Is affirmative consent before all sexual contact the best policy?

College Life
81

@bodangles

The fine is not always by the weaker person. It is by the accuser, if that accuser is weaker. The proceeds go to the state, not her, so there is no motive there. And the fine is only valid or maximal if she comes forward promptly. There is an investigation. If there is evidence of innocence, there is no fine. The fine only applies if it is strictly one person’s word against the other. I think that is far better than the current system, which is to expel the accused in such a scenario.

Currently, people can accuse someone of an event from 2 years ago. The presence of lots of dating between the 2 since then is not relevant in the eyes of the affirmative consent people and tribunals. If it is one person’s word against the other’s, they can say 51% just do they don’t have to justify the 1%, and then from there say guilty, and then expel. My proposal is just an improvement on that.

The alternative is to go back to “proof beyond a reasonable doubt”, which leaves many women fearing for their safety.

82

“we allow the physically weaker party to have the physically stronger party fined up to, say $500, and more if other suspicious circumstances are present.”

So the physically stronger party can’t be an accuser, by your “fine idea.” I am baffled by your lack of logic.

83

The physically stronger person can be the accuser. The physically stronger person just needs some evidence that consent was not given.

The physically weaker person needs only show that sex happened, and that the physically stronger person can’t prove consent was given.

Who is the RIGHT PERSON? If we know who is lying, we punish that person. My rule applies to when we can’t determine who is lying. If a weaker person comes in saying she was overpowered but can’t prove it, but we know that sex happened, then the fine is at least some protection for her.

That is how our justice system has been for years, except far worse. You did not know that?
95% of convictions are by plea bargain because the police don’t have enough evidence to convict. Very few people can afford lawyers. Those who fight it without one typically lose.

Did you know it costs $5000 to just get a lawyer on retainer? $30,000 for a case if there is any detail to it. Without a lawyer, you can rot in jail waiting for a trial 6 months later, while the police offer you plea bargains.

How is a mandatory lawyer fee or bail fee different or worse than a mandatory fine? At least with the fine, you don’t have to plea guilty to have it. There is no conviction. It is just a pragmatic fine with no public record.

84

The stronger person needs evidence consent was not given? How do you propose they do that, given how you’ve been prattling on and on about how hard that is to do? None of this makes any sense. You compared rapists to lions, for Pete’s sake. You don’t offer any sources for your arbitrary claims. I, personally, would like to see proof that when lions are relaxing they’re planning their next kill, “just like a rapist.” This whole thread is filled with unsupported opinions and very little practicality.

85

Then propose an alternative.

We agree on cases where there is evidence. Suppose there is none other than 1 person’s word against the other. What do you do then?

The current college mandate is that the accused must show 51% certainty of innocence to escape expulsion. Are you against that? Do you not think the 1% will be arbitrary?

What solution do you propose?

Is it too unreasonable to ask the stronger person to stand up for himself, and that we will expel the weaker person if more people make a similar accusation later?

86

They have a week to prepare a case [get their story straight to match any possible evidence in that private room]. The accuser has 2 years to get her story straight and let any witnesses forget and disappear. Sound like either is provable under such rules?

87

From the number of male students I spoke to who did not even hear about the rule, I think on several campuses it is the women being told about it. I think the goal is to convict guys by getting them to admit to stuff they did not even know was against the rules. If they knew there was a rule against it, they would lie. Am I the only one who sees something wrong with punishing people for hidden rules?

I was never taught at my school about the rules. I was asked on my application to check the box that said I had read the sexual harassment policy and agreed to follow it. Most guys did just that. I actually read the policy and was blown away by issues in it.

88

You didn’t answer my question. The burden of working out the kinks of your harebrained scheme is on you, not me; I didn’t propose anything and won’t. How does the stronger person get proof consent was not given? Why is it magically easier to obtain something you said was difficult once one improves their physical strength?

89

By trying to shoot down my idea, you are by default supporting the status quo.

