Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


(17,671 posts)
18. Well, lets have a look at the law in question
Sun Jun 8, 2014, 12:16 PM
Jun 2014

(1) An affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by a complainant. ... It is the responsibility of the person who wants to engage in initiating the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the consent of the other person to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent.

That is certainly the way things ought to be done, but how will the accused prove he complied with such a standard in the real world? What mechanism will shield him from liability? How will the accused prove he has fulfilled his responsibilities? Granted, it's not a criminal charge (yet), but there will nevertheless be consequences otherwise why put the policy in place? Those consequences will be unjustly applied without some mechanism to prove compliance.

Of course, if the accused is charged with rape how long do you think it will take the prosecuter to introduce evidence of disciplinary action by the school? Read a little further in the bill and we find this:

(2) A policy that, in the evaluation of complaints in the disciplinary process, it shall not be a valid excuse that the accused believed that the complainant consented to the sexual activity under either of the following circumstances:

(3) A preponderance of the evidence standard in the determination of disciplinary action.

So someone can be charged with rape and be disciplined by the school based on a significantly lower standard than that required by the courts. He can have his reputation savaged and his college and further career destroyed based on the same standard required by a civil claim. And that's before the courts even see the case.

And as we read further, we find this:

(8) Investigating allegations that alcohol or drugs were involved in the incident, and providing amnesty from disciplinary action if the victim violated the school’s policy when the sexual assault occurred.

So not only is the accused saddled with an impossible burden of proof, the accuser is absolved from responsibility for her actions even if they clearly violated school policy. There is nothing about this law that is fair or just.

I can understand the motivation and the need for this effort, but the law as proposed is a travesty. And I think I know why. It's a sort of ideological distortion that happens on both sides of the political aisle.

The concept of personal responsibility has been distorted by conservatives to further the ends of wealthy oligarchs. It has been used to convince people that they don't need single payer health care, decent infrastructure, unions, transparent banking and investment practices, clean affordable energy, and common spaces free from private interest. That distortion does not negate the value of personal responsibility. Each of us is responsible for our actions even if the consequences of those actions result in injustices because of the failures of others. We are all, as free agents and responsible citizens, expected to exercise due diligence.

The concept of support and mutual nurturing gets distorted by liberals as well. As much as I would like to live in a world where a twenty year old woman can get drunk and fall unconcious anywhere in the country in perfect safety I simply don't see how that can happen. The system simply cannot provide that kind of security.

This law requires colleges and universities to reduce the requirement of due diligence on the part of the accuser and increases it on the part of the accused with no mechanism for him to accomplish that objective.
"prove they had agreed to have sex" rrneck Jun 2014 #1
It involves using words. Gormy Cuss Jun 2014 #2
Yes, that's certainly appropriate. rrneck Jun 2014 #6
Simply having such a policy will change the dynamic in a meaningful way Gormy Cuss Jun 2014 #7
In the late eighties rrneck Jun 2014 #9
This would be backed by law Gormy Cuss Jun 2014 #10
Great. If it's backed by law then the rules of evidence will apply. rrneck Jun 2014 #11
I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not qualified to answer that evidence question. Gormy Cuss Jun 2014 #13
As I recall rrneck Jun 2014 #14
Keep in mind that SB967 is a bill directed at the institutions and their responsibilities Gormy Cuss Jun 2014 #15
Well, lets have a look at the law in question rrneck Jun 2014 #18
The law places the burden on institutions to provide the tools to students Gormy Cuss Jun 2014 #20
What would those tools be rrneck Jun 2014 #22
Okay, one final time: the law is reactive. Gormy Cuss Jun 2014 #23
Yes, I am aware of my use of pronouns. rrneck Jun 2014 #24
Ah, now I remember... rrneck Jun 2014 #19
Ah, not surprising. That is a very progressive school Gormy Cuss Jun 2014 #21
I like the idea of there needing to be an explicit Squinch Jun 2014 #3
The rapist could say that but I think the point spooky3 Jun 2014 #4
yeah this is a problem, alp227 Jun 2014 #12
Gormy, could you give a link? This is interesting, but I'm not clear on what the law entails. Squinch Jun 2014 #5
Oops! Thanks for pointing that out. Gormy Cuss Jun 2014 #8
This message was self-deleted by its author Gormy Cuss Jun 2014 #16
FYI: The current version of SB967 Gormy Cuss Jun 2014 #17
Latest Discussions»Alliance Forums»Feminists»Bill pushes into college ...»Reply #18