No.Audley Strange wrote:Rerail the derail!
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.
No.Audley Strange wrote:Rerail the derail!
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.Cormac wrote: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.
Erm... you might want to continue this at the derail thread otherwise hadespussercats might have your guts for garters. Just saying like.Boyle wrote: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.Cormac wrote: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.
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.
Hades in garters...DaveDodo007 wrote:
" hadespussercats might have your guts for garters"
Shit, right. Missed that post.DaveDodo007 wrote: Erm... you might want to continue this at the derail thread otherwise hadespussercats might have your guts for garters. Just saying like.
Code: Select all
// Replaces with spaces the braces in cases where braces in places cause stasis
$str = str_replace(array("\{","\}")," ",$str);
laklak wrote:Garters are always on topic, particularly when they're on Hades.
Which effectively means that you abandon several key elements of a judicial system, including:Boyle wrote: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.Cormac wrote: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.
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.
And if they're lying?Boyle wrote: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.Boyle wrote: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.Cormac wrote: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.
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 is why most rape trials quickly turn into a character assassination of the accuser/victim.Coito ergo sum wrote:For me, it depends on all the facts and circumstances.Boyle wrote: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.Cormac wrote: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.
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.
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.
Code: Select all
// Replaces with spaces the braces in cases where braces in places cause stasis
$str = str_replace(array("\{","\}")," ",$str);
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013 ... ction-rateThe 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."
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 10 guests