Discussion for article #228176
âSome Republicans in the Assembly questioned whether statewide legislation is an appropriate venue to define sexual consent between two people.â
That is best left to national bills where we can codify them feeling a bit icky about two men who want to get married.
That said, this is really quite awesome. Any bill on consent is going to leave some sort of legal murkiness, but this is the first one that slants the leeway exclusively in favor of the victim.
1 Like
From the actual law: âAffirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time.â So, if at any point, 1 of the 2 Partners becomes hoarse from the constant legally-required stream of âyesyesyesyesyesyesâ, the Other instantly becomes a Rapist? Talk about an impossible legal standard.
Also from the law: The accused must âtake reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to the accused at the time, to ascertain whether the complainant affirmatively consentedâ while no definition of âreasonableâ appears anywhere in the law. Arbitrary prosecution, thy name is âCaliforniaâ.
Also, the text of the law contains a huge double standard: The Rapee can be too drunk to consent but the Rapist cannot be too drunk to be held responsible. So, in the name of preventing sexism (since much rape is of a Woman by a Man), We are institutionalizing legal sexism, making Men second class Citizens. I foresee litigation galore and an entire generation of Men eschewing (well-intentioned) feminism due to an apparent anti-Men bias in the movement.
Iâd feel much safer is the slant of leeway was in favor of neither the Claimant nor the Accused.
There is no such thing as âtoo drunk to be held responsibleâ for ANYTHING. Not vehicular homicide, not rape, not murder, not theft, NOTHING. Itâs called âwillful impairmentâ. It is not a defense of ANY actions while impaired (no matter what your pre-law buddy tells you.)
How about I get really, really wasted and come over and rape you? Hey, I was just too drunk to really control myself you know?
So were my 14 Frat brothers who took turns on you. Especially Biff, he likes to get violent when hes drunk. Sorry about the blood-loss and broken bones, but hey, it was YOUR FAULT for being home. Bitch.
Of course this doesnât apply to those afflicted with affluenza.
1 Like
Khaaannn, I think You miss My point: the law hold 2 Individuals in the exact same situation to different legal standards, a classic 14th amendment violation. I am of the opinion You cannot be âtoo drunk to be held responsibleâ, just as You are. My point is that same standard should be applied to the Claimant as well. If You choose to drink, You should not be able to claim âI was drunkâ after the fact, whether the Rapist or the Rapee. Review My comment and I trust You will see Your implied assessment of the comment stems from Your misunderstanding of it.
As I said, arbitrary prosecution. Defense Attorneys are going to have a proverbial âfield dayâ with this one.
Better to error on the side of the victim is it not? Unless in your mind the victim is the poor guy that just couldnât quite figure out what the girl wanted or meant? There are way to many real rapes happening and you are arguing the what ifs, the possible scenarios.
Women have been on the horrible losing end of the current law forever and the change will make potential rapists stop and think possibly. When in the least bit of doubt, do not proceed. There is no perfection, but of the two choices, it is better to investigate the potential rapist than it is to interview the already raped.
If We are just looking to err on the side of the Victim, is it not better to say, in order to sustain a rape charge, the prosecution needs only show sex occurred, placing the burden of evidence on the Accused to show it was consensual? Right now, the Claimant needs to show not only did sex occur but consent was not given. To help illustrate a parallel situation, if I were to steal Someoneâs credit card and buy a t.v. with it, that Individual needs only show I used the credit card and I would then have to provide evidence I had permission to use the card if I wanted to avoid conviction. Somehow, the Person claiming I stole the credit card is making a reasonable accusation but the rape Victim is not? The tiniest of changes to rape laws I describe achieve the desired dramatic shift in favor of the Victim without risking additional complications. This law is more like trying to use a hatchet to remove a Fly from Your forehead. However, even if all I just wrote were not true, why is California requiring on-campus rapes be prosecuted/processed by college Officials and not by Cops? I would think cases so important would be better handled primarily, if not exclusively, by the InRealLife version of the Special Victims Unit with specific and intense training for such situations instead of a Teacher/Dean/Advisor/Counselor/OtherSchoolOfficial.
