PZ accuses Shermer of rape.

[hadespussercats]

Rerail the derail!

No.

If you are looking for some posts that once were here, they have been moved to the"What is Feminism" derail thread, at the request of a fine cunt.

[Boyle]

The point of having an enthusiastic partner is so that it is clear that the sex is consensual. If one party, at any time during the act, decides that it isn't, then it isn't. It takes, as they say, two to tango. So if either party say later on that they didn't consent, then they didn't.

And this is as neat an exposition of why the law tries to limit the possibility of conviction based on bare assertions of one party. The scope off injustice is very high.

And why would a court take the word of someone who says they did not consent over someone who says that at the time of the event, the accused DID consent? Is there to be a presumption AGAINST the accused? This would not be a novel approach in law, but one that we've not had in the West in quite a while.

I do not advocate for the return to presumed guilt. Personally, I'm not totally for presumed innocence either, as it also results in injustice. It's presumed that the injustice is not quite so bad in our system vs an assumed guilt system, but I've no real idea since I've never lived in one. It's not a perfect system; it's a good-enough system.

Anyway, I'm not talking about changing the law or the assumed innocence of the accused in a criminal case; I'm talking about how consent appears to work. Basically, for me, it boils down to this: If someone makes a statement about their own consent or non-consent, do I take them at their word? I, personally, do.

[DaveDodo007]

The point of having an enthusiastic partner is so that it is clear that the sex is consensual. If one party, at any time during the act, decides that it isn't, then it isn't. It takes, as they say, two to tango. So if either party say later on that they didn't consent, then they didn't.

And this is as neat an exposition of why the law tries to limit the possibility of conviction based on bare assertions of one party. The scope off injustice is very high.

And why would a court take the word of someone who says they did not consent over someone who says that at the time of the event, the accused DID consent? Is there to be a presumption AGAINST the accused? This would not be a novel approach in law, but one that we've not had in the West in quite a while.

I do not advocate for the return to presumed guilt. Personally, I'm not totally for presumed innocence either, as it also results in injustice. It's presumed that the injustice is not quite so bad in our system vs an assumed guilt system, but I've no real idea since I've never lived in one. It's not a perfect system; it's a good-enough system.

Anyway, I'm not talking about changing the law or the assumed innocence of the accused in a criminal case; I'm talking about how consent appears to work. Basically, for me, it boils down to this: If someone makes a statement about their own consent or non-consent, do I take them at their word? I, personally, do.

Erm... you might want to continue this at the derail thread otherwise hadespussercats might have your guts for garters. Just saying like.

[JimC]

DaveDodo007 wrote:

" hadespussercats might have your guts for garters"

Hades in garters...

Mind you, I think I would prefer fabric of some sort rather than guts...

[Boyle]

Erm... you might want to continue this at the derail thread otherwise hadespussercats might have your guts for garters. Just saying like.

Shit, right. Missed that post.

[Azathoth]

wasnt that on topic?

[laklak]

Garters are always on topic, particularly when they're on Hades.

[hadespussercats]

Garters are always on topic, particularly when they're on Hades.

Although I'm unclear how a discussion of rape and legal procedures is a derail...

[Cormac]

The point of having an enthusiastic partner is so that it is clear that the sex is consensual. If one party, at any time during the act, decides that it isn't, then it isn't. It takes, as they say, two to tango. So if either party say later on that they didn't consent, then they didn't.

And this is as neat an exposition of why the law tries to limit the possibility of conviction based on bare assertions of one party. The scope off injustice is very high.

And why would a court take the word of someone who says they did not consent over someone who says that at the time of the event, the accused DID consent? Is there to be a presumption AGAINST the accused? This would not be a novel approach in law, but one that we've not had in the West in quite a while.

I do not advocate for the return to presumed guilt. Personally, I'm not totally for presumed innocence either, as it also results in injustice. It's presumed that the injustice is not quite so bad in our system vs an assumed guilt system, but I've no real idea since I've never lived in one. It's not a perfect system; it's a good-enough system.

Anyway, I'm not talking about changing the law or the assumed innocence of the accused in a criminal case; I'm talking about how consent appears to work. Basically, for me, it boils down to this: If someone makes a statement about their own consent or non-consent, do I take them at their word? I, personally, do.

Which effectively means that you abandon several key elements of a judicial system, including:

1. Presumption of innocence, and
2. Rules of evidence, and
3. Burden of proof.

The reason that we have these at all is that over the centuries, it was found that these principles help to lessen the chance of FALSE convictions.

It has been found that in all areas of criminal and civil litigation that accusers and accused will each lie, have faulty memories, or have different interpretations.

Taking consent as an issue away from te emotive area of rape for a moment, to the area of car theft. An accuser who says that the accused took their car without consent has not thereby established their case, they've simply told the court the basis of their accusation. Then they have to make a good argument to support that claim sufficient to overcome the burden of proof.

Back to rape. If an accuser says there was no consent, and the accused says there was, there is no way to distinguish between these claims without an exposition of the facts, as best as they can be articulated, and knowing that this articulation will be due to the human tendency to unconsciously "adjust" our memories.

[Thinking Aloud]

Basically, for me, it boils down to this: If someone makes a statement about their own consent or non-consent, do I take them at their word? I, personally, do.

And if they're lying?

