Yes Means Yes law passed

[One Brow]

So you don't think a frightened person would perform manual manipulation? If a man forces a woman to do that he is in the clear?

A man can force a woman to "yes" out loud, for that matter. You're grasping at straws here.

 

[♪alt13]

A man can force a woman to "yes" out loud, for that matter. You're grasping at straws here.

You are discounting the effects of rape culture in this analysis. The law sets a clear standard that "you got a handy" does not equate to consent. Perhaps this seems obvious to ****ing everyone, but you seem to be confused on the issue.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I think the current laws are sufficient. However, the number of false rape claims are higher than you might think. FBI reports consistently put the number of "unfounded" rape accusations around 8%. In contrast, the average rate of unfounded reports for other crimes tracked by the FBI is 2%. Often times false accusations are done out of shame due to religious reasons (I couldn't willingly have sex against the rules of my church, etc.)

The rape laws are a double edged sword. On the one had, if we punish false accusers, it could deter women that were actually raped from coming forward. Obviously we need to prevent that. However, I have read about a few cases where it was proven that the man never even had sex with the woman, and still no punishment for the woman.

I don't want to downplay the mental and physical anguish caused by rape, but a false accusation of rape can also be detrimental to the falsely accused. I have a close friend that was accused of sexual assault when he never did anything to the woman (she was stalking him and he avoided her like the plague. After the charges were dropped she continued to stalk him and he eventually got a protective order). Having a law that requires affirmative consent may be a good idea. But the issue of proof seems to negate the effect of this law. Without other witnesses, how does one prove they affirmatively consented?

You haven't answered her question. Of the 8% of unfounded rape claims, how many of these actually went to trial? There's a world of difference between falsely accusing someone of rape and falsely accusing someone of rape and then going through the entire trial process.

 

[JAZZGASM]

You haven't answered her question. Of the 8% of unfounded rape claims, how many of these actually went to trial? There's a world of difference between falsely accusing someone of rape and falsely accusing someone of rape and then going through the entire trial process.

Regardless, a false claim statistic that is 4x larger than other crimes is telling. If someone is willing to allege rape, I would think there is a high likelihood that they would be willing to go through a trial. Many that don't go to trial are due to evidence proving the falsehood of the claim, etc.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Regardless, a false claim statistic that is 4x larger than other crimes is telling. If someone is willing to allege rape, I would think there is a high likelihood that they would be willing to go through a trial. Many that don't go to trial are due to evidence proving the falsehood of the claim, etc.

This is one of those cases where a naive interpretation of data can lead to erroneous conclusions. A false claim statistic that is 4x larger that other crimes sounds hugely significant until we stop to realize that it still constitutes a very small minority of rape claims.

You ASSUME that this statistics translates into similarly high number of false rape claims that go to court. I am skeptical of this assumption. My prior would be that a very small percentage (even trivial percentage) of false rape claims go through the trial process.

Of course, neither of use know who's correct in this case. Still, given the many millennia during which countless millions of women have been sexually assaulted with no punishment meted out to the assaulters, why are people so fixated on worrying about very few cases of false accusation of sexual assault rather than on creating a system that holds assaulters accountable for the very, very many cases of actual sexual assault.

 

[JAZZGASM]

This is one of those cases where a naive interpretation of data can lead to erroneous conclusions. A false claim statistic that is 4x larger that other crimes sounds hugely significant until we stop to realize that it still constitutes a very small minority of rape claims.

You ASSUME that this statistics translates into similarly high number of false rape claims that go to court. I am skeptical of this assumption. My prior would be that a very small percentage (even trivial percentage) of false rape claims go through the trial process.

Of course, neither of use know who's correct in this case. Still, given the many millennia during which countless millions of women have been sexually assaulted with no punishment meted out to the assaulters, why are people so fixated on worrying about very few cases of false accusation of sexual assault rather than on creating a system that holds assaulters accountable for the very, very many cases of actual sexual assault.

Yes, I assume that statistics on one end would correlate to the other end without seeing anything to disprove it. It may be inaccurate, but seems reasonable to me... And, I would not say 8% is a small statistic. Tell that to the roughly 7,500 people in the U.S. that are falsely accused of rape each year. As I stated, I think the system should be set up where a woman will not be punished for making a proper accusation (or one without definitive proof). I also think those that are proven to have clearly lied should be punished, as the accusation can also cause severe detriment to the accused, even if not convicted. I would always balance the scales to lean towards the alleged rape victim, but there has to be fairness in the system. Having seen the havoc it caused to my friends life to be accused and to go through a trial (which thankfully was quickly dismissed), I can see the viewpoint from both sides.

I agree the it would be difficult to break down the percentages of cases that go forward (or would go forward but for clear evidence to the contrary).

I agree that the law should be tailored to protect rape victims. I only think accusers should be punished when it is clear they lied (and not that they just cannot prove they were raped), and I think the punishment should be harsh, regardless of whether the accused has to go through a trial.

