Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    Sue, that's good news.  However, I have to take issue with your
    title - "Score one for the good guys"???  The only guy you
				    ^^^^
    specifically mention in your note is the one convicted!  Hardly
    what I would call a good guy...

    Good! Too bad he won't serve time.
    
    The only thing I would take issue with is blaming someone else for the
    guy's drinking. He raped and assaulted (battered?) of his own volition,
    and he got drunk of his own volition. Being drunk is not an excuse. IT
    should make things *worse*, not better for him.
    
    I say bag him for both crimes. ['Course, The Law says different.]
    
    Still - it's a start. Good job.
    
    --DE
    

>    The only thing I would take issue with is blaming someone else for the
>    guy's drinking.

 Thank you so much for bringing this up. When I read the basenote, I was pleased
except for the part about the suit against his employer. Not wanting to be a 
killjoy, I didn't want to be the first to say anything negative about the
basenote, but since you brought it up... I agree. The employer should not be
held liable. It's time to stop throwing liability around; to do so only
dilutes the personal responsibility the perpetrator has for his crimes.

 The Doctah

    In states where there are comparitive liabilty laws, lawsuits often
    name John Does between 1 and 100 in the lawsuit, trying to bring 
    anyone in who have had some negligence that resulted in the crime 
    that took place. In a jury trial, a jury might rule that the bar
    was 20% at fault, and thus responsible for 20% for the money owed
    the plaintiff. However, if the other parties in the lawsuits are
    unable to pay the remaining 80%, the bar might become responsible for
    the full amount. This is known as the "deep pockets" theory of
    liability. Often lawyers try to draw in a major institution as a
    defendent in a civil trial, for this very reason.
    
    This is how it works in California. Your laws may vary.
    
    -roger
    

    
    In Mass, any thing to do with selling alcohol has liability associated
    with it. My business law professor said: If a person purchases a
    baseball bat, takes it home, then later cracks open someone's skull,
    the sporting goods store isn't liable. If a person purchases a bottle
    of sherry, takes it home, then later drinks it and drives, then gets
    into an accident, the package store may have some liability. 
    
    In both cases, the person's actions aren't influenced by the vendor.
    I guess the alcohol law is vague so that you don't actually have to
    serve the alcohol to be liable. 
    
    Guy
    

    
    Too bad the rapist didn't live in Saudi Arabia where the punishment
    fits the crime.  But I guess it's a step.  
    
    I agree that the restaurant shouldn't be sued.  It's time Americans and
    American businesses started taking responsibility for themselves.  It's 
    debt, it's waste products, it's day care, it's homeless, it's ability to 
    produce...

    Well, I guess I should offer some more details so that everyone might
    be able to form a more educated opinion.
    
    The restraunt/bar business in D.C. is a bit of a rare breed.  Most of
    the establishments close their doors to the public in the early morning
    hours, but stay open and the employees have an "after-hours" club. 
    This is illegal.  The restraunt served him while he was intoxicated,
    and this is illegal.  That is where the liability lies.  The civil suit
    doesn't state that "because they served him, he raped her".  It is
    limited to their liability which was incurred when they continued to
    serve an intoxicated person, and when they served him after legal
    hours.
    
    Sue

    RE: .7
    
    Yes, the restaurant committed an illegal act by breaking the law.
    
    However, my feelings on this are:    [no, these are not The Law's
    feelings]
    
    1. Serving him liquor after he was intoxicated had nothing to do with
    the rape. *He* raped the woman. Drunk or sober, *he* did it.
    
    2. <this is a rathole. I admit it. I am just saying how I feel.> NO
    restaurant should be held liable for the drinking habits of drunks.
    *Drunks* should be held liable for the drinking habits of drunks.
    
    This does not mean I don't believe it's a disease. [my credentials are
    having been brought up in an alcoholic home] It *does* mean that I
    believe someone who drinks can choose to stay home and drink themselves
    into oblivion, OR they can choose to be "out and about", taking the
    chance that they will harm someone in some way. This is their choice,
    and if they choose the latter, they deserve the punishment.
    
    "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime."
    
    I understand that the law doesn't work this way, and that suing the
    restaurant may be the best way to get some restitution, but I think we
    are going about these things "back-asswards".
    
    As far as the person who was raped goes, I say "Get whatever justice
    you can. You deserve it."
    
    --DE
    

>The civil suit
>    doesn't state that "because they served him, he raped her".  It is
>    limited to their liability which was incurred when they continued to
>    serve an intoxicated person, and when they served him after legal
>    hours.

 That sounds to me like the suit acknowledges that the restaurant/bar's actions
were a completely separate issue from the rape. In light of that, I don't see
why the court would award her any money. It sounds like the plaintiff is
saying "you broke the law, now give me a million dollars." Of course, what
common sense dictates and what the law mandates are pretty much orthogonal,
as has been demonstrated countless times.

 As far as the entire issue of alcohol liability goes, I agree with Dale. 
Sorry, Dale, I know it's early in the week for us to agree. :-) :-)

 The Doctah

    
    
    I think that drinking establishments and liquor stores make most of
    their money off people who drink a lot.  Ever notice how cheap liquor
    and nips are often near the cash register at the front of the store?
    (I think it's like putting candy bars near the checkout lines in grocery
    stores.)  It's illegal (in most if not all states) to serve or sell
    liquor to a person who is already drunk, but lots of places do it.
    
