Judges coming out against "yes means yes"

[Babadook]

Dunno the case and didn't read all the posts, nor am I highly acquainted with American or Indian law, but at least here the principle of 'innocent till proven guilty' shall prevail equally in all cases, whether rape, murder, a simple public misdemeanor or whatever. It means and implies that the accused/suspected person doesn't have to say a word or move his/her finger in defence, all burden lies on the authorities to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty. If they can't,well, too bad. Even if the person makes a confession, other evidence is needed to support said confession. Now of course if the accused one is lying on purpose, or tries to mislead the court, he/she can be punished for that, but that's a separate issue from the original accusation. Also, his/her silence can't be evaluated at his/her disadvantage.

Dunno if it helps or not ._.

 

[Avani]

None of this matters, because putting the burden of proof on the defendant is unconstitutional. A class action suit would shit wll over this law.

Pointless argument is pointless.

Oh you mean the Indian law she posted that said if a woman says rape it's rape? She didn't post any proof that yes means yes doesn't make the accused provide a yes. If the accused must provide their own innocence before evidence is stacked against them then it's unconstitutional.

I'm sick of the rest of the argument. Good luck making innocent dudes rapists

Don't just take my word for it

You must be registered for see links

Of course I am not going to take your word for it. Since day one I told you to fetch a link to the bill itself.

(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.
(3) A policy that the standard used in determining whether the elements of the complaint against the accused have been demonstrated is the preponderance of the evidence.
(4) A policy that, in the evaluation of complaints in the disciplinary process, it shall not be a valid excuse that the accused believed that the complainant affirmatively consented to the sexual activity if the accused knew or reasonably should have known that the complainant was unable to consent to the sexual activity under any of the following circumstances:
(A) The complainant was asleep or unconscious.
(B) The complainant was incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication, so that the complainant could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity.
(C) The complainant was unable to communicate due to a mental or physical condition.

You must be registered for see links

That's the language of the text and your Bill. Earlier, I showed you a example how a law laying burden of proof on the accused is worded from the Evidence Act here.

It would be funny if prior to this bill your laws didn't consider a rape, as a rape under the conditions it mentions specifically.

 

[Anorien16]

Meh .... Now I get why people make *** tapes of themselves. Eliminates the risk of confusion. Who wld have thought.

 

[Avani]

Or they can stick to partners who are not already unconscious or incapacitated. But then there are who prefer them dead, since they don't say no.

 

[Anorien16]

Or they can stick to partners who are not already unconscious or incapacitated. But then there are who prefer them dead, since they don't say no.

Well isnt Marital Rape/Partner Abuse a thing too?

 

[Avani]

Well isnt Marital Rape/Partner Abuse a thing too?

Yea and the domestic abuse victims end up dead. That's a thing too.

Otherwise, good luck proving that in a court of law.

 

[slimreaper]

Pointless argument is pointless.



Of course I am not going to take your word for it. Since day one I told you to fetch a link to the bill itself.

You must be registered for see links

That's the language of the text and your Bill. Earlier, I showed you a example how a law laying burden of proof on the accused is worded from the Evidence Act here.

It would be funny if prior to this bill your laws didn't consider a rape, as a rape under the conditions it mentions specifically.

You cite that one indian law because it's direct. This law is less direct yet still says the same thing.

The law expressly stated you must yet affirmative consent. In a court of law under this, they would(as they already have) assume the accused guilty until he can prove innocence. Just because it doesn't say those words, doesn't mean the effects of the law aren't the same as the indian one.

"The Tennessee court held that it was unconstitutional for the university, under it's "yes means yes" standard, to require the male student to establish his own innocence with proof that consent had been given, rather than putting the burden of proof on the accuser or the university as is always the case in both criminal and civil proceedings."

What isn't rape under no means no? It's still rape to have *** with a drugged person( if they didn't voluntarily ingest the drugs), it's still rape to have *** with an incapacitated person.

Really your only new perameters is making the accused who their partner didn't get a no( 100% the fault of the raped), and that two drunk people can't give consent (also wrong)

 

[System001]

Nope. Having *** with a drunk person can be considered rape because consent can only be given when one fully understands the situation. That is why a 7 year old can't give consent. Being drunk blurs your mental competency and your judgement. An eyewitness account from a drunk person isn't valid. A testimony from a person while they're drunk isn't valid. Fact of the matter is, your judgement is compromised while you are drunk. The simple solution is, don't have *** with drunk strangers.

