I guess it falls to a utilitarian argument, Muppet. If it helps 90% of the people in situations like this, but hurts 10% is it not worth it?
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"
The idea is to prevent rape, though so it doesn't really apply. This policy doesn't stop someone from being a rapist but it should help prevent people from becoming a rapist by accident.
It bothers me that most of the conversation on here is about possible false accusations vs. this bill hopefully making predators and uniformed people aware that consent is a thing and should be given.
This.
Innocence isn't going to be any harder to prove if this law passes than it already is. This is purely about definitions and the legislature making a statement.
Is there any evidence that this law will actually be effective at that? As you said, this law will only punish the ignorant, not those with actual malice. Why not fund awareness campaigns for all colleges in the state instead?
I'm not trying to pick a fight, but I wonder why you think it won't be harder to prove innocence. Won't you need a witness or a recording or something? I'm not a lawyer, but I think this puts more burden on the accused even if it's only implied/soft/whatever-preferred-term. It seems to carry an implication of guilt, to me.
I'm a father of daughters. I'm all about consent. I'm all about nobody taking advantage of anybody. I just think we need to be careful when we attach state and federal law to hot button issues with EXTREMELY strong opinions on all (not just two) sides.
You already have to prove consent, dude. It's not changing what you have to prove. It is giving you a definition of consent per se. As in, if this then you DEFINITELY have consent. If it's ambiguous, then fucking ask.
Right now, at this very moment, someone can claim sex wasn't consensual and offer evidence to support it. Then the person charged with rape gets a chance to offer a defense if the evidence is convincing. This law isn't going to change that. It's unlikely that a higher number of people will falsely claim rape because of a change like this. I don't understand what you guys think this is going to change when it comes to a criminal case. If anything, it just changes the exact content of the evidence that has to be offered, not how convincing it has to be.
I appreciate the response and I understand this is an emotional issue for many. Not everyone went to law school and know the details of the legal system, so please understand that others may have reservations, especially when the source article is sparse on context regarding existing laws.
It's attaching a very specific requirement for proving consent that you may not be able to produce, dude. That's my primary (really only) issue with it. The law says there has to be verbal confirmation of consent. So I say there is. Now what?
If the ONLY consequence here with regards to providing consent is that the accused needs to be able to swear under oath that the alleged victim said "yes", then OK, but to claim that there's no sociological baggage to this I think is more than a little disingenuous.
Like you said, you *already* have to prove consent.
I'm curious how the law is written. If it's basically just a list of acceptable modes of consent, codified into law, then hey, I'm cool with that.
You have to offer sufficient evidence that someone did the crime before the Defendant even has to worry about a defense. That includes proving affirmative consent. Someone claiming a lack of affirmative consent is gonna have to bring more to the table to get past the burden of proof hurdle.
Well yeah but that's basic, everybody knows that the burden of proof is on the prosecution.
And yet people are exonerated for lots of different types of crimes after the fact.
Certain laws and types of laws, I feel, contribute to a culture of guilt where the accused may as well be guilty in the eyes of the public before a trial ever takes place. Sexual assault is often one of those categories. As was said earlier in the thread, this is a societal/cultural problem. Andrew raised the issue of guys labeled as sex offenders for having underage girlfriends when they were underage themselves. That's... common enough to be a problem. Clearly not as big a problem as rape. The issue, though, is that when the stakes are high I think you have to be careful how you define the field.
If in the end this law contributes to a better understanding and culture on these campuses, then great, I'll be first in line to express kudos to the authors. I have reservations.
Having reservations about this law isn't tantamount to being OK with guys (or anyone) making unwarranted (or any) assumptions about consent, or anything of the sort. Just, you know, for the record.
If this law doesn't materially improve the legal landscape, for victims, accused, either or both, then it's just inflammatory. It's politicizing. I'm not convinced it improves anything, but I haven't read the law either and I'm not a lawyer. If the bottom line on this thing is that it just clarifies the definition of consent, then I can't see how anybody would have a problem with it, but the article seems to imply something else.
It bothers me that most of the conversation on here is about possible false accusations vs. this bill hopefully making predators and uniformed people aware that consent is a thing and should be given.
That's because the false-accusation part is controversial and there is meaningful discussion to be had. Everyone agrees with the second part so there isn't as much discussion to be had.
I guess it falls to a utilitarian argument, Muppet. If it helps 90% of the people in situations like this, but hurts 10% is it not worth it?
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"
The idea is to prevent rape, though so it doesn't really apply. This policy doesn't stop someone from being a rapist but it should help prevent people from becoming a rapist by accident.
Can you explain further why it doesn't apply? I may have misunderstood what you meant by people being "hurt".
All this law really implies is that, if you're accused of rape, you can't say "well she didn't say NO" and expect that to be a valid excuse. You have to at least assert that she directly and specifically consented.
It raises the bar of what you need to at least claim to have done to obtain consent.
So continue to communicating with people, that I'd like to sex up hard in such a was as to ASSURE and not to ASSUME. They feel the same way about wanting to sex me so good.
If this campaign of consent along with NoMore.org, celebrities that are couples or people in general should make this even more positive by posting Instagram/Vine videos of them saying "I consent" to each other then snogging or a alluding to sexual activities as the video ends (with #consentissexy or #yestoconsent)
There's so many issues and angles to deal with. Really consent should be an integral, prominent part of sex education in high school, but in this country we have a really hard time getting school districts to tell kids what SEX is in sex education. Lots of shortfalls to correct all over the place and so many are prerequisites to fixing others.
