|
|
|
|
|
|
by alexithym
2465 days ago
|
|
|
> If you don't push the line on consent you have nothing to worry about. The issue with this position is that it assumes a defined line of consent which is generally shared by both parties. However, one of the main theses of the article was that the very definition of consent itself can been so radically altered as to make this a strong assumption. For example, one definition of rape presented in the article ("Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated") doesn't care at all about whether the woman consented, verbally or otherwise. Anyways, that doesn't matter. The reform described by the article is for the purposes of a more fair investigative process. Not one tilted towards the accuser, not one tilted towards the victim, but a fair process. Would you not also agree that a fair process is a desirable goal for any society? |
|
|
Process is necessarily probabilistic. The more "fair" things are for the accused, the less often victims rights will be vindicated. (Hence the phrase "better to let 10 guilty men go free than have one innocent man go to jail.")
That process is essential where criminal penalties are in play. But it's not clear to me that the same weighting is warranted in every situation.