bodhipooh wrote:
... but your suggestions are outlandish and your proposed solutions unworkable and will never see the light of day.

...

dtjcview wrote:

If you take a car without documented evidence of the owner's permission, you can be charged and convicted of theft. Irrespective of whether you claim the owner gave you verbal consent. How is this different?

And there are also plenty of laws where presumption of innocence is diluted. Existing rape shield laws being an obvious example.

jerseymom wrote:
Here's a little food for thought. This is just to make one consider the issue of consent and how one obtains it and keeps it - is a contract/app/agreement really workable?

New app lets you request consent

An open letter from all women...to LegalFling

The Problems with Sexual Consent Apps

...and I thought dating in the 80's sucked.

K-Lo2 wrote:
So married/engaged/living together couples would have to sign off each time? That's going to work out really well.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:

@bodhipooh

You picked a rare and mostly absurd example as a counterpoint. I'm not a lawmaker - so, no, I haven't considered every edge case. But the same principle could apply. If there's any risk of a rape allegation - male or female on female or male - those parties should be obligated to prove consent to avoid prosecution. Judges and juries can overturn the absurd entrapment cases and help shape the law. Like they do with every other law.

Just because you consider it a rare and/or absurd example, it doesn't make it so. This is PRECISELY why our legal system is predicated on the "innocent until proven guilty" principle, which is an extension of the idea that it is better for a guilty person to go free than an innocent person to be unfairly incarcerated. The burden of proof is high, and on the accusing party, because that is the only way to more or less ensure that innocent people are not unfairly convicted.

As I said in my original reply to you, thankfully we will never see your idea become reality. It would never pass muster, because it lacks common sense, it runs contrary to our established system of law, and the courts would never uphold such a law.

dtjcview wrote:

@bodhipooh

You picked a rare and mostly absurd example as a counterpoint. I'm not a lawmaker - so, no, I haven't considered every edge case. But the same principle could apply. If there's any risk of a rape allegation - male or female on female or male - those parties should be obligated to prove consent to avoid prosecution. Judges and juries can overturn the absurd entrapment cases and help shape the law. Like they do with every other law.

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

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.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

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.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

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.

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.

jerseymom wrote:
Thank you for the question. Here are a few of my thoughts:

1. Sexual assault needs to stop being a "man vs. woman" issue. It's a perpetrator vs. victim issue. Victims need to feel comfortable reporting a crime - but in a case of a sexual assault, it's just not that easy. It's not the laws that need changing, per se, it's the stigma and denial that happens to victims by themselves, their peers, employers, coworkers, teachers, religious leaders and families that needs to be changed. There's a lot that happens between the time an assault takes place to the time that it's reported - we need to work on that as a society.

2. Sexual assault needs to be adjudicated in a court of law - not in a sensationalist media event or in hearings. There is a procedure to follow, laws and rules of evidence. The perp, male or female, is innocent until proven guilty. That's the U.S. justice system, like it or not.

3. I cannot comment with certainty on this case in particular. But Hudson County never disappoints and often stinks. Things are covered up here at an alarming rate by people with just a little bit of power. Katie seems to have followed protocol and does make a striking allegation. She has risked enormously to put herself in the front of a media storm. I admire her tenacity and courage and really hope she gets her legitimate day in court.

4. Moving forward - talk to your children, tell them your own stories (most of us likely are or know someone who is a victim of some kind of unwanted sexual comment, groping, or assault - most often by someone we know). Role play, create a plan, a code word, open up the dialogue to your sons and daughters about what is right and wrong and empower them with tools for situations where they could become a victim. Create a loving environment where open dialogue is welcome and your kids know they have a safe harbor in a storm.

Just my two cents.