Comment by eloff

> Intent matters in a lot of crimes, I don't think it matters in rape cases

As in other forms of battery, intent matters in rape, but it is thr defendant’s intent to commit the requisite form of physical interaction, not the defendant’s intent with regard to the absence of consent by the alleged victim.

> > > Is the perpetrator less guilty of rape depending on his blood alcohol level?

Interestingly, legally, the answer (in the US) is yes if the intoxication makes him incapable of being cognizant of the nature of the act, because it makes him incapable of thr requisite mental state. But there is a huge caveat: in general, voluntary intoxication has been specifically adopted into law as not defeating the mental state requirement for a crime (or, equivalently, as satisfying it for any mental state up to and including specific intent).

> So the victim has no responsibility if blood alcohol level is too high for good judgment, but the perpetrator is responsible no matter their blood alcohol level and judgment? That seems self-contradictory.

Well, no, its not self-contradictory. If your voluntary intoxication causes harm to yourself, you suffer the consequences as much as if you had chosen the outcome (and that’s true whether or not someone else is punished for their role).

If your voluntary intoxication causes unlicensed harm to someone else, society has decided that you suffer the consequences as much as if you had chosen the action, as well. No inconsistency.

> So the victim has no responsibility if blood alcohol level is too high for good judgment, but the perpetrator is responsible no matter their blood alcohol level and judgment?

Exactly. That's why they're called 'victim' and 'perpetrator'.

If the victim got triple blackout drunk, the only person they'd hurt is themselves. But the rapist, in addition to physical damage, inflicts deep, lasting psychological damage upon their victims. It's not just "regret".