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

  •  No. Precisely because you don't know the (0+ / 0-)

    person with whom you are engaging in an intimate act.

    Would you rather answer an accusation with, "We had a conversation about sex, and he agreed we should do it."
    or
    "He was very cuddly before he passed out, so I assumed it was ok."

    Or if NearlyNormal is your lawyer have him say that for you because he would not have you go on the stand.

    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 10:50:31 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  You're not making sense. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NearlyNormal, Sparhawk

      A verbal agreement is no easier to prove than consensual sex that isn't spoken.

      Who said anything about passing out? We're discussing the absurdity in having to prove [i]consensual[/i] sex. If the person is passed out it's not consensual.

      So again, please answer the questions.

      1. How do you PROVE the person said "yes"?

      2. How do you PROVE the sex was consensual and reciprocated?

      Please proceed, Governor.

      by USArmyParatrooper on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 11:07:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I am saying that you have a better chance of (0+ / 0-)

        disproving withheld consent if you have a verbal agreement.

        As you and other commenters have insisted; you don't need to prove consent, you need to demonstrate a reasonable doubt about the (in your scenario, false) accusations made against you.

        The point of the diary is still that consent is assumed in rape cases.

        Changing that would not change the ability to defend oneself.

        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 11:31:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, you do not. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          NearlyNormal, Sparhawk
          I am saying that you have a better chance of disproving withheld consent if you have a verbal agreement.
          A verbal agreement would be impossible to prove, so how does that your case?
          The point of the diary is still that consent is assumed in rape cases. Changing that would not change the ability to defend oneself.
          Of course it would! As per the Constitution all elements of a crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In the case of rape, the lack of consent is a necessary element.

          How can you possibly argue that removing the threshold of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' for the sole determining element would NOT make a case harder to defend?

          Please proceed, Governor.

          by USArmyParatrooper on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 11:38:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You misunderstand the concept. (0+ / 0-)

            It's clearly outlined in the diary.

            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 11:43:52 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I understood it perfectly. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Sparhawk

              You're ducking and dodging, and have multiple times failed to answer direct questions.

              You said:

              If you are a consenting adult and you can not demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that you thought the person with whom you had sex wanted to do so, then you have probably committed rape.
              Horseshit.

              Give me an example of how you could prove the sex was consensual under normal circumstances, i.e. without video tape or an eye witness.

              Please proceed, Governor.

              by USArmyParatrooper on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 12:02:36 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  How does THAT work exactly ? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sparhawk

          You say "consent"
          I say "none"

          You say "we agreed"
          I say "we didn't"

          You say "ask my wingman"
          I say "he wasn't there."

          Now what should happen?

          •  And how does no verbal communication (0+ / 0-)

            help that scenario in anyway?

            If the alleged victim says he or she said "no" you still are stuck in the same situation.

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

            by mungley on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 07:01:01 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's pretty much what I'm saying ... (0+ / 0-)

              In a Shesaid/Hesaid any kind of justice is difficult at best -- even assuming good faith and objectivity.

              In American practice there's basically two ways ...

              Due process with presumption of innocence.
              and
              Lynch Law with presumption of guilt.

              I don't see a lot of middle ground ... not in my own imagination -- not in this diary.

              And considering that this the United States, where we have more people under lock and key than Red China  

              Maybe making life easier for Prosecutors ISN'T the absolute best way of going about things.

          •  Well, assuming the lack of any physical (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sparhawk

            evidence, and assuming that the jury finds you and I equally credible, then there is a not guilty verdict rendered since the State has failed to prove an element of the crime.

            . On ne gagne que les combats que l'on mène

            by NearlyNormal on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 08:20:27 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (163)
  • Community (83)
  • Baltimore (81)
  • Bernie Sanders (63)
  • Freddie Gray (59)
  • Civil Rights (52)
  • Elections (41)
  • Culture (37)
  • Hillary Clinton (36)
  • Media (35)
  • Law (30)
  • 2016 (30)
  • Racism (30)
  • Education (26)
  • Environment (25)
  • Labor (25)
  • Politics (23)
  • Republicans (23)
  • Barack Obama (22)
  • Economy (20)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site