Watching for the unintended consequences, Vol 873

Whenever a law is passed or changed, I always try to envision the unintended consequences of an otherwise well intentioned action. When I saw this in the State Journal, red flags started to go up.

The nation's top party school could get a sobering jolt from a change in state law that puts alcohol on a par with date-rape drugs as an aggravating factor in certain sexual assaults.

The change, long sought by rape- victim advocates in Wisconsin, means that victims who are very drunk during a sexual encounter can be judged incapable of giving consent, triggering a possible second-degree sexual assault charge.

Prior to the change, which took effect in June, a victim who had been drinking typically had to be unconscious to be deemed incapable of consenting to sex.

On the surface, this is a good change that adds extra power to prosecute sexual assaults and rape. I don't dispute that. My concern is how many guys out there are going to be falsely charged and/or convicted of rapes and sexual assaults in situations that were fully consensual. Police deal with many more accusations of sexual assault than the number cases which are reported in the news or prosecuted, and the reason for this is that it is not unusual for some women to have a "morning after" sense of guilt and regret over a consensual action. What seemed like a good time the night before is, when sober the next morning, something they wish they had not done. Often times they will not report the incident in a timely fashion and proper medical examinations cannot be performed. The change in the law is going to allow officials to prosecute legitimate cases where a woman really was too drunk to give consent, but my fear is a lot of people will also be convicted of sexual assaults that really were not sexual assaults but next day regrets. The majority of the cases will not have any physical evidence of rape, assault, or excessive inebriation, and they will come down to a he said-she said. This change may tip the scale towards the "she said" irregardless of any evidence. I hope that this is not the case, and that this change will only be used to convict the guilty, but my fear is that this will not be the case. Watch for the unintended consequences of this change in state law. If I'm wrong, good, but watch nonetheless.