It can still be rape if they didn't stop you. I had a friend who had a guy come onto her while they were hanging out, and she didn't say anything because she was worried how he would react, and felt threatened. That's still rape. Once again, it's so simple to just go "Do you want to do this?" and proceed if they say yes. If you can't restrain yourself and just not have *** if you don't hear yes, you have a ****ing problem.

Rewritten this basically means;

I'm drunk, so I'm no longer responsible for my actions. I didn't put any forethought into measures that would get me home safely once I was drunk and instead entered into an environment commonly used by the sexually available and decided to get pissed out of my bloody senses. I knew that I'd have impaired judgement while I was drunk, but I still went ahead and downed a load with no safety nets in place to prevent me from doing stupid shit. Now that I've done shit that I regret I absolutely have to blame it on someone else, because it's not my fault right? I had impairied judgimentys and no can be held accountable for mah actions! Even though it was my decision in the first place to get wasted under poor circumstances. Sexual environment with no sober friends to check up on me and no Cab to take me home, definitely a great place to get piss drunk.
Or even worse, you let a guy who you're not sexually interested in into your house and decide to get drunk with him alone. Real smart.

You don't want to have *** with a guy but decide to 'hang out' with him alone in an enclosed environment despite him displaying some level of sexual interest, and to top it off you also find him intimidating in one way or another. Awesome idea.

 

[Karna]

The question is just how hard it is to not ****? I mean don't **** a drunk person, the end. Or must you absolutely **** when you have to? Even if the drunk one is wrongly accusing or even if it's actual rape, are you so desperate to that you can't put one option that is drunk people off your list? That you are willing to take risk of being jailed for it? People got issues. Bad kind of issues.

 

[slimreaper]

The question is just how hard it is to not ****? I mean don't **** a drunk person, the end. Or must you absolutely **** when you have to? Even if the drunk one is wrongly accusing or even if it's actual rape, are you so desperate to that you can't put one option that is drunk people off your list? That you are willing to take risk of being jailed for it? People got issues. Bad kind of issues.

From this it's easy to gather you don't have a lot of ***.

Have you ever been drunk and had an attractive girl hit on you? Your judgment is also impaired. It never even crosses your mind that she may regret it and accuse me of raping her the next day.

You and riker both like to paint this picture of sone predator dude who's just waiting for chicks to get hammered and go rape them.

The overwhelming majority of men are drunk themselves, yet are somehow thrust more responsibility for their actions

 

[Karna]

From this it's easy to gather you don't have a lot of ***.

Have you ever been drunk and had an attractive girl hit on you? Your judgment is also impaired. It never even crosses your mind that she may regret it and accuse me of raping her the next day.

You and riker both like to paint this picture of sone predator dude who's just waiting for chicks to get hammered and go rape them.

The overwhelming majority of men are drunk themselves, yet are somehow thrust more responsibility for their actions

Both people being drunk, now that's a two way street and a possibility I didn't consider, let's just blame it on the alcohol then and drink responsibly or better not get drunk in such places? Imma look into it and get back with that.

 

[Punk Hazard]

From this it's easy to gather you don't have a lot of ***.

Have you ever been drunk and had an attractive girl hit on you? Your judgment is also impaired. It never even crosses your mind that she may regret it and accuse me of raping her the next day.

You and riker both like to paint this picture of sone predator dude who's just waiting for chicks to get hammered and go rape them.

The overwhelming majority of men are drunk themselves, yet are somehow thrust more responsibility for their actions

LMFAO HOW STUPID ARE YOU?

No one is talking about the case where two drunk off their asses people have ***. We're talking about a sober person encountering a drunk person and taking advantage of the fact that they are drunk to have *** with them. In which case, it is not hard to simply walk away and NOT HAVE *** WITH THAT PERSON.

 

[slimreaper]

LMFAO HOW STUPID ARE YOU?

No one is talking about the case where two drunk off their asses people have ***. We're talking about a sober person encountering a drunk person and taking advantage of the fact that they are drunk to have *** with them. In which case, it is not hard to simply walk away and NOT HAVE *** WITH THAT PERSON.