[Svartalf]

or retract consent after the fact?

[Coito ergo sum]

The point of having an enthusiastic partner is so that it is clear that the sex is consensual. If one party, at any time during the act, decides that it isn't, then it isn't. It takes, as they say, two to tango. So if either party say later on that they didn't consent, then they didn't.

And this is as neat an exposition of why the law tries to limit the possibility of conviction based on bare assertions of one party. The scope off injustice is very high.

And why would a court take the word of someone who says they did not consent over someone who says that at the time of the event, the accused DID consent? Is there to be a presumption AGAINST the accused? This would not be a novel approach in law, but one that we've not had in the West in quite a while.

I do not advocate for the return to presumed guilt. Personally, I'm not totally for presumed innocence either, as it also results in injustice. It's presumed that the injustice is not quite so bad in our system vs an assumed guilt system, but I've no real idea since I've never lived in one. It's not a perfect system; it's a good-enough system.

Anyway, I'm not talking about changing the law or the assumed innocence of the accused in a criminal case; I'm talking about how consent appears to work. Basically, for me, it boils down to this: If someone makes a statement about their own consent or non-consent, do I take them at their word? I, personally, do.

For me, it depends on all the facts and circumstances.

Certainly, if someone I trust and believe to be honest tells me she was taken without her consent, then I'll believe her. However, I still recognize that I do not know the truth, and therefore, if the question was to become one of innocence or guilt of the accused, if it is one person's word against another person's word without any other facts and circumstances that tip the balance, I do not see how I could take one side over the other.

If a person has a track record of fabrication, I probably wouldn't take them at their word as easily.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

The point of having an enthusiastic partner is so that it is clear that the sex is consensual. If one party, at any time during the act, decides that it isn't, then it isn't. It takes, as they say, two to tango. So if either party say later on that they didn't consent, then they didn't.

And this is as neat an exposition of why the law tries to limit the possibility of conviction based on bare assertions of one party. The scope off injustice is very high.

And why would a court take the word of someone who says they did not consent over someone who says that at the time of the event, the accused DID consent? Is there to be a presumption AGAINST the accused? This would not be a novel approach in law, but one that we've not had in the West in quite a while.

I do not advocate for the return to presumed guilt. Personally, I'm not totally for presumed innocence either, as it also results in injustice. It's presumed that the injustice is not quite so bad in our system vs an assumed guilt system, but I've no real idea since I've never lived in one. It's not a perfect system; it's a good-enough system.

Anyway, I'm not talking about changing the law or the assumed innocence of the accused in a criminal case; I'm talking about how consent appears to work. Basically, for me, it boils down to this: If someone makes a statement about their own consent or non-consent, do I take them at their word? I, personally, do.

For me, it depends on all the facts and circumstances.

Certainly, if someone I trust and believe to be honest tells me she was taken without her consent, then I'll believe her. However, I still recognize that I do not know the truth, and therefore, if the question was to become one of innocence or guilt of the accused, if it is one person's word against another person's word without any other facts and circumstances that tip the balance, I do not see how I could take one side over the other.

If a person has a track record of fabrication, I probably wouldn't take them at their word as easily.

Which is why most rape trials quickly turn into a character assassination of the accuser/victim.

It's a moral minefield. Proving that sex happened is relatively straightforward. Proving lack of consent is close to impossible except in (relatively rare) cases of violent stranger-rape. It almost always comes down to who the jury believes - and, even if they believe the victim, that STILL leaves room for reasonable doubt. It's a wonder that anyone is ever convicted at all!

[Azathoth]

What.....the...fuck

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-682206

[Coito ergo sum]

There are special protections for the accuser in a rape trial. Character evidence is generally inadmissible to prove conduct in conformity therewith, and an accuser's reputation for promiscuity and such is not admissible.

What is sometimes seen as character assassination is often just an exploration of the facts, painted in an unfavorable light.

The persistence of rape myths – such as that "real rape" only involves an armed stranger violently assaulting a woman – should not be used to explain away low conviction rates, according to a leading family lawyer.

Judges, prosecutors, police and jurors are generally capable of putting such prejudices aside when considering individual cases, Helen Reece, reader in law at the London School of Economics, argues in a legal journal published on Monday.

The low conviction rate – around 7% of reported rapes resulted in convictions during 2011/12 – is not significantly out of line with other common crimes such as burglary, she maintains.

Writing in the Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Reece confronts the supposedly widely held belief that "victim blaming" makes it difficult to convict those who carry out attacks.

The truth, she suggests, is far simpler. Unlike assault, which often takes place in public and sometimes within sight of CCTV cameras, rape is an offence for which there are usually no independent witnesses.

Reece told the Guardian: "I don't think most people are subject to rape myths. I'm not saying that no one [is influenced by] them but the vast majority of jurors, police, prosecutors and judges have decent attitudes.

"Rape myths are used as a convenient label to explain away low conviction rates. Rape is a very serious crime, but I don't think it right to focus on [low conviction rates] as a problem particular to rape.

"There are a lot of [rape] cases where there's no other evidence than one person's word against another. Both sides are saying they had sexual intercourse but [don't agree that it] took place in the [same] way … I don't think there's much more we can do to increase the conviction rate. I would like to see a more straightforward debate about the issue."

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013 ... ction-rate