Germany refines the law concerning unwanted sexual contact.

[Mehrunes]

What about 100 to 1 ratio?

Bejnjamin's Franklin take on the formula. It could be a billion and it wouldn't change, it's just a saying. Stemming from presumption of innocence and the standard of proof required to establish guilt. Most rape cases end in "he said, she said" and that doesn't meet that standard. Unless you want to turn the legal system in its head just for rape for some emotional-driven reason, that's the reality we live in. The alternative is drastic shift towards authoritarian practices.

Also lie detector is not torture

Not sure how that's relevant. I haven't compared the two, Dick Cheney hasn't compared the two. The part applying to lie detectors was the first one. Since lie detectors are pseudoscience they infringe on Blackstone's formulation and the rest of procedural law that's tied to it.

And? Trying to save innocents at all cost no longer somehow applies? It only matters in court?

War is chaotic, courtroom is not. It's obvious different rules apply. On top of that, modern law of war and rules of engagement operate on attempting to reduce innocent losses to the minimum if not eliminating them altogether. What you're proposing for criminal law does the opposite so even your bad analogy works against you.

[Azadina]

..Yes?

/10char

Then why does your country focus so much money and effort in those "war torn shitholes" instead of making sure your own citizens wont go bankrupt due to medical bills, if you cared more for your own?

War is chaotic, courtroom is not. It's obvious different rules apply. On top of that, modern law of war and rules of engagement operate on attempting to reduce innocent losses to the minimum if not eliminating them altogether. What you're proposing for criminal law does the opposite so even your bad analogy works against you.

"attempting" yes, but you wont let the bad guys walk just to save one bystander. Why is it fine to let 100 rapists walk off, at the fear of jailing one innocent? Why have laws at all actually? There's always the chance that innocent can be jailed.

[Slant]

That's why I would change 179 to no longer be too narrow.
177 seems to be fine for that matter. It's the weasel your way out backdoor that needs to be slammed shut.
Without of course making it a one way street. Lawmakers changing laws is always a scary thing. While they try to fix one thing, they're creating a new one. lol

You're opening up a whole new discussion if you want to talk about 179, to be honest. There's a reason it's a paragraph on its own, the context warrants that it's its own paragraph. If you open up the definitions, you're overlapping with other case definitions, which is usually something the criminal code tries to avoid. They like being precise like that, separating categories where it makes sense.

I'm not saying you can't think the way you do, but I think most legal experts are at least happy with 179 not being "the general sexual abuse" paragraph, because it specifically deals with people physically not able to defend themselves as opposed to people that could physically defend themselves (albeit, unsuccessfully). The reason this paragraph needs to be on its own is because the criminal consequences are different. What you're saying is that someone raping a woman despite her (unsuccessful) attempts to defend herself should be punished equally to someone drugging a woman and then having his way with her.

As cold as this sounds, I can see how one is more despicable than the other, don't you agree? That makes it its own paragraph.

[Wildtree]

Bejnjamin's Franklin take on the formula. It could be a billion and it wouldn't change, it's just a saying. Stemming from presumption of innocence and the standard of proof required to establish guilt. Most rape cases end in "he said, she said" and that doesn't meet that standard. Unless you want to turn the legal system in its head just for rape for some emotional-driven reason, that's the reality we live in. The alternative is drastic shift towards authoritarian practices.

I hope you don't consider rape kits as drastic tools.
While the matter of proof for rape/sexual abuse is very difficult, but there are tools in place that help greatly.
The problem is with the execution of it. Are rape kits created every time a report is made? If a kit is created, does it actually get processed?
Stuff like that.

- - - Updated - - -

You're opening up a whole new discussion if you want to talk about 179, to be honest. There's a reason it's a paragraph on its own, the context warrants that it's its own paragraph. If you open up the definitions, you're overlapping with other case definitions, which is usually something the criminal code tries to avoid. They like being precise like that, separating categories where it makes sense.

I'm not saying you can't think the way you do, but I think most legal experts are at least happy with 179 not being "the general sexual abuse" paragraph, because it specifically deals with people physically not able to defend themselves as opposed to people that could physically defend themselves (albeit, unsuccessfully). The reason this paragraph needs to be on its own is because the criminal consequences are different. What you're saying is that someone raping a woman despite her (unsuccessful) attempts to defend herself should be punished equally to someone drugging a woman and then having his way with her.

As cold as this sounds, I can see how one is more despicable than the other, don't you agree? That makes it its own paragraph.

But 179 already refers to 177.
So, to me it's just logic to fill in the blanks that aren't covered just yet.
And yeah, agreeable question. Logic and emotion are often exclusive from one another. That's normal. So, not really cold, just logical.

[Mehrunes]

I hope you don't consider rape kits as drastic tools.
While the matter of proof for rape/sexual abuse is very difficult, but there are tools in place that help greatly.
The problem is with the execution of it. Are rape kits created every time a report is made? If a kit is created, does it actually get processed?
Stuff like that.

In what world do rape kits shift the burden of proof or alter the standard of proof required to abolish the presumption of innocence?

[Wildtree]

In what world do rape kits shift the burden of proof or alter the standard of proof required to abolish the presumption of innocence?

Rape kits counter the he said / she said problematic.

Now, I admit, I haven't looked into Germany's track record of creating and processing them.
But in the US, they pose a huge problem. Not enough are created, and of the ones created a shocking large number never gets processed, if not even outright destroyed again.

[lonely zergling]

Rape kits counter the he said / she said problematic.

Now, I admit, I haven't looked into Germany's track record of creating and processing them.
But in the US, they pose a huge problem. Not enough are created, and of the ones created a shocking large number never gets processed, if not even outright destroyed again.

