What made you laugh today - Fifth Edition

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Yes, your examples hold, but they are irrelevant since civil and criminal law are separate systems with different principles.

EDIT: Also, I was mainly hinting at the article being nonsense because imho (well, and also according to some of my much brighter colleagues) it either does nothing or it does shift the burden of proof while the article says it is a new approach that does not shift the burden of proof.
 
and as i said previously i don't think changing the standard for consent=/=changing guilty until proven innocent

because
-no consent until proven consent
does not necessarily mean
-rape until proven not rape
since rape has more than one element(for example intercourse)

So i think the standard can still be 'innocent until proven guilty' even with reform. The victim's own statement on consent would be a very strong(though still defeasible) evidence to believe there was no consent. It would merely be about changing the power of a certain evidence(victim's statement on the consent) rather than changing burden of the proof for the whole crime.

And when I think about it I might have been way too radical in my interpretation of the change in the article. But still, I'm not so sure if the word 'explicit' doesn't add anything even if the change is not that radical.
Because when the word explicit is added, in the following dialogue:

-Have you taken their explicit consent?
Defendant:No I didn't.

Defendant is admitting rape. But without the word 'explicit' I'm not so sure. It might be possible to consent without explicit consent. Now the judge is unable to make this interpretation. But if being explicit is implied in a consent as a general principle, then yeah it looks like it doesn't add anything.
 
The does not necessarily mean part is completely wrong. It is like stating that having the DUI perpetrator prove that he was not drinking is not attacking the innocent until proven guilty since the prosecution still has to prove that he was the driver. It is nothing but sugarcoating the issue by empty semantics.

Calradianın Bilgesi said:
It would merely be about changing the power of a certain evidence(victim's statement on the consent) rather than changing burden of the proof for the whole crime.
Click to expand...
The entire rape crime as envisioned by cited article stands on a lack of consent. By changing the power of a certain evidence(victim's statement on the consent) to have an overwhelming power you do exactly one thing - changing burden of the proof for the whole crime. And again, if the testimony is sufficient to get the accused to be sentenced, and if the victim will testify against the accused (because otherwise he or she would not have brought the charges in the first place), you are shifting the burden of proof onto the defendant - as long as the defendant does not provide his own counterevidence, he will get sentenced every time.

Calradianın Bilgesi said:
And when I think about it I might have been way too radical in my interpretation of the change in the article. But still, I'm not so sure if the word 'explicit' doesn't add anything even if the change is not that radical.
Because when the word explicit is added, in the following dialogue:

-Have you taken their explicit consent?
Defendant:No I didn't.

Defendant is admitting rape. But without the word 'explicit' I'm not so sure. It might be possible to consent without explicit consent. Now the judge is unable to make this interpretation. But if being explicit is implied in a consent as a general principle, then yeah it looks like it doesn't add anything.
Click to expand...
I am not sure where this goes. Why would the defendant answer this way? In the US there is the fifth ammendment and the similar things is pretty much everywhere as it is one of the principles of criminal law. In the Czech rep. you even have the right to lie (not sure about other legal systems so I refrain from claiming it is universal).
 
I am not sure where this goes. Why would the defendant answer this way? In the US there is the fifth ammendment and the similar things is pretty much everywhere as it is one of the principles of criminal law. In the Czech rep. you even have the right to lie (not sure about other legal systems so I refrain from claiming it is universal).
Click to expand...
yeah ofc people can lie. My point is the word explicit possibly leads to some different implications. judge believing beyond reasonable doubt that there was no consent might be different from believing beyond reasonable doubt that there was no explicit consent.

Yes, but it makes people having sex guilty of rape until proven otherwise similarly to how my idiotic analogy makes drivers guilty of DUI until proven otherwise.
Click to expand...
yeah i see it, but idk, does it work the same way every time? If a family says their baby was kidnapped and they didn't consent for their child to be taken away for 9 hours, does it really count for nothing as evidence?
 
If a woman would ever want to rub her genitals to mine, I will demand her to sign a legal paper of consent first in front of her and my lawyers. Although demanding to sign that paper first must also be some kind of rape by the modern values of society.
 
Funny thing with the meme-tier notary certified written consent is that it would de facto give carte blanche to one of the partners and make not-consenting even harder once the paper is signed.
 
Been listening to Chinese hip hop.

Man, Chinese gangsta rap is weird.



That skinny rapper apparently from Chongqing which apparently is a hot bed for the triad.

He doesn't look too tough.  :lol:
 
TFW when no bread lines

1f07071962a417fd1dc7744ccaa724ff.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SP Gekokujo Daimyo edition armors to Gekokujo Suguroku
Replies
0
Views
122
Nosferatu_Seven
DARKS0UND
In Progress 한국어 - KO Some Translation Issues and Font
Replies
8
Views
124
DARKS0UND
DARKS0UND
Resolved Bannerlord is Dead, Congratulations!!!
Replies
14
Views
235
k86
Back
Top Bottom