The way to prove consent was not given by a stronger person:

  1. Report it soon.
  2. Do not continue to date this person you claim has assaulted you. Why would a victim stay with someone unless they were financially dependent on them.
  3. Answer questions about whereabouts, to at least prove both people were in the same location.
  4. Unless someone is in danger of physical harm, the school should keep record of this partially substantiated claim and wait to see if others accuse the same person. An accusation by one person is not enough to expel a weaker person.

The difference between assault from a weaker vs stronger person is a stronger person can force it. A weaker person can only briefly annoy with a slap on the rear end. The stronger person can push her away and then go complain. A weaker person can be forced to do several acts until the stronger finally releases her. It is for this reason that the weaker party needs the protection of a fine in a partially substantiated case above.

Even in the case of the weaker accuser, absent a torn body part, we can’t expel the accused without accusations from other people. All we can do is change their schedules or force them to transfer and give a grade of Incomplete.

If a guy is constantly flirting with a woman who said she does not like it, give her a hidden recorder to wear. Get it on tape and nail him. Repeat offenders are easy to catch. False accusers thrive on policy of convicting on a first accusation.

90

What makes that different from what a weaker person can do? If that’s all doable, why do we need your proposal at all?

I’m not supporting crap. I’m telling you your proposal isn’t fair, right, or smart.

91

The weaker party gets the fine protection for a first accusation, but only one per trial time period. The stronger is then warned to stay away from her.

92

The only thing good about the strong having the same rights as the weak under the current system is that if someone does lie about someone else, that stronger person at least has the defense of a counter accusation. If the penalty were a fine instead of expulsion, I’d be OK with removing that defense, since we know rapists will use it too.

93
  1. What do you do for people of similar build and strength, though?
  2. A “weaker” person can pressure someone emotionally, rape within an abusive relationship, assault someone who’s drunk or drugged, or abuse as in a position of power over a “stronger” person. A “stronger” person might be afraid to fight back for fear of getting accused of physical assault. A “stronger” person might be afraid to report because of the stigma that stronger people can’t be raped. Asking someone to prove it because they’re bigger / stronger / male is discouraging those people from reporting it, putting them through more trauma, and ensuring that their rapist walks free. That is supporting another dangerous status quo.

You don’t need multiple accusations to punish someone. Every time someone makes a similar accusation, that’s another person being raped or assaulted. And there could be a number of people being raped/assaulted who aren’t reporting. So how many people would you let be raped or assaulted before you have enough evidence to convict? And forcing someone to transfer is effectively expelling them…

94

When you falsely convict someone, you rape them emotionally. Don’t take that possibility so lightly. It is no different than making rape the penalty for rape, and raping the accused right there in the court room. I’m sure you would be against that, even if it prevented future rapes.

Fortunately, we now have lie detectors:
http://www.vice.com/read/are-brain-scans-the-future-of-murder-trials-456
It is an fMRI.

When you recall memories, you use part of your brain. When you think and invent, you use a different part of your brain. Question people while they are in the fMRI. If they tell the truth to your questions, they should not have to think too hard to recall. If they use the other part of the brain, you know they are being creative, and it is fair to ask them what they are thinking of that is not a memory.

95

What about the false accuser? If we don’t expel them too, think of all the other people who could be falsely accused.
Your reasoning is one sided.

96

Whoa, that’s uncalled for. Don’t take the use of the word “rape” so lightly. It’s not a metaphor. Expelling someone for rape is not the same as raping said person. I get that it’s unfair, has lasting social consequences, and can be greatly upsetting, but that doesn’t make it the same as rape. There isn’t an epidemic of false accusers taking advantage of people. There are measures to protect people from false accusations (like evidence, witnesses, personal accounts). I find it hard to believe that anyone would have the motive to just go around getting people expelled, or that any false accuser is misunderstanding the criminal nature of what he/she is doing. I find it hard to believe that someone could get themselves into several situations with no evidence except testimonies to go by. You don’t need to expel false accusers to make it hard to falsely convict. But what measures are taken to stop rape from occurring?

If falsely convicting someone is rape, what word would you use for fining someone for a crime they didn’t commit?

97

The fMRI might fail to distinguish between memory and a rehearsed story recall. It also might fail to distinguish between lying and thinking before speaking. It is a great improvement, though. we can also order people not to think.