Another issue with the law is the standard used to obtain âconvictionâ: preponderance of the evidence, the lowest standard in American law. In the (hopefully unlikely) event of a false allegation, the Claimant need only convince the administrating school Official there is a 50.000000001% percent chance the Accused committed rape. Since the law states consent âcan be revoked at any timeâ and not âcan be revoked at any time during the given sexual activityâ, the law allows (hopefully unintentionally) a Victim to agree to sex before and then, months later, decide to withdraw consent and file a complaint. While the scenario may seem contrived, it doesnât change the fact the law clearly states âat any timeâ. Again, a hatchet to remove a Fly from Oneâs forehead.
It is an attempt to improve and strengthen the law that doesnât work now, for the victim anyways. Rapes wonât end and there will be ample opportunity to adjust and keep improving. It is a step in the right direction and if nothing else, makes a statement to the would be rapist.
You seem to see only through your narrow/preferred(?) lens. The raped victims and potential victims need stronger laws with teeth. That this doesnât satisfy you in the make believe, what if world, shows your lean.
We need more than this even and you are possibly, weâll see, correct in some of your assumptions. Think positively and work for the best outcome, which is no more rapes and very strict punishment.
I agree the laws need to be strengthened. I just think this law introduces a set of problems which could be avoided by alternative solutions, including the evidence burden switch I describe. I am also looking to fend off the inevitable 14th amendment challenges which will arise from this law, due to the flaws I highlight above.
You know, in a perfect world where the system functions per the design and without human influence, just the balanced scales of justice, your idealism might fly. But, if that were true, then the laws we have now should work, yes or no?
Perfecting a law on something as abstract to it may never come to pass. Rape victims need/needed more protection before and apparently even more so now.
I get that you want some impenetrable statute that absolutely works, but get real, look at our Congress, our Supreme Court, our divided by design nation. Perfection isnât on the horizon. Rape victims could care less about some lengthy award winning verbiage that canât unrape them, they just want protection and if that fails, they want swift appropriate justice.
Your desire, however righteous, will continue the status quo and if for no other reason than just getting away from this failure in progress, we have to try to make positive changes and accept that we may fail. But that sometimes is the big key to success, yes or no?
You never change your mind? You ever decide to do something risky then bail at the last moment and say, what was I thinking? You ever get buzzed and then sort of snap into sobriety when things get very real all of a sudden. Penetration is very real, do you agree?
You skip past things that really happen and act like they donât so that your idea flies, but that only works for you.
There will be cases that lean your way and some others because everything does that and there is a thing called lawyers that are paid to present alternative theories. So just because a lawyer argues a certain something that in no way means that it is fact or real or that anyone but the plaintiff or defendant even cares.
Court is a game, a chess match at times and a game of chicken at others and somewhere the law gets it shot. And judges and juries are way unpredictable. You are talking book law and idealism and Iâm telling you that what happens in the real world is confounding. Rape victims need the law on their side all they can get because the perpetrator already has a seemingly unfair advantage.
Iâm curios, do you believe that right now, more rapists get away with their crime or more raped women are faking it for whatever reason and getting innocent guys put in jail? Historically too?
âif that were true, then the laws we have now should work, yes or no?â â Maybe; maybe not. It depends on whether the particular law in question is correct or not.
âRape victims need/needed more protection before and apparently even more so now.â â Have rapes per capita been increasing? I havenât seen any data to suggest such.
âI get that you want some impenetrable statute that absolutely works, but get real, look at our Congress, our Supreme Court, our divided by design nation. Perfection isnât on the horizon.â â I never said I wanted an âimpenetrable statute that absolutely worksâ, primarily because, I think, You are using that phrase incorrectly. Either a law is applied or it is not. Laws are never âpenetratedâ; so, they cannot be âimpenetrableâ nor âpenetrableâ. If We presume You meant something like âa perfect statute which always brings justiceâ, even then, You misunderstand how laws work. Laws do not bring justice because America does not have a âjustice systemâ, only a âjudicial systemâ; they are two different things. Nonetheless, there is no reason why legislatures should not try to achieve more perfect laws, even if a completely perfect one is not obtainable at that exact moment.