Rape kits only really prove if sex happend..

[Goradan]

Nice so on account of me being black and having a muslim family on my dads side. I am free to rape german women. Woho.

NOT! The women in germany really need to put their foot down and making it dangerous to try and rape them. Be it by law, social stigma or practice in martial arts. Germany is slowly becoming the new india in europe. Want a sexy blonde, Rape her and get away scott free if you are from the middle east or any islamic countries.

Seriously. We'd be a lot more egalitarian and non-biased if we just did give so much of a fuck about the classic definition of good and stopped being afraid of mentioning racial matters. at least I am luck to be a mulatto so it's gonna be harder for them to give me shit about it.

[Wildtree]

Rape kits only really prove if sex happend..

Yes and no.
Sexual abuse generally comes with some form of physical contact.
Now if you're a victim, those bruises, that black eye, they weigh heavily in your favor.
That's when there was no sex in that sense..
In the event of rape, sex did happen.
And we're talking about a law change that deals with either sexual abuse and/or rape, not simple harassment

[lonely zergling]

Yes and no.
Sexual abuse generally comes with some form of physical contact.
Now if you're a victim, those bruises, that black eye, they weigh heavily in your favor.
That's when there was no sex in that sense..
In the event of rape, sex did happen.
And we're talking about a law change that deals with either sexual abuse and/or rape, not simple harassment

Cant prove if consent was given though. This is wasting tax money. Police is there to take evidence they have doctors for that too.

[Slant]

But 179 already refers to 177.
So, to me it's just logic to fill in the blanks that aren't covered just yet.
And yeah, agreeable question. Logic and emotion are often exclusive from one another. That's normal. So, not really cold, just logical.

Yes, it refers to 177. Because it doesn't want to reprint the same rules. It's a classical reference in the literal sense. Doesn't mean 179 should be the new "base rule". It's just refering to 177 in case those rules get changed, the changes would apply to 179, too. You have to think of these referals in reverse. The root is 177, 179 is just a special case of it. Thus it "borrows" bits and pieces from 177 if they apply to 179 as well.

[Mehrunes]

Rape kits counter the he said / she said problematic.

Now, I admit, I haven't looked into Germany's track record of creating and processing them.
But in the US, they pose a huge problem. Not enough are created, and of the ones created a shocking large number never gets processed, if not even outright destroyed again.

Instead of taking one sentence out of context read the whole thing. The bit about authoritarianism is a follow-up to "Unless you want to turn the legal system in its head just for rape for some emotional-driven reason". Rape kits are neither here nor there in this context. Things like affirmative consent are. And rape kits can't establish lack of consent, they only establish whether an intercourse took place and take DNA samples that may identify the other person who engaged in it.

[Slant]

Nice so on account of me being black and having a muslim family on my dads side. I am free to rape german women. Woho.

NOT! The women in germany really need to put their foot down and making it dangerous to try and rape them. Be it by law, social stigma or practice in martial arts. Germany is slowly becoming the new india in europe. Want a sexy blonde, Rape her and get away scott free if you are from the middle east or any islamic countries.

You need to stop the hyperbole. Everyone gets punished for the crimes equally. Doesn't matter where you're from, if you're within German borders, you're subject to the German criminal code.

[Deleted]

Kek, it's gonna be fun reading about people getting sued over bumping at someone on the bus. Germany's really sinking low fast. I hope they keep the joke going, it's hilarious.

[Slant]

Kek, it's gonna be fun reading about people getting sued over bumping at someone on the bus. Germany's really sinking low fast. I hope they keep the joke going, it's hilarious.

And like any true populist faithful to his polemic agenda, you ignore the requirement of intent to make a point. Thus failing to understand the most basic criminal code functionality in most countries and all for making a rather dumbass weak point that even a primary schooler could see through.

Was that really worth your 133th post? :P

[Wildtree]

Instead of taking one sentence out of context read the whole thing.

I have, and only asked you a question. Don't get defensive.

And rape kits can't establish lack of consent, they only establish whether an intercourse took place and take DNA samples that may identify the other person who engaged in it.

That is not accurate.
In the event of sexual intercourse, consent is given not just by a person's mind. The body consents as well.
If you engage in intercourse with a woman that is not willing, her body is not ready for it either.
And this can be proven with rape kits.

[lonely zergling]

Kek, it's gonna be fun reading about people getting sued over bumping at someone on the bus. Germany's really sinking low fast. I hope they keep the joke going, it's hilarious.

When high politicans stand behind a woman who allegedly did falsely accuse 2 guys of rape and that woman gets invited to speak in front of the EU parliament, then you know the world is fucked up .

[Cosmic Janitor]

Yes and no.
Sexual abuse generally comes with some form of physical contact.
Now if you're a victim, those bruises, that black eye, they weigh heavily in your favor.
That's when there was no sex in that sense..
In the event of rape, sex did happen.
And we're talking about a law change that deals with either sexual abuse and/or rape, not simple harassment

Maybe I'm missing something here, but these are the cases where you can already prove force was applied, because you have the obvious evidence that force was applied. I don't see how that helps in the cases the new law change wants to help with? Someone who is scared into inaction is not necessarily hurt in a way that actually can be detected.

[Ryme]

Not letting criminals commit crime with zero consequences for one.

It's a great goal, but the cost you demand I would consider too high, frankly. But each to their own.

[Cosmic Janitor]

I have, and only asked you a question. Don't get defensive.

That is not accurate.
In the event of sexual intercourse, consent is given not just by a person's mind. The body consents as well.
If you engage in intercourse with a woman that is not willing, her body is not ready for it either.
And this can be proven with rape kits.

Wow, you just resurrected the "her body wanted it" excuse.