    The recent increase in awareness of the problem of drunk driving has
    led to bars (and, I guess liquor stores) being held accountable for
    violating that law of serving an intoxicated person.  I had never heard
    of a case where a bar was held partly responsible for other crimes
    that an illegally-served patron committed, but maybe this kind of
    lawsuit will lead to more responsible behavior on the part of vendors.
    The punishment the bar owners receive has to be greater than the loss
    of revenues from not serving drunks.  Otherwise, they won't change
    their behavior.  Of course, there are exceptions.  There are ethical 
    bartenders and liquor store owners out there, but I believe that in all 
    too many cases money is what rules -- not ethics.
    
    So I say, sue 'em all. Take the money, and hope that someone notices.
    
    Justine        

    The conviction is good news, but the plea bargaining and participation
    in the Lawsuit Lottery are not.
    
    I have an extremely hard time maintaining compassion for someone who is
    willing to participate in attempts to get rich in this very unjust way. 
    They win all too often because (I believe) jurors feel that "deep
    pockets" can afford it.  Let the little person have the bonanza.
    
    I'd probably never get to be a juror in such lawsuits because of my
    tendency to want to award $.02 for something like this.
    
    Two wrongs don't make a right.  Nor do three (sounds like he belongs in
    jail).
    
    Bud

>I had never heard
>    of a case where a bar was held partly responsible for other crimes
>    that an illegally-served patron committed,

 Successful lawsuits and outrageously high awards for bars who have sold to
a person who subsequently got into an accident are very commonplace.

 I am very disturbed by the trend that the social engineers among us have
been successfully implementing. The premise is that freedom of choice for
individuals must be curtailed by groups. No longer is it sufficient to allow
a person to make a choice and deal with the consequences. Now it is necessary
for groups or insitutions to actively discourage behaviors that are currently
viewed as unsatisfactory, and in the event that the behavior is chosen anyway,
we must view this as a failure of "the system" and shield the individual
from the full consequences of her/his choice. Then we turn around and punish the 
groups or insitutions for not successfully influencing the individual's
behavior. What an absurd system. No wonder it doesn't work.

 It is well known that driving while under the influence of alcohol is a 
dangerous behavior. In order to deter this behavior, we have instituted a
series of laws designed to prevent people who drink from subsequently attempting
to drive an automobile. Now that is a reasonable aim. However, we go a step
further. We also cause the distributors of alcohol to adopt the role of mommy.
If a man walks into a liquor store, buys a bottle of liquor, and runs someone
over after consuming it, the liquor store may be held liable in some
jurisdictions. This is absurd. How are they supposed to be able to prevent such
tragedies? There is no way to know what's going to happen once the patron
leaves the store. 

 It is illegal to sell alcohol to someone who is legally drunk in a bar. In
other words, no one can ever legally exceed a BAC of .10% in a bar, regardless
of whether s/he is driving afterwards. The intent of this law is to make it
illegal for bartenders to make a fortune off of a drunk by serving her/him
when s/he is already loaded, and creating a potential disaster in the process.
However, the law also prevents a person from walking to a bar and putting on
a good buzz (if properly enforced). Well, clearly, it is ridiculous to force
people to bar hop in order to get more than 2 or 3 drinks served to them. 

 Now, should a person manage to get into an accident and perhaps kill someone
after drinking, what happens? We get plea bargains, suspended sentences,
early paroles, excuses etc. And then we go after the bar. Why not? They can
afford it, can't they? Well, the truth of the matter is that when they go
after the bar, they are going after you and me. They are saying, "you must
pay much more for a drink because we are using the bar as an insurance agent
for the victims. We have removed the bulk of the personal responsibility from
the person who actually caused and committed the crime, and placed it upon you,
society." So when the lawsuit is won and the people cheer for "the little guy,"
they don't realize that it's all of us that just got the shaft. You can talk
about the "deep pockets" all you want, but ask yourself this one question:
"How did they get filled in the first place?"

 The Doctah

ps- Dawn, oops! Very sorry. (Dale didn't seem right, but I couldn't thnk of why)

    Doctah, I *totally* agree with you.  Wish I knew what to do about
    it.  How about a cap on pain and suffering awards of $200k?
    	Linda

    How about if we keep the two issues separate?  Fine the bar that sold
    to the drunk, or remove their alcohol license for a while.  And hold
    the drunk responsible for his/her own actions.  The person who chose to
    drink should not be able to fluff their responsiblity off on someone
    else simply because that other person/business has a "deepe" pocket.
     

    
    
    After reading .15, I think I can agree that the two issues should be
    kept separate.  The rapist is responsible for the rape, and the bar
    is responsible for serving someone who was already drunk.  Of course,
    that kind of liquor law will probably only be enforced in cases where
    the drunk has committed some crime (like drunk driving or other
    violence).  One case where I might think it was fair to assign a bar
    some liability for a crime is if the defendant was able to use
    drunkeness as a defense.  I think that until recently, for example,
    drunkeness was a pretty good defense against being charged with
    vehicular homicide or manslaughter -- it's not my fault, I was drunk.
    
    
    Justine