Both Sides: Do colleges need more 'yes means yes' laws?

Submitted by Mastodon on Sat, 2015-08-22 23:58

Article here. Excerpt:

'Belinda Guthrie: Sexual consent laws help prevent bad behavior
...
Critics of affirmative consent argue it places an undue burden on the initiator of the sexual activity to prove that he or she had consent and violates the due process rights of the accused.

They argue that such policies will lead to an increase of false reporting of sexual assault after incidents that are, in truth, regretted sexual encounters but nonetheless consensual.

Critics also argue that affirmative consent policies are impractical and impossible to enforce and do nothing to improve the resolution of cases involving "he said, she said" arguments and cases in which one or both parties were intoxicated or under the influence of drugs.

Fundamental fairness and due process requires schools to conduct a thorough, reliable, fair and prompt investigation carried out by an experienced, trained and impartial investigator.

An inadequate investigation or the poor handling of a case by an institution does not warrant a movement away from states adopting affirmative-consent policies.
...
Samuel R. Staley: Questionable laws turn sex into a police process

Rape is inexcusable and deserves to be discussed seriously, but the current nationwide push for so-called "yes means yes" laws is likely to cause more harm than good.

In brief, a "yes means yes" law puts into state statute a legally binding requirement that all parties involved in a sexual encounter demonstrate an "unambiguous, affirmative and conscious decision" to engage in voluntary sexual relations, to quote California's legislation, which passed last year.

In practice, this means getting verbal consent — an explicit "yes" — at every progressive step in a sexual act.

While this would appear to be a reasonable approach, it is both unreasonable and unworkable.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

"An inadequate investigation or the poor handling of a case by an institution does not warrant a movement away from states adopting affirmative-consent policies."

Pretty much.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Sun, 2015-08-23 03:25

"The pendulum has swung in this direction in response to higher education's failure to effectively address sexual assault and society's growing intolerance of sexual violence."

But this is not true. Campuses do NOT have a sexual assault problem.

"Policies not based on this standard require evidence to conclude that consent was not obtained.

What the fuck is the purpose of that double negative mumbo-jumbo other than to wave hands and suspend due process rights?

"importance of bystander intervention in a college setting."

When did we start institutionalizing "bystander intervention." These days people have guns. I will not tolerate a growing blanket law on the expectation of intervention when I am the one who can get hurt. Stop drinking so much.

"Fundamental fairness and due process requires schools to conduct a thorough, reliable, fair and prompt investigation carried out by an experienced, trained and impartial investigator."

What the fuck? NO. Due process does NOT require schools "to conduct a thorough investigation." Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all legal rights that are owed to an accused person.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by ThomasI on Sun, 2015-08-23 06:53

Okay, I'm being funny fun because your comments posted twice.

One issue you raise is whether schools really do have a big sexual assault problem. I've seen nothing to convince me they do. Most of this is a big power play by leftists/feminists to turn universities into a hostile environment for young men. By exaggerating the problem they can propose unfair and unjust solutions that seem necessary because of the size of the problem.

As to bystander intervention--yikes. Men are now treated as potential rapists but also expected to intervene in ill-defined situations at the risk of their safety. Let women intervene.

And affirmative consent laws will not actually stop a rapist. All they do is allow us to define more and more situations as rape, with the burden on the man to prove his innocence by proving he had consent. That's different from preventing a man intent on raping a woman. In a backwards kind of way, it actually confirms what a lot of us suspect: "rape" today is more a matter of misunderstanding between two people than a willful act committed by the man. Forcible acts of rape are actually fairly rare but misunderstandings between men and women are legion.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by el cid on Sun, 2015-08-23 14:15