'Affirmative Consent' Law Unfair And Unconstitutional

Article here. Jump the login by Googling the first paragraph text and click the first search result entry. Excerpt:

'Connecticut lawmakers are considering a bill that would significantly change college disciplinary proceedings in cases that involve allegations of sexual misconduct. Among other things, the bill would put the burden of proof upon the accused to establish their innocence. This is almost surely unconstitutional, and our legislature should decline to pass any law that contains such a provision.

Everyone knows that in a criminal case, the government must prove its case "beyond a reasonable doubt." The scales are tipped this way because the stakes for the defendant — possible incarceration, other restrictions on liberty, and the stigma of a criminal conviction — are so severe.

Somewhat less known is the standard of proof in most civil actions between private parties, lawsuits such as personal injury cases, contract cases and property disputes. In those cases, the plaintiff must prove his case by a "preponderance of the evidence." This means, in effect, "more likely than not," or 51 percent likelihood.

In between is an intermediate standard of proof, called proof by "clear and convincing evidence." This standard is considered roughly the midpoint between "beyond reasonable doubt" and "preponderance of the evidence." The Supreme Court has held that this standard is required by the Constitution "in government-initiated proceedings that threaten the individual involved with a significant deprivation of liberty or stigma." Examples include cases in which a defendant faces the termination of parental rights, involuntary civil commitment, deportation or denaturalization.'