truly realize it. She/he says no, but doesn’t scream or fight. Rape can occur this way too. Consent is an agreement between 2 or more people to partake in an activity or a decision that involves them. If a woman or man says “no” to sex, regardless of whether or not it’s a scream or a whisper, it’s technically considered rape. Likewise, any other sexual activity non-exclusive to sexual intercourse is classified as sexual assault/abuse, if non-consensual. Furthermore, sex with a man/women under the influence of a drug or alcohol is also seen as rape, because it’s not considered “compliant”. They “could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity.” You can find the source of that information here. […]

read full comment
Image of Rights vs Privileges: Return of the Kings – sarellklakring
Rights vs Privileges: Return of the Kings – sarellklakring
on June 15, 2016 at 23:43:44 pm

This law does seem crazy - but I have a little bit of problem with the idea that the language of the law says sex with an intoxicated person is forbidden - iif it says incapacitated so they could not understand the fact, nature or extent of the activity, as quoted here - that would not forbid sex with someone who was drunk

You really have to be VERY drunk to not understand you are having sex and what is happening during the sex.

However, I feel the law is still a bad one- it means people can bring complaints which are practically impossible to prove or disprove, which is just a mess.

I do agree with the analysis but with that caveat.

read full comment
Image of Steve White
Steve White

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.