Poll of the Day > Hypothetical scenario: who is guilty?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Hypothetical scenario: a man is out partying with some of his friends, one of whom is a chemist. They think the man is too tense and unable to relax, so the spike his drink with an experimental drug that disables the portions of the prefrontal cortex associated with inhibition and social moderation; the do not tell him they have done this. A short time later, still under the effects of the drug, the man commits a violent rape and is arrested by the police.

In court, the man claims that he should not be held responsible for his actions. While he admits he knew what he was doing during the entire night's events and has a clear memory of everything that happens, he states that - thanks to the drug's effects - he was powerless to control himself. He asserts that he would never commit such an act if he was in control of his faculties and would never have willingly consumed the drug that was given to him. He is married and has no criminal record of any kind and two dozen character witnesses vouch for him as an upstanding citizen. The prosecution argues that because the drug merely lowered inhibitions, as opposed to altering moods or inducing a full on hallucinogenic or psychotic state, the man still represents a danger to the public and should be imprisoned.

The friends responsible for drugging the man have pleaded guilty to a charge related to spiking the man's drink, but the prosecutors have also decided to try them as accessories to the crime, arguing that they created the whole situation to begin with. The friends have also claimed innocence, arguing that there was no malice to their actions and that the man's decisions were his own.

You are a judjurawmaker - a combination of judge, jury, and lawmaker, who gets to create laws and instantly apply them as you see fit. Would you find the man and/or his friends guilty of a crime as a result of what happened?

Bonus question: would your answer change if, instead of having his drink spiked, the man had willingly consumed a legal prescription drug where loss of inhibition was listed as a potential side-effect but the impact was drastically underestimated by the pharmaceutical company that produced it?
---

They're all guilty

It also sounds like that chemist just invented alcohol
---

His friends get the sexual assault version of manslaughter.

If he did it he gets the sexual assault version of manslaughter.

Sounds like some devil's breath stuff.

Assuming you've providing this information as being proven and known by the court, it would depend on an analysis of the drug they spiked his drink with. Are the effects of the drug usually extreme? "Lowered inhibitions" can be as mild as alcohol or as extreme as bath salts.

If the response is typically mild, they'd both be guilty although the drugged man should get a less serious sentence than usual. If the response is typically extreme, then the drugged man is legally innocent and friends are legally responsible for not only the drugging but also the crimes committed by the drugged man.
---

The friends and not the man. He did not voluntarily take such a drug, so he should not be held responsible for its mood-altering effects.

It's funny, if you spin this story where a girl's drink was spiked by a man, and she had sex with a man she otherwise wouldn't have had sex with, then you'd have everyone and their mother cry rape.
---

JanwayDaahl posted...

It's funny, if you spin this story where a girl's drink was spiked by a man, and she had sex with a man she otherwise wouldn't have had sex with, then you'd have everyone and their mother cry rape.

What the fuck are you talking about
---

Throw the book at the assholes who spiked his drink. I would be incredibly pissed if someone did that to me even if nothing bad happened, probably to the point of never speaking to those people again.
---

G. The woman - she took advantage of a man who could not consent.

Or at least that's how my college title 9 shit said it works.
---

You

Because tl;dr
---

It would really depend on the nature of the chemical he was drugged with but, most things considered, if he was charged with rape there should be a good deal of leniency given he had been drugged. However, depending on the chemical he might not have any real control or it might have just served as a mood elevator. You really can't render a decision without having an understanding of the chemicals used, which would be discussed by expert witnesses during the trial.

However, the friends are certainly guilty and the chemist should be charged with a lot more than just "being an accessory" considering there are multiple laws against drugging people. If a prosecutor didn't pursue those charges, as a judge I would ask that he be disbarred for his negligence.

darkknight109 posted...

Bonus question: would your answer change if, instead of having his drink spiked, the man had willingly consumed a legal prescription drug where loss of inhibition was listed as a potential side-effect but the impact was drastically underestimated by the pharmaceutical company that produced it?

That would really depend on what the drug's legal use was. If it was medically necessary to treat a problem that couldn't be addressed nearly as well by another drug, there'd be more latitude. However, in theory, at least he'd have some knowledge of the risks.

More generally, when it comes to consuming products which diminish mental capacity, I think committing crimes under the influence of alcohol should automatically result in punitive damages. Maybe toss another six months to a year onto the sentencing.
---

Yellow posted...

His friends get the sexual assault version of manslaughter.

If he did it he gets the sexual assault version of manslaughter.

Sounds like some devil's breath stuff.

I'll go with this.
---

The man didn't know his friend spiked the drink, so he's not at fault.
---

JanwayDaahl posted...

It's funny, if you spin this story where a girl's drink was spiked by a man, and she had sex with a man she otherwise wouldn't have had sex with, then you'd have everyone and their mother cry rape.

darkknight109 posted...

A short time later, still under the effects of the drug, the man commits a violent rape and is arrested by the police.

bruh
---

-Komaiko54- posted...

JanwayDaahl posted...

It's funny, if you spin this story where a girl's drink was spiked by a man, and she had sex with a man she otherwise wouldn't have had sex with, then you'd have everyone and their mother cry rape.

darkknight109 posted...

A short time later, still under the effects of the drug, the man commits a violent rape and is arrested by the police.

bruh

What's your point? You and the other person quoting me haven't said a logical counterpoint, just made dumb emotional one-liners.
---

Only the friend. The man was not in control of his actions, and had no knowledge that his drink had been spiked. He is a victim as well.

From the description, it sounds like this drug isn't a drug that forces someone to rape drug so much as an "I'll do what I want to do, consequences be damned!" sort of drug, so kinda' have to hold all of them responsible.
---

Original scenario: The friends are guilty of drugging the man and are culpable for his actions while he was under the influence of that drug. The man while under the influence could not legally give consent to those actions any more than the victim had.

