So he was deemed incompetent by a judge and appointed a guardian? And, he can't be held responsible for other actions, such as driving either?
And if they're both drunk and can't give consent, they've raped each other? You would want to criminalize heavily intoxicated sexual relations?
I believe that there is credible evidence and there is no hard evidence which is impossible to get. Weinstein is another example of credible and not hard evidence.
Credible evidence is not evidence which is necessarily true, but is evidence worthy of belief, that is, worthy to be considered by the jury. It is often natural, reasonable and probable as to make it easy to believe.
I shattered your argument and all you are left with is ad hoc. My point was not in support of sex with children, but to illustrate how idiotic your argument was. So break it down for me. Why specifically, without resorting to the ick factor, is sex with children wrong? Once you have answered that then you will have answered why sex with an intoxicated person is wrong.
Seriously? You've demonstrated that you are not that stupid. Sex with children is wrong why? Because they cannot provide informed consent. Nor can an intoxicated person. Thus if one is going to claim that intoxicated consent is valid, by extension so would be child consent, and the need for consent to be informed consent means nothing.
The rub is that we are holding men to a different standard the women. And yes that is the point of saying that a person who is intoxicated cannot provide consent. If they are not within their normal senses, then it is not informed consent, any more so than a child or mentally handicapped person My point is that the evidence needed to bring to trial is not as strict as that to convict. If you have sufficient evidence you can arrest and charge. But the greater emphasis is now on the evidence to PROVE guilt. Proof of guilt is not required to bring to trial.
Granted, but that still doesn't mean that the evidence for taking a case to trial will be as strict as that to convince. All you have shown is that there is a point of too little evidence.
Very true, and nothing I have said goes against that point. The only thing I have said is that the level of evidence to take to trial is not as strict and high as that required to convict. There is nothing in that statentst that denies a level of evidence too low to take to trial. It's not an all or nothing deal.
Sometimes they will. There's nothing in the law that says they can't. (And if you don't believe me, you might read this long story here)