Skip to main content

View Diary: Beyond A Reasonable Doubt: Applying The Wrong Legal Standard To Establishing Consent in Rape Case (167 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Did you read the diary? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dogs are fuzzy

    The standard is that of assumed consent.
    It isn't a statute. It's a standard to which rape victims are held that others are not.

    It is unlikely that a person accused of 8 counts of 'aggravated' rape could argue the assumed consent angle, if there were multiple victims or one victim who resisted the attacks.

    The rapists in Stubenville indeed claimed that their victim was a willing participant in the rape (i.e. it wasn't rape) even though she was not conscious during at least some of the acts.

    In that case an assumption of consent would mean that since she did not say 'no', she consented.
    It also means that even if she consented at the first house or in the car, and later would not have consented to the acts of depravity which were perpetrated against her, her lack of protest implied continued consent.
    (I don't know the specifics of the defense arguments in that case, but it illustrates the concept)

    Assumed consent = victim prove you did not want sex.
    No assumed consent = accused prove you had a reason to assume consent beyond a reasonable doubt.

    I ain't often right, but I've never been wrong. Seldom turns out the way it does in this song.

    by mungley on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 03:46:56 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Well if it isn't statute ... (0+ / 0-)

      then it's as I said to begin with - the problem lies in how juries interpret the standard of proof in different crimes.

      “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

      by jrooth on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 05:55:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site