When the state penalizes someone, it is in lieu of them taking the law into their own hands. We don’t want a war in the streets. But when the law does not penalize someone, and that person is not legally allowed to harm them, people just might want to take the law into their own hands.

If you kill someone in self defense or murder, and call the police to report it, that saves you from automatic conviction by them simply proving you did it. Now instead, the question is whether it was self defense. I argue that if we can’t tell which, then the penalty should be 1 year in prison. Prove yourself innocent, and get off free. They prove you guilty, it is life. They should freeze debts and allow 1 month to put your stuff in storage, get temporary foster care for kids, etc, before surrender.

If you believe your life is threatened, you will take the 1 year over the chance of death. If you might face a murder conviction, you might not fire in time even if you are 75% sure this person wants you dead.

If someone does not like you on their turf because they don’t like your face, I suspect a guaranteed year in prison would discourage them from killing you. If they kill and don’t report it, then they get life. The police only have to prove 1 fact: who done it, or was it self defense, not both.

If a man rapes a woman, and we find it true that sex happened, he is fined $500, if he makes just below average income. If we just know they were in the same private room a while, but no sperm, then $250. If that penalty does change her anger enough, she can go kill him and say it was self defense. We would investigate but likely not find enough proof, depending on how well she planned it. In that case, she gets a year in prison. Most likely a woman won’t want to go to jail just because she is upset a guy did not want to pay for a date. If rape did happen, she will try to kill him.

In the old days, they had duels. I think this is a similar way to do just that for the 50-50 cases the state can’t solve.

98

Not the same thing. Just equally psychologically destructive and likely to cause suicide.

How can you possibly know that? I think that shows bias.

I agree. I’m OK with expelling on a first offense if there is evidence besides just his word against hers. You also mention here “get themselves into several situations”: I agree, that if they are accused multiple times, we expel them. My fine is for first time accusations without extra evidence. It is just for the 50-50 cases. Current school rules say that at 50.01% certainty, the accused gets expelled. I say that is disgustingly unfair. Use the fine for that case.

For the cases where there is evidence or witnesses, we can expel the guilty. For the cases were there is none besides just his and her both believable sounding stories, we use the fine to protect the weak.

Theft.
When someone is expelled, that is a statement of guilt. A fine could be construed as pragmatic if it is under $500 for a low income person. $250 if there is no sperm. If there is no public record, they will get over it.

There are guys who are 1 semester from graduating, or 6 weeks from and are expelled. They will need a minimum of 30 units at another school to get a degree there, if they are accepted at all. That is huge. They also get “sex misconduct” on their transcript, which any reasonable person knows means rape. Good bye job anywhere. This is given for the “51% cases”. As for witnesses and evidence, most schools greatly limit what can be admitted. There are guys who screenshot women’s facebook updates to show she had no injuries on her face after the date of accusation, disproving her story. It was not admitted because “going on her facebook page violated her privacy.”

99

Hmmm…

I think you people might have a point. The number of rapes likely is much higher than the number of accusations. Therefore from that, we don’t have an epidemic of false accusations.

And if men are afraid of false accusations, so are women afraid of being raped.

100

But that is just a snap shot for now. What if in the future, when more women now about their power, the number goes up. What if men are actually taught the rules and start to fear more too (which is what theorists behind the rule want)?

Eventually, it may be questionable where the epidemic is.

So I concede, there are a larger number of female victims than male.

However, if a rape victim can get past her hurt, there will be employers ready to hire her. If a someone is falsely accused, his middle class dreams are ended no matter whether he emotionally moves past it or not.

Also, if a guy threatens to rape a woman, there are defensive steps she can take. If a woman threatens to accuse a man, there is nothing he can do about it. He has to obey her every command if he does not want his life ruined.

If we are going to have these rules, we need to at least impose a statute of limitations. This 2 year retroactive stuff is wrong. If there is no penalty for a false accusation, and it is private, and students are taught this, then there is little excuse to wait so long. At minimum, we can say the odds of guilt are very low in that case, and the likelihood of the accused rounding up witnesses who remember that night are much lower.