But I really don't think this affirmative consent law will change anything. Anyone accused of rape in a situation where this law would be effective will state the victim consented. Unless there was a witness (which would be rare) how do you prove it?

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Yes, I assume that statistics on one end would correlate to the other end without seeing anything to disprove it. It may be inaccurate, but seems reasonable to me... And, I would not say 8% is a small statistic. Tell that to the roughly 7,500 people in the U.S. that are falsely accused of rape each year. As I stated, I think the system should be set up where a woman will not be punished for making a proper accusation (or one without definitive proof). I also think those that are proven to have clearly lied should be punished, as the accusation can also cause severe detriment to the accused, even if not convicted. I would always balance the scales to lean towards the alleged rape victim, but there has to be fairness in the system. Having seen the havoc it caused to my friends life to be accused and to go through a trial (which thankfully was quickly dismissed), I can see the viewpoint from both sides.

I agree the it would be difficult to break down the percentages of cases that go forward (or would go forward but for clear evidence to the contrary).

I agree that the law should be tailored to protect rape victims. I only think accusers should be punished when it is clear they lied (and not that they just cannot prove they were raped), and I think the punishment should be harsh, regardless of whether the accused has to go through a trial.

But I really don't think this affirmative consent law will change anything. Anyone accused of rape in a situation where this law would be effective will state the victim consented. Unless there was a witness (which would be rare) how do you prove it?

Fair enough. My final point would be that the system has for so long been so tilted against women, that it seems to me a good thing to try to tilt it back the other way. Like most things, it belies and easy solution and requires balancing of competing objectives/values.

However, before I am swayed by the 8% figure, I need more info about it. Of this 8%, how many were subsequently dropped in short order, how many times were the falsely accused vindicated without trial, how many time were the falsely accused not vindicated, how many times did it go to trial, how many times was an innocent man convicted, etc.?

 

[Gameface]

Yes, I assume that statistics on one end would correlate to the other end without seeing anything to disprove it. It may be inaccurate, but seems reasonable to me... And, I would not say 8% is a small statistic. Tell that to the roughly 7,500 people in the U.S. that are falsely accused of rape each year. As I stated, I think the system should be set up where a woman will not be punished for making a proper accusation (or one without definitive proof). I also think those that are proven to have clearly lied should be punished, as the accusation can also cause severe detriment to the accused, even if not convicted. I would always balance the scales to lean towards the alleged rape victim, but there has to be fairness in the system. Having seen the havoc it caused to my friends life to be accused and to go through a trial (which thankfully was quickly dismissed), I can see the viewpoint from both sides.

I agree the it would be difficult to break down the percentages of cases that go forward (or would go forward but for clear evidence to the contrary).

I agree that the law should be tailored to protect rape victims. I only think accusers should be punished when it is clear they lied (and not that they just cannot prove they were raped), and I think the punishment should be harsh, regardless of whether the accused has to go through a trial.

But I really don't think this affirmative consent law will change anything. Anyone accused of rape in a situation where this law would be effective will state the victim consented. Unless there was a witness (which would be rare) how do you prove it?

In the end I think you're right. Yes means yes has essentially always been the standard. It's the right standard.

Obviously proof of rape is still required for a conviction, so unfortunately rape allegations are still an uphill battle for the victims.

Too bad there isn't a real solution that helps the victims without opening the door to unfounded allegations leading to convictions.

 

[One Brow]

You are discounting the effects of rape culture in this analysis. The law sets a clear standard that "you got a handy" does not equate to consent. Perhaps this seems obvious to ****ing everyone, but you seem to be confused on the issue.

Cute, but nothing I said equated to "you got a handy".

It's not like this is a difficult concept. If you're not completely sure you have consent, assume you don't. Trying to lay down specific guidelines is obfuscation, not clarification.

 

[One Brow]

You haven't answered her question. Of the 8% of unfounded rape claims, how many of these actually went to trial?

None. Being "unfounded" means they were not deemed worthy of serious investigation. Oftentimes, it can happen when a law enforcement official persuades a victim that there is no way the result will be a conviction, or just dismisses the testimony out-of-hand.

There's a world of difference between falsely accusing someone of rape and falsely accusing someone of rape and then going through the entire trial process.

There's also a world of difference between an officer declaring a claim unfounded and a person making a false accusation.

 

[One Brow]

Regardless, a false claim statistic that is 4x larger than other crimes is telling.

We don't have that here, though, since "unfounded" does not mean "false".

 

[One Brow]

But I really don't think this affirmative consent law will change anything. Anyone accused of rape in a situation where this law would be effective will state the victim consented. Unless there was a witness (which would be rare) how do you prove it?

It will make a difference in cases where the victim was so inebriated that consent was impossible, which occasionally happens at parties.