thejeff: What this kind of rules does is, even if you discount what Kelsey wrote, that it puts two prospective lovers in a situation where the question of trust becomes even more difficult than it already is. I saw an article some time ago stating that many young people choose to film their sessions of intercourse to have something to fall back on if it should become a legal matter. See, the alternative is to have nothing at all. Add in prohibitions of filming people younger than seventeen and various other laws, and it seems to me that there are a number of politicians who want it to be impossible for people to feel secure in having sex before they are eighteen. At least in states where age of consent is below eighteen, this feels like a very odd situation.
Also, no. If you are claiming this change is a good one, it falls to YOU to explain how we should see the fact that false accusations will lead to more convictions with the new rules. You can't turf that over to someone else and then wash your hands of it. Changes like this WILL lead to more people who have been falsely accused getting sentenced. Is that okay? What do we say to that? I am waiting for an answer.
And no, sanity doesn't in general enter into this. As I told you in another thread, we had a politician actually campaigning to remove trials in cases of rape - because it was so emotionally tough for the victim. You have been accused of rape, go directly to jail, do not collect 200$. Given this, and the fact that people accused of rape will under laws like this have to prove their innocence, no, this is a development that is gravely unhealthy.
And it doesn't matter if you claim not to say that it doesn't matter if innocents are sentenced and punished. It is the sum of what you say.
If you could please read it, then quote the passage that deals with criminal cases of sexual assault or rape.
You're talking a lot about how this impacts criminal cases, so I'm sure you can find a passage in this law that deals with criminal cases.
The law is about post-secondary education institutions and guidance no how they handle cases of reported rape or sexual assault on their campus. It has nothing to do with the police.
(1) An affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by both parties to sexual activity. “Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.
(2) A policy that, in the evaluation of complaints in any disciplinary process, it shall not be a valid excuse to alleged lack of affirmative consent that the accused believed that the complainant consented to the sexual activity under either of the following circumstances:
(A) The accused’s belief in affirmative consent arose from the intoxication or recklessness of the accused.
(B) The accused did not take reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to the accused at the time, to ascertain whether the complainant affirmatively consented.
An actual rapist just has to change their story for this law. He just has to say "I asked her if she wanted to have sex, she said yes. I asked again if she was enjoying and wanted to continue, she said yes." It is now entirely his word against hers again. The law doesn't actually change or force ANYTHING in regards to guilt or innocence, it merely changes the words that will be successful to avoid punishment from an administrative body (not a law enforcement organization, since this law has nothing to do with law enforcement, like the police).
Really what the law does is standardize how educational institutions will judge and evaluate sexual assault and rape reports on their campus, nothing more. It doesn't create some sort of new burden of proof, it just clarifies what kind of verbal arguments are NOT allowed.
You leave something on the front step of your house.
I take it.
You accuse me of stealing it.
I say that you regularly leave things on your front step for me to take, so clearly this was an implied consent between the two of us.
That defense is no longer valid according to this law. Instead I just say "We talked at the mailbox the day before and you told me you'd leave it for me to take."
Seriously, being up in arms over this is the silliest thing IMO.