Who's doin that besides creepers? Those cases are pretty rare and although morally repugnant, it still isn't a crime or even rape. It's a little cheap like shooting fish in a barrel, but not rape.

 

[Punk Hazard]

Who's doin that besides creepers? Those cases are pretty rare and although morally repugnant, it still isn't a crime or even rape. It's a little cheap like shooting fish in a barrel, but not rape.

It doesn't matter that they are rare, they happen, and that's why this law exists. Simply because it's rare doesn't mean measures to combat it are unnecessary.

Yes, it is rape. Rape is *** with the absence of consent; consent requires both parties have full knowledge of who, where, when and how, which is not the case with alcohol. Repeat that to yourself and copy it in your notebook a few hundred times, and you may begin to comprehend this simple concept.

Rewritten this basically means;

I'm drunk, so I'm no longer responsible for my actions. I didn't put any forethought into measures that would get me home safely once I was drunk and instead entered into an environment commonly used by the sexually available and decided to get pissed out of my bloody senses. I knew that I'd have impaired judgement while I was drunk, but I still went ahead and downed a load with no safety nets in place to prevent me from doing stupid shit. Now that I've done shit that I regret I absolutely have to blame it on someone else, because it's not my fault right? I had impairied judgimentys and no can be held accountable for mah actions! Even though it was my decision in the first place to get wasted under poor circumstances. Sexual environment with no sober friends to check up on me and no Cab to take me home, definitely a great place to get piss drunk.
Or even worse, you let a guy who you're not sexually interested in into your house and decide to get drunk with him alone. Real smart.

You don't want to have *** with a guy but decide to 'hang out' with him alone in an enclosed environment despite him displaying some level of sexual interest, and to top it off you also find him intimidating in one way or another. Awesome idea.

I'ma have to stop you at the second sentence. Once again, not the same concept. If you drive drunk and kill someone, you are not victim. If you are drunk and someone takes advantage of that and has *** with you, you are the victim. It is that simple because no one is to blame for being raped. Yes, you have a responsibility towards how much alcohol you drink. But look at this way: You know walking into a dark alley late at night is dangerous. You know you can be murdered. So if you are murdered, will the police go "Oh, he CHOSE to go into that alley knowing he could get murdered? Well, we can't arrest the murderer now."? No. It's the same concept.

Since when does hanging out with someone alone mean it has to be ***? Have you never hung out with someone in a platonic manner? You are basically saying "If a guy wants to have ***, don't hang out with him because he's gonna try to have ***." Well, why can't it be that if you know the person you are hanging out with doesn't want to have ***, don't try to have to *** with them? Why is that the person who doesn't want to have *** has give up hanging out platonically with someone they enjoy the company of and not that people should exhibit decency and self-control? You are basically saying "Oh it's okay to just throw yourself at someone, they should have not been there if they didn't want to have someone throw themselves at them."

 

[slimreaper]

It doesn't matter that they are rare, they happen, and that's why this law exists. Simply because it's rare doesn't mean measures to combat it are unnecessary.

Yes, it is rape. Rape is *** with the absence of consent; consent requires both parties have full knowledge of who, where, when and how, which is not the case with alcohol. Repeat that to yourself and copy it in your notebook a few hundred times, and you may begin to comprehend this simple concept.



I'ma have to stop you at the second sentence. Once again, not the same concept. If you drive drunk and kill someone, you are not victim. If you are drunk and someone takes advantage of that and has *** with you, you are the victim. It is that simple because no one is to blame for being raped. Yes, you have a responsibility towards how much alcohol you drink. But look at this way: You know walking into a dark alley late at night is dangerous. You know you can be murdered. So if you are murdered, will the police go "Oh, he CHOSE to go into that alley knowing he could get murdered? Well, we can't arrest the murderer now."? No. It's the same concept.

Since when does hanging out with someone alone mean it has to be ***? Have you never hung out with someone in a platonic manner? You are basically saying "If a guy wants to have ***, don't hang out with him because he's gonna try to have ***." Well, why can't it be that if you know the person you are hanging out with doesn't want to have ***, don't try to have to *** with them? Why is that the person who doesn't want to have *** has give up hanging out platonically with someone they enjoy the company of and not that people should exhibit decency and self-control? You are basically saying "Oh it's okay to just throw yourself at someone, they should have not been there if they didn't want to have someone throw themselves at them."