âRape victims could care less about some lengthy award winning verbiage that canât unrape them, they just want protection and if that fails, they want swift appropriate justice.â â While such a want is fine and reasonable, attempting to do so in an imperfect way, when a less imperfect way exists, is not the way to get that protection. Re âjusticeâ, I refer to My earlier statement about the judicial system.
âYour desire, however righteous, will continue the status quoâ â No, because I did not propose a continuation. Please quote the point where You think I did.
âYou never change your mind? ⌠Penetration is very real, do you agree?â â Never said otherwise. Iâm saying there are better ways to do this and the flaws in this law present significant concerns.
âYou skip past things that really happen and act like they donât so that your idea flies, but that only works for you.â â Thatâs an interesting accusation without evidence; please present some.
âThere will be cases that lean your wayâ â âMy wayâ is one without bias against either the Claimant or the Accused.
âand some others because everything does that and there is a thing called lawyers that are paid to present alternative theories.â â I think You wrote something incoherent here.
âSo just because a lawyer argues a certain something that in no way means that it is fact or real or that anyone but the plaintiff or defendant even cares.â â When it comes to laws, meeting burdens of proof matters, whether that something is fact/real is a decision left for the adjudicating Official(s), and (since it can determine the outcome of the hearing) the Plaintiffs and Defendants certainly do care. So, Iâm not exactly sure what You are trying to argue here. It sounds like You are saying, âIf Someone accuses Another of rape, the Accused gets convicted,â but I am sure thatâs not what You mean to say.
âCourt is a game, a chess match at times and a game of chicken at others and somewhere the law gets it shot.â â Okay, I think I found the problem. You appear to think law enforcement is not about bringing peace, safety, stability, and vitality to a society but more along the lines of tiddlywinks. Why would You belittle Victims, especially rape Victims, like that? Since rape Victims tend to be Female, what value do You see in acting so misogynistic?
âAnd judges and juries are way unpredictable.â â I think You are confusing courtroom dramas with reality. I have enough experience with the judicial system to know the unpredictability You claim exists does not, one reason why a noticeable number of Defendants plead out: They (or Their Attorneys) can generally see whether a trial will result in a conviction.
âYou are talking book law and idealism and Iâm telling you that what happens in the real world is confounding.â â Given Your inaccuracy and incoherence so far, You have not really said anything. However, if the law were so âconfoundingâ, You would have the equivalent of judicial anarchy and no society is able to sustain itself for that long in such a scenario. Your claim rings hollow.
âRape victims need the law on their side all they can get because the perpetrator already has a seemingly unfair advantage.â â Then the solution is to remove the advantage and not replace it with a different one, biasing against an accused Rapist.
âIâm curios, do you believe that right now, more rapists get away with their crime or more raped women are faking it for whatever reason and getting innocent guys put in jail? Historically too?â â I think burdens of proof must be met in any criminal trial and, from time to time, the prosecution goes forward with a case without a sufficiently strong case; sometimes doing so in hopes of trying to get a Defendant to make a error with which to convict or to persuade the Defendant to change Their plea is a good strategy; I think the law should protect the Victims, convict Defendants demonstrably guilty, exonerate Defendants demonstrably innocent, and err on the side of caution for Defendants which are neither; itâs how We handle every other sort of violent crime I have been able to find and, for such cases, it works to the extent People are not pushing to metaphorically stack the deck against the Accused. A far as the veracity of the accusations, You would have to ask the Claimants; I do not profess to know, which is why, in the interest of protecting the truly Innocent, I urge non-bias.
Had to put a lot of thought into that one huh? Your sales pitch has gotten much weaker.
You have a non-bias bias and an answer that suits yourself for everything. I recommend not pissing in the wind or banging your heads against the wall and possibly responding while a subject is actually being discussed.
I shortened my response so you donât have to play the refute every point game.
Just state your fix and weâll call it good and see what âreallyâ happens.
And yet You highlighted no flaw in what You call a âpitchâ.