Bonus question: It changes. If the man consented to being under the influence of the drug before he had come under that influence then he also gave consent for anything that would result from that influence.

Since "the impact had been underestimated by the pharmaceutical company" they would be guilty of negligence and misleading the public about a potential health risk.
---

MirMiros posted...

The man was not in control of his actions, and had no knowledge that his drink had been spiked. He is a victim as well.

No drug can make you rape someone
---

Mead posted...

MirMiros posted...

The man was not in control of his actions, and had no knowledge that his drink had been spiked. He is a victim as well.

No drug can make you rape someone

Pretty sure we have mind-altering substances which can render a person suggestible enough to do anything. If not, we someday will.

Golden Road posted...

From the description, it sounds like this drug isn't a drug that forces someone to rape drug so much as an "I'll do what I want to do, consequences be damned!" sort of drug, so kinda' have to hold all of them responsible.

The one problem with that is he didn't consent to taking the drug which, at a bare minimum, lowered his inhibitions. While the level of his culpability depends on the nature of the drug, it's difficult to argue that he should bear the full responsibility when his mind was unknowingly messed with. His ability to consent was clearly impaired.
---

faramir77 posted...

Assuming you've providing this information as being proven and known by the court, it would depend on an analysis of the drug they spiked his drink with. Are the effects of the drug usually extreme? "Lowered inhibitions" can be as mild as alcohol or as extreme as bath salts.

If the response is typically mild, they'd both be guilty although the drugged man should get a less serious sentence than usual. If the response is typically extreme, then the drugged man is legally innocent and friends are legally responsible for not only the drugging but also the crimes committed by the drugged man.

this, said way better than I could
---

Mead posted...

MirMiros posted...

The man was not in control of his actions, and had no knowledge that his drink had been spiked. He is a victim as well.

No drug can make you rape someone

They can if they the disabling effect to the prefrontal cortex is severe enough.

MirMiros posted...

Mead posted...

MirMiros posted...

The man was not in control of his actions, and had no knowledge that his drink had been spiked. He is a victim as well.

No drug can make you rape someone

They can if they the disabling effect to the prefrontal cortex is severe enough.

That still wouldn't turn a normal person into a violent rapist
---

Mead posted...

MirMiros posted...

Mead posted...

MirMiros posted...

The man was not in control of his actions, and had no knowledge that his drink had been spiked. He is a victim as well.

No drug can make you rape someone

They can if they the disabling effect to the prefrontal cortex is severe enough.

That still wouldn't turn a normal person into a violent rapist

Complete removal of inhibition, ability to distinguish right from wrong, understanding of social norms, impulse control, etc. Yeah, it could.

darkknight109 posted...

The prosecution argues that because the drug merely lowered inhibitions, as opposed to altering moods or inducing a full on hallucinogenic or psychotic state, the man still represents a danger to the public and should be imprisoned.

I rule in favor of the man because "If he can't inhibit himself without his inhibitions then he's probably a dangerous person" is silly.
---

Depends on the nature of the drug. If it is pretty much just alcohol, and he's likely to encounter such reduction in inhibitions on a regular basis, then charging him seems reasonable. If it's much more extreme than that, then these are extenuating circumstances that aren't likely to be repeated, and the abundance of character witnesses speaking in favour of him suggest that he's not actually a danger to anyone.

I'd definitely charge the others as accessories, though (I'm not sure if you can be convicted as an accessory to a crime that nobody was actually convicted of, but for the sake of argument we'll pretend it works and not worry too much about the exact nature of the charge). They're wholly responsible for administering the drug, so they're responsible for its consequences. The chemist in particular needs extra charges relating to testing his drug on a human without any sort of consent.
---

Friends are guilty of drugging the chemist against his will or knowledge, which could be infliction of bodily harm, negligence, and/or any number of charges depending on jurisdiction, but they're not responsible for the chemist's actions thereafter.

Chemist is responsible for his own actions, therefore guilty of rape, but a judge/jury may take his being drugged into account when sentencing him.
---

MirMiros posted...

Mead posted...

MirMiros posted...

Mead posted...

MirMiros posted...

The man was not in control of his actions, and had no knowledge that his drink had been spiked. He is a victim as well.

No drug can make you rape someone

They can if they the disabling effect to the prefrontal cortex is severe enough.

That still wouldn't turn a normal person into a violent rapist

Complete removal of inhibition, ability to distinguish right from wrong, understanding of social norms, impulse control, etc. Yeah, it could.

He would still be guilty
---

Mead posted...

MirMiros posted...

Mead posted...

MirMiros posted...

Mead posted...

MirMiros posted...

The man was not in control of his actions, and had no knowledge that his drink had been spiked. He is a victim as well.

No drug can make you rape someone

They can if they the disabling effect to the prefrontal cortex is severe enough.

That still wouldn't turn a normal person into a violent rapist

Complete removal of inhibition, ability to distinguish right from wrong, understanding of social norms, impulse control, etc. Yeah, it could.

He would still be guilty

Not, like it the case of a mentally ill person committing a crime, if the case could be made that he had no control over his actions.

i'd have to say the man is innocent. there are many things most of us think about doing but never do because we know it is wrong, where as drugs can make you stop caring about what you think is wrong. so him not being aware of having taken said drug he has no fault in this.

I will also say it depends on the drug too. like if it was simply alcohol or something of a similar effect then i'm not as likely to take the guys side.

and I am saying this as someone who actually manages to keep my moral compass no matter how fubar I get. I used to do drugs and shit, I just handled it better than most people.
---