I think the issue here is that you are conflating the ability to give consent and criminal accountability.
I could say the same thing about you
That doesn't imply that a drunk tattooist can forcibly tattoo people and expect no legal repercussions.
I think your example is pretty ridiculous. I don't hear of too many forced tattooings or too many artists charged for giving tattoos to drunk individuals.
you cannot consent to sex when severely intoxicated under UK law
I can't speak for UK law. I am an american and I can only speak to the laws here in the U.S.
No one is forcing anyone to take advantage of drunk people either.
This is assuming that the drunk person is indeed being taken advantage of. Even if that is the case that is a moral/ ethical issue and not a legal one.
You could, but it would be pointless if you didn't explain or justify it.
As it stands, I can't see how I could be conflating consent and criminal responsibility given that my position relies on them being two different things.
"I think your example is pretty ridiculous. I don't hear of too many forced tattooings or too many artists charged for giving tattoos to drunk individuals. "
Why does it matter how often it happens? It wouldn't matter if it never happened (although it does). Do you understand the role of hypothetical examples in clarifying matters of legal principle? It's frustrating that we're tripping over the same point again.
"I can't speak for UK law. I am an american and I can only speak to the laws here in the U.S."
Laws regarding rape seem to vary state-by-state, but a little google searching leads me to believe that similar notions are present in USA law. this link (http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=12517) discusses it and also comments on what I mentioned earlier; alcohol may remove the ability to consent, but it doesn't remove criminal responsibility.
"This is assuming that the drunk person is indeed being taken advantage of. Even if that is the case that is a moral/ ethical issue and not a legal one."
You're going to need to justify that claim. The issue of taking advantage of other people is a place where laws (both in the UK and the USA) are often applied. This whole issue boils down to misuse of power over other people who are in a state of vulnerability, which I think is definitely an area of legal interest.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
trog.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
politicartoons2013-03-28 09:49 pm
no subject
I could say the same thing about you
That doesn't imply that a drunk tattooist can forcibly tattoo people and expect no legal repercussions.
I think your example is pretty ridiculous. I don't hear of too many forced tattooings or too many artists charged for giving tattoos to drunk individuals.
you cannot consent to sex when severely intoxicated under UK law
I can't speak for UK law. I am an american and I can only speak to the laws here in the U.S.
No one is forcing anyone to take advantage of drunk people either.
This is assuming that the drunk person is indeed being taken advantage of. Even if that is the case that is a moral/ ethical issue and not a legal one.
no subject
You could, but it would be pointless if you didn't explain or justify it.
As it stands, I can't see how I could be conflating consent and criminal responsibility given that my position relies on them being two different things.
"I think your example is pretty ridiculous. I don't hear of too many forced tattooings or too many artists charged for giving tattoos to drunk individuals. "
Why does it matter how often it happens? It wouldn't matter if it never happened (although it does). Do you understand the role of hypothetical examples in clarifying matters of legal principle? It's frustrating that we're tripping over the same point again.
"I can't speak for UK law. I am an american and I can only speak to the laws here in the U.S."
Laws regarding rape seem to vary state-by-state, but a little google searching leads me to believe that similar notions are present in USA law. this link (http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=12517) discusses it and also comments on what I mentioned earlier; alcohol may remove the ability to consent, but it doesn't remove criminal responsibility.
"This is assuming that the drunk person is indeed being taken advantage of. Even if that is the case that is a moral/ ethical issue and not a legal one."
You're going to need to justify that claim. The issue of taking advantage of other people is a place where laws (both in the UK and the USA) are often applied. This whole issue boils down to misuse of power over other people who are in a state of vulnerability, which I think is definitely an area of legal interest.