the "yes means yes" law (Orange: vs, move)

[majoun]

Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe

You are assuming that judges and/or a majority decision by a jury of 12 people are stupid.

Look up what happens when a decision is based on the "preponderance of the evidence." This is required by this law.

It would take a real giant conspiracy to get somebody convicted simply because they were of a certain color.

The judge and jury, as instructed by the judge, will take into account all witness testimony, physical evidence, etc., which is pretty hard to fake.

If everybody at a party, for instance, says the girl was really into the guy, was smiling, and told all her friends she couldn't wait to have sex with the guy, that's one story.

If everybody interviewed said the girl was wasted and seemed to be held up by a guy she wasn't really into, and he led her upstairs to a room, and then the physical evidence showed tears in her vagina and rectum, and her blood level the next morning when she reported the crime showed that there were roofies in her system, that's another situation altogether.

They will take ALL information, and the judge/jury will make a decision based on all the evidence and figure what most likely was the truth.

This is very fair. And, like I said, to fool this system would take a real, concerted effort by more than one person.

If your point is that a conspiracy MIGHT happen, and because a conspiracy MIGHT happen, that therefore the entire law should be thrown out, well, to put it very nicely, I disagree.

A preponderance of the evidence is a lesser standard than beyond a reasonable doubt. It is intended to ensure that men are convicted of rape.

Choosing it means turning one's back on the Constitution.

Judges and juries often vote based on their own personal opinions and biases. Remember Rodney King, OJ, or Kelly Thomas most recently?

It's not that hard to envision how this could play out set against the backgrounds of race, ethnicity, and class.

Remember that this law effectively criminalizes sex under the influence of alcohol PERIOD. Or any drugs that are detectable in the bloodstream, PERIOD, even weed. Can't you see the potential for this to cause harm?

[majoun]

Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe

Off topic, mutt. I know what you mean and I have stories, too. Let's start another thread on that shall we?

But, even if the jury was full of stupid people, the majority of them would still have to find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the accused was guilty of rape in the law we are discussing.

Even 12 stupid people, as a rule, can't be so stupid as to believe, and vote, that a woman who claims to be raped, was not raped, when all of the witnesses say she was out of it, and the physical evidence shows forced sex.

And even if this situation MIGHT HAPPEN, again, this does not make this law a bad law.

Jurors often pressure other jurors into voting for the guilt of the accused. And jurors vote according to bias all too often.

Unless you really think that a jury in Santa Monica would have handed down the same verdict for OJ that a downtown LA jury did, or that a jury in Alameda County - which was the other choice for a change of venue for the Rodney King beating trial - would have handed down the same verdict on Koon, Powell, et al. that a jury in Ventura County did.

[Iaskwhy]

Originally Posted by majoun

A preponderance of the evidence is a lesser standard than beyond a reasonable doubt. It is intended to ensure that men are convicted of rape.

Choosing it means turning one's back on the Constitution.

Judges and juries often vote based on their own personal opinions and biases. Remember Rodney King, OJ, or Kelly Thomas most recently?

It's not that hard to envision how this could play out set against the backgrounds of race, ethnicity, and class.

Remember that this law effectively criminalizes sex under the influence of alcohol PERIOD. Or any drugs that are detectable in the bloodstream, PERIOD, even weed. Can't you see the potential for this to cause harm?

Exactly.

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Originally Posted by Iaskwhy

The issue with this law is that it is based entirely on what was said, it is one parties word versus anothers. He said/she said between a women and a man, ends up with the man in jail nearly every time and the woman free nearly every time. The situation becomes even worse when it is a white woman and a black man.

No, it's based on the preponderance of the evidence, which would include witness testimony and physical evidence. Not hearsay.

Originally Posted by majoun

A preponderance of the evidence is a lesser standard than beyond a reasonable doubt. It is intended to ensure that men are convicted of rape.

Choosing it means turning one's back on the Constitution.

Judges and juries often vote based on their own personal opinions and biases. Remember Rodney King, OJ, or Kelly Thomas most recently?

It's not that hard to envision how this could play out set against the backgrounds of race, ethnicity, and class.

Remember that this law effectively criminalizes sex under the influence of alcohol PERIOD. Or any drugs that are detectable in the bloodstream, PERIOD, even weed. Can't you see the potential for this to cause harm?

Yes, a preponderance of the evidence is a lesser standard than beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you took a drunk girl to bed, would you be worried about the difference?

Good.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe

No, it's based on the preponderance of the evidence, which would include witness testimony and physical evidence. Not hearsay.



Yes, a preponderance of the evidence is a lesser standard than beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you took a drunk girl to bed, would you be worried about the difference?

Good.

If anything, rather than adapting a weaker standard of proof, the law should have put in a stricter standard of proof, like beyond the shadow of a doubt, so as to discourage any sort of false accusations.

Of course the purpose of the law was just the opposite - to cheapen justice, not to strengthen it, and to throw more men in prison, not fewer. The racial implications of "tough on crime" laws in California are not a figment of the imagination.

You don't seem to realize that substances stay in the human body for awhile, and claiming intoxication negated consent is opening up dangerous doors.

Why not just stop beating around the bush and just adapt law that is proven effective in drastically reducing sex under the influence, both consensual and nonconsensual, sexual violence, alcohol consumption, drug use, and immoral behavior in general, and also negates that pesky Constitution?



No rape there....

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Originally Posted by majoun

If anything, rather than adapting a weaker standard of proof, the law should have put in a stricter standard of proof, like beyond the shadow of a doubt, so as to discourage any sort of false accusations.

Of course the purpose of the law was just the opposite - to cheapen justice, not to strengthen it, and to throw more men in prison, not fewer. The racial implications of "tough on crime" laws in California are not a figment of the imagination.

You don't seem to realize that substances stay in the human body for awhile, and claiming intoxication negated consent is opening up dangerous doors.

Why not just stop beating around the bush and just adapt law that is proven effective in drastically reducing sex under the influence, both consensual and nonconsensual, sexual violence, alcohol consumption, drug use, and immoral behavior in general, and also negates that pesky Constitution?



No rape there....

So, the current US law is not as bad as living under an Islamic regime, so we should accept the status quo?

[Iaskwhy]

Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe

No, it's based on the preponderance of the evidence, which would include witness testimony and physical evidence. Not hearsay.

Good.

How often are there witnesses around you while you are having sexual relations to verify that affirmative consent was given? I know for me there usually aren't any. How is the physical evidence any different in a case of sex with affirmative consent vs a case without affirmative consent but without any force used? The answer is there isn't any difference.

[Iaskwhy]

My favorite part of this whole thing is that when feminists support this law they are directly saying that women cannot be responsible for themselves and they aren't mature enough to deal with the consequences of their actions.

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Originally Posted by Iaskwhy

How often are there witnesses around you while you are having sexual relations to verify that affirmative consent was given? I know for me there usually aren't any. How is the physical evidence any different in a case of sex with affirmative consent vs a case without affirmative consent but without any force used? The answer is there isn't any difference.

If the evidence isn't there, then the accused will likely be acquitted.

[Iaskwhy]

Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe

If the evidence isn't there, then the accused will likely be acquitted.

You know that is a lie. Cute, innocent blonde girl says the bad, scary black man had sex with her when she had a couple of drinks and although she never resisted and enjoyed herself she never gave a definite "yes", (when in reality she regretted it in the morning and was totally capable of giving consent). Whose side is the jury going to take?