Re: JC Woman Accuses Murphy Staffer of Rape

Posted by bodhipooh on 2018/12/7 7:36:51

dtjcview wrote:

bodhipooh wrote:

dtjcview wrote:

Personally, I think that the law should be changed. Proof of sexual interaction without proof of consent should be grounds for a conviction.

That’s a CRAZY idea. Thankfully, it will never come to pass.

Something like this is needed to shift the balance of protection from perp to victim. What's crazy is that out of every 1000 rapes, 995 rapists walk free. And there are close to 1/2 million sexual assaults in the US every year. Victims are getting little to no protection under the existing system.

...and carrying condoms was considered crazy by many before aids.

(I'd agree it would be crazy to introduce such a law retroactively.)

@Monroe - Nope. No joke.

Obviously, you have not thought this through properly. The reason we have a "innocent until proven guilty" system is precisely because the opposite is too easy to game or abuse.

If your idea was made law (proof of sexual interaction without proof of consent would be grounds for conviction) it could be used by a man, or a woman, to entrap and send to jail any number of people. I could go to a bar tonight, get laid, then go to the local precinct in the morning and claim some woman coaxed me into sex (I would have the proof) and she wouldn’t have any proof of consent and would simply get sent to jail.

You really ought to take a minute to really think through what you are suggesting.

This Post was from: