|
Rakosi posted:Of course it does. Rape is a crime. Crimes need a defined boundary of offence. This can be amended, but it does have to be stated. Simply because something is not a crime does not make it morally correct. Megachurchs who bilk the elderly for every penny they have are committing theft, full stop, despite the fact that what they're doing can't actually be prosecuted as theft. I'm not sure if anyone has ever sat you down and explained this, but legal definitions are not the only definitions that exist. I'm sorry that it's taken so long for someone to tell you this.
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 02:22 |
|
|
Who What Now posted:The hell it does. Well, you can call anything rape if you want to. But for it to be prosecuted as a crime it sure as hell does need a clear legal definition that will apply in every case.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Simply because something is not a crime does not make it morally correct. Megachurchs who bilk the elderly for every penny they have are committing theft, full stop, despite the fact that what they're doing can't actually be prosecuted as theft. Rape is an extremely serious accusation and that you seem to think its okay for people to be able to accuse others of rape on unproven but 'moral' grounds is deeply disturbing. And then you compare rape accusations to accusations of petty theft. I'm sorry that it's taken so long for an adult to tell you this, but no one gets to walk around in society flinging extremely seriously accusations around because, in their mind, its "ehhh, near enough".
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Thermos H Christ posted:Well, you can call anything rape if you want to. But for it to be prosecuted as a crime it sure as hell does need a clear legal definition that will apply in every case. It's never going to be clear for particularly thickheaded men. There are a lot of variables to consent, which even many judges do not understand. This is how you end up with rape charges getting thrown out over bullshit like what a woman was wearing and her sexual history.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:It's never going to be clear for particularly thickheaded men. There are a lot of variables to consent You're still equating consent with rape and I have already demonstrated many instances where a lack of affirmative consent is not only acceptable and usual, but not in any world rape.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
Thermos H Christ posted:Well, you can call anything rape if you want to. But for it to be prosecuted as a crime it sure as hell does need a clear legal definition that will apply in every case. Not at all rapes will be prosecuted, so it's also important that people be properly educated on what consent actually is. Otherwise you're going to have people going around sexually assaulting people and saying, "what I'm doing can't technically get me convicted, ergo it's completely ok!" and that's bad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:Rape is an extremely serious accusation and that you seem to think its okay for people to be able to accuse others of rape on unproven but 'moral' grounds is deeply disturbing. And then you compare rape accusations to accusations of petty theft. I've never once said anything about making accusations, boyo. And if you think the elderly and other vulnerable people in our society being fleeced until they're homeless and on the streets is the same thing as petty theft then you're hosed in the head. Rakosi posted:You're still equating consent with rape and I have already demonstrated many instances where a lack of affirmative consent is not only acceptable and usual, but not in any world rape. I'm sure you think you have, but all you've really shown is that you have no issue forcing yourself on someone so long as it wouldn't get you hit with a guilty verdict. Edit: Damnit, awfulapp.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Hence why I would suggest that if multiple people accuse you of rape, that should make you under suspicion and it seems quite reasonable that you should have to wear a tag to aid in determining the veracity of any future accusations. Luckily, we already have this ability. If there are multiple witnesses accusing someone of rape that's more than enough to arrest them and indict them, and they could be put on a monitor as a condition of bail while they await trial. And even if the monitor reveals nothing there's still plenty evidence there to get a conviction. So your proposed change to the law wouldn't allow law enforcement to take more decisive action in the investigation and prosecution of a person accused of rape by multiple independent witnesses, and it wouldn't apply at all in the cases where there is just one accuser. What is the point?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
sedanchair, talking about the concept someone having sex for the partner's enjoyment onlySedanChair posted:If that is the level of consent you have received why would you bother? Just go rub one out in the sink, Jesus Christ. SedanChair posted:It cannot be completely off the spectrum of sexual assault in all cases because it is on the spectrum of coercion. The only way to avoid engaging in coercion is by securing not grudging consent, but enthusiastic consent. sedanchair, speaking directly to someone who recounted an experience about having sex for the partner's enjoyment only SedanChair posted:Will you shut up about rape? That's obviously not at issue in that case. You wanted to do, it, great. Nobody cares why you wanted to do it. SedanChair posted:Ah you caught me before the edit, I didn't want to come off as too harsh. I truly do not understand when people make the jump to "well I wanted it less than my partner, I wanted to make them happy WAS I RAPED??" just an immediate jump to talking about real, capital r Rape rape
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
I largely agree with perpetually angry scruntman though, social pressure and education is a much better force than punitive measures and exclusive focus on the latter is counterproductive.
Control Volume fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
Control Volume posted:sedanchair, talking about the concept someone having sex for the partner's enjoyment only Do you think you've caught him in some sort of contradiction here or something? Because in both cases SedanChair is talking about how the issue is one of consent, not whether something can be prosecuted as rape. Despite what multiple posters have insinuated and outright said simply because it won't be found guilty in a court of law does not make what's happening not a problem.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
Right, but the topic of this thread is how to address the problem via the legal system. So pointing out that someone's proposed definition is too broad or nebulous to be applied in the legal context is on topic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Do you think you've caught him in some sort of contradiction here or something? Because in both cases SedanChair is talking about how the issue is one of consent, not whether something can be prosecuted as rape. Despite what multiple posters have insinuated and outright said simply because it won't be found guilty in a court of law does not make what's happening not a problem. no one in that conversation chain was talking about the legal definition, there's only one weirdo in the thread focusing on that
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
woops
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
Thermos H Christ posted:Right, but the topic of this thread is how to address the problem via the legal system. So pointing out that someone's proposed definition is too broad or nebulous to be applied in the legal context is on topic. Preventing cases from occurring at all arguably is as well, and so is making sure juries and judges understand what consent actually is. Edit: Control Volume posted:no one in that conversation chain was talking about the legal definition, there's only one weirdo in the thread focusing on that Ok, but I still don't understand what inconsistency you think you've pointed out there. Again, what he's saying is that the problem is on a scale and is not simply the binary of "raped vs not raped".
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
Thermos H Christ posted:Right, but the topic of this thread is how to address the problem via the legal system. So pointing out that someone's proposed definition is too broad or nebulous to be applied in the legal context is on topic. Judges, prosecutors and the public at large, who form juries, must become educated about the nature of consent. Consent is the issue, and education is the solution. e: b
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
hell whatever if he's just making an unspoken distinction between rape and sexual assault and sex that probably shouldnt happen or whatever I cede my point. I apologize to you, sedanchair.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Ok, but I still don't understand what inconsistency you think you've pointed out there. Again, what he's saying is that the problem is on a scale and is not simply the binary of "raped vs not raped". e. I mean I agree we need to supercharge our education of consent and develop a more nuanced understanding of rape, but I don't see how that makes its way into a justice system that must ultimately rule that someone is either guilty or not guilty of committing a crime. unlimited shrimp fucked around with this message at 23:08 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:"The Court hereby finds you guilty of rape... kinda? Like definitely on the rape spectrum but maybe not a hard 10." I give literally no fucks about whether or not something would be convicted in a court of law in this context.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I give literally no fucks about whether or not something would be convicted in a court of law in this context. The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion: You Are Racist > How do we fix the way rape is handled legally?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion: You Are Racist > How do we fix the way rape is handled legally? Who What Now posted:Preventing cases from occurring at all arguably is as well, and so is making sure juries and judges understand what consent actually is. Reading six entire posts up is just so hard.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:If everyone's favourite poster Discendo Vox was here he'd observe that it's nothing like morally preferable to allow 100 guilty people to go free to secure one innocent person from incarceration. The modern point of origin is from Blackstone: I'm here, but I'm mostly just eating popcorn and watching the shitshow as goons, of all people, relitigate this age-old series of arguments. I already proposed my solution: multipage precoital consent documents subject to postcoital secondary confirmation, requiring witnesses and signoff by an independent fiduciary monitoring panel. the trump tutelage posted:Off topic, but can anyone here recommend a good source that explains the sociology and/or history of the honor killing of rape victims, particularly in a Western context? Are you looking for something book-length? It's not my area, but I can ask around at my university. Just to be clear, when you say "western context", are you looking for historic practices? A quick look around suggests that modern honor killing of rape victims in the West is pretty exclusively coming out of immigrant enclaves from societies where the practice still persists. I know, it sounds terrible, but that's what the case appears to be. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 00:09 on Mar 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I'm here, but I'm mostly just eating popcorn and watching the shitshow as goons, of all people, relitigate this age-old series of arguments. I already proposed my solution: multipage precoital consent documents subject to postcoital secondary confirmation, requiring witnesses and signoff by an independent fiduciary monitoring panel. You look very wise trotting out this old joke. You don't look guilty of reductio ad absurdum, and hence minimizing rape, at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:You look very wise trotting out this old joke. You don't look guilty of reductio ad absurdum, and hence minimizing rape, at all. I'm, um, really not taking a stance on any of this- I was actually trying to give you or others the opportunity to crack one of a couple immediately available jokes about my wanting witnesses.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I'm, um, really not taking a stance on any of this- I was actually trying to give you or others the opportunity to crack one of a couple immediately available jokes about my wanting witnesses. Thanks, I did so.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:You look very wise trotting out this old joke. You don't look guilty of reductio ad absurdum, and hence minimizing rape, at all. If it doesn't get you 10-20 in the clink then it wasnt rape. If you don't have an airtight, slamdunk case don't you loving dare to call it rape, because that's an insult to people who were victims of convicted, and thus real, rapists. Discendo Vox posted:I'm, um, really not taking a stance on any of this- I was actually trying to give you or others the opportunity to crack one of a couple immediately available jokes about my wanting witnesses. Try doing better than stealing the unfunniest jokes from South Park.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:If it doesn't get you 10-20 in the clink then it wasnt rape. If you don't have an airtight, slamdunk case don't you loving dare to call it rape, because that's an insult to people who were victims of convicted, and thus real, rapists. That's loving stupid and disingenuous, not being able to convict someone is not the same thing as there wasn't a crime. Or do you think murder victims are no longer murdered if they don't catch the killer?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:That's loving stupid and disingenuous, not being able to convict someone is not the same thing as there wasn't a crime. I should have made it clearer I was mocking posts like this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Try doing better than stealing the unfunniest jokes from South Park. I don't watch South Park. My unfunny jokes are heirloom and locally sourced  I guess I'll weigh in, then, so as not to just make light of the subject. Rape (and sexual assault, which I'll fold in as others have done) is a really difficult subject to study, litigate (criminally or otherwise) or address with policy, because the act is a) traumatic to victims, b) based on actions that frequently occur in private, and thus difficult to collect evidence on, c) incorporates mental states as a part of its conditions, which are completely unobservable, and d) morally reprehensible in society, such that people who have done it don't believe that they've done it and discussion of the complications of problems b and c carry a horrible moral weight. It's a recipe for low accuracy in factfinding and false positives and negatives- wrongful convictions and wrongful failures to arrest, charge, or convict. At the same time, this difficulty of proof is almost fully analogous to a number of other legal situations where it's just really hard to prove or address the elements of the underlying activity- harassment and discrimination laws have many of the same problems. The difference here is that the underlying monstrosity of the act means that failures of the legal system on either side are really hard to bear. I don't think there's a clear way to make that situation better. The most I think we as a society can do, as SedanChair said on page one, may be targeting social behaviors and cultural norms that make rape seem permissible, or that create situations where it's more likely to occur. Of course, all of this is assuming that we're talking about the same legal system- and the reality is that rape, sexual abuse and sexual harassment laws vary considerably, and some of them are pretty terrible. The thread's gone on for this long without, as far as I can tell, discussing any laws. Would it be helpful to discussion if we had some rape or sexual assault statutes to discuss or contrast, rather than just each other's opinions?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Are you looking for something book-length? It's not my area, but I can ask around at my university. Just to be clear, when you say "western context", are you looking for historic practices? A quick look around suggests that modern honor killing of rape victims in the West is pretty exclusively coming out of immigrant enclaves from societies where the practice still persists. I know, it sounds terrible, but that's what the case appears to be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:A book would probably be best since I doubt I have access to online journals any more through my old school. But historic practices, yeah -- it's easy enough to find discussion of the practice happening in modern immigrant enclaves, but the reason it sparked my interest is because I am re-reading Titus Andronicus and Shakespeare includes it in the play. Even if he's borrowing from Roman mythology, it made me curious about the practice as it occurred in Europe. I forgot that spring break just started, but I found a perfectly targeted academic book that's free online: Men and Violence: Gender, Honor, and Rituals in Modern Europe and America. This doesn't focus on rape as a triggering event, but it's the best I can do in the short term. The index says that there is discussion of the "rape-lynch complex" at pages 20-21 and 218-221. I think I may have a couple others that will cover the subject less directly, but I can't get you direct access to them, and I'm not going to be able to go check them manually. All of them are held by my university's collections, so they're probably reliable. 'Honour': Crimes, Paradigms, and Violence Against Women This one mostly focuses on the Eastern current context of honor killings, but does so specifically to debunk the islamophobic narrative framing of such practices. Probably not quite what you're looking for. Why we kill: understanding violence across cultures and disciplines This one appears to use a cultural constructivist account. "oh, you don't think this one counts? That's because your upbringing in country X with value Y makes you discount Z" Unto the daughters: the legacy of an honor killing in a Sicilian-American family No detailed info on this one. American honor killings: desire and rage among men This one is actually focused on men who murdered other gay men, usually in the context of some sexual act or advance (real or perceived). Honor and violence in Golden Age Spain quote:Early modern Spain has long been viewed as having a culture obsessed with honour, where a man resorted to violence when his or his wife's honour was threatened, especially through sexual disgrace. This book, the first to closely examine honour and interpersonal violence in the era, overturns this idea, arguing that the way Spanish men and women actually behaved was very different from the behaviour depicted in dueling manuals, law books, and 'honour plays' of the period[emphasis mine].Drawing on criminal and other records to assess the character of violence among non-elite Spaniards, historian Scott Taylor finds that appealing to honour was a rhetorical strategy, and that insults, gestures, and violence were all part of a varied repertoire that allowed both men and women to decide how to dispute issues of truth and reputation. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 01:45 on Mar 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 01:27
|
|
|
There is literally a law in California right now that requires consent for each individual act during sex. Also there is no actual provision for how a guy (or a girl) can prove they aquired affirmative consent. When someone asked the bill writer how exactly one could do so, they basically shrugged and said "I dunno".
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 06:21
|
|
|
So it's non enforceable then.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 06:44
|
|
|
The CA criminal code rape provisions are available at this address. Let's talk about them! Here's the general provision for nonspousal rape. I'll discuss the spousal rape section separately if there's interest. I've provided bookmark notes in [bolded brackets].: Work area: [ ] quote:(a) Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person not the spouse of the perpetrator, under any of the following circumstances: I'm currently looking to see if there's a sexual intercourse definition-and not finding it. Normal application of textual rules suggests that the term refers to vaginal penetration by a penis due to its use in that sense in some other parts of the state code, but I can practically guarantee it's enforced using a broad definition. quote:The essential guilt of rape consists in the outrage to the person and feelings of the victim of the rape. Any sexual penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the crime. Note the year. Very progressive. Consent under CA law: quote:261.6. In prosecutions under Section 261, 262, 286, 288a, or 289, in which consent is at issue, “consent” shall be defined to mean positive cooperation in act or attitude pursuant to an exercise of free will. The person must act freely and voluntarily and have knowledge of the nature of the act or transaction involved. -Troika- posted:There is literally a law in California right now that requires consent for each individual act during sex. Also there is no actual provision for how a guy (or a girl) can prove they aquired affirmative consent. When someone asked the bill writer how exactly one could do so, they basically shrugged and said "I dunno". The law you're referring to is a provision recently covered in the media that is actually part of the education code. It is as follows: quote:[ This law is tied to school funding to make the school do it. This is normal. ] (a) In order to receive state funds for student financial assistance, the governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing boards of independent postsecondary institutions shall adopt a policy concerning sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking, as defined in the federal Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1092(f)) involving a student, both on and off campus. The policy shall include all of the following: Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 09:41 on Mar 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 09:25
|
|
|
The rest is fine, but there are two problems, which I'll hope you'll either go into or show how they're misplaced/wrong: 1. What standard is being applied to determine whether or not the consent was affirmative, and what are the acceptable 'languages' that this can be expressed in? It makes some pretty obvious statements of what is not affirmative, which seem reasonable, but that distinction isn't defined here. Does it appear somewhere else? 2. Does requiring a lower standard for Campus discpline mean that those disciplinary measures are still applied, even if they're acquitted in a criminal case, and that if a Uni doesn't do this, they lose their funding? Or am I misreading that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 10:12
|
|
|
rudatron posted:The rest is fine, but there are two problems, which I'll hope you'll either go into or show how they're misplaced/wrong: Again, I am not a lawyer. That said, here goes. Note that I'm abstracting from spending some time looking at how policies tend to work at universities, but I haven't looked at CA colleges in doing so. 1. The affirmative consent or lack thereof is an element of the complaint, so the same preponderance standard applies. What does this mean in practice? In a situation where it's one person's word against the other, the university will likely look to other sources of indirect evidence, such as complainant and complainee conduct prior and post. This may sound bad, but it's the same exact way that an adjudicator would have to look at evidence in this sort of situation under other circumstances. The net effect of these provisions is to exclude an array of really horrible scenarios that have happened from exculpating complainees- the first and foremost, I suspect, being the complainant passing out or otherwise going unresponsive sometime during or prior to the process. I can't pull the surveys atm (I really need to sleep), but a fairly horrific amount of sex going on at universities occurs when one or both participants are way past the intoxication threshold. Some female students are socialized to think that being penetrated after they pass out is unpleasant, but permissible. So are some of the male students, except they're doing the penetrating. I will never forget getting sorted into an undergradate freshman orientation seminar with a room of male athletes who were confused and horrified to realize that intoxication could prevent meaningful consent... If by "language" you mean scope of conduct, the answer is there's no limit on it. It can be nonverbal, etc., but it'll be governed by typical "reasonable person knowing what they did under the circumstances" logic. 2. I don't know- the provision is silent on the enforcement side of the equation, and doesn't specify penalties. My guess is the answer is no, but it depends on how university disciplinary procedures interact with state law enforcement more generally, which I can't speak to. Here's my general take on the campus provision: It's good, and the main target/goal/audiences of the provision probably aren't who folks are expecting! My belief is that the law's purpose is to force all universities to have the same basic standards for rape investigations and practices, especially in excluding the excuses that the law specifies. The reason "forcing" universities is so important is because it provides the universities (which are generally down with these restrictions) with a backstop so that they cannot be directly sued, threatened, pressured or bribed by, in CA's case, fraternities or fraternity-related trustees or alumni or donors. This gives the universities something to point to and removes tremendous pressure from them in the development and application of their own laws. The things to be worried about here involve the broader existence of a pair of parallel conduct processes, the state and university operating semi-independently. But that's a larger systemic problem that it's unrealistic to expect the university to address. The use of a preponderance standard seems troubling, but note that it's not actually a criminal statute-the student doesn't go to College Jail for it. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 10:48 on Mar 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 10:33
|
|
|
In practice, the way these university kangaroo courts have operated is that the student accused of rape typically has their case adjudicated by other students or by university administrators, and isn't allowed to have counsel present, present evidence, confront their accuser, or otherwise have much of the way of due process. There's a rapidly increasing pile of lawsuits over this sort of thing and the courts generally rule in the accused's favor.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
Well I clicked here expecting a gross rape and sexual assault apologia by-way-of-just-asking-questions shitshow, and while, yes, I was right, I'd like to thank those of you who are doing the important and thankless work of arguing in favor of dismantling rape culture, and educating people about what mutual consent does and does not mean.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 02:22 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I forgot that spring break just started, but I found a perfectly targeted academic book that's free online: Men and Violence: Gender, Honor, and Rituals in Modern Europe and America. This doesn't focus on rape as a triggering event, but it's the best I can do in the short term. The index says that there is discussion of the "rape-lynch complex" at pages 20-21 and 218-221. I think I may have a couple others that will cover the subject less directly, but I can't get you direct access to them, and I'm not going to be able to go check them manually. All of them are held by my university's collections, so they're probably reliable. Awesome, thank you!
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 17:25
|
|