What you are saying is drunk people can't give consent. Lets say a drunk girl ****s a guy she really likes and her friend walks in and reports a rape. Even though the girl is fine with it next day(though she was drunk, but not incapacitated), it's still rape because she can't give consent.


Stop using a murderer in an alley or a thief in an alley. Both are worse than the drunk driving analogy because what you are describing is already illegal under no means no. Rape is still illegal. Under no means no you can't **** a passed out chick. The only "loophole" of no means no is the accusers use of poor judgement. That's it. Physical rape/ murder is still wrong under the old law. You're creating rapists.

Say it with me "drunk women are responsible for their actions"

No matter how sober or cunning the accused is, it's stiil the girls responsibility to say no.

Stop acting as if yes means yes is the standard. It's unconstitutional

 

[Punk Hazard]

What you are saying is drunk people can't give consent. Lets say a drunk girl ****s a guy she really likes and her friend walks in and reports a rape. Even though the girl is fine with it next day(though she was drunk, but not incapacitated), it's still rape because she can't give consent.


Stop using a murderer in an alley or a thief in an alley. Both are worse than the drunk driving analogy because what you are describing is already illegal under no means no. Rape is still illegal. Under no means no you can't **** a passed out chick. The only "loophole" of no means no is the accusers use of poor judgement. That's it. Physical rape/ murder is still wrong under the old law. You're creating rapists.

Say it with me "drunk women are responsible for their actions"

No matter how sober or cunning the accused is, it's stiil the girls responsibility to say no.

Stop acting as if yes means yes is the standard. It's unconstitutional

Yes, but she can drop the rape charges, and all is well because there is no trauma or victimizing occurring. That's why if someone has *** with their sleeping spouse and the spouse has no problem with it because they're married and have *** regularly, they can simply not report it or press charges, and nothing would be wrong. Nothing in the world is black and white, and that includes rape. *** without consent due to drunkenness, but the person has no problem with it after they regain their composure is a grey area, but does not invalidate that they CAN press charges if they are not fine with it once composure returns.

The thief and murderer analogy aren't analogous to drunk driving, they're analogous to a drunk person being raped. Try to keep up.

Drunk people are responsible for their actions because they are not the victims of their actions. If you drink and drive, and end up killing someone, you get vehicular manslaughter charges because it is your responsibility to ensure you do not end up driving if you plan on drinking heavily. It is NOT your responsibility to not be raped. If the latter was true, someone who is murdered because of a course of action they take are responsible for being murdered, not the murderer.

And if the girl is drunk, her yes is not valid because she is not in her normal, right mind.

 

[slimreaper]

Yes, but she can drop the rape charges, and all is well because there is no trauma or victimizing occurring. That's why if someone has *** with their sleeping spouse and the spouse has no problem with it because they're married and have *** regularly, they can simply not report it or press charges, and nothing would be wrong. Nothing in the world is black and white, and that includes rape. *** without consent due to drunkenness, but the person has no problem with it after they regain their composure is a grey area, but does not invalidate that they CAN press charges if they are not fine with it once composure returns.

The thief and murderer analogy aren't analogous to drunk driving, they're analogous to a drunk person being raped. Try to keep up.

Drunk people are responsible for their actions because they are not the victims of their actions. If you drink and drive, and end up killing someone, you get vehicular manslaughter charges because it is your responsibility to ensure you do not end up driving if you plan on drinking heavily. It is NOT your responsibility to not be raped. If the latter was true, someone who is murdered because of a course of action they take are responsible for being murdered, not the murderer.

And if the girl is drunk, her yes is not valid because she is not in her normal, right mind.

She can no more drop the rape charges than a 16 yr old girl can drop her parents statutory rape charges. She has no ability to consent according to you, so the roommate would be the parent in that case.

How about you try to keep up.

If a woman gets drunk and signs away all her possessions to a stranger, if the person refuses can the bank go get her possessions back for her? Or do they say tough shit?

If a drunk woman signs her life ensurance policy over to a man she just met at the bar, will the insurance company just ignore it and say she was drunk? Or is she responsible for yhat drinken decision? Your logic is severely flawled

 

[Punk Hazard]

She can no more drop the rape charges than a 16 yr old girl can drop her parents statutory rape charges. She has no ability to consent according to you, so the roommate would be the parent in that case.