There's so many issues and angles to deal with. Really consent should be an integral, prominent part of sex education in high school, but in this country we have a really hard time getting school districts to tell kids what SEX is in sex education. Lots of shortfalls to correct all over the place and so many are prerequisites to fixing others.
Sex education in my high school's district was "THIS IS WHAT YOU'LL GET IF YOU HAVE SEX!" with graphic pictures of STD-riddled genitalia.
Yea, a sex-positive sex education course would probably help a lot with a heavy emphasis on consent and not making it seem like only outlaws have sex. Would demystify it. One of the big problems people have is they are initially exposed to sex in entertainment media be it porn or movies. Most of which have very little to do with reality and sometimes have extremely "problematic" versions of how things should go down.
This law changes almost nothing, if it does it edges some small percentage of rape statistic higher.
Ultimately this is more of a political statement than anything else, although I can understand why some may take exception to this law as current court trends seem to favor one sex over the other.
In the end, this is just showboating and does not solve the "he said-she said" problem.
...current court trends seem to favor one sex over the other.
If by that you mean "in most cases, since the beginning of recorded history, men have been favored by the judiciary over women" then yes, you are correct.
I have only two points to make:
1. False rape accusations are a vanishingly small problem compared to both cases of unreported rape (of men and women) and cases of improper handling and prosecution (see also: "rape culture")
2. If you aren't sure whether someone is consenting to have sex with you, don't have sex with them. It's pretty simple.
If you are worried that the person you're about to have sex with will falsely accuse you of rape later, what in holy fuck are you doing having sex with this person in the first place?
If you are worried that the person you're about to have sex with will falsely accuse you of rape later, what in holy fuck are you doing having sex with this person in the first place?
There's a simple progression for sane people.
1. Friends 2. Trust 3. Fucking
You can't skip a step.
See, I would have made this point, but I figured someone would bitch about being persecuted for liking casual sex.
Comments
Innocence isn't going to be any harder to prove if this law passes than it already is. This is purely about definitions and the legislature making a statement.
I'm a father of daughters. I'm all about consent. I'm all about nobody taking advantage of anybody. I just think we need to be careful when we attach state and federal law to hot button issues with EXTREMELY strong opinions on all (not just two) sides.
Right now, at this very moment, someone can claim sex wasn't consensual and offer evidence to support it. Then the person charged with rape gets a chance to offer a defense if the evidence is convincing. This law isn't going to change that. It's unlikely that a higher number of people will falsely claim rape because of a change like this. I don't understand what you guys think this is going to change when it comes to a criminal case. If anything, it just changes the exact content of the evidence that has to be offered, not how convincing it has to be.
If the ONLY consequence here with regards to providing consent is that the accused needs to be able to swear under oath that the alleged victim said "yes", then OK, but to claim that there's no sociological baggage to this I think is more than a little disingenuous.
Like you said, you *already* have to prove consent.
I'm curious how the law is written. If it's basically just a list of acceptable modes of consent, codified into law, then hey, I'm cool with that.
"The burden of proof is on the Prosecution."
You have to offer sufficient evidence that someone did the crime before the Defendant even has to worry about a defense. That includes proving affirmative consent. Someone claiming a lack of affirmative consent is gonna have to bring more to the table to get past the burden of proof hurdle.
And yet people are exonerated for lots of different types of crimes after the fact.
Certain laws and types of laws, I feel, contribute to a culture of guilt where the accused may as well be guilty in the eyes of the public before a trial ever takes place. Sexual assault is often one of those categories. As was said earlier in the thread, this is a societal/cultural problem. Andrew raised the issue of guys labeled as sex offenders for having underage girlfriends when they were underage themselves. That's... common enough to be a problem. Clearly not as big a problem as rape. The issue, though, is that when the stakes are high I think you have to be careful how you define the field.
If in the end this law contributes to a better understanding and culture on these campuses, then great, I'll be first in line to express kudos to the authors. I have reservations.
Having reservations about this law isn't tantamount to being OK with guys (or anyone) making unwarranted (or any) assumptions about consent, or anything of the sort. Just, you know, for the record.
If this law doesn't materially improve the legal landscape, for victims, accused, either or both, then it's just inflammatory. It's politicizing. I'm not convinced it improves anything, but I haven't read the law either and I'm not a lawyer. If the bottom line on this thing is that it just clarifies the definition of consent, then I can't see how anybody would have a problem with it, but the article seems to imply something else.
It raises the bar of what you need to at least claim to have done to obtain consent.
Got it.
Just a thought.
But try getting that past the public.
Point in case: ALS Ice Bucket Challenge.
Ultimately this is more of a political statement than anything else, although I can understand why some may take exception to this law as current court trends seem to favor one sex over the other.
In the end, this is just showboating and does not solve the "he said-she said" problem.
Consentacles.
I have only two points to make:
1. False rape accusations are a vanishingly small problem compared to both cases of unreported rape (of men and women) and cases of improper handling and prosecution (see also: "rape culture")
2. If you aren't sure whether someone is consenting to have sex with you, don't have sex with them. It's pretty simple.
There's a simple progression for sane people.
1. Friends
2. Trust
3. Fucking
You can't skip a step.