How about you try to keep up.

If a woman gets drunk and signs away all her possessions to a stranger, if the person refuses can the bank go get her possessions back for her? Or do they say tough shit?

If a drunk woman signs her life ensurance policy over to a man she just met at the bar, will the insurance company just ignore it and say she was drunk? Or is she responsible for yhat drinken decision? Your logic is severely flawled

Uhmm yes she can. If a woman is raped, she can drop the rape charges. Her friends can report it, but it's ultimately up to her whether or not charges are actually pressed. Same for if a man was raped.


I'm ****ing done. You couldn't argue the point so you repeated what I said back to me like some five year old.

Actually depends. If this was a verbal exchange, then she can try to sue and argue her case, and she could possibly get it back. If she was drunk and signed a legally binding document(I take it this is what you mean), then the contract is not legally valid and cannot be enforced.

No, she is not responsible for that decision because in this case, she is the victim of someone taking advantage of her intoxication to take her assets, which is illegal. Seeing as something like this is done on a binding contract, which requires mental competency, doing so while drunk cannot be legally enforced.

 

[slimreaper]

Uhmm yes she can. If a woman is raped, she can drop the rape charges. Her friends can report it, but it's ultimately up to her whether or not charges are actually pressed. Same for if a man was raped.


I'm ****ing done. You couldn't argue the point so you repeated what I said back to me like some five year old.

Actually depends. If this was a verbal exchange, then she can try to sue and argue her case, and she could possibly get it back. If she was drunk and signed a legally binding document(I take it this is what you mean), then the contract is not legally valid and cannot be enforced.

No, she is not responsible for that decision because in this case, she is the victim of someone taking advantage of her intoxication to take her assets, which is illegal. Seeing as something like this is done on a binding contract, which requires mental competency, doing so while drunk cannot be legally enforced.

No she can't if she can't consent. You do know what consenting is don't you?

Look it up courts aren't sympathetic to soneone who signs a contract drunk

You must be registered for see links

According to this the court will decide if the person was "mentally competent" at the time of the contract signing.

You are claiming that drunk= no competency, but this suggests that incapacitated is the threshold for incompetence.


In any case this is a verbal contract anyway

And for the last time its unconstitutional so you're arguing for a law that's undeniably wrong.

Disprove the illegality of requiring a defendant to provide a yes

 

[Avani]

You cite that one indian law because it's direct. This law is less direct yet still says the same thing.

The law expressly stated you must yet affirmative consent. In a court of law under this, they would(as they already have) assume the accused guilty until he can prove innocence. Just because it doesn't say those words, doesn't mean the effects of the law aren't the same as the indian one.

"The Tennessee court held that it was unconstitutional for the university, under it's "yes means yes" standard, to require the male student to establish his own innocence with proof that consent had been given, rather than putting the burden of proof on the accuser or the university as is always the case in both criminal and civil proceedings."

What isn't rape under no means no? It's still rape to have *** with a drugged person( if they didn't voluntarily ingest the drugs), it's still rape to have *** with an incapacitated person.

Really your only new perameters is making the accused who their partner didn't get a no( 100% the fault of the raped), and that two drunk people can't give consent (also wrong)

I cited your Senate Bill No. 967.

This is what I said in the post you quoted:

"(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.
(3) A policy that the standard used in determining whether the elements of the complaint against the accused have been demonstrated is the preponderance of the evidence.
(4) A policy that, in the evaluation of complaints in the disciplinary process, it shall not be a valid excuse that the accused believed that the complainant affirmatively consented to the sexual activity if the accused knew or reasonably should have known that the complainant was unable to consent to the sexual activity under any of the following circumstances:
(A) The complainant was asleep or unconscious.
(B) The complainant was incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication, so that the complainant could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity.
(C) The complainant was unable to communicate due to a mental or physical condition."​

You must be registered for see links

Your constitution already made sure that the investigation follows the due procedure. The bill doesn't touch that process. I told you the first time around it would happen. You were complaining earlier because you didn't understand the law. And you are getting elated over nothing. It as bound to happen.

If you want the wording of definition " affirmative consent" gone- then it's another matter altogether. I myself found that wording stupid for the concept of rape itself is exactly the same as before. It made the definition unnecessarily confusing so I don't care about that.